Tuesday, April 12, 2011

How The Sci-Fi Channel Became a Venereal Disease




http://www.amazon.com/Caprica-Sucks-Channel-Misfires-Ronald/dp/1451556225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302628143&sr=1-1


It doesn't get any better than this people. My list of allies continues to grow....

http://www.krapsody.com/2009/08/how-sci-fi-channel-became-venereal.html

-quote

SyFy (n.)


1. Slang for syphilis, a venereal disease.

2. Name of a TV network that shows imagination-based programming to go with their illusionary ratings. Failing after a re-branding press release insulted its core audience.

3. New phonetic spelling for the Sci Fi channel. This is so people texting about their favorite programs on the channel will not have to unnecessarily overtax their brains or thumbs.
The Sci Fi Channel, or SyFy as it is now known, (which appears to be pronounced more like 'SIFFY', as in this new idea is 'IFFY'), is changing their marketing strategy to appeal to a much lower brow community that suffer from such afflictions as malaise, drug addiction, and of course, pornography and/or prostitution.

I suppose that NBC’s Sci Fi channel, often ridiculed for the decisions made by its seemingly moronic leaders, has outdone itself now by changing its name, officially, to SyFy. Maybe they thought people were too stupid to spell 'Sci Fi' and that’s why the numbers of some of their programs are so low...not that their programming sucks..or that many people ARE indeed stupid and couldn't spell it either way.

Syfy? Seriously? Unfortunately, it’s not April 1st so this must be for real.

The change was defended by network president Dave Howe in a statement.

"It gives us a unique word and it gives us the opportunities to imbue it with the values and the perception that we want it to have...It made us feel much cooler, much more cutting-edge, much more hip, which was kind of bang-on what we wanted to achieve communication-wise," he said.

Apparently, I am not the only one who isn’t convinced. It's not only the actors on Skinemax that are having all the fun these days. Fans from coast to coast have been blasting the change.

"Sounds like the name of a water bottling company," wrote one.


"Sounds like some kind of mop, blender, or gossip magazine," wrote another.


The most frequent negative interpretation: "Sounds like slang for syphilis!"

Yes, dear readers (or I should say, reader..since there is only one of you, I think) ..it's going to hell in a hand basket..and I'm packing heat for the picnic!

If you think their new nickname is bad, worse yet..let's look at their latest installment of made for TV films for the coming months in 2009.

* The Syence of Movies
* The Truth Behind Syentology
* Help! My Hair is on Fyr!
* Syence and Relijun
* The Syatic Nerve and You
* Sycho: The Early Years
* Flesh Gordon: Mi Pynys Ys Huge, 18" Yo

(I don’t even get that last one)

As if we should have to suffer through another Flesh For Frankenstein knock-off.



Read more: Krapsody.com: How The Sci Fi Channel Became a Venereal Disease http://www.krapsody.com/2009/08/how-sci-fi-channel-became-venereal.html#ixzz1JKTMHlH1
http://www.krapsody.com
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

-unquote

Monday, April 11, 2011

Is The SyFy Channel Still Using Stealth Marketing For Its Eccentric, Extracurricular Practice of Propping Up Hopelessly Doomed Careers?





http://www.amazon.com/Caprica-Sucks-Channel-Misfires-Ronald/dp/1451556225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302553835&sr=1-1


Anyone even remotely associated with the SyFy Channel sabotaged and did in their own careers via a staggering lack of imagination in producing and scriptwriting (Ronald D. Moore, David Eick), or did so by being general all around incompetents in the highly disrespected realm of.....corporate thinking (Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, Mark Stern.)

In light of such stunningly unsuccessful people always working for them....the SyFy Channel (when still known as Sci-Fi) always assigned a custom tailored....personal stealth marketing campaign to whomever they wanted to have a favorable impression in the eyes of the general public. For Ronald D. Moore...Sci-Fi Channel assigned a "Ronald D. Moore is God" campaign to his manufactured public image in order to try and boost "GINO's" ratings in the early days. (Lord knows that didn't work!!) For David Eick...SyFy Channel assigned the "Although David Eick is only Ronald D. Moore's butler...he is still a genius in his own right" campaign in "GINO's" early days. Bonnie Hammer herself perhaps got the cream of the crop in these personally assigned stealth marketing campaigns for SyFy Channel corporate people and producers. She got the "Wonder Woman has come to save the day at the Sci-Fi Channel in the form of broadening the Sci-Fi Channel's appeal" campaign. Of course...after a long awhile.....the public was still waiting for the types of programming treats at the Sci-Fi Channel promised in these individual campaigns.

Of course....what the public got instead....was Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell endlessly frowning in a gloomy rendition of "Battlestar Galactica"....and Bonnie Hammer gutting the entire science fiction content of the Sci-Fi Channel for the likes of "Marcel's Quantum Kitchen" and "WWF Wrestling." It become blatantly obvious after awhile that the Sci-Fi Channel was using stealth marketing to prop up the shaky careers of people who were not talented in the slightest....in their chosen professions. People who shouldn't even have been working for the Sci-Fi Channel in the first place (Bonnie Hammer)...and people who shouldn't even have been supplying products to the Sci-Fi Channel (Ronald D. Moore, David Eick) in the first place.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

After Receiving Historic Low Audience Test Scores...Ronald D. Moore's Flawed Take on "Galactica" Received Initial Negative Reviews Like This...

 
 
 
http://www.amazon.com/Whistling-Dark-Attempt-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/144994079X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302476926&sr=1-2


TV Review: Battlestar Galactica
 
quote - "A disappointingly minimalist and uninvolving rendering of a very promising concept.
 
December 05, 2003 - "Never create what you can't control" implores the promotional campaign for the Sci Fi Channel's "reinvention" of Battlestar Galactica. Perhaps the network should have heeded its own advice: Rarely in the history of entertainment has a "re-imagining" demonstrated so much contempt for its source material – and rarely has a project with so much innate potential failed on so many fundamental levels. The new Galactica is not just a sewer dweller of a remake – it is a behemoth of troubled and inprecise storytelling whose brightest moments are only dim approximations of what they might have been.
 
The trouble seems to stem from the ground up – it's difficult to look at this "miniseries" (a two-part, four-hour TV movie) and believe The Powers That Be had any true understanding of the qualities that allowed the original 1978 television series to remain in people's memories for over two decades, or possessed the slightest comprehension of the stirring human drama indigenous in the concept itself.
 
Original series creator Glen A. Larson's multifaceted, allegorical epic has been replaced here by a one-dimensional "bottle" show (industry term for a show that rarely leaves a contained environment). The original series could be seen as a scathing examination of reverse imperialism: An enlightened, borderline decadent culture (the "human race" – a.k.a. Western Civilization) is run from its homeland by an oppressive empire of mechanical warriors who relentlessly hunt them down – bent on genocidally exterminating mankind. These automatons were utterly uninterested in the desires, hopes, or fears of others – they wanted only one way of things in the universe – their way – and would settle for nothing less. So, in essence, Galactica was originally an allegory for Western Civilization (the United States, Great Britain, etc.) being bullied and burned in the same way we have bullied and burned other nations for centuries.
 
Piled on top of this sublime socio-political undercurrent were several other intriguing ironies and conceits:
These mechanical nemeses were called Cylons. They were a humanoid species who became so entwined with its technology that the technology became a physical part of them. I.e., they were "the Borg" – about a decade before the Borg debuted on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Despite their technology-over- naturalism approach, the Cylon hierarchy of command was actually rotting from within due to some very human failings: Greed, opportunism, and lack of accountability perpetually hindered the Cylon efforts to exterminate mankind. The human failings of these technically perfect machines was slowly becoming their undoing.
 
These humans, who are being hunted from existence by these pesky lords of technology, repeatedly turn to technology to save themselves.
 
No matter how you look at it, the show's core was about faith. The characters in the original series did not always agree with each other, nor did they always comprehend (individually, or as a populous) what their future held. Not all of them were certain they would even find the new home they were seeking – "a shining planet known as Earth" – nor did they always believe in the people leading them there. But, somehow, they always found faith. Not just faith in "Gods" or "lords" (although religion & its place in society were certainly elements in the series) – faith in The Way of Things. Faith that tragic endings really can herald new beginnings. Faith in the axiom that we are only as alone as we let ourselves be. Faith in the strength of fellowship – sometimes having someone at our side in the darkest hour is more meaningful than the most powerful weapon anyone can construct. Faith that hope is more significant than all the answers we could ever actively seek. Faith that somehow, in some way, things will be better.
 
These qualities are not being mentioned in order to talk-up the (admittedly flawed) original series. This is simply meant to provide a sampling of the innate conceptual depth you will not find in the new Galactica. Gone is nearly every edgy and unique undercurrent that fuels the basic premise. Galactica is about a holocaust, yet the new movie offers no moments as gutwrenchingly truthful as the original series' pan around the Battlestar's bridge...to see the faces of Galactica's crew...crying in anguish...as they watch live video feeds of their homeworlds being obliterated. Here, Galactica gets wind of the Cylon attack on the human's homeworlds, and her crew stands around discussing the incident as if chatting about the score of a football game. There's a moment when lead Edward James Olmos believes someone he loves to be dead – he looks more like he needs laxatives than appearing genuinely upset. The people in this movie are as cold and mechanical as the Cylons they are fighting – and as cold and mechanical as the desperately contrived plot around them. All things considered, it's rather silly – and extremely distancing.
 
There's a very real sense this new Galactica is terrified to be genuine. Which is odd given the producers' repeated insistence that their new "take" on the show was designed to accentuate both realism and humanity. But every moment that (even skittishly) approaches being "real" or "human" is catastrophically muted by innate tackiness and sleazy excess. There is sex on this show – more sex than many viewers have likely seen (or had) in some time. But there is no love making. There is hostility, doubt, and anger – but not towards ideas that matter. The humans focus it on each other – where is affection, respect, and cohesion in a time of apocalyptic crisis? There is spoken remorse, but where are the tears? The good ship Galactica rarely embodies heroism, decency, or any quality that makes humanity exceptional – only dysfunction, distrust, and antagonism are evident. And if this is the measure of the human race, why...exactly...are we worth saving?

Galactica is utterly annihilated by narrative laziness, and a staggering inattention to detail – but this is only a reflection of logic gaffes which eventually grind the show's Teletubbies-like pacing to a nearly complete halt. Bizarre inconsistencies like:
 
Cylons use nuclear weapons. If "nukes" exist in this universe, then so must the Electo-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) that accompanies the blast. EMP can stop machines dead in their tracks. Why isn't it used against the Cylons here? It is not – here, with no explanation given. In this Galactica universe, the holocaust that sets mankind on the run to begin with would, in actuality, be something of a wash.
 
The human race has now mastered faster-than-light travel of some sort, and the creation of artificial intelligence. Why are we still having trouble beating diseases like cancer, against which significant headway has already been made in our (much more primitive) modern time? Instead, we are treated to a profoundly awkward sequence in which Mary McDonnell – suffering from the disease – sneaks into the restroom of a space shuttle to feel her breast on- camera.
 
The Cylons despise mankind so much that they will settle for nothing less than bombing us out of existence. So, the next generation model of Cylon...what...looks human? They're embracing the template for the very thing they wish to destroy? No matter how desperately the filmmakers try to misdirect us from this fact, it doesn't bring any integrity or – or any baseline points of association – to the proceedings. If anything, the humanizing of the Cylons nearly completely undercuts the story both variants of Galactica are trying to tell. Which goes back to the lack of understanding...not just about Galactica, but dramatic dynamic in general...mentioned above. It is difficult, if not impossible, to undertake an endeavor successfully if its essence has not been clearly defined.
 
Regardless of whether this miniseries is judged as a "remake" / "re-invention" – or if it is considered on its own merits – Galactica may ultimately be remembered as one of the most dispassionate, antagonistic, pessimistic, and impersonal "dramas" mounted for television in some time. It shuns the most precious conceit in its own basic story...indeed, the most precious commodity anywhere: Hope. This doesn't make for a show that is evocative, atmospheric, or emotionally challenging. This simply creates for a relentlessly unpleasant viewing experience. Battlestar Galactica is as artificially inflated as some of the most hollow programming ever aired on television. Beautiful people...posing and posturing...spend their time being smart asses (or shouting and bickering) because they are not grown-up enough – or professional enough – to communicate more effectively, or attain their goals through any other means. Galactica more closely resembles an episode of melodramatic oldies like Melrose Place or Dynasty than epic science fiction, or any mythos ever created. It feels (and even looks) more like the Wing Commander feature film than a show that is trying to be as unique and as different as its producers have repeatedly asserted. In fact, Wing Commander isn't a bad comparison to this new miniseries. If you've seen that movie, then you've a fair clue what to expect here.
Which begs the question: If this is all The Powers That Be ever intended to bring to the show, why bother to utilize such a compelling premise at all, especially in light of the abandonment of its most basic tenets? Glen A. Larson – who did not write this miniseries, but was owed a "written by" credit on this new project (as creator of the source material) per Writers Guild of America stipulations – opted to not place his real name on this reboot, installing the pseudonym Christopher Eric James instead. Which, in itself, speaks volumes.
In the end, it is Galactica fans – who have waited decades for their show to return – who will be most hurt by potentially negative fallout from this miniseries. Should the project evolve into a television series, it's unlikely anyone interested in the original will be able to stomach Battlestar Light on a weekly basis. Should ratings for this broadcast not pan out, the fanbase will be summarily blamed by a network decrying "no one wants to see Galactica anymore!" – and little thought will be given to the disenfranchising nature of the product being generated.
 
This has happened before, when Warner Bros. (unaffiliated with this project) decided fans didn't want more Batman movies, after the dismal failure of Batman and Robin. No one stopped to think that fans did, in actuality, want more Batman – they just wanted better product...and something more truthful to the namesake...than what they got. They voted with their pocket books, and they got burned. It's taken 6 years for another Bat flick to finally hit the pipeline. It's likely Galactica would take quite a bit longer to be re-re-born if things don't go well when the miniseries airs on December 8 and 9. Which isn't a reasonable fate for any title of this nature, and a graphic exemplification of why more care should be taken when undertaking such endeavors.
 
The new Battlestar Galactica embodies everything wrong with the creative process in filmmaking and television these days – and plainly illustrates the all-too-obvious hazards of remaking material simply for the sake of remaking it. Perhaps someday Galactica will live again...again, and someone will come along and reverse engineer the damage that Moore and company have brought to the equation. Maybe then we'll end up with a product that actually demonstrates a bit of thought and common sense – and find a show that remotely resembles the series being deliberately evoked through the use of the title itself..." - unquote
 
-- Glen Oliver


This was one of Bonnie Hammer's....personal....pet projects.....wasn't it?

Luckily...the more positive reviews began rolling in for Ronald D. Moore's sham take on "Galactica" once the Sci-Fi Channel began paying others to write them...and once the Sci-Fi Channel began writing some of them for themselves.

The Unanimous...Negative Opinions of the SyFy Channel Are There if You Look For Them




http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302474425&sr=1-3


Quite frankly....I challenge anyone to find (non-stealth marketed....unpaid for...legitimate....positive reviews of the SyFy Channel from legitimate sources)


http://www.denofgeek.com/television/784179/does_syfy_really_love_scifi.html

http://brusimm.com/2010/06/09/princess-of-mars-on-the-syfy-channel-review-ouch/

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/the-early-reviews-are-in-syfy-sucks_b3809

http://plastickelly.blogspot.com/2010/07/syfy-sucks.html

http://www.zgeek.com/content.php/2690-Syfy-channel-to-get-a-cooking-show.-Syfy-SUCKS

http://horrorsnotdead.com/wpress/2007/review-ice-spiders/

http://deliriumcomics.com/movies/review-thor-hammer-of-the-gods/

http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=4918

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/dinocroc.php

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2008/03/31/a-flash-in-the-pan/

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-26/entertainment/28647342_1_syfy-area-51-government

http://www.dailyraider.com/index.php?id=3098

http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/sharktopus-review-excuse-me-baby-i-cant-control-myself-in-the-octopus-mode.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syfy -

Rebranding

quote - On March 16, 2009, Sci Fi announced that it would be changing its name to Syfy, to end confusion over how to capitalize and stylize their name and as part of an on-going rebranding effort. Network officials also noted that, unlike the generic term "sci fi", which represents the entire science fiction genre, the term "Syfy" can be protected by trademark and therefore would be easier to market on other goods or services without fear of confusion with other companies' products. The only significant previous use of the term "Syfy" in relation to science fiction was by the website Syfy Portal, which became Airlock Alpha after selling the brand to NBC Universal (represented by a shell company) in February.[6] Reaction to the new name has been largely negative, with people often pronouncing Syfy as "Siffy", "Skiffy", or "See Fee" to make fun of the name change.[7][8] The parody news anchor Stephen Colbert made fun of the name change by giving the channel a "Tip of the Hat" for "spelling the name the way it's pronounced" and noting that "the tide is turning in my long fought battle against the insidious 'soft C'".[9] The new name took effect on July 7, 2009.[10] Syfy is in the process of making more reality shows and edging farther away from science fiction programming, and has been making a conscious effort to do this since the 1990s, also to significant negative response,[11][12][13] which alleges Syfy is succumbing to channel drift. - unquote


Look up a review (On Google or Yahoo) related to any originally produced movie or television show on the SyFy Channel and you will find that the negative opinions are unanimous. This of course leads to only one rational conclusion.....Bonnie Hammer...David Howe...and...Mark Stern..... aren't doing their jobs.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Would You Hire Bonnie Hammer...David Howe...and Mark Stern Away From The SyFy Channel For Any Reason?




http://www.amazon.com/Caprica-Sucks-Channel-Misfires-Ronald/dp/1451556225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302278250&sr=1-1


"Marcel's Quantum Kitchen"....."Ghost Hunters"....."Fact or Faked?"....."Blood & Chrome"...."Caprica"....."GINO"...."Saturday Night Crap Fest at the Movies"...."WWF Wrestling"....

With a crappy ass schedule like that listed on the resumes of Bonnie Hammer....David Howe...and Mark Stern...would you hire any one of them away from the SyFy Channel for any reason? Especially when any one of those stupid ass shows has failed to make the SyFy Channel filthy rich? Especially when the most any of those shows has done is keep the lights on at the SyFy Channel's executive offices?

Bonnie Hammer....Mark Stern....and David Howe....are hardly hiring material after job performances like that at the SyFy Channel. The likes of "Marcel's Quantum Kitchen" does not build careers...it destroys them. The likes of "Ghost Hunters" would cause any television executive to not be in demand anywhere else...for any reason. "Fact or Faked" would lay to rest the future career prospects of any television executive. Ronald D. Moore's disastrous trilogy of boredom ("GINO", "Caprica", "Blood & Chrome") would not look good on anyone's resume for any reason. Badly written monster movies of the week ("Sharktopus"...."Mansquito") are the career destroying ingredients any television executive would immediately begin experiencing. "WWF Wrestling" on the SyFy Channel can only be the result of a drunken orgy experienced by Hammer, Stern, and Howe the night before.

Let's say that you're a hot shot hiring executive looking for executives to program your new cable network. If the resumes of Bonnie Hammer....David Howe...and Mark Stern came across your desk, how would you proceed? If it was me...I would toss all three resumes in the waste paper basket under my desk after ripping them to pieces. And I would do that based solely upon the stupid ass programming ideas the three of them came up with for the SyFy Channel. There is no sense of pride to be had by anyone remotely responsible for the dog shit programming on the SyFy Channel. If anything, such programming would bring such emotions as embarrassment to the surface. The SyFy Channel may very well be a business before anything else...but it is an extremely embarrassing and poorly managed business to behold.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

It Would Seem That The SyFy Channel's List of Enemies in the Public Domain is Growing






http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Chrome-Interpretation-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1456493604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302189415&sr=1-1



http://www.cracked.com/funny-5398-syfy-channel/

Notice how Ronald D. Moore's "Battle-Crap Galactica" is mentioned in the same category as all of those other SyFy Channel shows being less than stellar. Also notice how the article astutely notices all of the SyFy Channel's faults and covers every single one of them. Gee...Haven't I been saying this stuff all along? It's nice to have another ally....isn't it?

When the SyFy Channel begins getting hammered (ha!! ha!!) by the likes of "Cracked" magazine or "Mad" magazine....You know the end of the channel is near.

...And this isn't a matter of "Cracked" magazine or "Mad" magazine doing a good natured....comic strip tribute to SyFy Channel. They're doing a serious....critical commentary on all of the SyFy Channel's faults...and all of the SyFy Channel's shortcomings. Perhaps the first time "Cracked" magazine has been so serious about trashing someone...or some thing.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

It's Repeatedly Being Proven That The Less Successful Television Producers (and Directors) Nowadays Lack a Formal Education in the Arts, And Tend to Receive On-The-Job Training Instead




http://www.amazon.com/Whistling-Dark-Attempt-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/144994079X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302116796&sr=1-3

You won't find good television producers (or directors) nowadays who didn't major in drama or other aspects of the theatrical arts in college. A good chunk of the television producers nowadays never even attended film school either. What you will find is a group of young, smart ass young bucks (Ronald D. Moore, David Eick) who solely received shabby on the job training in producing...scriptwriting....and directing....and who "kinda"........'sorta" fell into what they're doing right now for the SyFy Channel by chance. (Ronald D. Moore, David Eick.)

The difference between the formally educated in Hollywood....and the uneducated is staggering. Compare anything produced or directed by Richard Donner....to anything produced or directed by Bryan Singer...or say...Ronald D. Moore. The difference is staggering.....isn't it? Because Richard Donner received a formal education in drama and other disciplines in the arts....he was able to extract more credible and entertaining performances out of his actors than Bryan Singer or Ronald D. Moore ever could. Compare the performances of Richard Donner's "Superman" and "Lois Lane" characters (Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder) to the performances of Bryan Singer's "Superman" and "Lois Lane" (Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth.) With Richard Donner...."Superman" and "Lois Lane" came alive with great chemistry. With Bryan Singer...."Superman" and "Lois Lane" were lifeless with no chemistry...and practically no spoken dialogue. This is because Bryan Singer was not formally educated in good drama and all of the other necessary disciplines of the arts.

If Ronald D. Moore had received the necessary formal education in the arts and good drama....he would have seen  "Battlestar Galactica" as something infinitely more than gangsters walking around in three piece business suits and trench coats carrying "tommy guns." A formal education in the arts opens your mind, your heart, and your eyes to the infinite possibilities of good drama and the literary and visual beauty of the arts. If Ronald D. Moore had been properly educated in the profession he is in right now, he would have recognized the value and necessity of the visual and conceptual brilliance in the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series. It was Ronald D. Moore's lack of a good...solid..... necessary education in good drama and the arts that brought us "GINO"...."Caprica"....and eventually "Blood & Chrome."

Because of David Eick's lack of a necessary education in good drama and the arts....he brought us a remake of the "Bionic Woman" hated by everyone. Ronald D. Moore and David Eick keep doing what they're doing despite the lack of commercial success in what they do because they aren't properly educated. And because they aren't properly educated...they don't know how to course correct their own careers...and make their own careers genuinely....financially successful. In short...they don't know any better. A good...solid.....formal education in good drama and other aspects of the arts could have spared both Ronald D. Moore and David Eick the embarrassing careers they have been experiencing....and could have rescued them from the dead end career trajectories they have been on with the SyFy Channel for the past eight years.

Bryan Singer isn't doing any better. To my knowledge....the extent of any sort of education he received in filmmaking was an on-the-job internship (in the Directors Guild) sponsored by Steven Spielberg. Did Bryan Singer attend the University of Southern California? Did he go to college? Did he major in drama? Did he major in any aspects of the arts? Based upon how he directed "Superman Returns".....I would have to say "no."

The fact is....most if not all of the science fiction and fantasy projects being tackled nowadays for movies and television are not being envisioned to their fullest literary and visual potentials because those who are producing...writing....and directing these projects simply are not properly educated in what they are supposed to be doing for these projects. Ronald D. Moore's take on "Battlestar Galactica" and Bryan Singer's take on "Superman" have been the most notable failures....and the most notable victims of this lack of education.