Rhiannon Duncomb 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.

Li-1 I was a bit of a sci-fi nut growing up, so you can imagine the joy I experienced when sci-fi on the small screen made a strong resurgence in the early to mid 90s. Yep, those were the days, back when I found myself glued to the television, eagerly watching and awaiting the newest episodes of shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, The X-Files, Earth 2, Sliders, The Outer Limits, and NBC's Seaquest DSV.Seaquest caught my attention for three particular reasons: the premise of an undersea world was immensely appealing, the series was being executive produced by none other than Steven Spielberg, and the star of the show was one of my favorite actors, Roy Scheider. With all these ingredients, I just knew this was going to be a sci-fi classic and given how undemanding a sci-fi fan I was back then, this show won me over from the start. Watching season 1 again, it's a bit tougher to imagine why I was so fond of this show in the first place.Certainly, there's a handful of bright spots to be expected. Scheider, as always, does a great job of playing the fatherly authority figure/everyman role that I'm sure he's grown used to. The f/x and sets, very "90s" in look and style, were quite impressive for its time and are still passable enough today that they don't often distract the viewer. The series even occasionally delivered its share of high adventure and mild suspense. I also liked John Debney's main theme, which is actually kind of catchy.But the series never came together like it should have. From the start, Seaquest was clearly aping ST: TNG, what with the UEO/Federation parallels, the captain/ship's doctor romance, and the brilliant but annoying teenager who served no other purpose than to draw in a younger demographic (even though Jonathan Brandis, RIP, was a better actor than Wil Wheaton, I still found Lucas far more irritating than Wesley Crusher).This would all be perfectly forgivable if the show actually delivered on its fantastic premise. Unfortunately, Seaquest is cluttered with too much vanilla-bland writing and cheesy dialogue. Seemingly 3/4's of the episodes attempt to deliver an important "lesson," but this tends to come off as self-consciously heavy-handed and corny. The show was also clearly intended for a family audience, hence the mostly light tone and lack of any material that might come across as potentially offensive; this must almost be entirely attributed to Spielberg's presence, as I cannot imagine Rockne S. O'Bannon pandering to younger audiences.Looking back at the first season's 23 episodes, I wouldn't say they're awful; in fact, I found most of them just plain and mediocre. The only one that stood out was Episode 4, entitled "Games," which managed to deliver sharp suspense for most of its duration, still unfortunately marred by a cheesy climax, which became a staple of the series. Of all the shows I mentioned above, this rests with Earth 2 as the worst of the bunch (TNG still the best, of course).Is Seaquest a bad series? For the most part, yes, but I've got too much of a sci-fi slant to hate it. Anyone completely weaned on today's sci-fi shows (Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Firefly, Stargate, Enterprise) aren't going to find much in Seaquest that would appeal to them. But those who grew up on early 90s sci-fi...well, you've undoubtedly seen this show enough times already to know if it's up your alley or not.

spotter-2 I agree with "Kylic" that the boobs at NBC didn't know what they had. However, I don't think the show was that original. To me SeaQuest was a redo of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea." If you watch some episodes you might sea the resemblance. Not that I'm complaining: I liked that old show. A quick comparison. The Seaview was the most advanced sub -- as is "SeaQuest". Both explored the ocean, both fought bad guys. Both dealt with E.T.s, time travelers and weird science. The two leading men on each show were at times babe magnets. "Voyage" had a smaller cast especially compared to "SeaQuest" in season 1. But the crews did comparable duty. Though SeaQuest had an ensemble look to it.All in a show a that was badly abused by a network.

rswrig 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.