User reviews

I was 12 when SeaQuest premiered on a Sunday night in 1993. I was so excited because Steven Spielberg was one of the producers, Roy Scheider (Jaws!!) was the captain and Jonathan Brandis was so cool thanks to Ladybugs and the Neverending Story 2.

I absolutely loved the first season. Recently rewatching it has filled me with warm feelings of nostalgia. It was such a great show.

Like so many others have said, everything went downhill with season 2. I completely understand why Scheider left. The stories were horrendous and the writing laughable and cringe-inducing. The worst part is that I had invested a year with the first crew and was very fond of them. For a 12 year old with not a lot of friends, I enjoyed seeing and depending on these characters to be there every Sunday night.

I had to chime in here. I had the greatest expectation for this show when it came out. While the first season needed a bit of help in the writing department... most do. But, while the principal reviewer credited the show with improved writing over the prevailing seasons... I most certainly do not. They forced too much change each season and the writing just continually got worse. I would love to go back to the end of the first season and redirect it on the same path it was on. I would push for better writing, but keep it on the same path. This series could have been a new "Star Trek," but instead it became a joke.

The sad tale of seaQuest DSV should forevermore be inscribed into a producer's guide of "what not to do" to a TV series.

The first season was hands-down one of the greatest seasons of sci-fi adventure television ever. The premise, the characters, the writing, the acting, the production design, and even one of the most inspiring opening themes ever...

I was a huge fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and in many respects the first season of seaQuest DSV, airing opposite TNG's seventh season, was a more interesting show. It succeeded by not copying the Trek science fiction formula, but by complementing it, with a mythology grounded more in science fact than fiction. The series just exuded the feel of smart television, whether that feeling came from the subtle nods to current scientific research coming true or the almost Sorkinesque highbrow dialogue or Dr. Rob Ballard's involvement as a consultant.

And then, well, to adapt a common internetism, the show "triple backflipped over the shark."

Perhaps the one in the opening credits.

All of a sudden, four of the more interesting characters (those played by Applegate, Beacham, D'Aquino and Haiduk) vanished into thin air. The remaining cast were neutered to shells of their former selves. The show took a nosedive as far as plotting was concerned, and instead of thoughtful stories about real issues we got pulp culled from the worst of the worst of cruddy science fiction. Psychics! Laser guns! Time travel! Plants taking over the sub! Gigantic Crocodiles! Evil Aliens(tm)! Genetically-engineered slave warriors in skimpy wetsuits!

Wherever the show could have stunk, it did. NBC, still no doubt rather proud of the fact that they'd cancelled Star Trek twenty-five years earlier, wanted silly lowest-common denominator sci-fi to grab an even bigger share of the ratings. Unfortunately for NBC, as the ratings attested, even the lowest common demoninator of Americana really had no wish to have to endure an hour of second season sQ DSV.

There is some online opinion that show redeemed itself in its third season, although I personally feel that "seaQuest 2032" was no less odious than the year that had preceded it. After pushing the magic reset button as hard as they could following the events of the second-season cliffhanger finale, the writers essentially remade the show, turfing Scheider and any pretext that they'd attempt to tell smart television ever again. The show became a hammily-acted excuse of a drama, ditching the wide-eyed wonder of the first season and turning it into a geekfest of underwater shoot-em-ups with an evil bunch of pseudo-Australian pseudo-Fascists wrapped in a coat of paper-thin political intrigue(tm). Now more of an underwater Babylon 5 (and even that's being too kind) than an underwater Star Trek, I cried few tears when NBC put the show out of its misery.

So, for all you wanna-be producers out there, a few lessons: (1) If a show is smart and popular, consider the fact that making it dumb will probably make it unpopular. (2) Never, ever toss aside characters for no reason other than to get people who'd look better in a wetsuit. (3) I'll take a talking dolphin over a bald tattooed version of Forrest Gump anyday. (4) Despite what your polling data may tell you, submarine fighters are not cool. (5) If a friggin' genius like Rob Ballard has agreed to work on your show, you're doing something right. If said friggin' genius leaves your show and you replace him with Michael deLuise attempting to read fascinating facts about penguins off a teleprompter, you're doing something wrong.

I remember going through my midteens with this show, but never saw anything particularly special about it. Watching it now, I realise many of the episodes, particularly in the first season, have some refreshing new ideas for a scifi and do not fall into the same worn out clichés.

Their ideas of the world relying further on deep sea resources by 2032 is partially being borne out, as we drill and mine ever deeper. While the mid 90s 'futuristic' computer graphics makes me wince even now in 2010, let alone for 2032, they had a go. Best of all is the massive submarine itself, Seaquest, the design of which still looks good to this day. I like the multi language and culture emphasis, and the way Seaquest seems to zip all over the world rather than just stay along the coastlines of the Western countries.

As for the negatives, the plot lines sometime wander into being a touch over moralistic, and the acting can at times be distinctly sub par. However, I do think this show still has something to offer - particularly the first season.

I really enjoyed the first series (and am enjoying it again on DVD), but it never really stood a chance in the UK. When it first started it had the Saturday tea-time slot (after the sports results and before the evening schedule). I'm not sure about the other regions, but on Granada (NW England) part way through series 1 it stopped being weekly - on one week then missing the next. Then it stopped completely. Some time later it reappeared on Saturday afternoon (going against the BBC's main sports programme Grandstand) and picked up from where it had left off. It then disappeared again. A year or so later, HTV (the ITV franchise for Wales, which I also received) started showing series 3 on Saturday afternoon's, which was seriously confusing for someone who hadn't seen series 2, but they didn't show the complete series. Granada subsequently showed a couple of shows from series 2, but not at a regular time and not for very long. I hope they release series 2 and 3 on DVD just to see what I missed when they were(n't) first shown.

Seaquest DSV was a show that could have stood above all the mediocre offerings out in TV Land today. At a time when Television Sci Fi is being bombarded with Aliens, Eco Terrorists, Mythical beasties Seaquest was an attempt to give the world an accurate depiction of what our future 'could' have been. Now I am a HUGE Sci Fi nut and will always love the genre, but I was thrilled when I saw the first episode come on TV in 1993. Here was a future mankind could actually look forward to. No Spaceships zipping across galaxies in half an hour, No ray guns that would vaporize an enemy. Here was Science, without the fiction. Deep sea colonization, deep sea mining, exploring underwater volcano's, All of this was within the realm of what Man could achieve. Seaquest presented an atmosphere where ALL nationalities came together with a goal of bettering ourselves, not just snatch and grab. Alas, it was not meant to be. The evil Ratings gods looked at the 1st season's ratings and said.."Let's make it more Science FICTION" And the fans died off one by one. They, like me, stayed faithfully with the show thru it's second season. But by season 3 the interest was gone and what could have been a Shining example of the Future, became just another entry in the book of "What might wave been"

I remember, that I was at school when the pilot was aired. But after that, I saw every episode.

Hmmm, I remember being madly in love with Stacy Haiduk and her lovely smile. I guess I love her to this day.

Of course Rosalind Allen also caught my hart , but not as much as Stacy.

The first season, or at least until destroing the first boat was the best. All others was just a little bit worse, a little bit but always.. What more can I say? Nowedays THEY do not make shows like that. Now it's time for Reba, for Christ sake who, how, for how mach made a TV series about a woman who sing country - that will be a mystery for me, until the end of days.

Bring back that time, when Seaquest ruled the deep.

It's always the same thing. No matter how good or bad a show is, the ratings alone decide it's faith. With good ratings a show is renewed every season and nobody will make changes to it's format. With bad ratings a show is canceled after (or during) it's first season.

But what if the ratings are not good enough to have the show renewed for another season, but not bad enough to have the show canceled either. Then they always make a second season that is so different from the first one that the few fans it had will stop watching and no new viewers will tune in. Will they ever learn it's better to cancel a show than to dramatically change it? Changing it will only make you lose the audience it has. It will not bring in new viewers! And that is what happened to SeaQuest DSV. It was a great show in the beginning. But the changes they made to the format didn't just scare the few fans it had away, it even scared it's lead (Roy Scheider) away!

I'm sorry to all those people that didn't enjoy the show, but I think some people didn't like it because they didn't understand it. Because the writers kept changing over, I guess it was a little confusing, but it was something you had to get used to. It was a unique show and the actors/actresses were all excellent in it. I thought that changing the writers and directors each week actually brought new life to it and made it different. People made such a big deal when it came out, and when it wasn't what they thought it would be, they didn't bother to watch anymore. I think if they'd just given it a bit more time they would have discovered how great it was. I think the cast and crew worked as hard as they could for that show, but they weren't appreciated for it - great performances, I'm sorry it had to be taken off the air.

Should be a phrase ingrained in the minds of every would-be hollywood director/producer, especially after what Harrisburg and Co. did to SeaQuest DSV; which was (in my opinion) one of the best tv shows ever due to its original concept of exploring the oceans, rescue missions, and minor international conflict displayed in the first season.

But why oh why did the producers feel the need to change the set up from science fact to silly science fiction upon season two? Did it have something to do with the end of Star Trek: TNG and the producers wanting to fill its shoes? Perhaps... but I'm sorry, the sci-fi concept did not work for Seaquest and the ratings (or lack there of) proved that!

I did have to commend the producers for trying to make a come back in the third season with science "fact" and continuity, but the stories weren't all that good and the casting of Cap. Hudson was one of the series ultimate down-falls. On the other hand, had Bridger remained at the helm the series would've at least survived the whole third season (my speculation). Thankfully SeaQuest has home on the Sci-Fi channel.. as long as they stop rescheduling it back an hour!

It is with deep regret that I see yet another brilliant SciFi series that was brutally axed by the powers that be, because it did not make the ratings. For more than forty years producers and studios have been making the same mistake. A decent SciFi series take a while to get going, and be appreciated. Let's face it, "Star Trek" was a flop the first time round, and was axed because it did not make the numbers, fortunately, it was given a second chance and a new life. "SeaQuest DSV" has not been so lucky, and along with "Crusade", "Space - Above & Beyond", "FarScape" and "Earth Star Voyager", lays broken and incomplete. The producers, directors and studios need to realise that SciFi is intellectual and projective, and will almost never be appreciated by the ratings majority, and these programmes need to treated as an investment in the future of entertainment. They need to be allowed to run and complete, and grow at their own pace. Oh yes, the only reason that I gave SeaQuest a rating of 9, rather than a perfect 10, was because of the discontinuity in the episodes. Particularly the sudden reappearance of Luetenent Brody, who was previously killed in action.

To be honest, I'm an 1980 born guy and absolutely loved the show. There were a few plot issues granted, But overall the show was excellent.

The whole thing that I loved about the show WAS the little bit of action/combat, but most of all, the environmentalism aspect. As a 13yo kid, and a boy scout at the time this show came out, It not only taught me a lot, but at the same time was great to watch. It's more commonly known as Seaquest DSV by the way, rather than SeaQuest 2032.

Anyways, The whole purpose of the SeaQuest was for Scientific Research, Peacekeeper, and Environmentalism. It wasn't made for combat or such. Well, originally it was, but after Captn Stark decided to do what she did, they refitted the entire ship to focus more on the environment, research, science.

About the middle of Season 2, the show started going Sci-Fi and was getting to be far fetched by the end of it. Roy Scheider, aka Nathan Bridger, did NOT like this whatsoever. He basically made it bluntly clear that he would not continue with the show if this continued. The Producers refused to listen to his arguments about the show being realistic in ways, science, educational, fun, entertaining all at the same time.

The first 1 1/2 season, about 35 episodes or so, were what Scheider wanted the show to stay like. To him, they were FUN to live, to record, etc. This show was his dream at the time, and then the producers decided to turn it more sci-fi like someone here said, more Trekkie. Scheider told them "I'm OUT" and they tried to find a replacement "Captain" to take his position in the show. In all honesty, the show MAY have continued further with realism, if they'd given Commander Ford the Captain position, but he refused before the offer was made, also due to the Sci-Fi nature it turned into.

Remember great TV series such as Sea Hunt, Aquanauts and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? You would think an interest in underwater fiction would be at the top of the list a lot sooner than 1993.

As such, Seaquest had a lot going for the show and its not surprising its fresh look at underwater fiction really jumped the mark for hype in its first season offerings. What slowed it down was a lot of background story and tedious placement setting up the show (much of this could have been cut out of the stories) with a lot less action than you might have expected usually mandated from other Sci-Fi series of the time (Star Trek TNG was wrapping up and Earth 2 was to debut on air a year later). And I think, for the most part, producers recognized this and went into to high gear to bump things up a notch.

But the show went too sci-fi hokey, even cheesy, departing from the beautiful world that season 1 had so intricately put into place. With new actors, a talking dolphin (Darwin), and annoying hardware, these new episodes reflected changes in acting vision, and clearly some actors are "remade" from what was previously intended in my opinion. In fact, by mid-season 2, episodes are so different, that one wonders if it is a spin off of the original Seaquest series. By now, with the show so poorly initiated and driving Roy Scheider to the brink of quitting (So how do you continue a show when the lead quits? Network execs make him do a few appearances in the next season so no one notices, right? Sort of, but lame, very lame) and thusly, season 3 could only offer a badly needed dose of action in the eyes of actors, audience and execs. But this is where I think things truly go awry, killing an otherwise good idea.

Instead bringing up the level of drama that challenges our fears and mystery of the sea to make it more exciting and invigorating, we only get a barrage of the supernatural ghost stories, fishermans' fantasies, space aliens and outright ridiculousness almost too much to bear. I could forgive a little fantasy here or there and even imagine it, but some of it is just shoot 'em up cartoonish crap that for the life of me seems as if it is full of scenes where costuming is focused on how good actors look in their suits rather than any hint of an entertaining story. Not fun.

Sadly, it's there. It's a show that coulda, woulda, shoulda but didn't.

I wrote my comments but I flipped my phone sideways and deleted all that I wrote writing a very long time.

Yeah, this just really didn't work. The concept was literally Star Trek under water, as given by its very name. This show was very much patterned after The Next Generation, down to clones of Wesley and Beverly Crusher.

Though, in this show, the Doctor had the British accent since the Captain didn't, and they wanted to keep that TNG element.

In a strange twist of fate, the Wesley clone, Lucas, actually was the most popular character here.

Though the show was aping TNG, they were "inspired" by the then new DS9 for the title. "Sea Quest: Deep Submergence Vehicle" -- "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". Cute, huh?

They should have copied Trek more directly and put them in space. They ended up bringing in aliens in the second season and even, astonishingly, literally putting the submarine in space!

Another couple of problems:

* They used the same basic lighting style everywhere, from the sub to office buildings, etc, and much of the sub's interior didn't look like a submarine at all. Because of this, very often it was not at all obvious whether a scene was taking place in the sub or someplace else. While in the real world, it would make sense to make it like that to make it more livable, in a tv show, it needs to be easily distinguishable at a glance. While the 1701-D may have looked like a luxury cruise ship, you ALWAYS knew when a scene was taking place there.

* There were FAR too many young good looking crew members such that it was distracting. Usually, you want one or two for sci-fi. Doing it this way makes it look like you're going to get some Melrose Place type soap opera.

Sci-fi shows are often unappreciated in their time because the subject matter is too foreign for the general public to accept. Only years later do we realize that an innovative show has gone before its time. With the recent re-runs of DSV on sci-fi I realized how much potential the show had. Exploring the oceans is as exciting as exploring space. I especially enjoyed the episode where they uncovered an air pocket which preserved much of our ancient history only to have nations fight over who owned the artifacts. I've read opinions of people who thought the acting was sub-par and the plots stupid. Let me counter by stating that even the most successful sitcom is absurd in its premise and if the laugh tracks were not in place I doubt many people would even realize something funny was going on. Sci-fi makes you think. It tries to broaden your horizons. I realize that the masses prefer being spoon fed entertainment that they can watch while chasing the kids or cleaning the house but if you take a few minutes to watch these episodes perhaps you will see the value of such entertainment. As for me, I enjoy science fiction and this show was definitely worth my time.

As a Star Trek / Sci-Fi lover, I cherished every episode - they really captured the friendship/family aspect

I have a personal rule to avoid all kinds of outside information about series/actors, for some reason I broke this rule for this tv show and really regretted it, for potential viewers, I suggest avoiding google'ing things about the show

It's boring. A time travelling U-boat from WW2 time warping into that future. Or a vacuum space in the deep ocean that harbours strange life. Or a sunken Indian ruin. None of that's in that show. Instead, you sit through Australian-Ocean conferences, have to listen to a dolphin, until the show peaks with an extra-terrestrial visitor. It's boring. When the show premiered in the mid-90s in Germany, it was advertised as a Stephen Spielberg production. Spielberg otherwise famous for Indiana Jones, E. T. (yuk!), etc. New Star Trek episodes were released at 4pm in the afternoon whereas this overhyped show aired primetime, 8.15pm.

As Commander Jonathan Ford said at the end of that episode: "I am not afraid of you anymore." Respect to showrunners and producers considering the year it was published (1996). Now let's talk about the show itself. Season 1 and 2 are more or less Star Trek underwater. Very nice crew, good stories, big star guests, but most episodes are "monster of the week". Season 3 feels like Stargate SG-1 and it finally returned to the main story ark (Underwater colonial wars). It's sad that Season 3 was so short, because I think Michael Ironside was born to play the Captain of futuristic submarine. He is fantastic. I also think that "science kid" Lucas played by Jonathan Brandis was better than Wesley Crusher from Star Trek TNG. Lucas maybe had more femine look in the first season, but the kid meant business. It's also sad that glorious Stacy Haiduk blessed our eyes for only one season. If you are bored with soft "goody two-shoes" goverment propaganda in the first two seasons, you will be entertained in controversial Season 3. Anyway, the show is good from start to finish and it's "must have" for the fans of Star Trek/Stargate/Babylon/Sliders and etc.

Essentially an underwater Babylon 5, the show tries to be classier than Star Trek in the first season before leaning into the scifi in the later seasons with Michael Ironside. Both are equally bad. However, it makes me appreciate Battlestar Galactica 2004. The tech in both shows is about the same, but oh wow does good writing and acting make a difference. Fundamentally, the basis of the show and world building never works here.

At it's heart SeaQuest wasn't a bad show. I think done today it would greatly benefit from the fact that computer graphics have become so commonplace and affordable. An issue that was one of the major problems at the heart of SeaQuest. At 1 Million an episode (Unheard of at the time)there was obvious cuts that showed up on screen. The perfect example it in an episode where the SeaQuest has a giant bioillumenesant squid invading through the moon pool. The interior scenes have a number of old tricks that were obvious lifted from 1950's monster flicks. "Don't go in that room captain! It's in there!" and a clear rubber tentacle with blink lights, that is without a doubt silly looking and a budget crunched effect. Very Lost in Space-ish.

The next issue at hand is story. While not being awful in the first season the plots are often centered around you taking away an ocean lesson, which would later be echoed by Dr. Robert Ballard of Titanic fame. More often the not what was meant to be fun, comes off as silly, and what should be threatening or action packed is not. The menacing ball pit from Brothers and Sisters comes to mind. Even with these issues SeaQuest doesn't show any weaknesses that any other first season Sci Fi show hasn't had. It's struggling to find an identity, and establish itself. The first seasons of Star Trek:The Next Generation, and Deep Space 9 have the same sort of growing pains as well, but turned out fine once they had found it's voice.

The third issue which doesn't really show on screen is Roy Scheider himself. Roy clearly hated the show, and put the bad mouth on it as often as he could. In interviews both in print and on TV. In reflection the cut corner effects, and silly plot devices may have had something to do with Scheider's complaints, but face it when the star of a show torpedo's it how much longer is it likely to survive? Season 2 of SeaQuest saw a change in were it was filmed, which helped, and unfortunately a change in cast as well. Most of the principal cast stayed on, but the loss of Stacy Hiduk (spelled wrong I know) stunk. However we did get several new cast members that balance out the losses.

The effects didn't really get any better, but I think the crew got better at making the show, and it's effects budget run and look better.

The stories were starting to shape up a bit as well, but unfortunately not well enough.

Budget, coupled with sinking ratings, and the star bad mouthing the show made the changes that were coming for season 3 unavoidable.

Season 3 changes the format of the show considerably. It takes place years later, and Roy is replace by a man who has been in seemingly every bad movie ever Michael Ironside. While the show is dead in the water at this point. The stories started to get better, and were actually beginning to become something that might work.

Only problem is it was way too late. Ratings were in the toilet, the show was pre-empted for everything. It no longer had a standard day, or time slot. The cast had yet again another round of changes made for season three, and most of what the audience was familiar with had changed so much it no longer held interest to the fans that could find the show.

I gotta be honest. I loved SeaQuest, and as I watch season 1 on DVD I still do. I really wish SciFi channel would resurrect it like it did with Battlestar Galactica.

I recommend it with a sense of not overanylizing the show. If you do that I guarantee you won't like it, but given half a chance I think you'll find a buried treasure of sorts.

Did I use enough bad sea related jokes in this review?

I think Seaquest DSV is one of the best shows ever made and it was a great disappointment when it was canceled. All the episodes were different and exciting each time. The actors in Seaquest were able to bring the show together. But I do feel that in the third season without Wendy,Ortiz,Krieg,Hitchcock,Dr. Kristin Westphalen (when things were starting up for her and the captain),Capt. Nathan Bridger and Chief Manilow Crocker (considering that he didn't have a wife to go back to). And I don't feel like the final episode that was aired in Australia didn't finish all the unfinished story lines of previous story lines from all three seasons.