SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
TV and Movie Chat
>
Why do most of the Sf shows on mainstream Tv not last?
My theory is that the tv writing assignments use top tier writers the first year, or maybe two, and then hand off to junior writers once the show has established a base. One they do that, it often declines.
I'm jazzed that not one, but TWO science fiction movies are nominated for Oscars. One won't win, because I was one of the two dozen people who saw this amazing movie: "District 9." I also don't think "Avatar" will win (well, of course it will win technical awards) for the opposite reason -- everyone saw it.
I know a lot of people who saw 'District 9', so it must just be where you live. I can see why it was nominated, since the Oscars seem to love social commentary type stories. And, personally, I hope 'Avatar' doesn't win best pic because the story wasn't original, the dialogue was sometimes clunky, and while the acting wasn't bad it wasn't anything special, either. The only thing 'Avatar' really has is it's pretty visuals, so let it win the tech awards, but not best pic. Of course, it also has that social commentary thing going for it.
Then again, after reading the list of nominations, I haven't even heard of, let alone seen, some of these movies. And, really, it's not like there were a lot of really good movies last year, and the movies I like almost never get nominated... so perhaps I'm not really the best judge. ;) (Sherlock Holmes for Best Film!)
Christopher Waltz should definitely win supporting actor for Inglorious Basterds, though - he was pretty awesome.
Talking about dumbing down science fiction, it brought back to memory of the old show Lost In Space. The first season was well-written, didn't have monsters and was pure drama about the Robinson family. But during the second season it went campy with goofy looking monsters. Same thing happened to Space 1999 when the show tried to Americanize the show in the second season.SF shows tend to have good first seasons, if they should make it to a second, it seems to go down the drain for the younger fast-pace crowd. Another example was Earth Final Conflict.
Money plays a major role. Sci-fi is expensive. A lot of shows goes off the air not because of ratings but because the networks don't want to dish out the cash. Which is kind of funny, because Sci-fi does well for the networks in DVD sales, which is why they come out so early these days. Networks are also scared to give a show a chance to grow a following. I've gotten to the point where I won't watch a new show the entire season unless it is renewed.
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..."
D K wrote: "Talking about dumbing down science fiction, it brought back to memory of the old show Lost In Space. The first season was well-written, didn't have monsters and was pure drama about the Robinson family. You obviously don't remember the giant Cyclops in the first season's opening story arc... a sillier-looking monster there never was!
But you're right, D K: It's all about the money. Networks are about profit, and you don't make much money off of an expensive SF show that brings in low numbers and doesn't sell its share of detergent. I used to blame network executives for not understanding the shows. But I've come to realize that it's not the shows they don't understand, but the audience: Who are they? What do they want? What do they buy?
TV shows target their commercials at the people watching a particular type of show. One look at SF shows' commercials and you realize the networks really don't know the SF audience, because they don't know what to try to sell to them.
Creating character-driven shows like Galactica allows execs to sell the same merchandise as any other character-driven show... that's one of the reasons Galactica did well and profited the network. Firefly could've had that, but Fox spent its time moving it around to different time slots and airing it out of order, in concern that it was too "quirky," and not allowing time for the characters to shine through. The show would've probably gone popular with rebels, fringers and bikers, for example... if they'd seen it.
Which is TV's other big problem: They've become so concerned about the quick buck that they're not willing to wait a bit for a show to catch on. It either starts out at the top, or it gets dumped.
Steven wrote: "Creating character-driven shows like Galactica allows execs to sell the same merchandise as any other character-driven show... that's one of the reasons Galactica did well and profited the network. Firefly could've had that, but Fox spent its time moving it around to different time slots and airing it out of order, in concern that it was too "quirky," and not allowing time for the characters to shine through. The show would've probably gone popular with rebels, fringers and bikers, for example... if they'd seen it."
That’s a good point. They really don’t know what their audience is/wants in regards to Sci-Fi programming.
Also, sci-fi is a very niche market, the only way to get widespread appeal is to include elements that everyone can get into, which is why BSG worked so well at first, and most likely not so much later on. Firefly, on the other hand, might have had more appeal if Fox didn’t tweak its schedule every week, but there’s also the fact that the premise isn’t something that will appeal to a widespread audience.
Also, these days it’s tough to compete with reality programming, no matter how real it really is.
Syfy seems to be doing ok with regards to scripted programming, though they have their share of reality junk as well. If I remember correctly, they have a couple new scripted shows coming out (Alphas in July, new BSG show in December?), and five shows that are returning, have returned, or did well enough for new seasons (Warehouse 13, Eureka, Haven, Sanctuary, Being Human), and then of course their reality programming and WWE.
That’s a good point. They really don’t know what their audience is/wants in regards to Sci-Fi programming.
Also, sci-fi is a very niche market, the only way to get widespread appeal is to include elements that everyone can get into, which is why BSG worked so well at first, and most likely not so much later on. Firefly, on the other hand, might have had more appeal if Fox didn’t tweak its schedule every week, but there’s also the fact that the premise isn’t something that will appeal to a widespread audience.
Also, these days it’s tough to compete with reality programming, no matter how real it really is.
Syfy seems to be doing ok with regards to scripted programming, though they have their share of reality junk as well. If I remember correctly, they have a couple new scripted shows coming out (Alphas in July, new BSG show in December?), and five shows that are returning, have returned, or did well enough for new seasons (Warehouse 13, Eureka, Haven, Sanctuary, Being Human), and then of course their reality programming and WWE.
I believe that on a superficial level, much of this can be attributed to budgetary issues and the quality of the acting that plagues much of main stream tv...the real reason for the failure of sf and to the same extent, its close cousin fantasy...often fare poorly on television in general...is probably more profound...I posted a thread asking goodread participatns to list the characteristics that foster a love of fantasy (the same could be posted for sci-fi) and it is in this matter that I suspect the true cause is rooted. I think that one of the characteristics that is so necessary to develop a genuine passion for both sci-fi and fantasy is a sense of child-like wonder and whimsy. In most adults (and sadly, in many youths) much of this child-like wonder has been scoured away by hard-boiled cynicism that has infected every aspect of our modern lives. This is especially true of television where the proliferation of quasi-reality programming has pushed many other types of entertainment off the screen. Those who cling to these particular genres have found a way to preserve and foster those characteristics...not an easy thing to do.
In my opinion BBC America carries the science fiction I have to see-- not the SyFy channel and not the other networks.I like "Chuck" and I hope it comes back. I'm bummed that "No Ordinary Family" (or whatever) seems to have bit the dust, I liked Chiklis and Benz as the parents, I wish the scripts were up to their caliber. When I can catch "Eureka" I like it.
But I love and won't miss "Doctor Who," "Torchwood" and "Being Human." Because they are character-driven and I never know where or what will happen next.
I do not watch "reality" shows. Ever.
I would rather read a book.
John wrote: "Firefly, on the other hand, might have had more appeal if Fox didn’t tweak its schedule every week, but there’s also the fact that the premise isn’t something that will appeal to a widespread audience. "I'm not sure about that... a group of mildly-functional people with baggage, trying to make a living in a rough-and-tumble world, and with a dislike of authority, sounds a lot like other shows that have done well. (In that way, Firefly has a lot of parallels with Galactica... the little guys who would've made a left when the fleet turned right...)
I do think the audience never had a chance to give it a chance, because of schedule-shuffling, and from lack of promotion; a few regularly-run promos, with some action and good funny moments, would've gotten people to tune in. Whedon dialog is pretty catchy, even when reduced to blurbs.
George wrote: "I think that one of the characteristics that is so necessary to develop a genuine passion for both sci-fi and fantasy is a sense of child-like wonder and whimsy."I think that was a requirement for the 20th century's Western SF. However, SF has been evolving into more intellectual matters, like the sense of self, the realities of space travel, the impact we have on the planet, etc. If 20th century SF was childlike in wonder and whimsy, 21st century SF is moving quickly towards adulthood, seeking its real place in the universe, wondering What We Are and Where We're Going.
That was the essential plot of Galactica, hidden underneath the Human-Cylon battles, and the combination of the two brought in old SF and new SF audiences, which is why it worked so well.
The Twilight Zone, and then The Prisoner, combined the childlike and adult elements of SF as well, and though both became lionized for their adult elements, all the same they became better known for the childlike elements ("It's a cookbook!").
"Hard-boiled cynicism" isn't new to life, or to television; the idea that we would always have to fight against "evil men" is as cynical as they come, and has been a part of TV drama since its invention. Yet we are beginning to realize that there's more to life, and individual television episodes, than this week's battle of guns or wills. TV is realizing that 40 minutes can't contain a life.
TV is evolving. People's impression of SF is also evolving, and at the moment, there isn't much sync between the two. But television has figured out the sync between the public and its favorite genres before, and it is capable of doing it again... if it wants to.
The reason I think that shows are falling is because after a season or two, the character's powers and sometimes the characters get old and boring. People keep looking for the greatest new thing while not appreciating what they already have in the present.
D.K. wrote: "Money plays a major role. Sci-fi is expensive. A lot of shows goes off the air not because of ratings but because the networks don't want to dish out the cash. Which is kind of funny, because Sci-f..."DK is right on for some. Eureka has a huge following, even after 4 seasons. It's got one more season and then it's gone. In spite of a huge effort by the fans to save it, SyFy has declared that it just costs too much to produce compared to what they can make in advertising. Money rules here.
Special effects are expensive. Those gee-whiz sets and pieces of equipment either have to be built or created electronically and that costs big bucks.
That's probably why all those cop shows go season after season while the more glamorous, techy, shows like Eureka, Galactica, and Firefly die early.
Personally, I think TV is devolving to a common denominator. Novels are where the real action is. I have not seen a really enjoyable SF series on TV since DS9 and Babylon 5 which were concurrent, Stargate and Firefly which didn't make it. The new BSG did nothing for me. I found it too soapy.
The "soapy" aspects of BSG are what kept in on-air for so long. Character development is the key, and some of the most long-lived SF shows know how to present character development. Lost is another example of such a show.And there's Doctor Who, which also has great character development. Despite its often eye-rolling pseudo-science aspects, it remains one of the most popular SF series of all time, and certainly the longest-running (even if you don't count the years between seasons).
Nearly every time that decisions have to be made on Story Quality vs. Special Effects, Special Effects wins.
Kernos wrote: Stargate and Firefly which didn't make it.Stargate aired for 10 seasons, I'm pretty sure it made it, lol
It's spin-offs didn't last, but spin-offs rarely do.
I've been considering renting DS9 (one of those spin-off exceptions) because I only caught random episodes back when it was on, I'm pleased to see you enjoyed it. 'Considering' just jumped to 'definitely on my list'.
The real reason scifi doesn't last is the viewers, or rather the lack of viewers. We've had some really excellent scifi shows that were cancelled strictly due to lack of viewership. I don't know about other countries but a significant portion of Americans are unimaginative, therefore scifi doesn't appeal to them. Not everyone can get into it as easily as we do. Scifi is not a mainstream TV genre, it's a specialized TV genre. Even movies, see how many movies are made in a year, then how many scifi movies. I don't know why anyone would think scifi would last with mainstream viewership.
I don't think it's cost necessarily. Journeyman wasn't all that expensive, nor was the US version of Life on Mars.SF done right is challenging, and many people aren't interested in being challenged. It's not just science fiction that has a Sisyphean task of winning people over, any show that's out of the ordinary does, too.
Some shows are killed inexplicably. Joan of Arcadia comes to mind: popular (for a Friday night show), well-written, won its time slot often, yet it was cancelled at the end of season 2 just as the stakes ratcheted up to 11. Joan of Arcadia was replaced by Ghost Whisperer, which actually pulled in fewer viewers (by the end, only 2/3 of JoA), yet got a 5-year run. Makes you wonder what else was going on behind the scenes.
I agree Trike about challenge. So many shows lack any thought at all. You can watch them and take a nap. But the challenging ones.... Obviously, there are people trying to produce intelligent shows. Are we (is it limited to the US?), the citizens at large, incapable of enjoying challenge?
I'm quite imaginative and as a result, have almost no friends despite being "a nice, polite" guy. If you try to talk about books or concepts, the assumption is that you are "on drugs". So, I gave up on humans and live with my cats who enjoy listen to Neal Asher books on audio with me.
I don't have a TV so I don't get to know about most shows but I have a one season wonder called "The Lost Room" that I absolutely love. I can watch DVDs on my computer.
Yes, I discovered The Lost Room on DVD too. It's a very intriguing series.
Because they don't have good enough rating's, that's all the bosses at the network care about. It is as simple as that. That's why they always wait one episode or two before they greenlight a second season because they have to see how the ratings are first.There are also other factors all of them deal with money, how much does the show cost? is the advertisement and possible dvd revinues worth the cost? It's the dollar's that decide whether a tv show last's or not, it has little to do with the content.
Most non-scifi fans I know don't even bother to distinguish it from fantasy. If something isn't "real" they throw it all into the same category of "oh that stuff 'you' like to watch. I gotta admit that while I love a good epic show like Babylon 5 or similar, the long arcing plotlines are driving me away more and more these days because between work and kids I can't watch anything consistently enough to keep up. When I was in my teens and twenties I loved all the shows. Now my world is full of PBS cartoons and the occasional news. It'll be a while until it's anything else.Also, on the money side, I notice fashion and music are playing a larger and larger part in a lot of shows. Music features in the crime scene dramas and the scandal shows. Fashion from things like gossip girl, etc is apparently a huge interest. And that's kind of hard to translate into a lot of Sci-fi shows, especially if we're talking way into the future.
Sci-fi, like any other genre stuff definitely suffers from stereotype assumptions from those who don't know the genre at all. I used to work in romance editing. Now I don't particularly read romances, but I can understand the format and the appeal and how an author writes a good one. And every time someone mentioned "bodice-ripper" I wanted to smack them upside the head. What I really like is when there's a show that has elements of many things and can't really be shunted into one category (not that people won't try).
Mostly, I only get a chance for guilty pleasure anime once in a while, or some old Jackie Chan cartoons off Netflix to share with my son, but that's it.
Jed wrote: "I'm quite imaginative and as a result, have almost no friends despite being "a nice, polite" guy. If you try to talk about books or concepts, the assumption is that you are "on drugs". So, I gave..."
If you want more friends, don't talk -- listen. Really listen. The best "conversationalists" are usually people who listen to their friends while THEY talk.
And I mean REALLY listen. Don't feign interest, get really interested in what THEY want to discuss -- and let them do most of the talking.
You'll be surprised at what you learn and how many friends you'll accumulate.
My wife listens. We have a lot of friends who put up with me and my big mouth because they like to be around her.
Shanshad, I don't know any genre that can't be boiled down to a vaguely-insulting element or two by those who don't enjoy it themselves. Klingons... dragons... bodice... P.I.... Snookie... Disney... they all have them, and those who don't like the genre in question will use them to ridicule those who do.It just so happens that those genres that have the smallest proponents will naturally hear more people denigrating them, and those populations believe it's okay because they are in the majority. Fans of things like SF and fantasy don't remain fans for long if they don't have either thick skins, or Loki's ability to hide their true nature amongst others.
Fortunately, the mixing of genres seems to be changing the game (didn't work for Firefly, but it did work for Galactica). The further we can bring others away from stereotypes, the more seriously they will consider those genres.
Syfy channel, though not exactly hardcore sci fi, pulls respectable numbers. Reality TV has taken over episodic television, and the big networks are all about getting the big numbers. A show like Flashforward should have had at least a second season, but there are a lot of things that go on behind the scenes, for example, FF changed head writers every month. Politics can ruin a show. Its already been mentioned that some shows have done well: Heroes, Fringe, Battlestar Gallactica, ect. My personal opinion is that many of the shows that fail are either poorly written or just don't have mainstream appeal. You'd think with hundreds of cable channels, they could make a show that geeks like me would like without the huge overhead.
Here's the short answer to the original question: "Why do most of the SF shows on mainstream TV not last?"1. They are very expensive to make. Thus, unless they pull massive ratings right out of the gate, they quickly find themselves transported to the cancellation nebula.
2. They are very hard to do well. Witness 90% of what appears on the SyFy network.
"Logical. Flawlessly logical."
Todd
I thought I would exhume this thread. I have a question? The most common response I read was the cost of special effects and what I would call the geek factor. The best science fiction and fantasy I believe is as dependent on strong characters just like any good show. Firefly was popular because of great characters and because the a new world every week allowed it to incorporate themes, like the human cost of war tough to do on regular TV. I just don't buy that over the top special effects are that high a priority.
I believe that TV execs belief that special effects are the core of SF & Fantasy rather than the ideas is why so many of the shows suck and fail. I would love for someone like the guy behind The Newsroom try a SF or Fantasy series.
I think it is very unlikely that Aaron Sorkin will write a science fiction fantasy series. I'd watch it if he did, but I think we need to be very thankful for Joss Whedon and Alan Ball and others.That geek factor is something the networks actively chase when it's ComCon, why not any other time? I'm sure SyFy thought of "Eureka" as sp fx of the week, but it was about the people who lived & worked in Eureka to me.
I think part of the problem is studios expect to achieve instant cult status and its not going to happen that way. Without a built in audience like Game of Thrones anyway. And even the cult shows don't pull in numbers like weekly mystery/thriller shows.
Jaq wrote: "The best scifi shows use cheap effects. It's part of their charm."
Apropos of which - it seems SyFy are due to do a remake of the wonderful "Blake's 7"
Apropos of which - it seems SyFy are due to do a remake of the wonderful "Blake's 7"
Blake's 7, that brings back memories, Could never decide who I preferred Blake or Avon.
Never mind Blake or Avon...who would play Servalan?
Deanne wrote: "Blake's 7, that brings back memories, Could never decide who I preferred Blake or Avon."
Avon, of course - he's bad to the bone!
As for Servalan - Gina McKee would be my pick, after seeing her in the recent TV series "Line of Duty" - powerful, seductive, manipulative. Though realistically if SyFy are making it the actors are more likely to be American, in which case I have no clue.
Avon, of course - he's bad to the bone!
As for Servalan - Gina McKee would be my pick, after seeing her in the recent TV series "Line of Duty" - powerful, seductive, manipulative. Though realistically if SyFy are making it the actors are more likely to be American, in which case I have no clue.
The good news is that there is a lot of Fantasy on TV recently and there is some Science Fiction coming this fall. Although Supernatural had a rather weak 7th season, even a limping Supernatural is better than most everything else.
The Vampire Diaries continues to impress.
Beauty and the Beast comes to CW after VD (heh). I have no idea how this will be received, mostly because the target audience is young enough to be the kids *my* kids would babysit if I'd ever bothered to have any.
Grimm and Once Upon a Time have been renewed.
666 Park Avenue is a horror show set in a haunted apartment building.
Science Fiction
Arrow is coming to the CW, and it's barely in the superhero genre and marginally sci-fi, but I think it counts.
Alphas on Sci-Fi just started its second season with a superb episode.
Zero Hour is apparently some sort of technothriller with Nazi bad guys. I don't have high hopes for it, but you never know.
The Neighbors is about a family who move into a suburb populated entirely by aliens. Er, extraterrestrials, not illegal immigrants.
Revolution by Eric Kripke (Supernatural), J.J. Abrams (Lost) and Jon Favreau (Iron Man) is about society losing electricity somehow. The trailers look dumb to me, but people might like it.
None of these seem especially FX-heavy or terribly expensive compared to regular TV shows.
Eureka was one of my favorites not because of the special effects (because let's face it, they were super cheesy) but because of the characters. Although the last few episodes of the final season were lacking, over all I loved the show and will miss it.Something I don't get is why in the world wrestling is on Syfy in the first place. Since when does that qualify as science fiction? Fiction, yes. Science, no.
Scott wrote: "Jaq wrote: "The best scifi shows use cheap effects. It's part of their charm."I can't agree with that. It's just nostalgia.
The best newer scifi, including the new Dr. Who, Torchwood, firefly..."
Don't forget Being Human - an absolutely cracking Sci-Fi Fantasy series with series Five yet to come :)
I think the problem with sci-fi on television is two fold. One, I think a lot of execs don't get what it's about (I define sci-fi as being written somehow in the spirit of "this is where we're going") and so they write something based on what was popular last year/last decade. Something new comes up, they don't give it time to find its niche. I think the other problem is, we've been using Sci-fi to explore our fears lately, rather than trying to be optimistic about our future. FALLING SKIES Is about ten kinds of awesome, but fears about our entire race being subsumed by aliens have been kind of topical, you know? Sci-fi tends to be shaped by our own outlook for the future, and right now that looks pretty damn bleak. I mean, right now we're more interested in a zombie apocalypse than we are in space ships. That ought to tell you a lot.
Chelsea, I don't think it's fear exactly. Series addressing fear inducing stories have to work harder to make sure that the lead characters likeable, and usually need some element of humor. Long lived series of any genre usually have very likeable leads. Humor balances the fear. Non series productions like movies or single books can be a little edgier, tv shows risk wearing out their welcome.
Chelsea & Patgolfneb,Do you see much humor in "Falling Skies" and "The Walking Dead?" I sure don't. I long ago picked up and read World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, thinking, this is Mel Brooks' son, this is going to be funny. Boy was I wrong!
As for likeable protagonists, that's definately true of both of these series. I quite like it when the protagonists become antagonists and vice versa.
The last starship- based series we had was "Firefly," I think. While it had a shiny 'verse, the universe our heroes lived in was bleak-- and the characters were funny and very likeable. But the execs had more interest in killing the series than promoting it and letting it be.
"The last starship- based series we had was "Firefly," I think."Though not really starship based, briefly there was Defying Gravity on a spaceship that was to visit several of the planets in our solar system. The series lasted a whole two months.
Julia wrote: "The last starship- based series we had was "Firefly," I think. "I'm pretty sure Battlestar Galactica qualifies as starship based. ;) (although far, far bleaker than Firefly, of course).
Looking forward to series 10 of Red Dwarf to be aired in october.
Evilynn wrote: I'm pretty sure Battlestar Galactica qualifies as starship based. ;) (although far, far bleaker than Firefly, of cour..."Battlestar Galactica was not sci-fi. It was drama. Set in space. Obnoxious, annoying drama. (sorry, had to get that out of my system) :)
Jenelle wrote: "Battlestar Galactica was not sci-fi. It was drama. Set in space. Obnoxious, annoying drama. (sorry, had to get that out of my system) :)"I'm pretty sure !Drama would disqualify everything except Red Dwarf. ;P
Jenelle wrote: "Battlestar Galactica was not sci-fi. It was drama. Set in space. Obnoxious, annoying drama. (sorry, had to get that out of my system) :) "I agree, though consider it soap opera. I also found it obnoxious. Now the original, real BSG is SF and good ole space opera.
I think it's called "space opera".
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)
Science Fiction broadened our boundaries, visually represented our hopes and aspirations, and pushed what was impossible to become possible. Who would have ever thought of hand held communication devices (Cell Phone), Thank you Star Trek. Who would have ever thought of space travel, Thank you Jules Vern. Who would have ever of thought of computers, Thank you Issac Asimov, Gene Roddenberry.
Why are we accepting this treatment from a service we pay for? Why are we accepting the twenty minutes of commercials in an hour program? Why do the network execs get the final say as what is good or bad? Speak loudly, friends of Science Fiction. Speak directly to the ones that make the choices. Our voices are the only ones that can change this.
So let us begin.