SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
TV and Movie Chat
>
Basic networks screwing up? NBC, ABC, Fox
date
newest »
newest »
MK wrote: "Shomeret wrote: "I don't think I have ever seen anything completely original on television. "Check out Orphan Black."
Orphan Black is awesome. I enjoyed GoT books and TV series. I enjoyed the first few True Blood books and TV episodes. I love the Dresden Files and hated the TV show. With a few notable exceptions, it seems that a strong script from a book somehow inhibits the director of the TV/film. It's not a budget thing entirely. It's not a different Muse - screenwriters advice for writing is used by authors for books. Sometimes (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) the film is very true to the book, but I can think of many more examples that failed.
This is the first I'm hearing of Galavant... and it kinda reminds me of what I thought of OUAT - looks like a decent story, but not sure how sustainable it is. I think I'd like it better as a movie. (And, yes, I have ditched OUAT.)But, then, I'm also not a huge Monty Python fan, either.
As a side note, for a second I was like "Wait, is that Michael Fassbender?" and then I thought "Oh, look, it's Lassie, rocking the Cain look."
Enjoy NCIS: Duluth or whatever the hell it is.(What is UOAT/OUAT?)
Once Upon a Time. I fixed the wrong one.And I wouldn't be watching NCIS whatever, either.
BTW, the new NCIS spinoff is in NOLA, not Duluth. It may indeed do very well. But I'm rooting for Crossbones, the new pirate series. It's an SF desert right now.
Tannera wrote: "Why the NCIS bashing in a science fiction thread? I happen to like the shows."Liking them and realizing they are astounding stupid are two different things. I like the movie Hardbodies, but I recognize it ain't art.
In one episode of NCIS they stopped a hacker by -- I kid you not -- unplugging a work station. CSI is equally ridiculous, but at least they aren't in-your-face idiotic like that.
Shomeret wrote: "BTW, the new NCIS spinoff is in NOLA, not Duluth. It may indeed do very well."
I know. See my link above. Duluth is just a funnier word.
Tannera wrote: "Trike, unplugging a workstation does work. When I'm under attack from a liberal hacker, I turn off all computers to disable Internet connections and then kill the modem."First you have to have two people typing simultaneously on the keyboard. That's key to protecting the mainframe.
I linked to the trailer in that post. It looks like great fun.
I just looked up the trailer for Galavant after reading previous comments. It looks like it's hilarious and lots of fun. Definitely something I would watch.In terms of the OP's topic, I think it's harder to pull off live action fantasy/sci-fi for some reason. I have a few ideas as to the problem, such as the larger audience having trouble taking it seriously (this applies to folks who aren't necessarily nerdy). When a series takes itself too seriously some people tend to tune it out. It's just a guess, though.
I find that shows that succeed and our marketed as "oh its science fiction you'll love it" are really scifantasy shows. I think the scifi shows don't do well and get canceled because they are not marketed right and they are not on the right channels. You know how Amazon and other sites have the if you like THIS then you'll like THAT. Networks are failing at genre shows because all of their shows will be about teenage withes , high school murderer mysteries etc and then here comes this one show about 35 year old cowboys in outer space.
The subscription channels such as HBO are winning because they stick with their over all feel although True Blood and GOT are two different stories they have a lot of the same common themes and character rolls and they meet the age groups of their viewers for the most part.
Another reason is that Networks have a certain amount of shows that they can produce every season certain ones automatically have to stay because they hold the network together then there are the ones that could possibly go and the newbies that can take their place.
Yes they may get rid of Revolution but most likely to replace it with a newbie show.
Chakara- theres a show about 35 yr old space cowboys?
John wrote: "Chakara- theres a show about 35 yr old space cowboys?"Not anymore there's not.
Chakara wrote: "I find that shows that succeed and our marketed as "oh its science fiction you'll love it" are really scifantasy shows. I think the scifi shows don't do well and get canceled because they are not m..."The biggest problem is that 'hard' science fiction is more costly to produce (witness the demise of super-popular "Eurika" because of costs). Anyone can plop some actors with fake fangs and a couple of stunt people in the middle of a small, rural town and roll cameras at a much lower cost.
Al wrote: "Chakara wrote: "I find that shows that succeed and our marketed as "oh its science fiction you'll love it" are really scifantasy shows. I think the scifi shows don't do well and get canceled becaus..."I'd says TNG was expensive but I know they re-used a lot of props and not just for Star Trek or from Star Trek shows but a lot of science fiction shows share.
As far as a non sci fi show goes look at Rome and then Game of Thrones. I'd say the location of GOT looks better but it as actually a lot cheaper to shoot than the failed Rome because they just hhhhhaad to shoot in Rome. ::rolls eyes::
Nobody should have okayed that location. CGI or finding a cheaper place to shoot and then "creating" Rome (or in scifi what ever your exotic location) would be cheaper.
Any lets not forget SciFi does not equal space adventure, which I personally feel is more fantasy than science. Hard science can be about any of the many sub levels of science. Which might even be more interesting than the Space Dramas they always want to re-create the magic of.
Just the opinions of a student still learning but I spend a lot of time thinking about things like this. Loving your comments Al. :)
Al wrote: "The biggest problem is that 'hard' science fiction is more costly to produce..."I'm not sure that's really true. 'Hard' science fiction means getting the science right. That's in the writing and the plot, not necessarily the sets and production itself.
A poorly written action/adventure SF show could be vastly more expensive than an intelligent hard SF show, depending on the how much CGI you need, how exotic your locations are, and whether you need to depict believable aliens or zero-G scenes.
Micah wrote: "Al wrote: "The biggest problem is that 'hard' science fiction is more costly to produce..."I'm not sure that's really true. 'Hard' science fiction means getting the science right. That's in the w..."
I agree Micah you seem to have gotten my point across with less blab than I did lol.
It's the "gee-whiz" special effects and sets that kill the budget (I again refer back to "Eureka") if you want to do a show with "futuristic settings". Eureka had a very respectable market share, yet SyFy (SciFi back then), dropped the show because they couldn't make enough money on it.SF with a contemporary setting and just a few special effects is much less costly to produce. One of the reasons I prefer books to TV shows these days. In a book, the author can have as many "gee-whiz" things as s/he wants without any budget constraints (save perhaps a bit more for cover art).
Not that there isn't some good SF on TV today, but you'll notice that most of it is lower-budget stuff.
The only exception that leaps to mind is Defiance, but they've already built most of their sets. Just a few extra bucks for animation bits of exotic animals and a few special effects (not many). The Max Factor #1 to make the pasty complexions on DaTak's race costs no more than the makeup used by the "human" characters.
Eureka doesn't look like its based on any hard Scifi to me though I will admit I haven't watched it, it looks very fantastical which would mean we are actually talking about the same thing but from different view. Hard scifi doesn't need the geewiz but I can't think of one hard scifi show that still exists mostly because they don't want to un-interest.I have been recommended many shows that I was told was really cold Science fiction only to watch and be disappointed because its really based off of a magic system and they use some long words and a computer every now and then or a weapon that can't really be explained and just acts like magic and solves everything. Sci-fantasy is expensive.
Has anyone tried to watch Fearscape? shudddddeeer. That's certainly fantasy and was probably hecka expensive to shoot plus so corny IMO.
Al wrote: "It's the "gee-whiz" special effects and sets that kill the budget..."Totally.
It's interesting to note, however, that 2001: A Space Odyssey was huge on "gee-whiz" when it came out but today it would be very low on that scale. And it still looks awesome. AND, it's hard SF. It would be awesome to see more stories along that line where the story's about big ideas rather than interpersonal realationships and drama.
I may go watch an Ep. of Eureka now though I will say I've tried before and was automatically pulled out of it. I will return with thoughts.
Almost done and I got to say Eureka is pretty fun but I see the expenses.
Chakara wrote: "Eureka doesn't look like its based on any hard Scifi to me though I will admit I haven't watched it, it looks very fantastical which would mean we are actually talking about the same thing but from..."It's a "scientific research facility" with some near-term pseudoscientific" developments. It's mostly character-driven (like any good story), but the motivating force is usually some "experiment gone wrong".
No magic nor fantastic creatures, so it doesn't qualify as fantasy. Ergo: it's regular "science fiction".
I don't include movies in my diatribe on costs. Most movies are "one-offs" that can make huge returns at the box office if done well enough (most recently Avatar as an example of a LOT of special effects).
2001 was awesome for its day. I still remember the first time I saw it in the theater. The shuttle "weightless" scene blew me away.
The Star Wars series was the launching pad for "Industrial Light and Magic" (owned by Lucas, who later sold it to Disney as part of their purchase of Lucafilms). ILM was started using some of the people who did the FX for 2001.
Back on track: the cost problems usually the plague of TV serials.
The less said about British Sci Fi, the better. I've never understood it, nor can my failing hearing decipher the accents from Limehouse and Cockney (and similar accents). I have enough trouble with American actors who swallow their lines (especially when they're over-emoting) because they've never been properly trained on the legitimate stage (where you have to be heard and understood in the "cheap seats").
I would say for the most part it is Science Fiction. It actually lasted for 5 seasons which I think is a success if you get pass two. Also I might be mistaken because I don't watch regular tv but SyFy isn't a network channel is it? I thought it was cable?I'd count Eureka as a success.
I don't watch a lot of movies I did see Avatar though I don't count it as Scifi.
I watch a lot of TV shows because that's what I study in school.
Chakara wrote: "I would say for the most part it is Science Fiction. It actually lasted for 5 seasons which I think is a success if you get pass two. Also I might be mistaken because I don't watch regular tv but SyFy isn't a network channel is it? I thought it was cable?..."Sy Fy is indeed "cable". It's hard to tell the difference these days since all channels usually arrive via cable or satellite in most homes. But even that is breaking down as the "stations" start leveraging the Internet more and more.
After 5 seasons, Eureka still had a huge "share", but SyFy deep-sixed it anyway. The outpouring of rage from the fans was deafening -- a lot of the complaining took place here.
Sy Fy readily admitted that the decision was economic, due to high production costs. I suspect that having to come up with a new batch of special effects for every other episode was the biggest problem (after all, the main sets were already built).
I doubt it was the cost of effects that killed Eureka. It was a modest hit and everyone's contracts were up for renegotiation. Declining ratings from 4 million viewers to 1.5 million didn't help.They can put on the Wil Wheaton Project for almost zero dollars and get a million people to watch it. That's like found money for a network.
Trike wrote: "I doubt it was the cost of effects that killed Eureka. It was a modest hit and everyone's contracts were up for renegotiation. Declining ratings from 4 million viewers to 1.5 million didn't help...."
But over all it is money that was the problem? Even if as you say it wasn't because of the effects it was steal expensive?
Tannera wrote: "FX costs also killed Sanctuary."I don't think I ever watched it I may have to give it a go.
Co-executive producer Amy Berg on why Eureka was cancelled (via Twitter): “We are the network’s golden child in every way, except profit margins. Fact is, #Eureka is an expensive show to make. And we could not maintain the quality of our show with the cuts it would take to make us profitable for Syfy’s new parent company. Our creative execs at Syfy fought hard to keep us. Trust me, they LOVE us. We just couldn’t make the numbers work."
The parent company being NBC Universal.
NBC how dare yoouuuuuu. You have angered the scifi gods and you shall be punished at a specific time in the future.
Tannera wrote: "FX costs also killed Sanctuary."Thanks, I'd forgotten Sanctuary. I don't know what their numbers were. I know I was getting bored with it because they were straying from their original formula (like most shows do when the creative writing team moves on and the hacks take over).
Always was a fan of Amanda Tapping.
Chakara wrote: "NBC how dare yoouuuuuu. You have angered the scifi gods and you shall be punished at a specific time in the future."Don't specify the time. I love throwing "surprise parties" (evil laugh).
Tannera wrote: "I believe profit margins was another reason for the demise of Sanctuary. And yea, hacks sometimes do take over, Al. I invested 11 years watching the both Stargate shows. The third was horrible."Agreed.
colleen the contrarian ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "Co-executive producer Amy Berg on why Eureka was cancelled (via Twitter): “We are the network’s golden child in every way, except profit margins. Fact is, #Eureka is an expensive show to make. An..."
If Eureka were still pulling in 3-4 million viewers each episode, it would still be on. That's just the nature of commercial TV.
Supernatural only does 2 million or so, but it's almost never out of the top 10 or 15 when it comes to the key demographic advertisers seek, the 18-49 group, and its audience is largely women in the under-30 demo. Women are responsible for nearly 80% of purchases, either directly or through their influence, so Supernatural is practically hand-delivering the exact demographic that makes advertisers swoon.
They are all victims (much like "Under the Dome" will soon be) because in their haste to make a profit, they basically force the writers to stretch out the story lines way too far. The all need to take a good solid look at BBC since there are a lot of 1 and 2 year series. Most series longer than 3 years are almost rewrites of previous shows with VERY minor changes thrown at us to make us think someone had an original thought.
Hahahaha...thanks for saying this..now I can just sit back and enjoy this thread!!!