worst sci-fi TV series of post 1964

[chardman]

The "Logan's Run" series was an even suckier version of the already sucky film version of "Logan's Run".

While you are absolute correct about the Logan's Run series sucking big time, I'm afraid you are entirely incorrect about the 1976 film version of Logan's Run on the whole.

The 1976 MGM production not only had an excellent storyline,

No it didn't. It had a very superficial storyline that bore only a passing resemblance to the excellent storyline of the book.

excellent casting

And not even the presence of Peter Ustinov could offset the ill-cast clinkers in the cast like Farrah Fawcett, who apparently had yet to take her first acting lesson. And Roscoe Lee Brown's awesome talent, and even more awesome voice, didn't come off so good in that horrifically bad costume they put him in.

and a remarkable soundtrack by the late Jerry Goldsmith

Speaking as a big Goldsmith fan... the Logan's Run soundtrack is so unmemorable that I couldn't hum a single bar of any of the themes if my life depended on it.

it also won two Academy Awards for SFX(even though the dome city set was not up to the SFX standards that had been set forth by Doug Trumbull and company some eight years prior to this film's production)

I can't imagine how, beyond the somewhat clever use of real holograms, the film featured some of the crappiest miniature work I'd ever seen, terrible wire rig flying effects, and probably the worst robot costumes to hit the silver screen outside of the old movie serials of the 40s and 50s.

and set a pre-Star Wars box office record.

Plenty of crappy movies do well at the box office.

Bottom line is this. The movie version is definately superior to the piece of childish crap that the 1977 television series represented.

Superior to the TV version? Yes, I already admitted as much. It does indeed blow slightly fewer goats than it's television incarnation. It nevertheless blows worse than any of the other SF&F films that came out that year.

 

[JRoss]

I liked Irwin Allen's Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, but otherwise, yeah, he was a so bad it's good hack.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The first year of Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea was good.

The movie Logan's Run was awful - it might have been improved, a little, by full frontal nudity for Agutter. A new version can't help but be better, even if it stars Jack Black.

 

[chardman]

The first year of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea wasn't just good, but Damn Good™, which only makes it ever the more distressing that the latter seasons were so godawful.

As for the new Logan's Run movie: I was hoping for a version based on the novel, but seeing as Ryan Gosling is about 10 years to old for that, I hafta assume that this is a retelling of the crappy film with Michael York. In which case I'd prefer an all-out parody of the idea, and would be fine with Jack Black in the role.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Equating oldBSG with Homeboys is silly to the extent that on the rare occasions that Homeboys was funny, it was intended to be - oldBSG was laughable by accident. Also, oldBSG had better special effects.

 

[Marc]

]Ah, Trumbull. Now Silent Running is quite good in SFX and as a film, and even had its ship SFX work literally ripped off for oldBSG (stock footage of the Valley Forge appears as part of the fleet).

Actually it's the other way around

Silent Running came out in 1972, five years before BSG went into production so it's the later that used the stock footage.

Correct, but that's more or less what Kegg said.

Sorry but on initial reading I thought he had them reversed - I've just noticed it says "ripped off for oldBSG".

when you read it as "ripped off old oldBSG" is changes things around.

 

[Kegg]

Is alright. I never write a simple sentence when I can be needlessly obtuse instead, mostly laziness.

Speaking of misreading someone's post:

The movie Logan's Run was awful - it might have been improved, a little, by full frontal nudity for [...] Jack Black.

You're welcome, internet.

Marginally on topic:

It's not the worst series ever but I remember being viscerally disappointed in Space: Above and Beyond's pilot episode. I quit it midway through in sheer frustration.

 

[Gepard]

Speaking of misreading someone's post:

The movie Logan's Run was awful - it might have been improved, a little, by full frontal nudity for [...] Jack Black.

You're welcome, internet.

Based on what little I've seen of Logan's Run, that's not wrong. It's hard to be more embarrassing than this.

 

[Expo67]

The "Logan's Run" series was an even suckier version of the already sucky film version of "Logan's Run".

While you are absolute correct about the Logan's Run series sucking big time, I'm afraid you are entirely incorrect about the 1976 film version of Logan's Run on the whole.

The 1976 MGM production not only had an excellent storyline,

No it didn't. It had a very superficial storyline that bore only a passing resemblance to the excellent storyline of the book.

And not even the presence of Peter Ustinov could offset the ill-cast clinkers in the cast like Farrah Fawcett, who apparently had yet to take her first acting lesson. And Roscoe Lee Brown's awesome talent, and even more awesome voice, didn't come off so good in that horrifically bad costume they put him in.

Speaking as a big Goldsmith fan... the Logan's Run soundtrack is so unmemorable that I couldn't hum a single bar of any of the themes if my life depended on it.

I can't imagine how, beyond the somewhat clever use of real holograms, the film featured some of the crappiest miniature work I'd ever seen, terrible wire rig flying effects, and probably the worst robot costumes to hit the silver screen outside of the old movie serials of the 40s and 50s.

and set a pre-Star Wars box office record.

Plenty of crappy movies do well at the box office.

Bottom line is this. The movie version is definately superior to the piece of childish crap that the 1977 television series represented.

Superior to the TV version? Yes, I already admitted as much. It does indeed blow slightly fewer goats than it's television incarnation. It nevertheless blows worse than any of the other SF&F films that came out that year.

1. Do you feel that way about the performances that Michael York, the late Richard Jordan, and Jenny Agutter gave in the Oscar-winning film? If so, you're as blind as a fucking bat! Especially when it comes to Jenny Agutter!

2.What the hell is so bad about the outfit that Roscoe Lee Browne wore, when he played BOX? Sure it looked like a rolling vanity mirror, but it still looked cool.

3. Aside from Futureworld and King Kong, I don't know of any other SF and F film that was released in 1976. But if Logan's Run blew worse, then how do you explain its huge success at the box office and winning two Academy Awards?

 

[Expo67]

The first year of Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea was good.

The movie Logan's Run was awful - it might have been improved, a little, by full frontal nudity for Agutter. A new version can't help but be better, even if it stars Jack Black.

I'll grant you that the first season of Voyage To The Bottom Of the Sea was cool. It was more action-adventure oriented and had none of that monster of the week bullshit. Besides, you can't go wrong with Richard Basehart and David Hedison as the lead actors.

Logan's Run(the movie)awful? Unless you're confusing that with the godawful television series, there was nothing awful about the 1976 MGM film. How do you define an awful film that won two Academy Awards and made $50 Million world wide during its opening weeks? When adjusted for inflation, that is a huge chunk of change. And I might also add, the film has one huge cult following.

A new version with Jack Black? I'd like to know what in God's name you've been smoking.

Probably took your cues from that David Spade segment on SNL(i.e. The Hollywood Minute).

 

[Kegg]

But if Logan's Run blew worse, then how do you explain its huge success at the box office and winning two Academy Awards?

I'll be interested in seeing you explain nuBSG's multiple emmy wins.

But seriously, success at the box office and Academy Awards does not equal objective proof that a film is good.

For example, while I'd generally consider myself charitable towards Cecil B. DeMille The Greatest Show On Earth is far from being one of his better films - it's frankly plodding and dull - an assessment I'm hardly alone on - it's also a best picture winner and made a handy sum of money.

 

[Expo67]

Speaking of misreading someone's post:

The movie Logan's Run was awful - it might have been improved, a little, by full frontal nudity for [...] Jack Black.

You're welcome, internet.

Based on what little I've seen of Logan's Run, that's not wrong. It's hard to be more embarrassing than this.

What little you've seen?

Maybe you should try watching the entire film before formulating an opinion.

Or does your ego prevent you from doing such a simple task as that?

 

[Expo67]

The first year of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea wasn't just good, but Damn Good™, which only makes it ever the more distressing that the latter seasons were so godawful.

As for the new Logan's Run movie: I was hoping for a version based on the novel, but seeing as Ryan Gosling is about 10 years to old for that, I hafta assume that this is a retelling of the crappy film with Michael York. In which case I'd prefer an all-out parody of the idea, and would be fine with Jack Black in the role.

The 1976 film with Michael York was not crappy.

The 1977 television series with Gregory Harrison was crappy.

From what I understand, this remake(a bad idea on Warner Brothers part)is based more on the 1967 novel. It has been in developmental hell for over fifteen years now.

I doubt it will ever see the light of day.

 

[Greg Cox]

From what I understand, this remake(a bad idea on Warner Brothers part)is based more on the 1967 novel. It has been in developmental hell for over fifteen years now.

I doubt it will ever see the light of day.

Oh, I suspect it will get made eventually. The recent remakes of I AM LEGEND and PLANET OF THE APES were also stuck in development hell forever. Remember when Oliver Stone was going to remake APES, or when Ridley Scott was going to do I AM LEGEND with Schwarzenegger? The latter came very close to starting filming before Warner pulled the plug at the last minute.

At times it seemed like those films were never going to happen, but eventually somebody made them. LOGAN'S RUN has been in the works for ages now, but it will happen.

On the other hand, Universal has been talking about remaking THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN for longer than I can remember . . . .

 

[Expo67]

From what I understand, this remake(a bad idea on Warner Brothers part)is based more on the 1967 novel. It has been in developmental hell for over fifteen years now.

I doubt it will ever see the light of day.

Oh, I suspect it will get made eventually. The recent remakes of I AM LEGEND and PLANET OF THE APES were also stuck in development hell forever. Remember when Oliver Stone was going to remake APES, or when Ridley Scott was going to do I AM LEGEND with Schwarzenegger? The latter came very close to starting filming before Warner pulled the plug at the last minute.

At times it seemed like those films were never going to happen, but eventually somebody made them. LOGAN'S RUN has been in the works for ages now, but it will happen.

On the other hand, Universal has been talking about remaking THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN for longer than I can remember . . . .

I remember those stories all too well. Even though I respect Oliver Stone for his work in Midnight Express and Platoon, I'm glad he did not pursue such a foolish endeavor.

As much as I like and admire Sir Ridley Scott, I don't think it would have been such a wise move on his part. Especially when it comes to casting Schwarzenegger. The former Governor of California couldn't act his way out of a paper bag if he tried.

Maybe so, but one can hope. I would prefer that the Logan's Run remake stay buried. Technically, it was already remade when CBS and MGM made the error of commissioning that terrible television series.

Big mistake and bad idea on the part of both parties.

Tim Burton, Richard Zanuck, and the executives at 20th Century Fox should have left Planet Of The Apes well enough alone. The 2001 remake was a big piece of shit. Trying to top the 1968 classic, let alone its shock twist/controversial ending was a huge ass blunder on their parts.

How the hell do you top one of the most memorable endings in cinema? Let alone late Sixties Cinema? Especially an ending written by two geniuses such as Rod Serling and Michael Wilson?

Simple. You just can't. Unfortunately, the arrogance and foolishness of the suits blinded them to that reality.

Too bad Warner Brothers didn't keep that remake unplugged. Twice, Richard Matheson's classic novel was remade.

The WB must have desperate for money.

 

[Greg Cox]

Too bad Warner Brothers didn't keep that remake unplugged. Twice, Richard Matheson's classic novel was remade.

.

For what it's worth, Richard made a bundle off the Will Smith remake. He had no complaints. In fact, I spoke to him a few days after he saw the movie and he was quite pleased to see his book remade again.

What's more, the remake turned I Am Legend into a New York Times bestseller for the first time ever. Hundreds of thousands of new readers discovered his classic novel, all because of the new remake. That alone is a good reason to keep remaking it, at least as far as I'm concerned.

If nothing else, a remake of LOGAN'S RUN would do wonders for the original novel. I'm sure Willian Nolan and George Clayton Johnson would love to see a new movie version.

 

[Expo67]

Too bad Warner Brothers didn't keep that remake unplugged. Twice, Richard Matheson's classic novel was remade.

.

For what it's worth, Richard made a bundle off the Will Smith remake. He had no complaints. In fact, I spoke to him a few days after he saw the movie and he was quite pleased to see his book remade again.

What's more, the remake turned I Am Legend into a New York Times bestseller for the first time ever. Hundreds of thousands of new readers discovered his classic novel, all because of the new remake. That alone is a good reason to keep remaking it, at least as far as I'm concerned.

If nothing else, a remake of LOGAN'S RUN would do wonders for the original novel. I'm sure Willian Nolan and George Clayton Johnson would love to see a new movie version.

I know that William Francis Nolan has expressed an interest.

As to George Clayton Johnson, I haven't heard him discuss
the matter.

 

[Neroon]

NuBSG was not the best show ever, but to call it the worse is a major stretch,

It was head and shoulders above anything Glen Larson ever emitted.

I hated oldBSG (Boxey and Muffit) for exactly the same reason I hated Buck Rogers ("bidibidibidi"). That pandering to the littlies.

Yeah, I think that affection for oldBSG is somewhat contingent on how old one was when first encountering it. I was already an adult when it premiered, and never saw it as anything other than the overblown, Von Daniken-infested cheesefest that it was.

You must have a big appetite for shoe leather.

Head and shoulders above anything Glen Larson emitted? In RDM's case, it's more like head up the ass for having remade the original.

Infraction for trolling. Comments to PM

 

[Distorted Humor]

Just as a note, anything that wins Academy or Emmy's I really can't say is the "Worse" SF film/TV series since 1964, as there are plenty of really crappy shows and movies out there.

 

[Pingfah]

Baywatch Nights

I did not know Baywatch Nights was a sci-fi show either. Now I'm going to have to watch it out of morbid curiosity.