It's been a decade of ups and downs for science fiction television. On one hand we got Battlestar Galactica, on the other Firefly was canceled. But so many truly terrible shows managed to scrape by without notice — until now.

Cleopatra 2525 (2000)

Some of you called this a guilty pleasure, I still don't understand how. Maybe it straddles the "so bad it's good" ratio, but still, come on — this is awful. This came from Sam Raimi's production team. Cleopatra, the stripper not the historical figure mind you, gets frozen and wakes up in 2525. Cue machine CG and colorful outfit armor.

All Souls (2001)

Think of it as Grey's Anatomy meets Disney's Haunted Mansion Yep, that's about it.

Black Scorpion (2001)

Female police officer by day, hooker crime fighter by night. And a Power Ranger too apparently. This dismal SciFi Channel series was based on the Roger Corman movies, which is a questionable judgment right from the get go.

Alien Hunter (2001)

"The Crocodile Hunter" in space. The only thing this show had going for it was Doug Jones' "sick of this shit" alien crew member. He was actually funny, unlike everything else on this show.

Birds of Prey (2002)

Birds of Prey's failure stung the most because it was a great idea, but executed so poorly. They didn't care about the characters, story or mythology at all. I really wanted Batman and Catwoman's baby to be a bad ass crime fighter, but her personality never took off. Still, it did generate decent ratings for the WB for a while.

Special Unit 2 (2001-2002)

Yet another TV show that has a cult following for no understandable reason. This series followed Chicago's top secret paranormal police division that chased down odd happenings or "links," as they unfortunately called them. How many paranormal police shows are there now? Plus one of the characters always freaked me out.

Mutant X (2001)

It's like X-Men for idiots, and those people already have X-Men cartoons. This actual Marvel creation focused so much on making sure the team of new mutants was sexy, that there was very little time left to develop personality or interesting character traits.

Baby Bob (2002)

This CBS sitcom was such a disaster I can no longer find any clips of it anywhere! New parents find out their baby can talk, and instead of throwing this demon in a well decide to keep it around. This was one of those genius "inspired by a commercial" TV shows. Truly terrible.

Bionic Woman (2007)

We were all so excited for this dark Bionic Woman reboot from David Eick — then it started and just went totally off the rails plot-wise and accent wise. Eventually the main character's attitude, the side character's one-dimensional insanity and waste of Katee Sackhoff, all compounded into one giant "meh."

Caveman (2007)
Even though comedian Nick Kroll, who played one of the cave people is hilarious, we all make missteps along the way. The saddest thing about this show was that there were decent jokes in there, they were just totally thrown away on a series no one in their right mind would watch.

Click to view
Knight Rider (2008)

The new Knight Rider gets the crown as the worst TV Show of the decade. Forget the fact that all the plots centered around finding a way for the main character to take off his shirt. Billy from BSG actually LEFT BSG to do this show. And couldn't do a repeat cameo later on when President Roz was having acid dreams. Yes, this show truly is a work of pure evil. And it didn't even have turbo boost.

Flash Gordon (2007 - 2008)

Terrible acting, ideas and concepts. Every week we died a terrible cheesy death with this SciFi series.

Heroes (2007-2009)

Every season of Heroes except the first belongs on this list. From the tattoo super powers to making the cheerleader a sometimes lesbian. Not even a carnival or killing a character twice can save this series.

Eastwick (2009)

Midlife-crisis witches and Paul Gross' penis were the entire cast of this series. Too PG to ever be anything than a "cute" series that told dick jokes. Sigh, the threeways that could have been.

Oddball superhero flick Green Hornet has certainly had its share of troubles. After losing Stephen Chow, twice, the latest Hornet news is that the release date has been pushed back to December. You know, when real movies come out.

Hitfix spoke with star Seth Rogen after learning news of the movie's delayed release date. Not surprisingly, the actor is in full spin mode, or else genuinely happy that his odd ball, little known superhero flick will have to stand toe-to-toe with big-name productions and Oscar bait.

We're both relieved and psyched about the change. It gives more time for post [production], which would have been immensely rushed if we were to come out in the summer. It also affords us more time to promote the film, (now we can go to Comic-Con with more than a car!) and ultimately is a great vote of confidence from the studio. We got the same date that movies like 'I Am Legend' and 'Avatar' are getting, so we're thrilled to be there."

More time to make a decent movie is never a bad thing, and perhaps a bit more exposure is exactly what this film needs. But it still feels like the move from July 7, 2010 to December 17, 2010 was an effort to quietly dump it off into a cold pasture.

One thing missing from J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek was a heavy handed message, about racism or international relations. We asked writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman what it all meant. With minor spoilers...

One thing I always liked about the series were the moral lessons. Would you ever think about having a more challenging social message, maybe in the next Star Trek movie?

Kurtzman: The thing that is genius about Trek, and we've talked about this a lot, is that there was always a veiled message story. You never felt like you were getting beaten over the head by whatever the topic was. The bridge crew itself was this kind of idyllic world, there was a Russian, and in the middle of the Cold War everyone was working together. We feel like if you're going to tell a message in Trek you have to veil it in a really, really clever story.

So what was the message of this movie?

Orci: It sort of reflects where we are when Spock reflects at the end and kind of says, "I've kind of left you in a dark world, keep your chin up." The destruction of Vulcan in Trek lore to us is kind of the equivalent to a September 11th and the Holocaust all rolled into one. How does this crew deal with that? Is it a cynical decision that leads to a war with Romulus? Or is it a singular problem problem solving situation, with the person who really did it?

Are there any social issues you'd like to tackle in the next Star Trek movie?

Orci: It has to be a mosaic, we don't want to make anything a single issue. It would be a mosaic of... of our Southern California upbringing [laughs].

Kurtzman: Different philosophies... I agree, its hard to sort of pin point that we want to make a movie about one thing...

Orci: Adoption! [Jokingly]

You read it here first, the next Trek is all about adopting space babies, and the rough life of an alien orphan in a foster spaceship. Still I like that the two chose to put a positive spin on the film after all the destruction, because what is Trek if not uplifting?

Depressed about the state of the publishing industry? Not as much as you should be.

Just in time for holiday cheer, Salon.com posted a detailed look at just what's been going wrong with the publishing industry, and it's pretty sobering. You might have heard about Black Wednesday, and the massive layoffs that have hit pretty much every publisher. (Gunter Grass' editor fired!)

But I didn't actually know how badly the publishing industry as a whole was doing, especially the recent sales numbers. October's sales were down 20 percent from the year before, and even early December — traditionally, the industry's fat time — showed a 6.6 percent drop.

The biggest problem for the industry (besides the general economic ickfest) is the fact that so many bigger publishers have been bought by large companies and "hedge fund guys," who expect much bigger profit margins and don't really understand books. (I feel like I see the same things being said about newspaper publishers.)

There are a couple of bright spots in all the gloom. For one thing, smaller publishers, which are more "nimble" and less tied to expensive ways of doing things, may thrive in this challenging new environment. (And it's probably no coincidence that just the other day, we were blogging a Washington Post article saying the only good dark/weird fiction was coming from independent publishers these days.)

And everybody's saying that e-books and electronic publishing may finally justify their promise as the future of books. Can the decimated publishing houses regroup around cheaper, sharper electronic books?

The whole article is well worth reading, both to fathom quite how deep publishing's hole goes, and to witness the few glimmers of hope. [Salon]