No Next Item No Next Conference Can't Favor Can't Forget Item List Conference Home Entrance    Help
View Responses


Grex Scifi Item 59: sliders
Entered by bubu on Thu Jun 29 22:54:21 UTC 1995:

im  looking for some fans of sliders.

47 responses total.



#1 of 47 by gregc on Fri Jun 30 11:32:11 1995:

You won't find one here. I watched acouple of episodes. I liked the premise,
sliding between alternate realities, but I couldn't stand the lack of thinking
the writers did. They would change some major aspects of society and then
everything else would stay the same. <bleah> It was so obviously wrong that
I lost interest real quick.

Even minor changes back in time would produce major changes in the present,
really major changes would produce an entirely different world. It just
wasn't well thought out.


#2 of 47 by robh on Fri Jun 30 21:49:32 1995:

As with most SF series released during the last year, I haven't
watched it.  Babylon 5 has spoiled me for anything else, I guess.  >8)


#3 of 47 by bubu on Sat Jul 1 13:42:24 1995:

In response to #1:  I would agree that at times the writing has been pretty
weak.  I have some information that I hope may change your mind about Sliders.
The word I've gotten is that FOX will be cancelling the show and that
Paramount will be picking it up to run in syndication, much like they did with
Star Trek "TNG".  Here's hoping.


#4 of 47 by gregc on Sun Jul 2 08:12:51 1995:

Um, yes, _Sliders_ has been cancelled, but has that got to do with TNG???
_Star Trek_, in all it's incarnations, is the property of Paramount. Yes, it
was shown on the Fox network for many years, but that's becuase there was no 
UPN when TNG was being made.

What exactly are you hoping for? If the show is cancelled and UPN just shows
the same(BAD, in my opinion) old shows in re-runs, what is there to hope for?
Or are you implying that Paramount has bought the rights to the concept and
will be making new episodes?

Remember, there is ussually little relationship between the network a show
runs on, and who actually produces a show. Especially with FOX/UPN/PTEN/WB.


#5 of 47 by bubu on Sun Jul 2 15:39:19 1995:

Well from what I understand Paramount has bought the rights to Sliders and
will be revamping the show possibly with new characters also. After reading
what I wrote before, I can certainly understand how it could of been
confusing.
anyway  everything that i've heard is just hearsay anyway.
I assume the BIG BOYS and the networks will  do what it takes to make money.


#6 of 47 by solo on Sat Jul 8 03:34:30 1995:

Hey, I 'm a fan of Sliders....I found the concept to be fun and
original, with each off the characters having their own spotlight
in each episode unlike TNG.......I caught it on the first episode
and was hooked....I'm taping the episodes since my FOX channel is now
replaying them, and my only regret is that I may never know the 
underlying fate of Quinn Mallory...perhaps a comic company will
transfer it to the comic boook medium, where its premises may be
more widely used


#7 of 47 by gregc on Sat Jul 8 15:39:41 1995:

My guess is that the fate of Quinn was entirely dependent on whether the
actor who played him decided to sign for another season. Or whether the 
network made a final decision on whether to dump him. As it was, they solved
the whole problem by just dumping the whole show. No great loss, IMO.


#8 of 47 by bubu on Sat Jul 8 18:36:26 1995:

oh man that was cold.......brrrrr......


#9 of 47 by solo on Sun Jul 9 02:17:57 1995:

Please, you people wouldn't know a quality television show if it
climbed up in your lap and called you Daddy.
Similar to Twin Peaks, Sliders, had it continued, would have provided
itself limitless stories through the bais of its plot....Furthermore,
the fate of the main character will always remain a mystery


#10 of 47 by bubu on Sun Jul 9 03:52:24 1995:

eventually jason i think the fate of quinn will be revealed because it has
been renewed.  the overwhelming response by fans has called for it.


#11 of 47 by gregc on Sun Jul 9 08:27:36 1995:

"quality television show"??? Gag, if you think that's what Sliders was, you
need to get out more. It had enormous gaping plot holes big enough to
drive Zeppilins through. Yes, the format "would have provided itself
limitless stories", but if all those stories are as badly made as the other
ones, you're still got dreck. *Quality* is what counts, not quantity.
      ^^^^^^ you've


#12 of 47 by bubu on Sun Jul 9 15:08:23 1995:

Well you know that diverstiy of interests is what sets us apart from each
other.  I really enjoy sliders and looking forward to its return.  Like I've
said befroe I do agree that the writing has been lame at points, but has shown
some promise as many other points in the series. one can  only hope that the
fans have made that point clear and something will be done about it.


#13 of 47 by octavius on Sun Jul 9 15:33:37 1995:

         i enjoyed Sliders, but the concept beyond it was nowhere coming
close to original.  True, it doesn't live up to the immortal Star Trek 
series, or Babylon 5, but that doesn't mean it's not worth watching.  The other
two shows are merely examples of what good science fiction should be.
        Besides, after VR5, Fox's Sliders was a welcome relief.  Now, if they
would just take the X-files off the air.



#14 of 47 by gregc on Sun Jul 9 17:47:37 1995:

OK, I'll give you that point. Compared to VR5, Sliders wasn't bad.
(Talk about damning with faint praise)


#15 of 47 by solo on Sun Jul 9 21:50:46 1995:

First To Shawn Landis
X-Files rules.......accept that or die.
Second....When did Fox decide to renew Sliders and for how many episodes.
Third....Sliders is proof that the people can make a difference
FOurth...Compatrinf VR5 to Sliders is apples and oranges...Sliders being
        oranges since it had appeal
Fifth...If only network execs would bring back My So-called life
Ho well, FOx brought back the critic fromABC



#16 of 47 by bubu on Sun Jul 9 23:37:12 1995:

Hey Jason: as for second, read response #3 that should help.


#17 of 47 by octavius on Mon Jul 10 18:13:40 1995:

 X-files stinks, and I'm prepared to bring out my fireballs, disintegrates
Lightning Bolts, and the Roman Legions to prove my point. Comprende?
   Second, Slider's was good, but it wasn't that good.  It was a little
juvenile compared to Star Trek or B5, and appealed to lower life forms who
couldn't understand the complexity of the other two series.  
    If you read Dune, you'd probably criticize that too, and praise the Hobbit,
perhaps *the* dumbest book I have ever read.
        As for as VR5 goes, it wasn't its people, it was simply BAD science
fiction.



#18 of 47 by dam on Mon Jul 10 23:14:19 1995:

Uhm, some people just have different opinions about what they like...


#19 of 47 by octavius on Mon Jul 17 03:42:32 1995:

         I think he deserved it...



#20 of 47 by solo on Fri Jul 21 00:12:49 1995:

I think you deserve a LOT of things, Landis, like a TOTAL attitude
adjustment


#21 of 47 by bru on Tue Aug 8 14:06:18 1995:

Thats It!  Knock the classics.  Get outta my way, hairball!
(Bru does his best Gilbert Godfried impression)


#22 of 47 by dam on Sun Feb 25 15:38:08 1996:

Well, Sliders is back.  It is replacing Strange Luck in the FOX friday night
lineup, at 8pm.


#23 of 47 by gregc on Sun Feb 25 17:09:20 1996:

Is Strange Luck canceled? Or did they just move it to a new slot?
I liked that show, it was just weird enough and *different* enough
to keep my attention. _Sliders_ on the other hand, is a joke. The
concept is that they are moving between alternate realities, but every
show I saw was so full of inconsistencies, illogical actions, and just
plain bad ideas, that there was no way I could buy into the concept.
The main problem I had was that they would propose "Ok, in this reality
XXX has been changed", but they would only consider the most trivial and
surface ramifications of what *else* would be different if XXX was different.
30 seconds of thought was always enough to show that they had completely
failed to think through this week's concept.


#24 of 47 by kaplan on Mon Feb 26 03:39:50 1996:

I agree that Strange Luck has much better writing than Sliders.  I sure hope
that Strange Luck will be back.  I liked VR5 and but I think Strange Luck
is the best thing they've ever put before the X-Files.


#25 of 47 by robh on Mon Feb 26 04:47:13 1996:

Actually, I've been taping Brisco County from TNT's Saturday
showings, and it's even better than I remembered it.


#26 of 47 by gregc on Mon Feb 26 21:34:41 1996:

Ack. You *liked* VR5?!? That show was even *worse* than _Sliders_ when
it came to bad science and bad logic.
OTOH, I liked Brisco County because it never had any pretense of being
scientific. It was fantasy. And had some funny writing.


#27 of 47 by dam on Mon Feb 26 21:35:48 1996:

I haven't heard much about strange luck, other than that the last episode was
the planned season finale.  So, they did their run of episodes for the year
and now they are done.  This is from TV Guide magazine, and they don't know
if the show will be back in the fall or not.  I hope it is back - I sure like
it a lot better than sliders!  But hey, this *is* the Sliders item, so...



#28 of 47 by tyche on Tue Feb 27 02:03:59 1996:

I miss Brisco...*sniff*


#29 of 47 by gregc on Tue Feb 27 13:45:13 1996:

In item #59 dam wrote:
 "But hey, this *is* the Sliders item, so..."

....so where is it written that only *nice* things can be said about a
subject in it's own item? Just becuase I'm *bashing* Sliders doesn't make
it drift. I'm still discussing the subject. :-)
Besides, discussing the (IMO)better show that it displaced, is still
relavent to the main topic.


#30 of 47 by octavius on Wed Feb 28 16:05:07 1996:

        Somebody liked VR5?  Is it true they are the only one in existence?
        Anyway, Sliders was half decent, although the stories seemed to be a
bit Juvenile compared to other Science Fiction shows.  (And somebody tried to
suggest it was better than Star Trek!)


#31 of 47 by bubu on Wed Feb 28 22:59:54 1996:

I still like Sliders...?Well the concept anyway...The writing hopefully will
improve...I did like the concept behind VR5, but thought the writing there
was a bit cheesy as well...


#32 of 47 by drew on Thu Feb 29 17:16:12 1996:

_Sliders_ was the first sci-fi TV series in a while - if ever - to
incorporate, or for that matter even know about, speed-of-light lag.


#33 of 47 by robh on Thu Feb 29 17:50:27 1996:

Not true.  Ships in Babylon 5 are incapable of traveling faster
than light, they just cheat by going through a different
univers/dimension/whatever.

(We had all kinds of fun with that in our old Star Trek role
playing campaign, performing multiple observations of the same
stellar event by traveling faster than light.  >8)


#34 of 47 by gregc on Thu Feb 29 18:13:35 1996:

Drew said:

 "_Sliders_ was the first sci-fi TV series in a while - if ever - to
  incorporate, or for that matter even know about, speed-of-light lag."

Sorry, they got that part *wrong* too and it bugged the hell out of me
when I saw the episode. I assume you are talking about the episode in
which:
1.) A comet is about to hit the earth.
2.) The trinity nuclear test failed and the earth scientists believed
    that the fission bomb wasn't possible. The bomb is just sitting in
    a museum somewhere.

John Rhys-Davies character figures out how to get the bomb to work, and
they launch it toward the comet. (Completely glossing over how they 
convinced the government that it would work, and convincing them to mount
the logistical nightmare it would have been to fit this bomb to a rocket,
and prep and launch the rocket in the miniscule time frame they had.) But
after the launch, everybody is standing outside and you can *see* the
trail from the rocket as it approaches the comet(Huh? Is that comet
*really* close or did they find a rocket with *enourmous* fuel tanks?)

Scene: Everyone standing outside looking up watching trail of rocket as it
       approaches comet. Comet and trail intersect. Nothing happens.

Character XXX: "What happened? Where's the explosion?"

John Rhys-Davies: "You're forgetting that light travels at 186,280mi/sec
                   Mr. XXX, just wait..."

5 seconds later:
<big explosion in sky>
<sounds of crowd ooo'ing and ah'ing, and everybody cheering.>

Etc, ad nauseum.

The problems with this are:
1.) The rocket should not have still been under thrust, as such, it should
    not have been visible from the ground.
2.) Even if it was under thrust, by the timing stated in the show, the comet
    and rocket had to be at least 1,000,000 miles away. Even the exhaust
    from a Saturn V S-IC first stage would not be visible from that far
    away. Espescially during the day.
3.) But here's the main point: Even if you accept that the rocket was under
    thrust and it was using a super-colossal-el-huge'o engine that would
    have been visible from the ground, the rocket and the comet were the 
    same distance away when they met. The light from the rocket and the
    light of the explosion had to travel the same distance and hence would
    be subject to the same time delay. We would've seen the rocket where it
    was 5 seconds in the past, and seen the explosion where it was 5 seconds
    in the past, but there should not have been a 5 second delay between
    when they saw the rocket intersect the comet and saw the explosion, the
    2 events should have been simultaineous.

They tried to enter a scientific sounding fact into the show and just made it
worse by getting it wrong.

In fact, this particular show was one of the ones that really turned me off 
to the show. I've only gone over a *small* part of the things they got
wrong in this one.



#35 of 47 by robh on Thu Feb 29 18:36:55 1996:

Oh gods, I didn't realize that they'd blown it so badly.  They
must have gotten confused with the speed of light vs. the speed of
sound - go to any baseball game and sit in the far bleachers,
and you'll see the batter hit the ball a good half-second or so
before you hear the crack of the bat.

Apparently someone forgot to inform them that the speed of light
is approximately equal to the speed of light.  >8)


#36 of 47 by drew on Fri Mar 1 17:26:57 1996:

Points taken in #34. However, _Babylon 5_ is still doing instantanious
communication with Earth.


#37 of 47 by octavius on Sun Mar 3 03:13:33 1996:

        Did they ever say where Babylon 5 was?  I believe, even in Star Trek,
        messages take time to get some place (how long depends on how far they
        are away
from the source.)
        BTW: The speed of light is exactly equal to the speed of light, using
        the reflexive properery. :) Sorry for not knowing where B5 is, we just
        got cable back and I liked the
old monologue much better....


#38 of 47 by kaplan on Sun Mar 3 15:07:56 1996:

The speed of light is different in differnt materials, actually.  


#39 of 47 by mneme on Mon Mar 4 02:28:15 1996:

THey established that B5 is 2 days away from Earth in Hyperspace, but...
.s



Last 8 Responses and Response Form.
No Next Item No Next Conference Can't Favor Can't Forget Item List Conference Home Entrance    Help

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss