Gee, I wonder if the guy who posted that is into Star Wars.

Caroline | December 10, 15:35 CET

Well, ive no problem with all the Serenity love, although i think we can all accept that the Browncoats among us were largely responsible for the film sweeping the Awards, no that this is a bad thing, hehe.

I would contest the fact that Doctor Who won best series though. I'm sorry but it simply wasn't, in any way, shape or form, the best television series over the last year. Personally, as i've already admitted, i didn't like it at all but i'm willing to accept that is must have had something going for it, even if just the British nostalgia vote. However, there were several series that blew Doctor Who out of the water. Lost, Stargate: Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, three shows that really did deserve the title of best show.

As for Best Actor ... don't get me started! :P

WhedonTrivia | December 10, 17:09 CET

Vampire With a Gun, I'm afraid I disagree, I much prefer to Doctor to any of those series, and, over here in the UK Doctor Who has by far the higher ratings, and so was fairly certain to win.

And is that Best TV Actor you disagree with?

TheDivineGoat | December 10, 17:40 CET

Think I agree with pretty much every winner there, except, attractive as Billie Piper is, I think the Serenity gals are sexier, can't remember how I voted on that one. Not played Halo 2, and I quite liked Episode III

Hardly surprises me at all, this is a British based magazine (though with internet based voting that means less), and a lot more Brits will have seen Doctor Who than they will Battlestar Galactica. Some voters (not me, I genuinely believe it was the best show), may have also voted for Doctor Who because it was British.

Ghost Spike | December 10, 17:43 CET

TheDivineGoat, yeah, it was Best TV Actor i disagreed with. Sorry, i should have made that clearer, especially as i think Nathan is one of the best new(ish) actors i have seen in years, period.

Eccleston, however, i'm far less impressed with. I'm basing this purely on his Doctor Who work (because that is what no doubt won him the category) but from the episodes i watched i just don't see what everyone was so impressed with. There were times i actually cringed at his delivery of a line and i would honestly say that he was 80% of the reason that Doctor Who didn't work for me. Simply put, compared to the three shows i previously mentioned, this came across to me like a show that should have been on Childrens BBC.

And, to be fair, which show got the highest ratings does not translate to which show is truly the best. I think that should go without saying around here.

WhedonTrivia | December 10, 18:18 CET

I think a very large part of Doctor Who's success is the children's audience. In fairness, I don't think it's Eccleston himself you have a problem with VWAG - I'm willing to bet you have exactly the same issue with the replacment Doctor in the second series of Doctor Who. The Doctor is directed to be campy funny. People will either like or they won't - I think Eccleston was clever enough to know he shouldn't play that role too long, as it'll limit his career (he's a serious actor).

I'd also go out on a limb and say Doctor Who was likely my favourite series of the last year. I loved me some BSG, but in terms of entertainment fun, Doctor Who usually nailed it.

[ edited by gossi on 2005-12-10 16:51 ]

gossi | December 10, 18:49 CET

You may well be correct, gossi, although i do intend giving Tennant a chance to impress me when he takes over the role. I'm not one to dismiss an entire series based purely on one actor or issue. Just because the first new season didn't grab me won't stop me giving it a second chance.

Having said that, i've never been a fan of British attempts at science fiction or fantasy shows. Red Dwarf never worked for me either. I'm not sure why but i need my science fiction to come from the other side of the pond if i'm going to take it seriously, for some reason. Guess it's just about personal tastes.

Still think that David Hewlett or Terry O'Quinn deserved the Best TV Actor a lot more than Chris Eccleston did though. ;)

WhedonTrivia | December 10, 19:05 CET

Man, I don't think you're supposed to take Doctor Who or Red Dwarf seriously. I mean, Red Dwarf had Lister being chased by a giant curry monster.

gossi | December 10, 19:11 CET

Ah yes, the curry monster. Great memories!

I'm a lifelong 'Dr Who' fan. I started watching it when I was eight years old or something like that - and that is a very long time ago. It took me a few episodes to get into the new series but I think it was a triumphant return. It could so easily have gone the other way. For me, the awards are fully deserved, just as much as those for 'Serenity'.

alien lanes | December 10, 19:18 CET

Oh, no i get that Red Dwarf was a comedy series rather than a drama, obviously. It was more spoof than actual sci-fi. When i say "take it seriously" i mean as far as quality is concerned, rather than intended content. However, even as a comedy series i thought Red Dwarf was lacking. The acting was below standard and the production was often extremely poor.

Now, don't get me wrong, i understand that the budget of Red Dwarf or Doctor Who is tiny compared to that of the average U.S. science fiction show, so i get why it's rather unfair to compare the two, but at the end of the day just because that is the best they could do with the money at hand doesn't mean that is a good enough reason to ignore the obvious lack of quality.

Again, this is just my personal opinion and taste, but i cannot help compare the likes of Doctor Who to shows such as Lost or Battlestar Galactica, and when i do the former comes away sadly lacking.

WhedonTrivia | December 10, 20:02 CET

Well, personally the crappy production quality of Red Dwarf is what made the show for me. I mean, if you have no money, what do you do? Make a Space Curry Monster! Red Dwarf started to get some money for later series, and promptly pissed it up the wall with CGI effects.

In fairness, I think the budget of one episode of Lost could pay for about 7 years worth of Red Dwarf - in a not-exaggeration kind of way. But I'd still choose Red Dwarf well over Lost, as I still think Lost is a train wreck waiting to happen (if they cancel it now, it would go out a legend. If they leave it on the air for a few years, they will loose half their audience I think).

gossi | December 10, 20:22 CET

Nooooo, must ... not ... cancel ... Lost!!! You cancel Lost and you cancel the single greatest television character created in the last few years, John Locke! He alone is enough reason for the show to run five seasons at least, hehe.

Hey, i'm a fan, okay! ;)

WhedonTrivia | December 10, 20:28 CET

Actually, you are quite right - John Locke is a wonderful character. Everything I find which works about Lost tends to come from that character. Replace the rest of them with Space Curry monsters, I say. Give me a job, ABC.

gossi | December 10, 20:31 CET

So many people seem to think that the producers on Lost have no idea where the show is going and that they won't answer any of the big mysteries they've created. I really don't know why: They've already tied up some big questions from last season, like the mystery about the hatch. I don't see any compelling evidence that they've been making it up as they go along.

vampire dan | December 10, 20:46 CET

My compelling evidence they are is that one of the producers, you know, said they are vampire dan ;) (I don't know if the interview came up here, but David Fury got a kicking from the Lost fandom for it).

I don't see any reason why it's a bad thing they're making it up. Because that's what writers do. The writers of Angel made that up as they went along. What bothers me with Lost is the relationship it shares with it's network. The network don't want a genre show. But it is a genre show. Because it swings in both directions, it has a real definition problem with itself.

gossi | December 10, 21:02 CET

I'd have to agree with gossi in that it's no bad thing that the writers are making it up as they go along. Having a specific story plan would be very limiting and the success of it would also depend on having an approximate timespan for the series, not to mention would make it neccessary to keep all of your cast for the entire run of the show. If, for example, the entire planned storyline centred on five specific characters and then two of the actors left, for whatever reason, that would seriously screw up the plans you had made for the rest of the show.

Nope, it's much better that the story is kept open so that the development can be more fluid as the seasons go on. I will admit, however, that the train wreck scenario that gossi mentioned before is not entirely impossible, under these circumstances. You only need look at the convoluted mess that the X Files became to know where "fluid" storytelling can take you. I'm hoping that the writers of Lost will learn from that example however and not let things get out of hand to the point where the show becomes a ludicrous shadow of it's former self, again, the same as the X Files. I'm confident that Lost won't go that way.

WhedonTrivia | December 10, 21:48 CET

I don't see any reason why it's a bad thing they're making it up. Because that's what writers do.
Yes, I agree that having a specific storyline would be very limiting, so it's fine if the writers are making it up as they go along. But for a show like this I think it is important for the creators to have a vision of where it's heading in the longterm i.e. how the show will end, which the producers have said they do.

Lost does swing back and forth from being a fantasy/mystical show to being a show grounded in reality, but that represents one of it's central themes- faith vs. science. Locke believes that the mystical events of the island happen because they were meant to happen, but Jack believes everything that happens on the island has a scientific explanation. It's left to our imagination as to which of them is right, until perhaps the end of the show, when the producers will hopefully give us a solid explanation for everything.

John Locke is a wonderful character. Everything I find which works about Lost tends to come from that character. Replace the rest of them with Space Curry monsters, I say.
Fine, but leave Mr. Eko too. ;-) IMO he's just as interesting as Locke, if not more so. (You won't know who I'm talking about if you haven't seen season 2 of Lost).

vampire dan | December 10, 22:29 CET

Not seen season two :)

As long as they have a rough idea where they are going, and when they plan to meet those plot points (that is probably the most important thing), they should be fine.

Locke presents the hardcore genre fans (most of the Lost fans, I suspect). Jack represents the typical ABC viewer. The show is serving two masters in this respect, which is a potential problem.

Really, as long as the show keeps a majority of it's cast and writing crew it should be fine.

[ edited by gossi on 2005-12-10 23:45 ]

gossi | December 10, 22:55 CET

Eh, JJ Abrams does not fill me with confidence at all about knowing where he's going. Rambaldi anybody?

Frankly, I'll take Doctor Who over Lost or SGA any day. BSG comes close.

KernelM | December 10, 23:04 CET

JJ Abrams has a bad habit of telling his fans that Alias was going to get better, 3 times now!........Never happened and he was far less involoved....barely any scripts from him. Although I caught last week's Alias and it kept me interested (SARK). And last season's only bright light were Drew Goddard's Liberty Village episode and Joel Grey (Doc on Buffy, Double Mr. Sloane on Alias). That man is sweet!

Off track, lol.........Browncoats are a forced to be reckoned with and its no surprise that given the chance to vote for awards, the browncoats will vote together. So yea it may not have been fair because we're more hardcore, but at least we showed up and voted unlike the other fans of other shows and movies.

ChosenOne5376 | December 11, 00:10 CET

I'm interested to see what the World Science Fiction Society has to say with the next Hugo awards—the ceremony is in L.A. in August, 2006. I hope they are at least half as impressed with the BDM as we 'coats...

Browncoats, aka the SFX Awards Committee. ;-)

RBB | December 11, 00:38 CET

Regarding the comparisons between Lost and Alias, to be truthful i'm not following the behind the scenes stuff as closely as i do for the likes of Buffy/Angel or SG-1/Atlantis, but from what i have read i got the impression that Abrams was having significantly less to do with Lost than he did with Alias, due to him being involved in various other projects. That being the case, i think it's fair to say that the two shows won't neccessarily follow the same development path. Although, i would have to agree that the Rambaldi thing has become a mess. That really needs some tidying up in the latter half of the final season if they are going to make any sense of it all now.

As for Doctor Who, well i've made my opinion on the show very clear throughout this thread so i'll let this be my final comment on the matter. I honestly am at a loss as to how anyone could have sat through that show from start to finish and then have the opinion that it could even equal, let alone better, the standard of shows we are getting from the States. I've been a fan of genre shows for a very long time now, in fact i remember sitting and watching ST:TNG and Quantum Leap back during their first runs on the Beeb very clearly. In all that time i've watched dozens, if not possibly hundreds (although most likely not that many hundred, hehe) of science fiction and fantasy series. Some good, some bad, some incredible and some absolutely awful! In other words i've got plenty of material to use in comparison to Doctor Who and i truthfully don't see what people are getting out of it. Even the worst episodes of the likes of Stargate or Lost seem head and shoulders above anything i saw on Doctor Who, to me. Ah well, different strokes, different folks and all that. :)

WhedonTrivia | December 11, 02:01 CET

Heh. I can honestly say I can't see how anybody can enjoy Stargate - it's dreadful for you ask me.

Doctor Who has many draws. Firstly, it doesn't take itself seriously. Secondly, it's occasionally funny. Thirdly, it's often set on a council estate. I'm sat in a tower block at the moment in Glasgow, it's very much what you'd see on Doctor Who. Fourthly, again to stress, not with the taking itself too seriously. I mean, they had bad guys who fart for no reason.

I can't sit through something like Stargate as it's very heavy mythology, takes itself very seriously, I don't relate in any way to the locations or characters yadada. So, over Stargate I'd take Doc Who.

That said, I think things like BSG which take themselves extremely seriously have their place - but I have to limit myself to the amount of episodes watched, as a lot of BSG would drive me insane.

gossi | December 11, 02:16 CET

You know what? I think you just nailed one of my major problems with that show, that being the settings. Not council estates particularly but Britain in general. For whatever reason that is the very last thing i want to see when i watch television and especially sci-fi. Brings me back down to earth with far too much of a bump. I watch these type of shows to get away from the reality of life that i see when i'm living my day to day existence. I really don't need it as part of my tv series as well. Give me weird alien worlds, or at the very least Los Angeles, any day of the week over a city in the UK.

Just to leap to the defense of Stargate though, that show knows how to have the occasional laugh with it's format as well. Episodes such as Window of Opportunity, The Other Guys and Citizen Joe are totally played for laughs and work incredibly well, without ruining the fabric of the more serious Stargate mythology. Plus, take away the military uniforms and alien weaponry and the characters in the show are very much relatable, certainly to me anyway. Although i have watched every episode right from the start so if i can't relate to them by now i never will, lol.

Okay, not sure whether this discussion would be described as on or off topic, given the general subject matter of the original topic, but it certainly has gone on long enough (and also one post longer than i intended to make) so i'll leave it there. No, honestly, i will this time!

WhedonTrivia | December 11, 02:57 CET

Oh yeah. Serenity and how it's nice to see it getting recognition from the fans. In fact this could be the first post about it in this thread.

Anyhow, I like Stargate and it has produced several moments akin to something seen in a Whedon show.

Getting back to Serenity. Readers polls are all very well and by god the fanbase does rally round the flag exceptionally well but I would like to see some awards from critics. A Hugo as RBB said or if I dream the impossible dream an Oscar (snowbell's chance in hell of that happening but all the same it's nice to dream).

Simon | December 11, 03:11 CET

I think Serenity definitely deserves best film of the year. To be honest I don't think there is any other sci-fi film which could have given it a run for its money. Revenge of the Sith was a great resolution to the Star Wars saga, but it was still deeply flawed in several respects, and this is coming from a big Star Wars fan.

Serenity was a breath of fresh air, something that feels new and exciting, but also pays homage to other films and genres, always entertaining and with interesting characters, and some great action. Even if I wasn't already a Firefly fan, I think I would have really enjoyed Serenity.

And of course I feel basically the same way about Summer Glau and Nathan Fillion. I felt Summer was a revelation in Serenity, the kind of performance I think the non-Browncoat moviegoers would have been totally surprised and impressed with, someone who portrays such a complex, unusual character and of course the physical involvement.

Nathan Fillion is a new breed of film hero, someone who can be tough, vulnerable, funny and anything else you throw at him. Mal is certainly influenced by Han Solo, but I think it was Nathan's performance that really defined the character and made him unforgettable.

I think the rest of the cast were also really great, although I think because Mal and River were really the two characters who the film focused on, Nathan and Summer deserved the awards. It also sort of depended on what kind of material they were given to work with, for example Adam Baldwin was fantastic but most of his role was comedic relief and to provide conflict in the crew, so we didn't get to see the various sides of him that we saw in "Ariel" or "Jaynestown".

I think Gina Torres certainly got one of the more dramatic supporting character roles, and completely nailed it.

Razor | December 11, 03:13 CET

Ah, you see, I think Sci-fi in relatable (is that a word?) setting works very well for me. I don't watch sci-fi for escapism - I want it to say something about the world around me. I think that's why I related to Angel - you could take that to Liverpool and it'd be the same series.

gossi | December 11, 03:14 CET

Yeah, i believe that "relatable" is a word, gossi. Hope so anyway because i used it in my previous post as well, hehe.

Simon, apologies for helping take this thread so far off-topic. I was kind off hoping we would qualify as on-topic due to the broader SFX Awards subject but i think i was perhaps reaching a little.

Come to think of it though, Caroline started it with her mention of Star Wars so actually i feel totally justified in blaming her for all the off-topicness.

See that? The "she started it" defense. Playground politics at it's very best! :)

WhedonTrivia | December 11, 04:35 CET

They don't show the full lists there. But what pleased me greatly was to see James Marsters listed as #4 in the Best TV Actor category and #2 in the Sexiest Male.

Now personally I don't find NF sexy at all but hey-ho. What I love about JM featuring in this poll however is that for the year 2005 he didn't do any Sci-fi related work until SV which didn't start til OCtober which I think was either after, oronly slightly before, the poll closed.

He's a popular puppy ain't he. :0)

Also, in the comics poll Spike: Old Times came in at #4 and Angel at #6. Well done boys!

Re: CE and Dr Who. He and it were both fantastic. Sci-fi is all about the willingness to suspend your disbelief, and if you can't do that just because it's set in England, Wales, etc well that's your loss. imo.

lynnie | December 11, 20:03 CET

Personally, I think James Marsters is #1 sexiest male, but I'm glad he got a mention, since he's only been guest star this year in Sci-fi..

spikeylover | December 12, 23:24 CET