Beyond Tomorrow: What a sucky show

  • Thread starter Kissing Lettuce
  • Start date
K

Kissing Lettuce

Guest
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.

Compare this to the same show that was on in the 90s
when it was called Beyond 2000 and they actually took
the time to find articles which were either very, very,
new and not yet on the market or still in the process of
being researched.....

The segments were little more then time fillers IMHO
and on the whole the show felt like it was trying very
hard to be fun and cool.

The only thing I liked was the 3d printer but that machine
has been around since about the year 2001 and wasn't
exactly a new invention or such.

I don't think the show will have a very long run
 
"Kissing Lettuce" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:429E9C1F.690B4F18@internode.on.net...
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.

Compare this to the same show that was on in the 90s
when it was called Beyond 2000 and they actually took
the time to find articles which were either very, very,
new and not yet on the market or still in the process of
being researched.....

The segments were little more then time fillers IMHO
and on the whole the show felt like it was trying very
hard to be fun and cool.

The only thing I liked was the 3d printer but that machine
has been around since about the year 2001 and wasn't
exactly a new invention or such.

I don't think the show will have a very long run
Click to expand...
Pah, It was at it's peak when it was called "Towards 2000" and lived on the
ABC.
 
Kissing Lettuce wrote:
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.
Click to expand...
That's why Beyond 2000 got canned last time. It went down market in the
1990s to "toy of the week" (as I called it at the time) and ratings went
through the floor. Meanwhile, Quantum kept winning awards.

Cheers
David
 
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:11:52 +0930, Kissing Lettuce
<sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote:

Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Yes. Beyond 2000 and Towards 2000 both these shows where of a higher
class going back a fair few years now. Back then they had science
minded reporters. Today they just have reporters who hear of a story
and go with the flow.

If you like science shows then nothing beats Catalyst on the ABC at
8:pm on Thursday nights. Foxtel also has a good range of science shows
to watch.

Compare this to the same show that was on in the 90s
when it was called Beyond 2000 and they actually took
the time to find articles which were either very, very,
new and not yet on the market or still in the process of
being researched.....

The segments were little more then time fillers IMHO
and on the whole the show felt like it was trying very
hard to be fun and cool.

The only thing I liked was the 3d printer but that machine
has been around since about the year 2001 and wasn't
exactly a new invention or such.

I don't think the show will have a very long run
Click to expand...
 
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:25:26 +1000, David Bromage
<dbromage@omni.com.NOSPAMTHANKYOU.au> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

Kissing Lettuce wrote:
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.

That's why Beyond 2000 got canned last time. It went down market in the
1990s to "toy of the week" (as I called it at the time) and ratings went
through the floor. Meanwhile, Quantum kept winning awards.

Cheers
David
Click to expand...
These shows nearly always turn to crap when they migrate to the
commercial stations. Shows like "Beyond 2000" and "60 Minutes" are all
about showcasing the presenter or the interviewer, not the story or
the interviewee. OTOH, high quality programs such as Quantum,
Catalyst, and Four Corners hardly ever show the interviewer. Instead
they focus on the subject.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
"Kissing Lettuce" wrote:
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.
Click to expand...
I found the presenters rather painful as well... they need people
a bit more scientific, who can ask more interesting questions (or
make more interesting observations) rather than just responding
to everything with: Wow. Amazing. Incredible.

A bit of gimmickry is to be expected (I don't mind a little), but
I'd like to see it take a bit more of a scientific approach. But
then... I'm a nerd :)

Fleeced
 
Fleeced wrote:
"Kissing Lettuce" wrote:
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.

I found the presenters rather painful as well... they need people
a bit more scientific, who can ask more interesting questions (or
make more interesting observations) rather than just responding
to everything with: Wow. Amazing. Incredible.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And it was a *printer*, not a photocopier...

The music was crap too.
A bit of gimmickry is to be expected (I don't mind a little), but
I'd like to see it take a bit more of a scientific approach. But
then... I'm a nerd :)
Click to expand...
Ditto :)



--
Katharine
If you make enough predictions, a few are bound to be correct. The hits
are likely to be remembered, the misses forgotten, and you will win fame and
possibly fortune as a forecaster of the future.
 
"Kissing Lettuce" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:429E9C1F.690B4F18@internode.on.net...
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.
Click to expand...
What they should do on this show is play segments from the original show. It
would be really cool to see when they first showed the CD player off and
other stuff like that.

Mike
 
"Michael C" wrote:
What they should do on this show is play segments from the
original show. It would be really cool to see when they first
showed the CD player off and other stuff like that.
Click to expand...
Actually, that could make a pretty cool show by itself... they
could go over things they got right, things they got wrong, and
things that could have been, but didn't happen for whatever
reason.... they don't even have to restrict themselves to the
old Beyond (or Towards) 2000 shows... there's so much
material from the past of where they expected us to be today,
that they'd have enough story ideas to last quite a while.

Fleeced
 
In article <goit91djahqce9p596k88g55ilf3r5610u@4ax.com>,
Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
OTOH, high quality programs such as Quantum,
Catalyst, and Four Corners hardly ever show the interviewer.
Click to expand...
I'm unaware of a high quality program called Catalyst. I've seen ads for
that thing the ABC shows on Thursdays, but once that ad said that this
week's program had a story on psychic pets.
 
Fleeced wrote:
"Michael C" wrote:

What they should do on this show is play segments from the
original show. It would be really cool to see when they first
showed the CD player off and other stuff like that.

Actually, that could make a pretty cool show by itself... they
could go over things they got right, things they got wrong, and
things that could have been, but didn't happen for whatever
reason.... they don't even have to restrict themselves to the
old Beyond (or Towards) 2000 shows... there's so much
material from the past of where they expected us to be today,
that they'd have enough story ideas to last quite a while.
Click to expand...
Yep, that'd be very intersting. They should at least do a segment on it.


--
Katharine
".........." ~ Marcel Marceau
 
As soon as I saw that they had franchised segments off mythbusters, I knew
it would suck.

Watch mythbusters in it's full, unfcuked glory, 7:30pm mondays on SBS.

"Kissing Lettuce" <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:429E9C1F.690B4F18@internode.on.net...
Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.

Compare this to the same show that was on in the 90s
when it was called Beyond 2000 and they actually took
the time to find articles which were either very, very,
new and not yet on the market or still in the process of
being researched.....

The segments were little more then time fillers IMHO
and on the whole the show felt like it was trying very
hard to be fun and cool.

The only thing I liked was the 3d printer but that machine
has been around since about the year 2001 and wasn't
exactly a new invention or such.

I don't think the show will have a very long run
Click to expand...
 
Phil Hoenig wrote:

In article <goit91djahqce9p596k88g55ilf3r5610u@4ax.com>,
Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:


OTOH, high quality programs such as Quantum,
Catalyst, and Four Corners hardly ever show the interviewer.



I'm unaware of a high quality program called Catalyst. I've seen ads for
that thing the ABC shows on Thursdays, but once that ad said that this
week's program had a story on psychic pets.


Yep and they completely debunked it.
Click to expand...
 
"Fleeced" <fleeced@mail.com> wrote in message
news:429ee99d$0$30177$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Actually, that could make a pretty cool show by itself... they
could go over things they got right, things they got wrong, and
things that could have been, but didn't happen for whatever
reason.... they don't even have to restrict themselves to the
old Beyond (or Towards) 2000 shows... there's so much
material from the past of where they expected us to be today,
that they'd have enough story ideas to last quite a while.
Click to expand...
Good idea, it would be really cool to see someone talking about how we'd all
be driving anti-gravity cars in the year 2000 etc. Wanna go into television?
;-)

hmmm, I wonder if they've got bill gates on film saying we'd never need more
than 640k of ram.

Michael
 
Craig Hart wrote:

As soon as I saw that they had franchised segments off mythbusters, I knew
it would suck.

Watch mythbusters in it's full, unfcuked glory, 7:30pm mondays on SBS.
Click to expand...


Well now that I got digital I can finally watch SBS with
good sound and picture and no fuzzy dots
 
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:11:52 +0930, Kissing Lettuce
<sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote:

Little more then "gimmick of the week"
and what a waste of time.

Compare this to the same show that was on in the 90s
when it was called Beyond 2000 and they actually took
the time to find articles which were either very, very,
new and not yet on the market or still in the process of
being researched.....

The segments were little more then time fillers IMHO
and on the whole the show felt like it was trying very
hard to be fun and cool.

The only thing I liked was the 3d printer but that machine
has been around since about the year 2001 and wasn't
exactly a new invention or such.

I don't think the show will have a very long run
Click to expand...
Yes, unfortunately they seemed to have ripped a reporter or two from
Catalyst as well.

- Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top