SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
TV and Movie Chat
>
Why do most of the Sf shows on mainstream Tv not last?
I find that mainstream typically ruins the essence of SF to add cheesy elements. Fringe though happens it be a great show which hasn't disappointed. Bionic Woman (re-imagined) didn't last long. V might b/c of its new twist.
Wiki: Prior to recent years, science fiction television shows were normally centered around a premise and characters were defined essentially based on what they did or encountered in the course of their adventures. However, the growing trend (or, paradigm shift,) towards character-centered drama and naturalistic plots and settings has replaced the episodic action-adventure format that was once standard for television science fiction. Cosmic themes, sense of wonder, exotic settings, so-called technobabble, psychedelic imagery, and "two fisted action" have been mostly phased out in favor of human content and contemporary themes. Also, the demographic audience for science fiction has changed from mostly male to a significant female presence demanding more human elements and stronger female character representation.[citation needed:] The aforementioned reimagined Battlestar Galactica is one of the most noted examples of the naturalistic approach towards television science fiction. The anthology format popularized by Rod Serling rarely appeared in science fiction television after the 1980s, though aspects of this were used in both The X-Files and the 90s reincarnation of The Outer Limits. The current format, which was unintentionally popularized by Chris Carter of The X-Files, is toward long story arcs and season long plots with character oriented subplots.
I think it's a combination of factors, including both of the ones you mentioned. A lot of people I work with, for instance, still turn their noses up at sci-fi, even if they sometimes like sci-fi like shows such as 'Lost' or 'Heroes' (which I always consider less "sci-fi" and more "superhero", but that's another issue entirely.) And I do think that networks, in general, don't always know how to handle a sci-fi show. And then there's marketing and how much a network will support its shows, as well as following trends vs. over-saturation.I also think all of these problems exist for non sci-fi shows, too, though. I mean, most shows, in general, don't seem to last very long, except for those few which find their niche or which have a sort of built-in fan base, like the countless procedural shows.
As for the trends, I think I prefer a mix of both the 'old' and 'new' styles. I think Fringe, for example, would have aspects of both. It has a strong female character and arcs and character plots, but it also has a "monster of the week" aspect as well as being an example of characters, especially Olivia, being defined by what's been done to her and her encounters with all things weird.
Of course, people could get frustrated with it, like with X-Files and Lost, if the mythology becomes too convoluted and the arcs too absurd. Amongst the weird, there has to be reality.
Why do some suceed and some don't? Eh - why do some books make it and others don't? Why do some get insanely popular, and others sort of languish in the shadows? Who knows. I'm sure the marketing people would love to know that magical formula, as it were. Sometimes it's marketing and word-of-mouth, but, mostly, I think it's random luck.
Anyway, I feel very old-fashioned, 'cause I tend to prefer "guy" stuff to "girl" stuff, 9 times out of 10. I don't want my sci-fi to be overly naturalistic. I want weird, damnit, and some explosions don't hurt, either. ;) (I also like cheesy elements though, like anything else, it's a careful balance between fun cheese and bad cheese.)
Anyway, I think sci-fi shows, like books and other shows and everything, really, is just generally hit-or-miss and that while we all have our theories as to why some hit and others don't, that's all they are. *shrugs*
Mary JL wrote: "Since ABC launched "V" this weekend, I was moved to write: why do the big four major channles offer so little sf? Ssuch poor Sf? Except for anthology shows (Twilight Zone), most Sf series onl..."
Just a quick mention: All 3 of the 'modern' incarnations of Star Trek lasted 7 years. X-Files went on for 9 years. Heroes is in it's 4th season. Lost (a little bit of a stretch but there are some sci-fi aspects, especially re: the island itself) is in it's 5th season and is slotted for a 6th (short season). And Smallville (well, the main character is from another planet...) is in it's 9th season. Those are respectable numbers :)
I also would offer the opinion that the 'big four' ruin a lot of TV not just a lot of SF TV ;p
My husband and I blame time slots. Traditionally it seems that sci-fi on the major networks has been restricted to 9 PM Friday nights. Because every good TV exec knows that sci-fi geeks stay at home Friday nights. ;)More recently they get scattered throughout the week. And I think that has improved ratings. Plus shows like Heroes and Lost are appealing to everyone, not just the sci-fi fans.
Regardless of when it airs, a sci-fi TV show is expensive to produce. Probably a bit less now with the advances in CGI but they almost all require some type of extensive post-production work.
I would say Smallville is more superhero teen-cliche than absolute sci-fi. Likewise with Supernatural - it has the teen-vampire gloss. But both have had LOTS of seasons.I do like weird and explosions. I wonder how a newly updated Twilight Zone would be...hmmm.
Liz wrote: "My husband and I blame time slots. Traditionally it seems that sci-fi on the major networks has been restricted to 9 PM Friday nights. Because every good TV exec knows that sci-fi geeks stay at home Friday nights. ;)"You mean we don't?
It's been a long standing joke of mine that when I was in high school a good Friday night consisted of me going over to a girlfriend's house where 4 or 5 of us would watch X-Files, and whatever was on after it, while eating popcorn and talking about the show during commercials. I mean - how is that not a good time?
I think you have a good point about the cost, though. All that effect work and CGI can't be cheap. And if it doesn't have a large enough following, the advertisers won't come, and then they can't pay for the effects.
@Tanja: I agree with you about Smallville and Supernatural, and, as I said above, I don't really consider Heroes as such, either. *shrugs*
Wilbert wrote: "If you want to see what happens to a good sifi show look at Firefly!!! Great show had all the making of something good and not enough people watched it!! be cause it was not trying to be all thin..."It didn't help that they aired the episodes completely out of order which was rather confusing for people.
I wonder, speaking of modern technology, does DVR-ing your favorite shows (so I can go out to dinner on Friday nights with my husband) count toward ratings?I know the big 4 networks are showing a bit more sci fi nowadays, but it's still not exactly good. I tried to watch Fringe once, but it seemed too x-files-y for me. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood for it. I always loved the Stargate series and all the spinoffs, and I'm interested to see what Stargate Universe is going to be like. More of the same with different cast members, or different plotlines? I guess if you want to watch at least decent sci fi TV, you need to watch SyFy channel.
I believe that the only ratings the networks (and their advertisers) "count" are live broadcasts. DVRing a show and watching it later is still recorded statistically (yes, Big Brother is in your DVR) and are often announced along with the live broadcast numbers. But advertisers tend to dislike DVRs for the same reason I love them - the ability to fast forward through nearly twenty minutes of commercials to watch the heart of the show I recorded.
I like Big Brother in my DVR. I seriously think Tivo should give Nielsen a run for their money by providing more detailed and real numbers versus extrapolating from a select number of households. Hey it could drive down costs of owning a Tivo and give us better programming. The networks need to get caught up with the times and realize we are not going back to being tethered to our televisions, and if they want a shot at putting something before our eyeballs, they better be more fraking flexible. I think cost is a bid deal for scifi shows. Not only do you need top notch writers, but a slew of technical advisers, a really top notch set designer and costumer, and a crew of talented CGI and special effect artists. That's a lot of money to pour into an hour timeslot where you could just throw on another silly reality TV show which skips all those costs. The networks seem to put more value on raw numbers then having faithful followers. You would think they would value a show that has a following that NEVER miss an episode and will follow actors, directors, and writers to other shows. Eyeballs you can count on don't seem to matter.
Lara Amber
Wilbert wrote: "If you want to see what happens to a good sifi show look at Firefly!!! Great show had all the making of something good and not enough people watched it!! "I had to think of Firefly as having the Startrek syndrome. Sadly not enough fans complained to get it back on the air like they did for Startrek in the 60s.
My biggest complainant with TV Fantasy/Syfy is they take a perfecting entertaining book series and turn it into crap by changing the story line and dumbing it down. 'The Dresden Files' on SyFy channel completely missed the mark. 'Legend of the Seeker' has been reduced to sanitized, preteen entertainment as was Tanya Huff's Blood series in 'Blood Ties.'
I often wonder if the TV powers-that-be think all Fantasy/SyFy readers are mentally 14 or younger? Sort of the "fat geek who lives with his mother," image people have of comic book readers.
I have to agree with the cost of production being part of the failing. Maybe that's why so many stories have actors without prosthetic costumes (who are secretly aliens/androids) acting in the long running space soaps.
Advertisers seem to think they've got scifi fans pegged down. Am I the only one who's sick and tired of the creepy "I'm calling ____ because I'm a loser bimbo who can't find a real man to date?" ads? --great news, Ladies, all those icky guys you dodged at the bar, now you can call them up and give them a second chance!!! I think we all know who dreamed that up.Maybe it's time for some kind of scifi fan manifesto or rant: "I drive a Chev (or other vehicle,) I love technology, I have a great imagination and I'm smarter than average. I don't live in my mother's basement, although I may look after assorted family members, I spoil my pet(s) and I hold down a real job/career/avocation. I'm generous with my time and help out my family and community whenever possible. I'm far more prepared for alien contact (having already considered various possible scenarios) than most of mankind. Respect me, for I am a scifi fan!"
Not to sound like I think sci fi fans are smarter, but we expect smarter TV and network just can't deliver. They tend to water it down with petty drama and romance and don't give enough of the elements that make scfi interesting and unique.They also seem to have scifi fans pegged into a small and simple category, when in reality I find we are very diverse and complex.
Jackie: So true. The community of Sf readers is very diverse and complex! Sf has a wide ranging appeal! Too bad the networks have us pegged in such a small slot.Although, admittedly cost no doubt is a facotr limiting TV SF productions.
I'm sure. It's all about money. Always is.
I think there are 3 main reasons why they don't last on network television:1) Network execs are idiots and everyone knows idiots can't speak scifi or fantasy very well, so how the hell are they going to translate it properly into telelvision?
2) Most people are brain-damaged from a lack of regular literary and imagination supplements, so we can't really blame them for being clueless, idiotic viewers and not understanding even the idiotic versions of scifi and fantasy that eventually find their way to network television.
3) Sadly, networks expect their shallow, idiotic shows to attract a certain number of clueless, idiotic viewers, much more than the smarter, cooler cable networks. Since there aren't as many of us smarter, cooler viewers as there are clueless, idiotic viewers, our smarter, cooler shows (translated idiotically as they are, they are still smarter and cooler than inane shows like The Bachelor, Survivor, Gossip Girl, and One Tree Hill) don't get the ratings they need to remain on the network. That's why smarter, cooler shows like those on SyFy have longer seasons than if they were, say, on Fox (those blaspheming murderers of Firefly).
I have worked on a few screenplays and have had some experience in the actual prodution of a cheesy SF movie. In my opinion it has some to do with the lack of imagination of those who make the decisions(idiots as Patrick accurately labels), but ultimately it all comes down to money. SF is very expensive to make believable which goes hand-in-hand, most times, with enjoyable. Networks have budgets and they can pump out 4 or 5 lame cheater-cops-bar-housewives-overdonecomedy-reality shows for every 1 well done and thought out Science Fiction series. Too bad. That's why I don't watch much TV. I can watch one show and pretty much breakdown all the rest, with exception of the rare and precious. For what it's worth...
Ben
Ben
Benjamin, I also do not watch a lot of Tv--I'd much rather read!
Amen, Patrick! Let's hope that SyFy will pick up Firefly, as I never saw it to begin with (that thing called life got in the way of TV). They, at least, respect we fantasy and sci fi people.Agreed with whoever commented on dumbing down books/series for TV. IMO, the only series that actually was respected on the screen was LOTR, and even then it wasn't perfect. At least it didn't detract from the major storyline, unlike that darn Legend of the Seeker show that I just couldn't stomach anymore. Ugh.
I pray every day for a SyFy Firefly renewal. That would be my birthday, Christmas in July, the Fourth of July, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas in regular Christmas time, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa AND New Year's all at the same time. And I'm atheist. That's another thing, how some of our favorite books go through the dumbification process before they're labeled "tv/movie-screen-ready" and end up pathetic, brainless bastard versions of themselves.
Children and YA books are one thing (The Golden Compass, The Dark is Rising), but come on now, just because statistics say the average American reading level is what, 7th or 8th Grade, is no reason to completely scrap every bit of smartfulness from a story. It's okay if people don't understand every single detail, that's what brains are for: learning new stuff. Legend of the Seeker, ugh, can't even talk about that... so painful... too much brain activity, can't handle... too many... big words...
... oh, and I'm not really atheist, I just said if for dramatic effect ;)
Sorry guys - Whedon has stated he has closure on Firefly with Serenity, and he's moving on to other projects. That plus the fact that most of the cast are now working on other projects, it's just not gonna happen. And I'm not sure I'd say that Siffy necessarily respects the source material. I mean, I actually liked the Dresden Files TV show (especially the changes they did with Bob's character), but it was a far cry from the books.
A comment from the UK - if there's anything worse than good SF shows getting cancelled, it's good SF shows getting cancelled when you've barely started watching them. We import most of our SF shows from the USA, and we're usually many months behind, there's been a couple of times I've watched an episode or two of something, thought it was good, looked it up online, and found out it's been canned already. Thankfully I think we're getting stuff quicker recently, at least with big shows like Heroes. I guess they've realised if they don't show it quick, people will just download it from p2p services. I have to admit, I did that with Firefly (another show that was canned before it was even broadcast over here - grrr). Sorry if this is slightly of topic, just had to vent ;).
Tony: I'll swap vents with you. I wish the Uk and Britain has the same Tv system but you guys have Pal and we have NTsc. I have been hoping and hoping for Blake's Seven to be issued in DVd form in the USA but not luck so far.I would like to see some British Tv that I missed--wish the Tv execs would release all English language sf and other movie and shows in BOTH formats!
Mary JL - There is a solution to this problem. Some NTSC dvd players can play PAL discs and vice-versa. Of these, lots (most?) players have a hack code that unlocks it for all regions. I've never had any problem playing my British TV show DVDs back on my hacked player with a US TV. Google your make & model (has to be exact) with "dvd unlock region code."
Because people are so enamored over low budget reality based TV shows. Nothing wrong in vegetating, I do it all the time watching wrestling :-)
Tony wrote: "A comment from the UK - if there's anything worse than good SF shows getting cancelled, it's good SF shows getting cancelled when you've barely started watching them."A comment from the other side of the 'pond': I love Brit SyFy. Dr. Who is my all time Kamp favorite followed by Torchwood and Being Human. I also like most Canadian stuff (Trailer Park Boys is so goofy.) It seems their actors actually learn to act and aren't just put in a roll because of their great looks.
All the American actors these days look like Barbie and Ken dolls to me while the plots rely on gun fights, gore and explosions, with some sappy love interests.
I too love science fiction from the BBC: "Dr. Who," "Torchwood" & "Being Human."I am so bummed that FAUX has cancelled "Dollhouse."
And ABC is doing everything it can to get away from the fact that "Flashforward," at least the original novel, is science fiction.
If all that's on tv is low budget 'reality based' shows I turn off the tv and read.
Off topic: WHY is wrestling on the SyFy network?
@ Julia: Because wrestling is fantasy. I'd also ask why is Horror on syfy?
Crowgirl wrote: "Tony wrote: "A comment from the UK - if there's anything worse than good SF shows getting cancelled, it's good SF shows getting cancelled when you've barely started watching them."A comment from ..."
Barbie and Ken dolls, that's a good one.
Jim wrote: "@ Julia: Because wrestling is fantasy. I'd also ask why is Horror on syfy?"At least horror falls under the realm of speculative fiction. :)
unless they recancelled it dollhouse got picked back up.Ahh i see. It looks they they plan to air like 9 more episodes but the show is indeed canceled. You never know though if people watch the one's that are coming out.
Random wrote: "Jim wrote: "@ Julia: Because wrestling is fantasy. I'd also ask why is Horror on syfy?"At least horror falls under the realm of speculative fiction. :)"
I can't argue that but so are soaps like "Young & restless" etc. How much more speculative fiction is there then that?
I've always had trouble with the phrase "Speculative Fiction" tossed around in science fiction circles. Sounds to vague to me. Science fiction should be science fiction. Speculative fiction could mean anything. I'm just sayin'
Seeing Wrestling on SyFy always has made me bwaaaaaah?!? If you want a sci-fi/fantasy wrestling match, pit our favorite characters against each other or make it this "Running Man/Hunger Games" bit!
FireflyDark Angel
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
All have strong, hot female characters. Maybe the networks really hate the fanboys :P
Okay now seriously, I agree with Patrick's post up there. His second point was spot on.
maybe off topic, but anybody notice that even when scifi shows get on TV, everybody goes out of the way to say "it's not scifi"?Like i think for all the promos for V and flashforward, all the actors when they're interviewed always go on and on about how it's not really a scifi show and it's about "characters and how they interact react, in(fill in the blank) situation.
even happens on SyFy shows, which i think makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I if recall correctly, this kind of thing was said for BSG, and stargate universe, and warehouse 13 and eureka.
I mean i understand why ABC and Fox etc would promote shows that way, but why the SyFy channel?
Probably because saying that a show is scifi is like telling the clueless, idiotic majority of television viewers that they're going to have to put on their thinking hats (a.k.a. the most painful and scary-ful hat known to Homo Averagus Manicus) ;)It boggles my noggin that people can be so turned off by the thought of shows that make them think, you know. What are brains for if not for using *shrugs*
Jim wrote: "I can't argue that but so are soaps like "Young & restless" etc. How much more speculative fiction is there then that? "From Wikipedia
"Speculative fiction is a fiction genre speculating about worlds that are unlike the real world in various important ways. In these contexts, it generally overlaps one or more of the following: science fiction, fantasy fiction, horror fiction, supernatural fiction, superhero fiction, utopian and dystopian fiction, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and alternate history."
It is very disappointing that most of the "speculative" stuff doesn't last on TV. It might be because of the cost of production? Some of my favorites are StarTrek (original mostly) but all of them, Buffy and Angel and LOVE LOVE LOVed Babylon 5.The trend toward "unscripted" TV is only going to make this worse I'm afraid.
Ya know, I don't really think that "sci-fi" equals "thinking" to most people who aren't into sci-fi. I think, to them, "sci-fi" equals geeks, silly rubber aliens, space opera, hokey effects and general silliness"On the other hand, the general idea of sci-fi is mostly action oriented with some faux-intellectual hoo-haa thrown in, like the Matrix. Now, I liked the ideas and philosophies behind the Matrix... but I also know a lot of people who liked it because of the badass action scenes, and, I admit, they were pretty badass and I thoroughly approve.
And, of course, while things like Star Trek often dealt with social and political issues, it is also easy to just watch it for fun and ignore the messages. (Trust me, I grew up with someone who routinely did just that, much to my chagrin.)
To me, those who are trying to present their sci-fi books and/or shows as not "really sci-fi" aren't trying to say "Hey, you don't have to think to enjoy it" it's more like "Hey, you actually have to think. It's about people and relationships and drama and stuff... it's not just hokey aliens and bullet effects and blowing stuff up." (i.e. "We've come a long way since the Original Star Trek. Will you please stop thinking we're trapped in the 70s!")
Of course, all of the preconceptions of sci-fi seem to be both right and wrong, depending on what selections you use to prove your point. There are sci-fi movies and shows which are more intellectual and might leave some people cold, but there's a lot of sci-fi which is more on the hokey side and hardly taxes one's synapses.
And while there is a part of me which gets annoyed when some co-workers go "Oh, sci-fi *eye roll*", I also realize I can't complain too much since I do the same thing to them with their chick lit, and romance, and Hallmark and Lifetime stuff.
Kathy wrote: "I wonder, speaking of modern technology, does DVR-ing your favorite shows (so I can go out to dinner on Friday nights with my husband) count toward ratings?I know the big 4 networks are showing..."
I work with a guy who used to work at Nielson and he told me the boxes provided by Nielson actually record the sound coming from the television and through a signal processing algorithm determine what you are watching. In that way, recording a show on DVR should count in the ratings once you watch it. From what I understand, they are struggling with shows streamed over a computer. As someone mentioned in a previous post, both of these mediums can monitor exactly what you watch and how much of it you watch. This is also becoming a challenge for Nielson's market share.
What happened with Firefly is simply a tragedy.
blackrose wrote: "Ya know, I don't really think that "sci-fi" equals "thinking" to most people who aren't into sci-fi. I think, to them, "sci-fi" equals geeks, silly rubber aliens, space opera, hokey effects and ge..."I think i get what your saying, but don't you think
"To me, those who are trying to present their sci-fi books and/or shows as not "really sci-fi" aren't trying to say "Hey, you don't have to think to enjoy it" it's more like "Hey, you actually have to think. It's about people and relationships and drama and stuff... it's not just hokey aliens and bullet effects and blowing stuff up." (i.e. "We've come a long way since the Original Star Trek. Will you please stop thinking we're trapped in the 70s!")"
this kind of attitude just exacerbates the situation. If you take a show like flashforward and say the show has people stuff, so it's not scifi, doesn't that just propagate the notion that scifi just about blowing stuff up (and giant robots!)
i guess i understand why it's necessary for marketing and kind of hoodwinking audiences into watching scifi on ABC, etc., but on SyFy? Really bugs me (although surprisingly, the name change...not so much)
Erick wrote: "Kathy wrote: "I wonder, speaking of modern technology, does DVR-ing your favorite shows (so I can go out to dinner on Friday nights with my husband) count toward ratings?I know the big 4 networ..."
so a Nielson box is like a big Vcast device?
Kai wrote: "I think i get what your saying, but don't you think this kind of attitude just exacerbates the situation. If you take a show like flashforward and say the show has people stuff, so it's not scifi, doesn't that just propagate the notion that scifi just about blowing stuff up (and giant robots!)
Certainly, and I never meant to suggest that what they're doing isn't wrong or annoying or anything. But I wasn't commenting on the rightness or wrongness of it so much, but rather to the notion that people are afraid of sci-fi because it's just too intellectual.
As for "siffy" doing it as well as ABC, etc - well, just look at the spelling change. They're trying to appeal to a wider market. The same people who will avoid a sci-fi show are going to run screaming from a whole freaking channel of the weirdo stuff! But make it Syfy, appeal to a younger audience, perhaps a larger market...
Like I said, I'm not saying I agree with it. I think it's silly, not to mention demeaning to those of us who were just fine and dandy with Sci-Fi, thankyouverymuch - the kitsch parts as well as the smart parts. I just wasn't focusing on that side of things in my reply. :>
blackrose wrote: "Kai wrote: "I think i get what your saying, but don't you think this kind of attitude just exacerbates the situation. If you take a show like flashforward and say the show has people stuff, so ..."
didn't mean to suggest that you were !
blackrose wrote: "Ya know, I don't really think that "sci-fi" equals "thinking" to most people who aren't into sci-fi. I think, to them, "sci-fi" equals geeks, silly rubber aliens, space opera, hokey effects ..."LMFAO! Even though we're strangers, Blackrose ... I would like to say that I love you. :)
It's true, though, people who aren't normally interested ;) in scifi have misconceptions about it in general that will foster certain prejudices. I like to think I have an open mind when it comes to other genres (it isn't always about the fictional aspects - sometimes it really is about the story/characters/ideas). It just seems too bad that these non-norms (haha, okay, no more norm-bashing) are the majority (as viewers and as members of the board of network television decision-making).
And I totally roll my eyes when people talk about shows like Survivor *rolls eyes*, the Bachelor/Bachelorette *rolls eyes and snorts unbecomingly*, and soap operas *rolls eyes, snorts unbecomingly and hrumphs*.
I say an open mind, but that doesn't mean you can just walk right in and make yourself at home :).
I think what bothers me the most about anti-scifi trends is that people never seem to realize that although it may be "fake" now, it gives us glimses into possibility. I know it's cliche to mention this, but rockets to the moon, thinking machines, horseless carriages, spherical planets, particles invisible to the naked eye, all of these things used to be science fiction at one point.
When people scoff at science fiction, it's like they're saying they don't believe we're capable of amazing things like that.
Blackrose wrote: "As for "siffy" doing it as well as ABC, etc - well, just look at the spelling change. They're trying to appeal to a wider market."Actually, I read it was even more base than that. SciFi they can't own. SyFy they trademarked and they can try to charge me for using...
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Flashforward (other topics)World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War (other topics)
Except for anthology shows (Twilight Zone), most Sf series only last three years of so, such as the original Star Trek.
Is it simply that not enough people like Sf? Or is it that TV ruins a lot of Sf?