One of the best shows on there is the Family guy, robot chicken and the venture brothers. Moral Orel was another show that was dark with deep writing that above and beyond the "cartoon" format.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:08 PM, <wlro...@aol.com> wrote: > > > *As far as Adult Swim I watch Family Guy and then sometimes Robot Chicken > and after that I find something else.* > *--Lavender* > > *From:* Mr. Worf <hellomahog...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:48 PM > *To:* scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With > William Shatner Or Khan > > I think G4 canceled the Cheat! show all together. They are only doing 90 > minutes of new content a day now. (attack of the show, and xplay) > > You can find cheat codes here: http://g4tv.com/cheat/codes/index.html > or at Gamespot http://www.Gamespot.com > > Speaking of the cartoon network. Some of the new cartoons that they have > been showing on adultswim have been whacked! That prison show, and drunky > mcgee? wow... Not funny. Maybe its funnier if I were high? > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM, <wlro...@aol.com> wrote: > >> >> >> *I used to watch it. It was the place for me to find codes. Oh how I wish >> I could find some help for this Star Trek game I got. But getting back to >> the point at hand. That is another station that has turn for the worse. >> Video stations that no longer show videos, gaming that no long show games. >> Makes you wonder when the Cartoon Network will start allowing Wilma >> Flintstone have her on talk show.* >> *--Lavender* >> ** >> *P.S. I forgot Space Ghost, Coast to Coast.* >> >> *From:* Mr. Worf <hellomahog...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:42 PM >> *To:* scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With >> William Shatner Or Khan >> >> Anyone here watch G4 tv? Remember how it was two years ago? It was video >> games, electronics, and behind the scenes shows of video game making. Now it >> is reruns of Cops and Cheaters all day long. >> >> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Martin Baxter >> <truthseeker...@lycos.com>wrote: >> >>> If Mr. Worf doesn't mind me answering for him, Keith, there's this >>> soon-to-arrive dreck. Thought that "Ghost Hunters" was the end of the >>> horror? Nooooooooo... >>> >>> >>> http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/promotion_landing_page/theothersiders/index.html >>> >>> Martin (putting cotton balls in ears, in anticipation of the screams to >>> come...) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- >>> >>> Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With >>> William Shatner Or Khan >>> >>> Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 21:59:50 +0000 (UTC) >>> >>> From : Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net> >>> >>> To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> >>> >>> Say what?? Please elucidate! >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Mr. Worf" >>> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:08:40 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >>> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William >>> Shatner Or Khan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Even the cartoon network is doing multiple reality shows starting in >>> June. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Martin Baxter < >>> truthseeker...@lycos.com > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Naught but truth in that, Mr. Worf. Reality TV costs less and makes >>> money. :-( >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- >>> >>> Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With >>> William Shatner Or Khan >>> >>> Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 05:58:35 -0700 >>> >>> From : "Mr. Worf" < hellomahog...@gmail.com > >>> >>> To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> >>> >>> >>> They also don't like to spend money on them. Look at how many scifi shows >>> that were started and canceled mid-season or after only one season in the >>> last 4 or 5 years. Some had really good ratings. Out of all of them, Lost >>> and Heroes, and are the only survivors. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: >>> >>> > Keith, I really don't think that a series spun off from this movie >>> would >>> > succeed. (Not me being negative again, folks.) H'Wood has a track >>> record of >>> > not following through on series. We can sit here for weeks, rattling >>> off the >>> > names of great series that died too soon because the networks that >>> carried >>> > them didn't market or back them properly. This Trek is a flash in the >>> pan. A >>> > series coming out of it will be the flavor of the week, then become an >>> > afterthought. And that HURTS the Trek franchise. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- >>> > >>> > Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With >>> William >>> > Shatner Or Khan >>> > >>> > Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 02:55:53 +0000 (UTC) >>> > >>> > From : Keith Johnson >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> > To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> > >>> > >>> > The other thing I keep noticing is that people keep talking about the >>> best >>> > Trek "movie" either. Would this take, however, generate a longrunning >>> > series? The magic of Trek has never been the movies. They've always >>> been >>> > just fun things to make money at the box office. It was the accumulated >>> > magic and intelligence of the series that made Trek. So in a way this >>> isn't >>> > the right argument. I'm sure the movies will be successful, and I will >>> be >>> > there for all of them. I liked this film. A lot. But do we think that >>> in a >>> > few years there'll be anew Trek series on TV, that it will do really >>> well, >>> > that it'll last for years and that it will spawn future generations of >>> fans >>> > the way the other series did? >>> > >>> > That's the question, and I'm not seeig anything here to answer that in >>> the >>> > affirmative. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Bosco Bosco" >>> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> > Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:33:48 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >>> > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With >>> William >>> > Shatner Or Khan >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Keith >>> > >>> > One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying >>> that up >>> > front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new >>> Trek >>> > Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's >>> not >>> > lazy. That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's >>> not >>> > lazy. It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount >>> of >>> > research, thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made >>> choices >>> > you would not have does not make him a lazy story teller. >>> > >>> > I have always loved science fiction because it creates other >>> possibilities >>> > and amazing worlds of "what if." The constraints of reality have always >>> been >>> > cast away for better story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek >>> film >>> > DOES WELL!!! >>> > >>> > I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about >>> the >>> > new Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin >>> awesome >>> > that it has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so >>> strong. >>> > Indicative, I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to >>> breathe >>> > life into the franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that >>> some >>> > of the older generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse >>> of >>> > what was, simply makes me giggle. I'm sorry for your loss but unless >>> some >>> > "Trekditionalists" get a bunch of funds together to make another in >>> long >>> > line of generally subpar science fiction films, it's Abrams world now >>> and >>> > we're just visiting. Time to find a way to move on. >>> > >>> > Bosco >>> > --- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Keith Johnson >>> > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With >>> William >>> > Shatner Or Khan >>> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> > Cc: ggs...@yahoo.com , cinque3...@verizon.net >>> > Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 10:52 AM >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The >>> old >>> > continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film >>> making. >>> > The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including >>> > "enterprise" --about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find >>> > something in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't >>> have >>> > brought together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset >>> the >>> > timeline? Why not just have told the previously untold story of how >>> Kirk >>> > assembled his crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not >>> > exactly as if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have >>> been >>> > done. >>> > >>> > My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast >>> > members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in >>> the >>> > original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. >>> We >>> > don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought >>> to >>> > the Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never >>> > showed up in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things >>> a >>> > bit and bring him in for the movie. Only three of the original five >>> years of >>> > Kirk's original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? >>> > >>> > Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for >>> > "Enterprise" : the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on >>> Earth >>> > (something blamed on "First Contact).... And while some of that made >>> some of >>> > us howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. >>> > Indeed, we liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from >>> the >>> > OS that had always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at >>> least >>> > they explored the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B >>> got >>> > it right, they did a great job of updating the old, but staying true >>> to it. >>> > Thus, we all loved the storyline revealing the secret of the Green >>> Orion >>> > "slaves"...the Augment storyline, which continued the story of the >>> Eugenics >>> > War, and set the stage for Data's creation someday....the study of how >>> > Vulcan pulled itself back from the brink of becoming violently >>> emotional >>> > again, to embrace Surak's teachings anew...the dude who was a disciple >>> of >>> > Colonel Green's xenophobia an! >>> > d racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the >>> > most part. >>> > >>> > I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, >>> it >>> > just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the >>> later >>> > hero he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes >>> > Spock's feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to >>> make >>> > Spock act like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can >>> really get >>> > the struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of >>> presenting >>> > that. >>> > >>> > Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to >>> recreate >>> > it. There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek >>> > within the original continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had >>> is a >>> > guy who thinks Star Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the >>> > hit-you-over- the-head school of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys >>> the >>> > Vulcan race and sees it as opening up things, rather than a critical >>> blow to >>> > what makes Trek, Trek. >>> > >>> > I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you >>> have to >>> > destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old >>> instead of >>> > building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is >>> > liberating. >>> > Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! >>> Mahogany at: >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! >>> Mahogany at: >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.theothersiders.comhttp:// >>> www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/promotion_landing_page/theothersiders/index.html >>> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! >> Mahogany at: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >> *People may lie, but the evidence rarely does.* >> >> ** >> >> >> > > > -- > Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! > Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ > *People may lie, but the evidence rarely does.* > > ** > > > > -- Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
