Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The general consensus of the show was that second season wrecked it between attention on Brandis, too much eye candy, and terrible, unrealistic stories. That by the time a somewhat better third season came around, it was too late, the audience was gone.
BUT.......was the show doomed before that with its vision of the future?
Where beef was illegal.......but the higher up elites still had it?
Where one's leaders were corrupt?
That food was controlled to what you could do with it (ie, couldn't use it for fermenting because they took that feature out of it).
Where the good guys, our heroes in the stories, still had access to private beaches?
This rather continued on into second season where coffee was some like $120/lb.
Where they put a man on trial when the man clearly has no concept of what is going on?
Generally, a story is suppose to leave you with a feel good impression, but if this was the future they wanted us to have, they could keep it!
The show was doomed from the beginning by bad writing. The show had a GREAT premise and I loved the world they created, but the writers couldn't decide if they wanted the show to be The Hunt for Red October, 2001: A Sea Odyssey, or just a wetter version of Star Trek. And it didn't help that about half the cast of any given episode couldn't act.
I actually went back and watched the first few episodes on Netflix a few months ago. I didn't notice it when this show originally aired, but watching it now, I was amazed at how truly awful some of the special effects were. Some of the set design was almost on par with Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.
So it was a great idea. A brilliant idea in fact. And who doesn't love Roy Scheider? But the show just didn't work on so many levels.
I loved that show(and still do). First season was good, like an underwater star trek, lots of focus on science and such. There wasn't really any threats in that world to throw in the occasional battle/action episode.
2nd season they decided to dump science and go with action. Action and the plots turned out to be really cheesy. Despite the cheesiness, I still liked it, but not as much as the first season.
3rd season, they seemed to be looking for a balance between between season 1-2. They had this dangerous new world with some serious enemies, but also brought the science back into it as well. I felt they were on the right track, but they just didn't have much time to prove it.
There was an article in Starlog back in 1996 that explained why the show failed. I couldn't find an online version of it. Here's the info if you wish to go for a search:
Goldberg, Lee. (1996). How seaQuest Sank. in Starlog. August 96.
I didn't mind their vision of the future. I don't always want a show to leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. Reality is never like that. I don't mind having some grey areas between good and bad.
But:
"Where they put a man on trial when the man clearly has no concept of what is going on?"
I actually went back and watched the first few episodes on Netflix a few months ago. I didn't notice it when this show originally aired, but watching it now, I was amazed at how truly awful some of the special effects were. Some of the set design was almost on par with Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.
I think you'll find that with any show heavy on special effects from 20+ years ago as seen in HD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.