# Defying Gravity pilot 08/02/09



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Much better than I expected, much.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Much better than I expected, much.


Glad to hear that. I recorded it last night so maybe we'll go ahead and watch it tonight. I did watch a few minutes of the opening. Enough to get an idea of Ron Livingston's character's previous problems. But my wife has to see her Eastenders on PPV on Sunday night so I usually watch something she doesn't care for. Like a Santana concert. Or Diana Krall. Or Fleetwood Mac. Or...


----------



## LOCODUDE (Aug 8, 2007)

I missed it. Will see if there is a repeat, and take a look...


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

I watched the first hour and so far it looks good. Will watch second half later and set to record on DVR.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Only watched Part 1, (the first hour)

Loved the first 30 minutes, after that the shows character interactions started to get a bit unrealistic.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Given that this was the first two episodes, it was a very strong scifi show intro. However, ABC put it on Sunday night and treated it in such a way that many thought it was a Sunday night movie competing against "The Storm Part 2" on NBC which it beat in the demo but not in total viewers and, as usual, failed against the CBS "winners" - reruns of "Cold Case" and "Without a Trace" - reruns....

Had ABC run this on a Wednesday paired with "Lost" in the fall with the same level of hype that BBCA gave the last "Torchwood", it likely would have pulled large numbers and continued to hold an audience.:nono:

It's an international co-production between Fox Television Studios and Omni Film Productions, in association with Canada's CTV and Germany's ProSieben so it might have legs enough in Canada and Europe to get a second season. There's enough science innovation and scifi plot for it to work well in this country.

I don't see it repeated anywhere on ABC's schedule so I can tell it is a Summer filler for them although it must be expensive to produce. It is available on line at ABC's clumsy web site. Click on "free episodes" up near the top.


----------



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

I liked it enough to give it a season pass. I liked Virtuality a bit more, any news about it becoming a series, or is it dead?


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

BOMBED in the ratings:

It pulled a 1.1 in 18-49 & was the lowest rated scripted series premiere of the summer.

Even got beat by reruns of "the simpsons", "family guy", "cold case" & "without a trace" which itself is a cancelled show.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

So your saying don't waste time watching this, it's going to be off the air faster than a Fart in the wind?


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I don't recall any pre-show promotions on the series. It caught me by surprise, and by then, I had already missed more than half of episode one. I'll give it another whirl, but I think they should promote it better.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

HDG said:


> I don't recall any pre-show promotions on the series. It caught me by surprise, and by then, I had already missed more than half of episode one. I'll give it another whirl, but I think they should promote it better.


I don't remember seeing anything either. I set it to record for this Sunday. Hopefully, they'll re-air the first two hours before then or I might be sitting in front of my computer for a while watching it in a small window.

- Merg


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

dreadlk said:


> So your saying don't waste time watching this, it's going to be off the air faster than a Fart in the wind?


Pretty much. I saw a blurb on it about a week ago but missed it. I won't even bother now because it will obviously get canned pretty quick.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

ABC still might still air all the episodes as there werent that many done anyway.
NBC ran all of "kings" & CBS ran all of "harpers island'' even thought they were duds.


----------



## LOCODUDE (Aug 8, 2007)

I too didn't know it was coming. Just watched the first episodes on my computer.. I am liking this, even though the physics is a little off.... Have set up a S/L. This show has potential....


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> ABC still might still air all the episodes as there werent that many done anyway.
> NBC ran all of "kings" & CBS ran all of "harpers island'' even thought they were duds.


I expect ABC to run all episodes as it is a Summer Season show. My guess is they don't have that much in it as the costs have been shared widely. And the fact that it has Canadian and European money behind it makes it possible that there could be another season despite the total lack of effort on the part of ABC to promote and schedule it for the best possible audience awareness.


----------



## ke3ju (Aug 18, 2006)

LOCODUDE said:


> I missed it. Will see if there is a repeat, and take a look...


It's on hulu.com...


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

I actually enjoyed the premier and 1st episode - of course, I had such low expectations that I almost didn't record it and might not have watched it if I hadn't been home sick. I did see several things that weren't exactly logical...

But, based on what I've seen so far, the name "Defying Gravity" doesn't really fit the show. :nono: Well, unless you count the astronauts sitting upright for the launch!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I may have to check out viewing this show.....sounds interesting....


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Until I saw this thread, I was unaware of the show. ABC obviously spent a lot on promotion!

I had missed the 2 hr premier so I picked it up on Hulu and I rather enjoyed it. It was different though obviously drawing from other show themes. It was particularly good to see Christina Cox, formerly of Blood Ties playing the role of Jen Crane. I am a fan.

IMDB is a little confusing on this one, displaying two episodes both of which aired Sunday, then a 3rd and 4th episode after which it jumps to an 11th episode. Hopefully there will be episodes 5-10.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Plot = B
Sets = A
Acting = C
Ep1 Script = D
Its like the Series "Lost" set in space. (Yep: Lost in Space)
Don't think this flash back stuff is going to work again because the story moves at a snails pace just like "Lost" but it lacks a compelling script like Lost.



Spoilers:
The interaction between characters is just so stupid in this show, like hitting down your commander then 5 minutes later launching
a vehicle into space  add to that having sex on board ship the same day you arrive with mission control camera's in the room. 
Half the characters are mentaly unstable to begin with and they are going to lock them all together on a 6 year trip. Yikes!
And don't get me started on the Technical details because this is a show that require's you to put on your Scientific Blinders 

I have to admit if SciFi channel had sets and a budget like this they would have made something 10 times better.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

My wife and I loved the first two hours. Too bad this is a summer series... we'd love for it to have a better chance to continue.


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

I work in the space business and was disappointed at how far we've come in 43 years. The PC monitors look the same, clothing and hair styles are the same, bars look the same...

A few boo boos of note... The explanation of how they stay on the 'ground' of the spcaecraft. They say that their clothes have electrostatic fibers that are attracted to a charge in the floor of the spaceship and everything else just floats (tomato example). Yet later, when Ron L is doing a video feed, he's tossing his baseball up and it comes right down. Also, the womens' hair would float. 

I know, it's near impossible to simulate weightlessness. However, in the year 2052, I would rather have had a gravity generator solution to this issue. 

All in all, I'm glad to see SciFi movies on network TV.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

dmspen said:


> I work in the space business and was disappointed at how far we've come in 43 years. The PC monitors look the same, clothing and hair styles are the same, bars look the same...
> 
> A few boo boos of note... The explanation of how they stay on the 'ground' of the spcaecraft. They say that their clothes have electrostatic fibers that are attracted to a charge in the floor of the spaceship and everything else just floats (tomato example). Yet later, when Ron L is doing a video feed, he's tossing his baseball up and it comes right down. Also, the womens' hair would float.
> 
> ...


Picky, picky, picky.

Given the technical capabilities of video production today, these errors shouldn't have happened. But it still was good.

I thought there was some "nano technology" in the space clothes which solved all the problems.

But it is good to have scifi on network TV even if it is a short-lived program, which this may not be. As I said before, it has international backing so it may survive without any help from ABC.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I Agree, they should have just stuck to some sort of Artificial Gravity technology and be done with it. To satisfy the picky viewers who might have said that would be impossible to do by 2052, they could have explained it by saying that "He" the alien or whatever steared them in the right direction to develope it.



dmspen said:


> A few boo boos of note... The explanation of how they stay on the 'ground' of the spcaecraft. They say that their clothes have electrostatic fibers that are attracted to a charge in the floor of the spaceship and everything else just floats (tomato example). Yet later, when Ron L is doing a video feed, he's tossing his baseball up and it comes right down. Also, the womens' hair would float.
> 
> I know, it's near impossible to simulate weightlessness. However, in the year 2052, I would rather have had a gravity generator solution to this issue.
> 
> All in all, I'm glad to see SciFi movies on network TV.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> I Agree, they should have just stuck to some sort of Artificial Gravity technology and be done with it. To satisfy the picky viewers who might have said that would be impossible to do by 2052, they could have explained it by saying that "He" the alien or whatever steared them in the right direction to develope it.


Ah yes, I forgot about the all-powerful "HE".


----------



## LOCODUDE (Aug 8, 2007)

I think that this show fills a gap, caused by a scarcity of Sci-Fi shows on TV at the present time....


----------



## Galaxie6411 (Aug 26, 2007)

I wouldn't have known it was on had I not heard Livingston interviewed about it. Only watched the first hour so far, going to finish it right now.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Second episode was sooo Boring, I almost fell asleep


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I thought the second episode was OK, not mind-blowing or anything. Maybe character backgrounds and a little _getting-to-know-the-cast_ sorta thing. The usual treatment for a new series, actually.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

HDG said:


> I thought the second episode was OK, not mind-blowing or anything. Maybe character backgrounds and a little _getting-to-know-the-cast_ sorta thing. The usual treatment for a new series, actually.


Yes, it was more a back story episode to establish relationships. So the next episode has to be some action, right?


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Lets hope 



phrelin said:


> Yes, it was more a back story episode to establish relationships. So the next episode has to be some action, right?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'd hate for this show to devolve into a shoot-em-up action flick. I want to see the focus stay on the human relationships and these humans facing these various challenges, such as Ted interacting with beta.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Bummer, recorded the pilot, but didn't watch it and forgot about it. Now, I've missed the second one.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Bummer, recorded the pilot, but didn't watch it and forgot about it. Now, I've missed the second one.


Watch full episodes at ABC. ABC.com - Defying Gravity


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I've never watched anything on my computer before, but maybe this will be the first. Thanks olguy


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I've never watched anything on my computer before, but maybe this will be the first. Thanks olguy


I've had to watch a couple of episodes on occasion. It beats missing one. But not by much, even on my 22" monitor. :lol:


----------



## LOCODUDE (Aug 8, 2007)

I watched the first episodes on my PC.......


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> I'd hate for this show to devolve into a shoot-em-up action flick. I want to see the focus stay on the human relationships and these humans facing these various challenges, such as Ted interacting with beta.


I didn't mean "shoot-em-up" action, just more focus on the future "challenges" now that we have the backstory. Even "Gray's Anatomy" has medical action stuff going on with a few soap intervals.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Do we really have the back-story yet? I still want to know more about beta, what it is (at least as far as, let's say Eve knows), where it came from, how it was first encountered, what happened then, how this mission came to be turned towards beta's mission, etc.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> Do we really have the back-story yet? I still want to know more about beta, what it is (at least as far as, let's say Eve knows), where it came from, how it was first encountered, what happened then, how this mission came to be turned towards beta's mission, etc.


I tend to agree. We have a bit of back-story on a few characters. And there are 8 of them on the space boat. Maybe some of them will remain minor characters and we'll not learn much about them but some of the main, so far characters need a bit more development in my opinion.

And I'm like bicker1. What's up with the thingie in Pod 4?

And in case someone reading this thread has it on the HD and not watched it yet...


Spoiler



There have been allusions that something bad may lay in store. Remember when Mike Goss and Eve Shaw were talking and one asked "how many would have gone if they knew?"


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

And in retrospect, I think my list of still-pending back-story questions is a lot longer, and many of the ones I didn't list are actually a lot deeper: Specifically, we haven't seen beta's back-story, yet, at all.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> And in retrospect, I think my list of still-pending back-story questions is a lot longer, and many of the ones I didn't list are actually a lot deeper: Specifically, we haven't seen beta's back-story, yet, at all.


True, but I don't need any more soapy back stories.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'll let you know when you can tune back in then.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> And in retrospect, I think my list of still-pending back-story questions is a lot longer, and many of the ones I didn't list are actually a lot deeper: Specifically, we haven't seen beta's back-story, yet, at all.


There have only been three episodes. give it a little time. They will eventually got to these things. Isn't the anticipation a part of the process. Look at LOST as an example. Lots of clues, then the payoff. Of course, this isn't LOST, and it won't last with the numbers it's been getting.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

dmspen said:


> I work in the space business and was disappointed at how far we've come in 43 years. The PC monitors look the same, clothing and hair styles are the same, bars look the same...
> 
> A few boo boos of note... The explanation of how they stay on the 'ground' of the spcaecraft. They say that their clothes have electrostatic fibers that are attracted to a charge in the floor of the spaceship and everything else just floats (tomato example). Yet later, when Ron L is doing a video feed, he's tossing his baseball up and it comes right down. *Also, the womens' hair would float. *
> 
> ...


Last night we found the answer to that, which might also explain the baseball.
Now I can sleep tonight...:lol:


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

BubblePuppy said:


> Last night we found the answer to that, which might also explain the baseball.
> Now I can sleep tonight...:lol:


Yeah, I though of this thread when I saw that.

Also, this weeks episode was much improved. Less soap opera and more sci-fi plot development.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Yes and what anybody in Hollywood will tell you is that if you have to keep explaining and clarifying something it means it wasn't done right the first time!
They should never have used this whole magnetic clothes crap.

A prime example of this kind of bungle was Stargate, when they said that the ZAT gun stunned on one shot, killed on two and vaporized on three. That was one mess that they eventually had to just ignore because it just got so complicated to keep following the rules.

I am sure if Defying gravity keeps going it will have many more explanations to come up with as to why certain things are not behaving the way the audience expects. I Can't wait for the shower scene with the Magnetic soap  BTW Ep3 was also pretty dull, and one gets the distinct feeling that any info on Beta could be a long way off 



BubblePuppy said:


> Last night we found the answer to that, which might also explain the baseball.
> Now I can sleep tonight...:lol:


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Well, I'm starting to like this show. I'm getting into the characters and actually look forward to tonight's episode. I guess that means they can cancel it now.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Well, I watched the first 5 in just about one sitting (still have #6 on the DVR unwatched). I have a few issues but, so far, they've been explaining them away. It'll be interesting to see who/what "Beta" ends up being.


----------



## Bluto17 (Jan 31, 2007)

so, I have the first 6 hours sitting on my DVR. For those that have been watching, do I make the commitment?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Bluto17 said:


> so, I have the first 6 hours sitting on my DVR. For those that have been watching, do I make the commitment?


Sure, why not?


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

Bluto17 said:


> so, I have the first 6 hours sitting on my DVR. For those that have been watching, do I make the commitment?


Watch the first 5 hours, then decide!


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

Bluto17 said:


> so, I have the first 6 hours sitting on my DVR. For those that have been watching, do I make the commitment?


I would. Just watched last night's episode this afternoon. Pretty good show overall if you suspend your sci-fi disbelief a little more than normal.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Last nights episode was a bit dissapointing. They should have named that episode "Blood" because that seemed to be the theme of every part of it.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

They still seem to be doing a lot of back-story/character development. Which is fine if the show is going to be around for a while. Otherwise they need to get a little more action going before they start to lose the small audience they currently have.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

While this episode provided more backstory for establishing relationship dynamics between characters, at some point something has to happen because they'll run out of episodes for this season. I like the show, but so far it's been completely setting the scene for something to happen. Maybe next week?


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

I think they're getting close to entering Venus orbit, and that's when ground control is going to tell all the crew about Beta. I imagine that will be the season finale - I think there's only 3 episodes left before Brothers & Sisters returns on Sept 27th.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Do keep in mind that there are five episodes in the season that are not scheduled, so the episode scheduled for September 13 is not intended as a season finale.


----------



## Bluto17 (Jan 31, 2007)

Started watching. Still two episodes behind. Not bad.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I started off a bit cold to it but now I'm really getting in to it. But what is with Claire's hair cut....I thought that style is long dead, looks like it was cut with a Weed Eater.:lol:


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Bluto17 said:


> Started watching. Still two episodes behind. Not bad.


I think you'll like it, Bluto.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

This flash back stuff works for LOST because the characters are interesting, but with DG it just seems like a Bore! I wish they would just stick with the mission.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

ABC is putting this show on hiatus after tomorrow night. Or out to pasture. Or on the web. Or simply canceled. The sad part is, CTV has episodes on its web site but won't allow access from the U.S.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

phrelin said:


> ABC is putting this show on hiatus after tomorrow night. Or out to pasture. Or on the web. Or simply canceled. The sad part is, CTV has episodes on its web site but won't allow access from the U.S.


Aww crap!!!!!.....I am really getting tired of networks pulling this type of s**T. Get me hooked, and then cut the line. No wonder I don't watch a lot of network shows.:nono2: And by "networks" I mean the Not-Fab 4.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> This flash back stuff works for LOST because the characters are interesting, but with DG it just seems like a Bore! I wish they would just stick with the mission.


It's hard to keep track of which forums I mentioned which thoughts on, but in case I didn't mention it here, earlier, the problem with the characters I think are that certain characters who are supposed to have chemistry with each other simply don't. It is a failure of acting or of the casting director. The mission is utterly tedious: Weeks of doing nothing other than the same old drills over and over again, and waiting to get somewhere. And it is supposed to be tedious. That's realistic, *and* it provides the *proper* back-drop to the human drama that the shows was supposed to contain, as per its promotional materials.

The promise of a series like this is getting the audience to care about the characters, and making the story about the characters. It did okay, but not great.



phrelin said:


> ABC is putting this show on hiatus after tomorrow night. Or out to pasture. Or on the web. Or simply canceled. The sad part is, CTV has episodes on its web site but won't allow access from the U.S.


To be clear, ABC has taken no action on Defying Gravity since it premiered. All the episodes scheduled to be aired are _still_ scheduled to be aired. ABC has made no public statements about the future of the series, or has done anything that would lead anyone to any specific conclusion regarding what they are going to do.

The foundation for saying that Defying Gravity's future is in trouble is because practically no one is watching. We're smart enough to translate that into what ABC will probably do, but keep in mind that ABC has not done "it" yet.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

phrelin said:


> ABC is putting this show on hiatus after tomorrow night. Or out to pasture. Or on the web. Or simply canceled. The sad part is, CTV has episodes on its web site but won't allow access from the U.S.


I watched it Friday night on CTV. Without a doubt, the best episode of the series so far. And it ends with a cliff hanger.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> To be clear, ABC has taken no action on Defying Gravity since it premiered. All the episodes scheduled to be aired are _still_ scheduled to be aired.


Actually, ABC is running the 2005 blockbuster "King Kong" for four hours next Sunday and the following Sunday they are starting their fall schedule. Tonight we get episode 8 of 11 available to show.


bicker1 said:


> ABC has made no public statements about the future of the series, or has done anything that would lead anyone to any specific conclusion regarding what they are going to do.
> 
> The foundation for saying that Defying Gravity's future is in trouble is because practically no one is watching. We're smart enough to translate that into what ABC will probably do, but keep in mind that ABC has not done "it" yet.


My hope is that after football season they'll burn off the remaining episodes on Saturday. Then maybe Syfy could pick it up, run season 1, then run season 2.

ABC didn't do anything to help this show survive. But I can now see what the writers are doing which helped kill it for ADD-plagued U.S. audiences - they are deliberately building a solid set of characters while letting the plot evolve. Somebody from 1965 must have invaded the writer's room.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

The source is not cited, but thefutoncritic's Defying Gravity page lists the show as on hiatus with no set return date.
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch.aspx?id=defying_gravity


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> > To be clear, ABC has taken no action on Defying Gravity since it premiered. All the episodes scheduled to be aired are still scheduled to be aired.
> 
> 
> Actually, ABC is running the 2005 blockbuster "King Kong" for four hours next Sunday and the following Sunday they are starting their fall schedule.


As originally planned. Nothing has changed. ABC has taken* no *action on Defying Gravity since it premiered.



phrelin said:


> Tonight we get episode 8 of 11 available to show.


I believe all 13 have been produced; do you have any information that the final two episodes ordered were not made?



phrelin said:


> ABC didn't do anything to help this show survive.


ABC did everything a reasonable network would do to promote a show that didn't have much promise to start with, given its inherent limitations, which I've mentioned already.



BobaBird said:


> The source is not cited, but thefutoncritic's Defying Gravity page lists the show as on hiatus with no set return date.
> http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch.aspx?id=defying_gravity


What that page indicates is that ABC has taken no action since Defying Gravity premiered on ABC. It was scheduled to go on hiatus after episode 8 and it has.

I think it is very clear that the show is dead (that was pretty-clear to me when it first was scheduled to premiere), but ABC hasn't done anything to make that official yet.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

bicker1 said:


> I think it is very clear that the show is dead (that was pretty-clear to me when it first was scheduled to premiere), but ABC hasn't done anything to make that official yet.


They called last night's episode, the "Season Finale". That sounds pretty official to me.

As for the rest of the episodes airing on CTV, as of this morning my Bell EPG still shows episode 9 scheduled for Friday, 9/18.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

CTV will probably finish out the completed episodes. The international press seems to be speculating on the future of the show in terms of whether anyone will pick up ABC's share of the cost.

The show has around 3 (4.47 million last night) million viewers. Now if NBCU's Syfy were to step in....


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Jaspear said:


> > I think it is very clear that the show is dead (that was pretty-clear to me when it first was scheduled to premiere), but ABC hasn't done anything to make that official yet.
> 
> 
> They called last night's episode, the "Season Finale". That sounds pretty official to me.


"Season Finale" *isn't* "Series Finale".

Again, I suspect it was the Series Finale, but ABC hasn't said that.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Jaspear said:


> I watched it Friday night on CTV. Without a doubt, the best episode of the series so far. And it ends with a cliff hanger.


Well I know where I will be going to get Episode 9 
I certainly am not waiting 4 months to hear that it's never coming back! Once I hear what the story is with Beta I can pretty much stop watching


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Note that a publicist for the show has essential said what I said yesterday: The network has not canceled Defying Gravity.

That doesn't mean that they won't, but they haven't.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Mid-season replacement for one of the inevitable Fall Flops?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Or perhaps a fill-in for an early fall failure, filling in space in October and November, followed by a mid-season replacement launched in January.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

FutonCritic reports that an ABC rep says the series is definitely not canceled: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=8293


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> FutonCritic reports that an ABC rep says the series is definitely not canceled: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=8293


Amen, at least we will get to see the other 5 episodes that have been filmed. Also keep in mind that ABC is not the most important factor where this series is concerned. There are a half a dozen countries involved and airing the series and there are episodes written for 3 years.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Guess I'll keep the timer, just in case.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> FutonCritic reports that an ABC rep says the series is definitely not canceled: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=8293


All things considered, the ratings for example, I am not optimistic about the last episodes ever being broadcast, at least not on ABC. I would LIKE them to be, but the performance was abysmal. Re-runs of re-runs were beating it. I would hope that they would at least make it available on-line.

My SP is still there, just in case. (He said pessimistically.)


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I got ep#9 last night, I will let you guys know if its even worth waiting.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

I watched episode 9 last night online and it was great. They could have condensed the first 8 episodes into about 4 in order to get to the good stuff that episode 9 contained.

Here's where I watched it:

http://www.casttv.com/shows/defying-gravity/eve-ate-the-apple/7u0u08


----------



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

Does anyone know where I can see the pilot? That is the only episode I missed. ABC and Hulu only have the last four episodes on line.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I loved all of the episodes that were broadcast and really couldn't find fault with them. I got deeply engrossed in the characters, learning who they "are" today, who they were 5 years ago, and how their experiences overlapped and shaped who they are today. I wouldn't have changed a thing, but with so few viewers I'm perhaps in the minority on loving it the way it was ...


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I loved all of the episodes that were broadcast and really couldn't find fault with them. I got deeply engrossed in the characters, learning who they "are" today, who they were 5 years ago, and how their experiences overlapped and shaped who they are today. I wouldn't have changed a thing, *but with so few viewers I'm perhaps in the minority on loving it the way it was* ...


Make that a minority of two.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

HDG said:


> Make that a minority of two.


+1= 3


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

BubblePuppy said:


> +1= 3


4 .....


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Does this make us a majority yet?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

You've got another few million to go.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

elaclair said:


> 4 .....


5...


----------



## gilviv (Sep 18, 2007)

I'm in...... 6 Hope they bring it back.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Episode 9 was great, the best of the bunch! Its a shame that ABC stopped at 8, I know they did it because it was a cliff hanger but the show was also very weak at that point, ep9 was the episode that strengthens the whole plot.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

Yes, episode 9 was great!



Spoiler



Really nice how they tied the original Mars mission into the current mission.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> I know they did it because it was a cliff hanger


I don't think there is necessarily any reason to believe it was that deliberate. The show ran up against a special presentation one week, and then a regular season program takes back over its time slot this week. As far as I can tell, there simply wasn't enough weeks left in the summer to present the whole series.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> I don't think there is necessarily any reason to believe it was that deliberate. The show ran up against a special presentation one week, and then a regular season program takes back over its time slot this week. As far as I can tell, there simply wasn't enough weeks left in the summer to present the whole series.


Wouldn't they have known that ahead of time?


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Church AV Guy said:


> Wouldn't they have known that ahead of time?


 Yes one would think so:lol:
They could have started a week earlier if they wanted it to end on EP9. and IMO that would have been better than leaving it at Ep8


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Church AV Guy said:


> Wouldn't they have known that ahead of time?


Absolutely. They knew when they bought the show that they only had room for *eight *episodes this summer; they scheduled to present *eight *episodes; they showed *eight *episodes. As I said, it had nothing to do with the fact that episode eight had any specific content. It was just that it was the *eight*h episode.



dreadlk said:


> They could have started a week earlier if they wanted it to end on EP9. and IMO that would have been better than leaving it at Ep8


And so as I said, it wasn't deliberate that they stopped at episode eight. It was just a matter of timing.

BTW: I don't see any reason to believe that they could have started a week earlier. What makes you think that?


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I saw #9 from a copy made from CTV. All I can say is "wow".


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

bicker1 said:


> Absolutely. They knew when they bought the show that they only had room for *eight *episodes this summer; they scheduled to present *eight *episodes; they showed *eight *episodes. As I said, it had nothing to do with the fact that episode eight had any specific content. It was just that it was the *eight*h episode.
> 
> And so as I said, it wasn't deliberate that they stopped at episode eight. It was just a matter of timing.


And of course, you (or I) could make the case that CTV had room for *nine* episodes, nothing more, nothing less. Just a matter of timing.

But it sure _looks _otherwise. I do tend to look at things just a tad on the cynical side, though.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

djlong said:


> I saw #9 from a copy made from CTV. All I can say is "wow".


And would you also agree that they would have been much better off stopping at ep9 instead of Ep8? I think that after seeing ep9 people would be much more eager for the series to continue.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> BTW: I don't see any reason to believe that they could have started a week earlier. What makes you think that?


Nothing at all, but what makes you think that they could not have started a week earlier?

They saw all the episodes in advance, if they really wanted the show to go on it would be obvious that stopping at 8 was a serious mistake.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

You seem to think ending with episode 8 was a bad thing. If anything, quite the opposite. If the show was very popular, stopping at a cliff-hanger, as they did, would be the *smartest* thing to do. If the show wasn't popular, then it wouldn't matter. You're blinded, I think, by your perspective as a viewer. To understand what networks do you need to put yourself in the mind of someone who runs a network.

I still think it was just luck of the draw, but if you insist on imposing intention on it, then accept that the intention was *smart*.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Have you seen Ep9 ?

After Ep8 I really did not care if the show came back.
After Ep 9 I really really want to see more.
Thats the point.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> ... *I* ...
> ... *I* ...
> Thats the point.


Yes that is what I figured.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> Yes that is what I figured.


And if you look at the reaction of all the other people who saw ep9 you will see that they are also now impressed. Its hard to imagine that this would not translate to the whole of the DG viewers.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Because you say so.

And I note how you've conveniently forgotten the context of the message you were replying to...


> I still think it was just luck of the draw...


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> And if you look at the reaction of all the other people who saw ep9 you will see that they are also now impressed. Its hard to imagine that this would not translate to the whole of the DG viewers.


If ep9 wasn't shown on tv, where can one watch it? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

It was shown in Canada.

There will likely be a DVD set, and if so it will surely be available that way.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> It was shown in Canada.
> 
> There will likely be a DVD set, and if so it will surely be available that way.


 Thanks.
Or maybe on the web site later on, probably after the ax has fallen. I hope that doesn't happen, it has become one of my favs.


----------



## Galaxie6411 (Aug 26, 2007)

Just watched ep.9 from the link provided and it definitely changes everything. I think they could have easily ended with it and had a fine cliff hanger. I've been pissed that they drug us along for 8 episodes with more or less no answers and they come through in ep. 9 but still leave more/new questions.


----------



## AllenE (Dec 19, 2006)

Don't know wheter it was planned or luck of the draw, but after seeing Ep9, it would really have been much better to end on 9.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Ep 9 imho was the best of the bunch so far. It really feels like ep 9 the series shifted into high gear.

ABC better continue with it, or ship/sell it off to SyFy, TNT or another outlet.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Thanks guys for validating what I was saying.


Bicker1 is the only person who seems to disagree.:grin: I think if he saw it he would also agree that Ep9 is what makes the series salvageable, which may be the reason why ABC did not show it


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

It isn't so much that I disagree; I just think your perspective is colored by your *personal *priorities.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

dreadlk said:


> And would you also agree that they would have been much better off stoping at ep9 instead of Ep8? I think that after seeing ep9 people would be much more eager for the series to continue.


Far FAR better.

I look at it this way.

Ending at #8 has everyone looking at a room, where the viewer only sees a 'glow', Now, I don't know how many people think this way, but my experiences with 'cliffhanger' endings like that scream to me a batch of writers in a room saying "we don't know what we're doing for Part 2".

Seeing episode 9 shows that they quite CLEARLY knew where they (the writers) were going with it. Lots of questions answered and some new ones raised. On top of that, motivations behind spending $10T are much more fleshed out now. Now we know what's REALLY going on and are set for the adventure that starts it's next chapter on Venus.

It still raised questions, so there was a little bit of "cliffhanger" in it - but not so much that the writers look lazy. It answered LOTS of questions so the viewers who were invested in it got some answers. It CLEARLY sets up the next batch of episodes and leaves you with a good sense "Ok, what happens next?".


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

Thanks for the link to episode 9! I missed a few episodes but was interested enough to keep watching. Episode 9 makes it a much more compelling series, and one which I would definitely watch. I'll leave the series timer, but I'm not holding out much hope of seeing any more episodes. :nono2:


----------



## juniorforce (Feb 19, 2006)

Where's the link to Episode 9?


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

juniorforce said:


> Where's the link to Episode 9?


Here you go:

http://www.casttv.com/shows/defying-...e-apple/7u0u08

See post #82 of this thread.

EDIT: Oops, the episode has been removed. Let me see if I can find it elsewhere.

Try this: http://www.casttv.com/shows/defying-gravity

I was able to get it to start playing. Not sure if episode 10 and beyond will be posted or not.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

djlong said:


> Far FAR better.
> 
> I look at it this way.
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I thought when I saw Ep #8, "They don't know what to do next" I figured if the budget got bigger then Beta would be a complex creature and if the budget shrunk he might just be a Maglite on a table :lol:

Seeing episode 9 makes it clear that these guys have a very well thought out story with the potential to go on for many seasons and that's not even including this spoiler.



Spoiler



The people left on Mars may still be alive and with Alpha, they had him with them when they were trying to return to the ship and after such long term exposure to Alpha they may be much more than just human



I am really looking forward to this show going on and lasting for a few years. Hopefully SyFy will pick it up, I doubt that ABC will carry it for long but SyFy would be stupid to let something like this slip out of their hands.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> It isn't so much that I disagree; I just think your perspective is colored by your *personal *priorities.


LOL "Personal Priorities", yep you just know everything! As it is now, it just seems to me that you really like to take an opposite stand to everyone else. There's not even one poster in this thread who agrees with you, and I am not even sure what there is to agree with since you really offer no opinion, just a kind of disagreeing attitude.

And BTW you think that I am not getting your point; it's more that I am ignoring it because it seems irrelevant. Your idea that "its how the networks think" whooo hoooo of course I know that how they think is all that counts and the only thing that counts to the networks is making money and making money means advertisements and ad revenue is generated by viewers. So if the show stops at ep8 and is picked back up at ep9 with 50% of the previous viewers go MIA because they lost interest,; then what was the point? If they stop at Ep9 and get 30% of the people talking and people watch the old episodes in Hulu etc. that generates more viewers and they may start ep10 with 50% more people than last season and that means more money in their pockets, Money for a product they have most likely already paid for or more more money if they sell their end to another network.
Hence why I ignored your previous Post.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> As it is now, it just seems to me that you really like to take an opposite stand to everyone else.


No: I take an opposite stand to entitlement mentality. If everyone else opposed entitlement mentality, I _wouldn't_ advocate entitlement.



dreadlk said:


> There's not even one poster in this thread who agrees with you


If you base your perspectives on what other people think instead of what is right, that's your prerogative. I don't feel comfortable crafting my perspectives based on popularlity.

Please stop trying to defend your attacks against the network; instead please grant that reasonable people could disagree with your perspective.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hey, I'm entitled. I've earned my right to demand $10 million an episode 30 minute sitcoms. I pay Dish $5 a month for locals and the right to skip commercials.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'm just waiting for the product and service advertising overlays to start... it's going to be pretty interesting seeing how folks react to that. ... or the second network to turn five hours of prime time over to variety.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

bicker1 said:


> I'm just waiting for the product and service advertising overlays to start...


Already doing this in Canada. Global uses the lower third graphics for paid spots after the commercial break twice during each show. It's no worse, IMO, than the lower third show promos we currently put up with.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> No: I take an opposite stand to entitlement mentality. If everyone else opposed entitlement mentality, I _wouldn't_ advocate entitlement.
> 
> If you base your perspectives on what other people think instead of what is right, that's your prerogative. I don't feel comfortable crafting my perspectives based on popularlity.
> 
> Please stop trying to defend your attacks against the network; instead please grant that reasonable people could disagree with your perspective.


Since I am paying over $1400 a year for TV programming, I expect certain things, and if I find that the Masses of people who are also paying for the same TV share a common feeling on the way something should be done then your dam right I feel entitled. Call it what you want, but I know better than to waste time asking for things that only suit my needs, so yes I do feel a lot more validated when i know my opinion is shared by the vast majority.

So let me get this straight, in your world people should pay for stuff and not feel entitled to an opinion?

Oh and when you find the reasonable guy who posts to this thread and disagrees with my perspective please point him out


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Hey, I'm entitled. I've earned my right to demand $10 million an episode 30 minute sitcoms. I pay Dish $5 a month for locals and the right to skip commercials.


 agree


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Since I am paying over $1400 a year for TV programming, I expect certain things


Remorse for how much you are spending is not justification for expecting more than what you are promised. Whatever amount you're spending is being spent for precisely what was offered for that price. Not for anything more than that.



dreadlk said:


> and if I find that the Masses of people who are also paying for the same TV share a common feeling on the way something should be done then your dam right I feel entitled.


Shared delusion is still delusion. Consumers always want more than they're entitled to. That doesn't make it a constructive perspective. (I could make some comparisons to concerns in the political arena here to demonstrate this more fully, but I think you can get the idea on your own.)



dreadlk said:


> So let me get this straight, in your world people should pay for stuff and not feel entitled to an opinion?


Incorrect. In my world, people should pay for stuff and feel entitled only to the stuff they paid for.



dreadlk said:


> Oh and when you find the reasonable guy who posts to this thread and disagrees with my perspective please point him out


Why would I bother posting if someone _else _was _already _here representing the rational and responsible perspective?


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> Why would I bother posting if someone _else _was _already _here representing the rational and responsible perspective?


There can be more than one rational and responsible perspective! The word "perspective" indicates that there is more than one viewpoint; what's rational from a network's perspective may not be rational from a viewer's perspective - that doesn't make one perspective right and the other wrong.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

jeffshoaf said:


> There can be more than one rational and responsible perspective!


Granted, so revised: "Why would I bother posting if someone else was already here representing that rational and responsible perspective?"


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> Granted, so revised: "Why would I bother posting if someone else was already here representing that rational and responsible perspective?"


Please point him out because contrary to what you believe, your not it!


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Gosh could you come up with a more self-serving comment?


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Any chance we could get back to topic?

:backtotop


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

That would be my preference. :flag:


----------

