MovieChat Forums > Ascension (2014) Discussion > I told you this was going to be canned.

I told you this was going to be canned.

posted 9 years ago by Pseudoephedrine
10 replies | jump to latest

This show was completely ridiculous. They wanted "Mad Men in Outer Space"

A complete waste of money.

[–] Nixxo 9 years ago

And yet, it found a small audience... I liked it.

[–] Pseudoephedrine 9 years ago

Those 'aquarium/logfire' videos can get an audience.

This was a complete waste of money.

Your grasp of economics is equally as bad as your taste in entertainment.

The only money that is wasted is what sits in rich people's bank accounts. The money changed hands generating wealth, it wasn't destroyed.

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Not destroyed, but if it's spread out so thinly that there's no longer enough in one place to make another show or movie or whatever, and not enough advertising revenue etc comes in to replenish the well, then what good does it do?

Sure you pay all those people who worked on it and stuff, but if you make a bad show that doesn't bring in enough money to pay for itself, then those people only get paid ONCE.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 9 years ago

Your grasp of economics is equally as bad as your taste in entertainment.

Pseudo-intellectual gibberish. 

Waste of money=SyFy invested millions of dollars into this show hoping that it would turn into a profitable series. The investment didn't pay off, so the money poured into the show didn't pay off for the network.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] james-collett 9 years ago

This thread has content criticising the show. Fair enough, but it is entitled, "I told you this was going to be canned."

Where, then, is the citation of an article confirming that this show is going to be canned? Or at least a report of an announcement?

---
I'm a great fan of Science.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 9 years ago

Where, then, is the citation of an article confirming that this show is going to be canned? Or at least a report of an announcement?

You need an article or announcement to confirm the obvious?

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] james-collett 9 years ago

atomicgirl24-894-130281 writes:-

You need an article or announcement to confirm the obvious?

Claiming something is "obvious" does not make it so and is no substitute for evidence. Prefacing such a prediction with words like, "In my opinion" would have done you a favour.

If you make up an assertion with no evidence, expect to be challenged. That is all.

---
I'm a great fan of Science.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 9 years ago

Claiming something is "obvious" does not make it so and is no substitute for evidence.

This is the type of argument a kindergartener would make. "Just because you say the sun rises every morning doesn't mean that it will tomorrow. It could not rise tomorrow!"

But never mind--since you need to be spoon fed the obvious (the show opened to poor ratings and reviews, and SyFy--in a blind panic--burned off six episodes over three days) here's what you asked for:

When last year Syfy ordered Ascension as its first event series/miniseries in six years, it was with an eye towards continuing the mini as a regular series the way the network did with Battlestar Galactica awhile back. That won’t be the case this time. “We were very happy with Ascension as an event series, but with so much high profile development in the works, we have decided not to pursue a full series,” Syfy said in a statement to Deadline.

http://deadline.com/2015/03/ascension-not-going-as-series-syfy-1201389677/

Just think--it would've taken you all of five seconds to find this *elusive* announcement/evidence about Ascension's cancellation with a simple Google search. But I guess you'd rather argue about whether this was true or not, rather than do the legwork of finding out for yourself whether an official statement had been made about it.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] james-collett 9 years ago

Well done, atomicgirl24-894-130281! See? - you can do it.

But responding to my criticism by comparing my observation to that of of a young child, in order to try to discredit it, is both specious and ungracious. And wrong. My point was valid. I am well-versed in empirical induction and my point had nothing to do with it. (In fact, the young child in your example has a philosophically profound point, but no matter.)

I do not *need* to be spoon-fed. But I did choose to request that the person who made the big claim, and then claimed it was obvious, should back up the claim with some evidence. Would it not have been so much simpler to have not been lazy but instead include a citation in the first place? Not my circus.

---
I'm a great fan of Science.