It was my experience that most people said they didn't watch the show after Roy Scheider left in season 3 - that they liked Bridger as a character too much, that they didn't like Michael Ironside as Hudson, and so on.
Do you think if Roy Scheider had remained on the show during the third season it would have survived to at least make it to a full third year or was the writing on the wall after the insanity that was season 2?
Personally, I think if they'd jumped straight from season 1 to season 3, whether it was Bridger or Hudson, the show would have gone on much longer.
I also heard somewhere it was actually supposed to get a full third year and then be cancelled (hence the mid-season non-ending we got), but they stepped up the schedule.
Jake Meridius Conhale, at your service!
"Old Man" of the BSG (RDM) boards.
I think what torpedoed the show was going from what Roy called "Science fact" to "science fiction". The show was supposed to take place in the near future and have fantastical elements but stay mostly grounded in reality. After season 1, with ratings so low (and up against Lois and Clark), they decided they needed to make it more science fiction-y. Thus we got aliens and more traditional sci-fi elements.
This was why Roy wanted out of his contract and why many fans dislike the change in tone that happened after season 1.
It's not about who you are or your fancy car. You're only ever who you were.
What do you mean "grounded in fact?" Submarines with organic skins? Since when?
And they had an alien episode in season 1 and it wasn't that bad.
I did say "mostly" grounded in fact, for season 1. And the alien in Season 1 was presented as very matter-of-fact rather than fantastical. That changed dramatically in later seasons, if I recall correctly.
We're not playing Yellow Car.--Martin
You're always playing Yellow Car.--Arthur
You got that right. I can't even watch season 2 anymore and my mind seems to have blanked out all of it for my own good. Don't ask me what any of the episodes were about. Season 3 was even worse, although some of it pushed into the "so bad, it became memorable" region. Can't understand why some people say the show should have gone from season 1 to season 3. I just skimmed through a couple of those episodes including the season premiere and they were awful. My jaw dropped just from listening to the new theme, which completely lacked the grandeur of the old theme. I had forgotten the show had become this bad.
So I guess in my mind, Seaquest will always be a one-season show. Not to say the first season was full of masterpieces, but I won't miss forgetting the other two seasons.
It did seem to be aimed at teenagers. The Seaquest's former blonde female captain throwing a hissy fit on her new "enemy" submarine seemed a bit campy, which is why I didn't watch it a whole lot. But beyond that I didn't think it was a bad show. Aimed at younger viewers, and not the college age or older scifi can, the show seemed to carry a certain degree of "Spielbergness" with it.
Spielberg makes great films, and even though he didn't direct (or to my knowledge) any of the episodes, his stylistic trademark is there.
If you look at any of Amblim Entertainment's product you see a kind of "high energy" presentation, with a few over the top performances. Whether it's Jurassic Park or Goonies, this show, or something else, it has Spielberg's touch.
Is that a good or a bad thing? It's who he is, and how he creates successful products. What you're really asking or observing is did that help or hinder the show?
I think the show was always designed as a revamp of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" for teenagers, but with a socially responsible closing. It's comic book stuff.
I did not watch it until season 3. Because, I liked Ironside, I normally never would have jumped in on a show that far into it.
shareI think the show got much better in season 3 and I liked Hudson more than Bridger. Hudson seemed to get the best out of people, pushed them to show their potential while Bridger was this friendly uncle who decided to leave everything and everybody behind when he disliked it.
I understand Scheider´s disappointment after the awful second half of season 2. It could have been interesting to see him in a changed world - maybe even his relationship with Lucas who may have enlisted into NAVY even under his command. But I loved season 3 and I liked Hudson a lot more than Bridger.
But I think it was too big change and for a year 1995, the show may have become too mature with character deaths and realistic characters and much darker atmosphere (and not artifically dark - episode "Good soldiers" was as grim and dark as you can get even these days)
No matter what the show would of bombed that season. It only came back because NBC had a Supertrain show that they couldn't get off the ground so they saved Seaquest at the last minute and put it in the Wed night slot with very little advertising.
The OJ Simpson thing would of happened either way, at the Dateline specials they took Seaquest off the air for 5 or 6 weeks of the fall season made it where it never would of got momentum.
Had the show aired all 22 or 24 episodes that season Scheider was suppose to be in 7 episodes that season to fulfill his contract. You got to see 2 of them.
I liked season 3 they did a good job of rebuilding the future world of the UEO.
I just re-read a 1985 Starlog article on Scheider. He's a man of principles and I found I agreed with a great many things he said in the article. He said he was blown away by 2001 when it first came out and watched it many times, but 2010 couldn't be the same kind of movie because 2001 was basically a gimmick full of splashy visuals but with intentionally dull, flat, colorless characters and a very vague story, and a gimmick only works once. "But ask anyone on the street how 2001 ends and they can't tell you. And that includes me. The only person who knows is Stanley Kubrick and in the end it really doesn't matter because that movie went off on an extraterrestrial flight at the end, which is okay, because how the hell are you going to end a movie like that one anyway?" Refreshingly honest. He was instantly interested in doing 2010 because it was character-driven, something its predecessor wasn't. He called 2010 more fun and exciting to watch, which I think was definitely true.
Scheider said while filming Blue Thunder, the director encouraged him and Daniel Stern to ad-lib their in-chopper banter because it made it feel more authentic than dry dialogue in the script. But he said he refused to completely change a character from what a writer intended. He'd embellish on top of what's on the page, but he strongly respected that the writer is the creator of and ultimate authority on a character. He also said he was offered the lead in the Blue Thunder TV series and flatly turned it down. Having seen the series, I can say he was absolutely right to.
I agreed with so much of what he said that I could just imagine what he would have said many of the same things had they interviewed him again when he quit Seaquest, bringing much the same honesty and insight. As it is, I already agree when he called the second season "Saturday afternoon 4 o'clock junk for children." Seriously, I didn't start watching in 1993 for aliens, time travel or giant crocodiles. I got enough of that with Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
So, no, he didn't torpedo Seaquest. He wasn't the captain (producer), so he can't be expected to go down with a sinking ship.