Do We Want Sci-Fi on TV?

lalisabelita · 05-09-2009, 02:33 AM

Michael Trucco as Anders in the Battlestar Galactica episode "The Road Less Traveled."
? Carole Segal/Sci Fi ChannelEntertainment Weekly writer Marc Bernardin has grabbed some attention musing about how sci-fi on TV seems be to so unsuccessful lately. Bernardin compared the riproaring success of the annual summer schedule jammed with sci-fi and fantasy blockbusters with the anemic ratings for a whole slate of canceled or soon-to-be-canceled series – there's even a Terminator franchise entry this year in both the failed-TV-series and (presumably) the hugely-successful-movie categories.

This imbalance has led him to ask the unsettling question, "Why don't we want science fiction on television anymore?"

Do you think he's right? I kind of wonder there's a mistaken assumption involved here: I'm not sure about the "any more" part. Though individual science fiction or crossbred shows have done well – for example, The X-Files – most sci-fi and fantasy offerings have gathered a solid, enthusiastic fan-base rather than a broad swath of casual viewers.

Perhaps it's because sci-fi in general has a reputation for being more arc-driven and therefore harder to drop into on a whim, the way you can do with any random episode of Law & Order. It's not really true – you're just as likely to be confused joining Friday Night Lights in mid-season as you would with Battlestar Galactica – but there's a real inhibition getting involved in a sci-fi series for nonfans, so you end up with an avid core. And that avid core has seldom been large enough to satisfy ratings-hungry executives.

The movies are different – a one-off sci-fi blockbuster with lots of explosions and cool robots and sexy aliens is a great way to mindlessly blow a Friday night, and so the big sci-fi summer movies attract millions of people. (And they're not all successes. The small sci-fi movies that end up getting shown in late winter barely garner an audience. Did anyone go see Inkheart, for example?) A sci-fi TV show, however, to a lot of people represents an investment.

And I don't think the number of offerings has gone down – this season I've been tracking over two dozen active sci-fi series. Of those, as many as nine were killed off by their networks.

Sci-fi and fantasy are, by definition, more expensive than most other kinds of shows, because the special effects cost money both on the set (all those careful set-ups) and in postproduction, where all that labor-intensive CGI is done. Between smaller audiences and larger costs, it's surprising that any sci-fi gets made for TV at all.

______________
Supernatural dvd
Battlestar Galactica dvd
Twin peaks seasons 1-2 dvd box set

Taminar · 05-10-2009, 12:13 AM

The problem with science fiction television, and many movies, for me these days is that they're not well-written.

Take "Primeval" for instance. The first season was terrific. Great characters, intelligently written, solid basis in science. As the season went along, there was more and more focus on Helen (beginning of the first conspiracy), but the rest of the show was so well done, we still enjoyed it (not the "royal" we, but my husband and I).

Second season, Helen's back with a whole troop of clone soldiers, the stories start getting dumbed down, and there's a new jerk-wad boss, one of the major characters completely changes names and personalities, and we now have a high-tech central command. None of this adds anything to the stories.

After each episode in Season 3, DH and I look at each other and say, "Well, how much longer should we give this?" Several of the major characters have left (good for them). Jerk-wad boss is now a team player and comic relief, and we have (or had briefly) another evil overlord (or in this case, overlady). She's after an artifact that has something to do with Helen and her clone troopers (blessedly absent for a couple of weeks). Worst of all, the remaining characters have turned idiot. In the most recent episode, for example, the dinosaur expert offers no information about the giant ostrich-like creatures that are attacking them. Neither does the zoologist. It's up to the rent-a-cop to suggest using a convenient recording of the bird creatures to draw them back into the anomaly and the era that they're from.

Let's now turn to another example, the recent remake of "Battlestar Galactica." Now, the original series was no gem, but I was in my youth and I have a great fondness for the show and the characters. Starbuck is not a girl. Boomer is not a girl. Adama's family is not dysfunctional. I watched the first mini-series and that was it. Maybe it improved, I don't know. I shut myself off to it when the Cylons were communicating with Baltar in his mind. I think it was Baltar. Anyway, I have gotten totally sick of evil characters invading the minds of the good guys. We saw it in "Farscape," and it was part of the major overhaul that destroyed a good show. I'm sure I've seen it in a couple of other series as well.

You mention the insistence these days of a story arc for sci-fi shows. I remember when "Babylon 5" did it first, and SF fans were complaining because if they missed an episode, they couldn't keep up. B5 did the arc thing extremely well, until the studio jerked them around, telling the creator that season 4 would be the last, so they tried to rush the story to completion, only to be renewed and have to scramble to keep things going.

At the same time that B5 was doing its arc so well, the various newer "Star Trek" series make it too much of a point to return everything to the status quo by the end of each episode, so much so that the characters never seem to grow or learn from their experiences.

If you go onto ITV's website, on the forums, you'll see intelligent discussion of the downfall of "Primeval" and the idiot responses of the mouth-breathers who like the show now. (Sorry, I can't respect anyone who posts something like, "i agree primevalrocx exspecially connor coz he was with nick when he died" - no punctuation, no capitalization, and trendy misspellings like rocx don't count for much with me.)

If sci-fi wants to survive, it needs to focus on the core audience who cares, and give us smart television that challenges and interests us over the long haul.

warduria · 05-11-2009, 02:02 AM

I think S-F shows are necessity of our lives, we can enjoy them when tired.

___________________________________
||star trek voyager dvd|babylon 5 dvd||
There should be a better way to start a day than waking up every morning.

05-09-2009, 02:33 AM	#1 (permalink)
lalisabelita Extra Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 75	Do We Want Sci-Fi on TV? Michael Trucco as Anders in the Battlestar Galactica episode "The Road Less Traveled." ? Carole Segal/Sci Fi ChannelEntertainment Weekly writer Marc Bernardin has grabbed some attention musing about how sci-fi on TV seems be to so unsuccessful lately. Bernardin compared the riproaring success of the annual summer schedule jammed with sci-fi and fantasy blockbusters with the anemic ratings for a whole slate of canceled or soon-to-be-canceled series – there's even a Terminator franchise entry this year in both the failed-TV-series and (presumably) the hugely-successful-movie categories. This imbalance has led him to ask the unsettling question, "Why don't we want science fiction on television anymore?" Do you think he's right? I kind of wonder there's a mistaken assumption involved here: I'm not sure about the "any more" part. Though individual science fiction or crossbred shows have done well – for example, The X-Files – most sci-fi and fantasy offerings have gathered a solid, enthusiastic fan-base rather than a broad swath of casual viewers. Perhaps it's because sci-fi in general has a reputation for being more arc-driven and therefore harder to drop into on a whim, the way you can do with any random episode of Law & Order. It's not really true – you're just as likely to be confused joining Friday Night Lights in mid-season as you would with Battlestar Galactica – but there's a real inhibition getting involved in a sci-fi series for nonfans, so you end up with an avid core. And that avid core has seldom been large enough to satisfy ratings-hungry executives. The movies are different – a one-off sci-fi blockbuster with lots of explosions and cool robots and sexy aliens is a great way to mindlessly blow a Friday night, and so the big sci-fi summer movies attract millions of people. (And they're not all successes. The small sci-fi movies that end up getting shown in late winter barely garner an audience. Did anyone go see Inkheart, for example?) A sci-fi TV show, however, to a lot of people represents an investment. And I don't think the number of offerings has gone down – this season I've been tracking over two dozen active sci-fi series. Of those, as many as nine were killed off by their networks. Sci-fi and fantasy are, by definition, more expensive than most other kinds of shows, because the special effects cost money both on the set (all those careful set-ups) and in postproduction, where all that labor-intensive CGI is done. Between smaller audiences and larger costs, it's surprising that any sci-fi gets made for TV at all. ______________ Supernatural dvd Battlestar Galactica dvd Twin peaks seasons 1-2 dvd box set

05-10-2009, 12:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
Taminar Intern Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pensacola, The Hurricane State Posts: 914	The problem with science fiction television, and many movies, for me these days is that they're not well-written. Take "Primeval" for instance. The first season was terrific. Great characters, intelligently written, solid basis in science. As the season went along, there was more and more focus on Helen (beginning of the first conspiracy), but the rest of the show was so well done, we still enjoyed it (not the "royal" we, but my husband and I). Second season, Helen's back with a whole troop of clone soldiers, the stories start getting dumbed down, and there's a new jerk-wad boss, one of the major characters completely changes names and personalities, and we now have a high-tech central command. None of this adds anything to the stories. After each episode in Season 3, DH and I look at each other and say, "Well, how much longer should we give this?" Several of the major characters have left (good for them). Jerk-wad boss is now a team player and comic relief, and we have (or had briefly) another evil overlord (or in this case, overlady). She's after an artifact that has something to do with Helen and her clone troopers (blessedly absent for a couple of weeks). Worst of all, the remaining characters have turned idiot. In the most recent episode, for example, the dinosaur expert offers no information about the giant ostrich-like creatures that are attacking them. Neither does the zoologist. It's up to the rent-a-cop to suggest using a convenient recording of the bird creatures to draw them back into the anomaly and the era that they're from. Let's now turn to another example, the recent remake of "Battlestar Galactica." Now, the original series was no gem, but I was in my youth and I have a great fondness for the show and the characters. Starbuck is not a girl. Boomer is not a girl. Adama's family is not dysfunctional. I watched the first mini-series and that was it. Maybe it improved, I don't know. I shut myself off to it when the Cylons were communicating with Baltar in his mind. I think it was Baltar. Anyway, I have gotten totally sick of evil characters invading the minds of the good guys. We saw it in "Farscape," and it was part of the major overhaul that destroyed a good show. I'm sure I've seen it in a couple of other series as well. You mention the insistence these days of a story arc for sci-fi shows. I remember when "Babylon 5" did it first, and SF fans were complaining because if they missed an episode, they couldn't keep up. B5 did the arc thing extremely well, until the studio jerked them around, telling the creator that season 4 would be the last, so they tried to rush the story to completion, only to be renewed and have to scramble to keep things going. At the same time that B5 was doing its arc so well, the various newer "Star Trek" series make it too much of a point to return everything to the status quo by the end of each episode, so much so that the characters never seem to grow or learn from their experiences. If you go onto ITV's website, on the forums, you'll see intelligent discussion of the downfall of "Primeval" and the idiot responses of the mouth-breathers who like the show now. (Sorry, I can't respect anyone who posts something like, "i agree primevalrocx exspecially connor coz he was with nick when he died" - no punctuation, no capitalization, and trendy misspellings like rocx don't count for much with me.) If sci-fi wants to survive, it needs to focus on the core audience who cares, and give us smart television that challenges and interests us over the long haul.

05-11-2009, 02:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
warduria Struggling Actor Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 73	I think S-F shows are necessity of our lives, we can enjoy them when tired. ___________________________________ \|\|star trek voyager dvd\|babylon 5 dvd\|\| There should be a better way to start a day than waking up every morning.