Beyond Tomorrow: What a sucky show

Jun 02, 2005 13 Replies

Little more then "gimmick of the week" and what a waste of time.



Compare this to the same show that was on in the 90s when it was called Beyond 2000 and they actually took the time to find articles which were either very, very, new and not yet on the market or still in the process of being researched.....



The segments were little more then time fillers IMHO and on the whole the show felt like it was trying very hard to be fun and cool.



The only thing I liked was the 3d printer but that machine has been around since about the year 2001 and wasn't exactly a new invention or such.



I don't think the show will have a very long run


Pah, It was at it's peak when it was called "Towards 2000" and lived on the ABC.

That's why Beyond 2000 got canned last time. It went down market in the

1990s to "toy of the week" (as I called it at the time) and ratings went through the floor. Meanwhile, Quantum kept winning awards.

Cheers David

Yes. Beyond 2000 and Towards 2000 both these shows where of a higher class going back a fair few years now. Back then they had science minded reporters. Today they just have reporters who hear of a story and go with the flow.

If you like science shows then nothing beats Catalyst on the ABC at

8:pm on Thursday nights. Foxtel also has a good range of science shows to watch.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:25:26 +1000, David Bromage put finger to keyboard and composed:

These shows nearly always turn to crap when they migrate to the commercial stations. Shows like "Beyond 2000" and "60 Minutes" are all about showcasing the presenter or the interviewer, not the story or the interviewee. OTOH, high quality programs such as Quantum, Catalyst, and Four Corners hardly ever show the interviewer. Instead they focus on the subject.

- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

I found the presenters rather painful as well... they need people a bit more scientific, who can ask more interesting questions (or make more interesting observations) rather than just responding to everything with: Wow. Amazing. Incredible.

A bit of gimmickry is to be expected (I don't mind a little), but I'd like to see it take a bit more of a scientific approach. But then... I'm a nerd :)

Fleeced

Agreed. And it was a *printer*, not a photocopier...

The music was crap too.

Ditto :)

Katharine If you make enough predictions, a few are bound to be correct. The hits are likely to be remembered, the misses forgotten, and you will win fame and possibly fortune as a forecaster of the future.

What they should do on this show is play segments from the original show. It would be really cool to see when they first showed the CD player off and other stuff like that.

Mike

Actually, that could make a pretty cool show by itself... they could go over things they got right, things they got wrong, and things that could have been, but didn't happen for whatever reason.... they don't even have to restrict themselves to the old Beyond (or Towards) 2000 shows... there's so much material from the past of where they expected us to be today, that they'd have enough story ideas to last quite a while.

Fleeced

I'm unaware of a high quality program called Catalyst. I've seen ads for that thing the ABC shows on Thursdays, but once that ad said that this week's program had a story on psychic pets.

Yep, that'd be very intersting. They should at least do a segment on it.

Katharine ".........." ~ Marcel Marceau

Yep and they completely debunked it.

Good idea, it would be really cool to see someone talking about how we'd all be driving anti-gravity cars in the year 2000 etc. Wanna go into television? ;-)

hmmm, I wonder if they've got bill gates on film saying we'd never need more than 640k of ram.

Michael

Yes, unfortunately they seemed to have ripped a reporter or two from Catalyst as well.

- Rob

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required