Pioneer One

There is a reason TV series generally cost a lot of money to make. Even a bad one needs to pull together a bunch of professionals to put something onscreen that goes beyond a couple of people talking in an office. But that's pretty much what the pilot of Pioneer One is; two or three people have a discussion in a remarkably spare office, and then maybe one of them takes a phone call, and then there's something in a different office. And that's how it goes for a half hour.

Perhaps this would work if the dialogue was gripping, or the performances were remarkable. But neither is the case. The acting isn't really bad, but no one stands out or brings anything to life. The dialogue conveys information, but that's about it.

There are moments of personality here and there, but this is just not an interesting show. But with money for better actors, directors, writers, and set designers, I guess maybe this would have potential.

Assuming all these 10-star reviews are friends of the cast and crew, since there is no way any disinterested party would give this 10 stars.

Pioneer One has proved that independent media can compete with traditional markets. More and more people are looking at web series as a way to distribute shows and build an audience. I like the idea of independent media sidestepping the traditional studios and using the internet to reach an audience.

Pioneer One has an engaging story. The music is amazing. For being produced for less then $10,000 I'm surprised how good it looks. I'm hoping that the creators will be able to produce all the episodes that they've planned for the series.

I suggest that everyone watch this series with an open mind. This wasn't produced by a studio with a big budget and computer effects. Yet, it tells an interesting story.

I got the chance to see this pilot at the New York Television Festival, and I'm not surprised it won for Best Drama. Other pilots with at least twice the budget were uninspired and predictable, while this pilot was brave in presenting its audience with questions, and no promises as to when they would be answered.

Yes, the HD didn't do some of the scenes justice (in particular, the way the first scene was lit hurt my eyes...I wonder if they just used the fluorescents that were already there, which I think is a pretty bad idea for filming). Yes, the actors' performances twitch and on a rare occasion falter. But the finished product won me over.

I hope that they forge ahead in making their entire first (only?) season, and I appreciate that they've made sure to keep all episodes as available as possible, and their fans as updated as possible (Vodo, Vimeo, timely posts on their sites, etc.). I'm following them on Twitter, I'm a fan on Facebook, I enjoyed the second episode, and I really can't wait for March when the third episode comes out.

Good job, guys. You prove that, when using the web as a tool, successful low-budget screen production is still possible.

Very interesting plot, but, unfortunately, the very low budget is obvious at first glance.

I think that it would be a lot better if the producers invest just a little bit more in camera work and illumination. It's a little disturbing.

The bad acting is somewhat acceptable. A little distracting, but, I can live with that. Afterall it's "pioneer" stuff...

I wish good luck for "Pioneer One". I agree that this kind of production is the future. And hopefully this market will get more and more professional and we viewers will be less distracted with secondary things like camera work and be more involved with the plot itself.

This show is the future in many ways. As resources in the planet dwindle, the "more with less" approach is sure to invade every aspect of economy, including the production and distribution of entertainment.

This show has a tiny budget (less then $10000/episode), and yet the production is technically clean and actor work, while not exceptional, is competent. Since capital investment is so small, the production has to rely on the bag of tricks of the old school of (theatre) drama: first of all good writing (no special effects to distract us from bad lines, like -- from "The Hunt for Red October" -- "listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops"), competent acting and a thinking viewer. We've seen some excellent attempts from the industry to move in this direction, but the audiences are not quite there yet. But the days of watching flashy entertainment are numbered.