boingboing at August 2nd, 2013 08:01 — #1
anton_p_gully at August 2nd, 2013 08:26 — #2
I adored Omni as a young man but I was probably a bit more liberal in the whole supernatural/science overlap back then. Omni would go from Sasquatch to Spaceships in a handful of pages. Meh, I guess that's cool.
clara_koenig at August 2nd, 2013 09:22 — #3
I dunno, I think there's quite a bit of room for conversation between the more hard-sciencey scifi and more supernatural/fantasy-oriented stuff. I wouldn't be interested in a purely hard-sci-fi magazine, but something in which genres overlap is more compelling (and might very well lead to me reading more hard-science scifi.)
james4765 at August 2nd, 2013 09:28 — #4
One of the great things about Omni and its ilk is that it does cross over so many boundaries - the fragmentation of speculative fiction into so many camps is a recent thing.
algomeysa2 at August 2nd, 2013 09:38 — #5
OMNI seemed to go through two distinct phases, 1980s when it was a good hard science/speculative mix, and then 1990s when it definitely seemed to be infected with woo-woo.
ravenlunatick at August 2nd, 2013 09:50 — #6
Yay!!! (Watch me run around the room, hands waving, muppet-like.)
Watch me run around; waving
my hands muppet-like.
beschizza at August 2nd, 2013 09:54 — #7
Do any of you actually read this site?
ravenlunatick at August 2nd, 2013 10:04 — #8
uh-oh. Was the article sarcastic? Has my coffee not kicked in yet? it seemed like a good thing...
stefanjones at August 2nd, 2013 10:20 — #9
I loved OMNI early on, and even as a teen appreciated the fact that its slick big-magazine format "validated" science fiction and science fact in ways that the digests didn't.
But man . . . I have to echo some the observations above. Somewhere along the line I found myself flipping through the pages and thinking "what happened?" The percentage of psuedo-science and trifles hit some crucial point and I just gave up.
In fact: If you search the letters column, you'll find one by me, ranking on the magazine and cancelling my subscription! (To my great embarrassment, the refund check went to my sister, who had bought me a gift subscription . . . that was hard to explain!)
That said, I wish the reboot well, and hope it emulates the spirit of OMNI's early years, not the lazy sensationalism of its decline.
jeffk at August 2nd, 2013 11:07 — #10
I'd greatly prefer a magazine with occasional speculative woo over one that, say, was 100 percent approved by Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers. Give me a dash of the metaphysical over their brand of unbearable know-it-all prickishness any day.
 I should add that I wasn't ever a regular reader of Omni, so I don't know how bad it got. But if we're talking people like Rupert Sheldrake or Terence McKenna, I guess I'm in the big-tent camp.
beschizza at August 2nd, 2013 11:20 — #11
It is a good thing! I'm just surprised that people who read Boing Boing would be surprised at our being enthusiastic about something that blends "sasquatch and spaceships", as it were.
gsjennsen at August 2nd, 2013 11:37 — #12
I hadn't thought about Omni in years - then last weekend it came up in a conversation with my sister-in-law. We spent several minutes reminiscing about what an awesome, quirky magazine it had been, especially for two science-inclined, slightly nerdy girls. Now I have to go discover some of those fan sites the article mentioned...
othermichael at August 2nd, 2013 11:53 — #13
We all knew it would be reborn, but how long until the name-change takes place?
UPDATE: which covers are original, and which are fake fakes?
edgore at August 2nd, 2013 12:11 — #14
I think this was more in relation to the non-fiction stuff. Omni was not just a fiction magazine - there were also science and (as noted above) pseudo-science articles. Though, I suppose that back before everyone had a camera on them at all times Bigfoot, lake monsters and UFOs seemed a little more possible than they do today.
edgore at August 2nd, 2013 12:15 — #15
I don't think think the original post was sarcastic. I think the sarcasm is directed at anyone complaining about a magazine including articles about UFOs and Bigfoot on a site that currently has an article about a 35 ft tall straw Dalek on the front page and that made Loren Coleman a household name (at least in my house (note, I live alone)).
edgore at August 2nd, 2013 12:27 — #16
Reading through the full article the question that immediately comes to my mind is "Is there enough material in the Bob Guccione treasure trove this man has amassed to finally put out the extended, 8 disc, bonus-filled Criterion Collection Blu-Ray of "Caligula" that I have been waiting all my life for?". I mostly want the extras to be you-tube style reaction videos of the high-class, British non-porn actors watching the final, porn-added cut. I imagine John Gielgud clucking his tongue in refined disapproval and Helen Mirren being amused by it. Peter O'Tool would, of course, be hitting on Helen Mirren.
The second question is "Will I regret asking that first question?"
algomeysa2 at August 2nd, 2013 12:59 — #17
Malcolm McDowell, at Dragon Con a few years ago, describing Sir John Gielgud's reaction when finding himself on the CALIGULA set filled with half-naked slaveboys:
krazmo at August 2nd, 2013 16:23 — #18
I want to point out that I think Clair Evans will make an excellent editor for the Omni reboot. Reading that she would be a part of it convinced me to get excited about it. She's been writing an blog called "Space Canon" (among other endeavors) for some years now. It's a fascinating record of her exploration of 50s-70s SF classics, the kind you can find 50 cent paperbacks of, and an excellent read. Looking forward to this.
pjcamp at August 3rd, 2013 00:47 — #19
"Guccione" and "artistic legacy" don't seem to go together.
oldtaku at August 3rd, 2013 03:11 — #20
As a preteen I liked Omni for the scifi and the cool stuff (and the art!) - but even at that age I could tell that there was an extremely high level of credulousness and god of the gaps arguments (though I didn't know that had its own name till later). When even a 10 year old knows you're fruitloopy that's into quantum water and Jenny McCarthy territory.
And yes, I'd say it was far more credulous than BoingBoing. You can get your freak on here, but things are always in context.
That said, I'm looking forward to seeing what they'll do.
next page →