languatron
Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 689
Life could be this beautiful without NBC-TV in it.
|
Much like the Sci-Fi Channel itself, "Sci-Fi Channel Magazine" is nothing but a waste of perfectly good Earthly resources. This rag of a magazine usually sits next to "Starlog" magazine every month, and DOESN'T SELL. No wonder. "Sci-Fi Channel Magazine" is published and written by a bunch of "Universal Studios Nitwits" who don't know a damn thing about Science Fiction or the rich history of the Science Fiction media genre. Each issue consists of the fairly mundane and false praise for the Sci-Fi Channel that we have come to expect from the channel's "Spoiled Brat" of a magazine. In one particular issue last year, "Sci-Fi Channel Magazine" even tried to justify the decision behind airing "Cape Fear" on the Sci-Fi Channel. "Sci-Fi Channel Magazine" called it "pushing the envelope." I call it a "Lazy Ass Cop-Out" of a programming decision implemented by Universal/Sci-Fi Channel executives who don't give a DAMN as to what is aired on Sci-Fi Channel. Just as long as it is CHEAP or DOESN'T COST ANYTHING, and is READILY AVAILABLE FROM THE USA NETWORK FILM VAULTS. Since Universal/Sci-Fi Channel executives AREN'T Science Fiction fans anyway, why should they care what the actual contents are of whatever they DIG OUT of the USA film vaults?
In the latest issue of "Sci-Fi Channel Magazine", a little blurb at the top of the front cover urges us to peak inside and find out about the "Sex Secrets of 'Six'!!" Well, Ronald D. Moore's "SEVEN OF NINE" CLONE called "SIX" has no sex secrets. What she does have is a BAD ACTRESS portraying her with FAKE BOOBS, no literary material to work with from a HACK producer/writer who couldn't write himself out of a paper bag, and wearing CHEAPO looking cocktail dresses from a "Frederick's of Hollywood" knock-off outlet.
"Sci-Fi Channel Magazine" has told us (without having to say it), that this series REALLY ISN'T about "Battlestar Galactica." From that one little blurb alone, we know that the CHEAP GIMMICK OF SEX is being relied upon by the Universal/Sci-Fi Channel corporation to keep a PATHETIC tv series alive that NEVER had an individual identity or WORKABLE PREMISE in the first place. Well over 95% of the content of this series involves the subject of SEX. As time moves on, the SUPPOSED outer space setting of this series is taking a back seat to SEXUAL CONTENT that is quickly morphing Ronald D. Moore's series into a "Lifetime Network Soap Opera."
Ronald D. Moore's series is the EVER CHANGING CHAMELEON, isn't it? Initially a "STAR TREK SEQUEL SERIES" using the "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA BRAND NAME" to get on the air. Moore's series is now a "Lifetime Network" SOAP OPERA trying to get the FEW VIEWERS who are watching to ask the same questions that are asked on ALL OTHER SOAP OPERAS. "Who is going to get into bed with whom?" "Who is going to hook-up?" "Who is going to get lucky?" This isn't Science Fiction, it isn't even space Fantasy. It's a "SOFT CORE SEX SHOW" that initially pretended to be both in order to get on the air. As the vast amount of viewers WHO AREN'T WATCHING can testify:
WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YET ANOTHER SOAP OPERA?
This is yet one of many PIECES OF GARBAGE that "Sci-Fi Channel Magazine" tries to advertise the hell out of and get UNINTERESTED VIEWERS to watch. I guess this is why "Sci-Fi Channel Magazine" always goes UNSOLD right next to the STACKS of the UNSOLD mini series magazine. 
|
Author
Logged