Defying Gravity

"Defying Gravity doesn't" and other brilliant witticisms I've found in the press have compelled me to write this review.

I'm not sure what it is people expect from network drama. Are the physics poorly explained? Yeah. Is NASA really full of sexy astronauts that all happen to be dating each other? No.

But seriously people, is that what we want television to be? This may come as a shock, but ER, Grey's, House, etc. don't exactly approximate what it's like to be a doctor but a lot of people love those shows for what they are: entertainment.

There's a lot of excitement in this show. It actually reminded me of Armageddon. Romance, drama, secrets, and space. It's not the Soprano's, but there's definitely room for shows like this on my Tivo.

A lot of reviews here have really derided this show for being completely unrealistic, cheesy, and boring, and have basically labeled it "Grey's Anatomy in Space." I highly disagree. I address some of the concerns below:

1) Some reviews make the problem with the show one of being unrealistic. First off, IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION SHOW SET IN THE FUTURE. Who is really worrying about realism? And if you are, how can you worry about what's realistic when we have absolutely no way of knowing what is real IN THE FUTURE? Plus, it's simply TV...if you want realism, watch the discovery channel, or go visit Cape Canaveral in Florida, don't come looking for it on a show on ABC.

2) One previous review comments about the female Hispanic astronaut attempting to teach in space via video communication, and how she switched in and out of Spanish when talking. I kind of got offended at that review, as they said that she was simply making up random, nonsense words in Spanish when talking. I'm a native Spanish speaker, and all of what she was saying made complete sense. Second, why is the concept of multilingual teaching so hard to accept? The show is set 41 years in the future, and at the rate Hispanics are growing in this country, Spanish is fast becoming a critical secondary language in the US. Not to mention, various educational programs via the internet are doing the same thing, so it is far from nonsensical. It's simply a very bigoted view.

3) Before making assumptions about the show, or passing judgment on it, watch the episodes available from start to finish. Many concerns about plot holes are addressed in subtle ways that someone not taking any effort to pay attention to the show, and instead use it as mindless background noise, would definitely miss.

4) Yes, I understand the whole "why is there a music video in the middle of the show" concern. There are a couple of points where the show uses a musical "interlude" during emotional/emotion-evoking scenes. The question is, how else would you like them to show the love between a husband and wife, or the thrill of beginning space exploration? By talking about it? By cheesy dialog between the characters trying to say something of deep meaning, but not succeeding? Please. The show tried to appease individuals looking for that sort of thing by the whole "astronaut video diary" scenes. By the way, the scenes in question are about 6-7 minutes out of a 45 minute show. Get over it.

5) This isn't Star Trek. It isn't Star Wars. It isn't your typical science fiction set really far in the future, where anything and everything is possible. It's a show about what space exploration COULD BE like sometime in the next half century, but that doesn't mean that it's how things WILL be. People who have problems with this seem to think that space travel is either via Space Shuttle, or by the Starship Enterprise, and nothing in between. Keep your mind open.

It's a nice change of pace from medical drama shows, legal/police drama shows, "teen angst" shows, and family comedies. It's something a bit different. Plus, only two episodes have aired (both of which were pretty good when you simply sat back and enjoyed it for what it was worth, rather than trying to nit-pick apart the show for every little thing). There's plenty of the show ahead, so give it some time. Plot lines take time to develop and get better.

Obviously, not everyone likes every show. I know that there are definitely shows that I've despised through the years, and I'm sure everyone has their own shows that they feel that way about. All I'm saying is, watch the show, give it a chance, and allow it to be its own show, not something else that it's not, but that you or someone else would like it to be because you were comfortable with the previous show. Additionally, Ron Livingston is the man, so there's always that.

Very interesting story with a bit of a 2001 feel to it. Space reality, with a touch of otherworldly influence.

I watched this in HD and being a space junkie found it near breath taking. The visuals were so crisp and clear. Things were about as real as they could get. Everything seemed plausible minus the "divine interventions" shall we say.

It also plays heavy with philosophy, debating freewill vs fate. Are we predestined to achieve certain goals, or are we the creators of our future? What is the value of life? Are we just expressed genetics? Where does Biology end and humanity begin?

They've set out on a six year mission to cruise our solar system, will they make it past year one? Let's hope so.

This show appears to be another evolving mystery like Lost. Right away, we are presented with a plausible near-future scenario. Yet, there are obvious hints that something of earthshaking extraordinary significance is lurking in the shadows.

The acting is acceptable. The characters seem too capricious for astronauts, but I say this with reservation. When Lisa Marie Nowak made her cross-country trip in a diaper, the image of the cool-headed, courageous professional was somewhat tarnished.

Their justification for filming primarily in a one gravity environment is a bit embarrassing. Star Trek's gravity plating would have been too advanced for this show, but the explanation they settled on is too problematic. It would have been better if they had adopted a revolving habitat like the space station in Kubrick's 2001. In their defense, they probably rejected a revolving habitat so that they could have more inspiring views through the ship's windows. In that case they should have adopted a ship that was constantly accelerating at one gravity. Then, they would only have to justify the large power requirements. They couldn't have the casual view back to earth, but they must sacrifice something in the way of art to make a show that will sit well with their presumed audience.

I definitely intend to follow Defying Gravity. The recent debut of the sigh-fie channel's noxious Warehouse 13 left me wanting. Perhaps this will make up for that disappointment.

I've just finished watching the first 2 episodes, and I must say, I was intrigued.

It's set in a near future (2052), and a team of astronauts are suiting up for what is going to be the trip of a lifetime; A 6 year journey through our solar-system, visiting all the inner & outer planets, and gathering as much information about our galactic neighborhood & scientific data as they can whilst they're out there..at least, those are the official mission-objectives. We are introduced to an unknown factor, a person or entity (Beta), who/which is somehow manipulating the mission, and known about by the higher ups, but never mentioned. Only the mission commander has been fully briefed and instructed to brief the crew, only after they've arrived at Venus.

It has somewhat of a "Lost"-vibe, in that it's very character driven and mysterious. However, this can be a bad thing..I personally lost interest in Lost, because of exactly that fact; There were too many questions, and the answers only brought up more questions & were not to my satisfaction to begin with. I hope Defying Gravity will not be taking the same route, because it definitely has potential.