Cryostar

So, has anyone been watching this?

Chris

I have. Sometimes the flashbacks and the veiled references to Beta are a bit confusing. The thought of the space programme being manipulated by an alien being is a bit intimidating. For now I'm tuning in, not sure if I'll continue to do so. You?

Cryostar

I like it so far. The flashbacks are a bit much, and somewhat distracting, but I like the cast. I really want to know what Beta is. And I'm already laying bets on the fact that the 2 folks left on mars are still alive.

shapeshifter

I don't know why I look forward to this show each week. Maybe because there's not much on right now. But it seems as doomed as the Cubs.

Cryostar

Hush.

As a cardinals fan....you should never compare anything to that dreadful franchise.

I liked this last episode. I also like that Mince came out and said he hand hallucinations in front of Commander boy. And only 18 days until Venus...then we find out more about Beta. Hopefully that's the next episode.

bicker

My wife and I are enjoying this program. It's a shame that it has done so poorly in the ratings, both in its native Canada, and in the United States. It is likely that it will end prematurely. However, in the meantime I do like the mystery. I think it is very deliberately a flashback-laden program, and that's really one of its strengths. This helps avoid the rather tedious kind of exposition scenes where a character basically has to tell us, verbally, what we need to know regarding the background history of the characters.

Chris

I wonder if they take into account that the Canadian audience is split between Sunday nights on CTV/ABC and Fridays on Space?

Now that everybody realizes that others are hallucinating, it will be interesting to see what if anything they do to deal with it.

I'm curious to see more about why Wass made the cut. The others must be developing some more respect for him now that he's saved Zoe by suggesting she spit in the spacesuit to seal the leak, and to found Paula's thumb.

Jerry - I'm anxious to find out more about Beta too.

Reggie

I watched the first few episodes, and wasn't impressed. I've been a science fiction fan for all my life, and read quite a bit, so perhaps I just have higher standards, but I didn't like it (as sci-fi) at all. Item: Mercury orbits the sun inside the Earth's orbit, so it can't be "in retrograde". Only outer planets can be. How slack must a show's standards be, to goof up astrology?

And Mars's atmosphere is 1% of the thickness of the Earth's. There are no howling gales; even the fastest windstorm would be almost imperceptable. Certainly not enough to require an immediate launch... which, since Mars can be half an hour away by radio, isn't all that "immediate" anyway.

Oh, and the whole idea of having parts of the ship rotate is to generate artificial gravity in those sections. So why do we see "gravity" in the non-rotating parts of the ship (look out the window; the stars aren't turning), and see no scenes in the rotating parts which would have gravity, and should be the preferred living quarters?

The whole angst vs. smugness about the abortion thing rubs me the wrong way, too.

But the women are pretty, so I may watch once in a while. That should be enough to keep up with the "plot".

thescoobygang

I've been watching this as well. It's an interesting concept...but the direction is sorely lacking. Who is the target audience supposed to be?... because the comedic and romantic moments seems really artificial/forced. IMO the show would have been better off being a straight up, edgy drama surrounding the mystery of Beta & Mars.

When it comes to SF-themed shows it's absolutely crucial that you develop & establish your own unique "style" early on. Firefly had it's own unique style...likewise Star Trek, Farscape, Dr. Who, BSG, StarGate etc... What is the style of Defying Gravity that sets it apart...makes it shine? Unfortunately, I don't see one. It looks like a soap opera with poorly researched science and flashback scenes not nearly as well done as they are in LOST.

I'll keep watching for now because I really enjoy the Beta arc. But it's disappointing that the script and direction does not live up to the potential of the premise and the actors.

~tSG

Cryostar

No, no...reggie, don't hold back, please.

As it stands, I'm to the point of trying to watch any genre show, for fear that they'll take them all away. I'm not big on any of the new scifi shows coming out this year, plus it's got some folks I like (zoe and Livingstone). And i want to know who beta is dammit.

bicker

I do think that a lot of folks have expectations concerning genre programming that essentially despoil their own ability to be satisfied with what is being offered. With regard to a concern about gravity, for example, in another thread, on another forum, this weekend, someone wisely pointed out how much of sci-fi fandom loved Firefly, even though they never adequately explained on-board gravity. Yet that same segment of the audience digs deep to find fault with Defying Gravity. There is something else going on. It clearly isn't a matter of scientific foundation. Especially these days, most viewers just want to escape their own reality.

I suspect what is going on is more a matter of how deliberately a program seeks to appeal to one part of the audience versus another. Defying Gravity definitely is aimed at the sci-fi fans who watch shows like Grey's Anatomy, not at the sci-fi fans who enjoyed (for example) Firefly. It is a deliberate decision, and one that, as you can well imagine, the former group really appreciates. Cryostar mentioned how rare genre programming is on television, and much of the reason is the extent to which there is an effort to appeal to this very small segment of the audience, an amount which is not sufficient to sustain a television series. A far better hope for genre programming is to focus on attracting the very audience who were turned off by many traditionally fannish series because of how much of those series were focused on these aspects that the broader audience didn't care about.

And we see that this is happening, just by looking at the numbers. This Spring, the ratings showed a very clear trend, which had been developing for years: Women are a bigger part of the genre programming audience than ever. And women often have very different preferences and predilections than men. They care more about relationships between people (in fantastical settings) than they care about where the gravity comes from. There have been some indications, this summer, perhaps mostly due to changes in the genre, itself, in recent years, women make up more than half of the audience now. I don't know if I believe that, but there is no denying the trend in that direction, and it is very clear that the content of the programming is changing, and will continue to change, in response to that success.

I'm not saying that Defying Gravity is excellent programming. It's okay. It was presented over the summer, and deliberately programmed knowing that there wasn't enough time to present all 13 episodes (therefore the final 5 episodes may never air). That wasn't a mistake. It was a realistic reflection of how, just looking at the series, that the series was simply not going to be able to attract and retain a large enough audience long-term. I can speculate why: I think some of the characters who are supposed to have chemistry with each other simply don't. If this show fails (and as you can tell, I'm not optimistic), I would place all the blame on the casting director.

Cryostar

Really, I think the character interaction is ok. The computer geek, the doctor and the hispanic lady are off, though.

In all, I find your conclusions fairly accurate.

Reggie

It's not that, exactly; although you're on the right track. To be engaged by any presentation, one must experience a "suspension of disbelief". We know that there was no Sherlock Holmes, but we enjoy reading about his adventures because the stories are plausible; more to the point, there is no non-plausible element in sight. This is just as true of "The Dukes of Hazard", to go to the other end of the spectrum. But, suppose there was a car chase, and while looking at a scene ostensibly within a moving car... the background outside the windows didn't move? That would be a little jarring, yes? Well, the spaceship of "Defying Gravity" is supposed to be spinning, since that's how they get their gravity. So why don't the stars outside the windows move? It's different for Star Trek or Star Wars; their gravity isn't from spinning (to generate centrifugal force), so we don't expect to see the stars move.

It's like the soldiers on any military show: if they don't salute properly, or act as soldiers would, then it destroys the illusion that what we're seeing is real. It disrupts our suspension of disbelief; and whatever the show was, it isn't believable or engaging after that.

bicker

Suspension of disbelief is a personal choice on the part of a viewer. Many viewers do impose on themselves, voluntarily or subconsciously, an inability to suspend disbelief, under any number of specific scenarios of their own choosing.

I'm not an idiot. I know that a creature the size and shape of a dragon couldn't fly. Yet I can happily enjoy presentations that include such a (literally) unbelievable proposition.

That is not the case. Watch and listen more closely and you'll realize that only certain parts of the ship are spinning. Gravity is supported in other parts of the ship via magnetics.

Because that's not part of the ship that is spinning. Your assumption was incorrect. As you can see, one of the problems with focusing so much on technical trivialities is that you can more easily derail yourself from being able to enjoy the programming afforded to you. If you go looking for problems, yes, you will find them -- even when they're not really there.

Cryostar

I've got some screencaps from the first few episodes.