Sci-Fi TV Series - underated or problem with quality

[NG.1]

Hi

I hope you guys won't mind me starting this thread.

I am a big science fiction fan, especially of sci-fi TV Series.

Anyway have seen a lot of posts doing the round where people stated that science fiction TV Series aren't given their dues, most people don't like watching science fiction etc. and that is the reason why most of these series have bad ratings, get cancelled after only a few seasons etc. etc.

Now I have a question...

Is that really a case or is it more a fact of the quality of some of these science fiction series being really bad.

For instance...I was a huge Star Trek fan, but could see the quality going down from Next Generation to Deep Space 9, Voyager and ending with Enterprise. Especially Enterprise had the potential to be great, but a lot of the episodes was just plain boring and surely people that don't like sci-fi overall won't bother to watch it then. Same for Voyager I guess.

The same with X-Files. That creator guy of theirs (can't remember his name) stated at the end he couldn't understand why the ratings went down since the quality was still the same. I just don't agree. You could clearly see how the quality of the story lines went down towards the end.

Now I believe that a good science fiction story should not just have excellent sci-fi storylines plots, but also excellent 3-dimensional characters with lots of angst, mixed with comedy and maybe even romance - then I am in seventh heaven myself. Especially Stargate had answered a lot of that criteria and maybe that is why it grew to be so popular???

I don't know whether this post makes sense, but basically my question is like I stated in the heading.

Is sci-fi stories really underated by most people or is it rather a fact of the quality of the story lines sucking big times sometimes and maybe that the writers of these series should look at some of the more popular TV Series to get an example of how storylines can be developed for maximum entertainment.

[yaaayoubetcha]

i'll try a new sf series on tv...

but generally if the fx and cgi dept has a bigger budget than the writers, i know it won't do well.

everything on tv is about flash....
with non-sf shows it's about getting in as much T&A as possible along with pushing the limits on acceptable dialogue...with SF...it's much the same, but adding as much cgi as possible to the mix to make things 'shiny'.

SG1/A had really avoided that for the most part since it was such a character driven show...but this season with Vala they seem to have stumbled a bit...same with Ronan Dex...both are interesting characters but seem to be dealt with first as eye candy...

[NG.1]

i'll try a new sf series on tv...

but generally if the fx and cgi dept has a bigger budget than the writers, i know it won't do well.

everything on tv is about flash....
with non-sf shows it's about getting in as much T&A as possible along with pushing the limits on acceptable dialogue...with SF...it's much the same, but adding as much cgi as possible to the mix to make things 'shiny'.

SG1/A had really avoided that for the most part since it was such a character driven show...but this season with Vala they seem to have stumbled a bit...same with Ronan Dex...both are interesting characters but seem to be dealt with first as eye candy...

I know what fx is and I think I know what cgi is, but what is T&A. Excuse my ignorance, but English isn't my motherlanguage therefore I struggle with some abreviations.

As for SG1 - my thoughts exactly. The same was true for other successful sci-fi series e.g. ST Next Generation, ST Deep Space 9, first couple of seasons of x-files and others.

I also will try a new sci-fi series and will try to stick with it as far as possible, but found that most of the times it becomes a bit boring after a while due to lack of character development and if the sci-fi part of the series doesn't make sense (sometimes even a bit stupid)...well then it goes down the drain for me. The only exception to that was the Twilight Zone and its sister series (was it Outer Limits??) which for the life I can't remember now. There the action alone was enough to make it a diamond in my eyes.

And also (sorry for hammering on the same topic again) there's nothing I hate more than the sci-fi part of a series being totally illogical. To make an easy example...ST Enterprise was like an alternative universe season for Star Trek. Especially if you look at how to depict the Vulcans and T'Pol where all the other series had shown us a different view.

Anyway enough rambling for now. As usual I hope I make sense.

[Mr. Seven]

Well thanks to LOST we are getting a lot more SCIFI on tv.

I mean - Threshold, Invasion, Surace (formerly Fathom), Supernatural, The Night Stalker remake, etc..


I hope it doesn't delude the SCIFI waters too much.

Frankly, I find the Three (four if you count Firefly and who wouldn't?) block of SCIFI Friday to be the best.

The only way it could get better is if they put Farscape on at 11 PM after BSG.

[NG.1]

Well thanks to LOST we are getting a lot more SCIFI on tv.

I mean - Threshold, Invasion, Surace (formerly Fathom), Supernatural, The Night Stalker remake, etc..


I hope it doesn't delude the SCIFI waters too much.

Frankly, I find the Three (four if you count Firefly and who wouldn't?) block of SCIFI Friday to be the best.

The only way it could get better is if they put Farscape on at 11 PM after BSG.

Forgot to add Lost in my discussion. Yeah...Lost showed that you can have sci-fi and charaterisation at a new high level.

[MarshAngel]

I think scifi series are somewhat underrated but many do fall victims to cliches, bad and inconsistent writing and low budgets. If not for the occasionally brilliant writer, scifi series as a whole would get even less respect than they already do based on the amount of crap that's out there and I think that has something to do with the network formula that too many feel they *have* to stick to in order to appeal to as many viewers as possible.

Science Fiction, being genre fiction already is by nature somewhat formulaic.
Unfortunately when in the hands of bad writers and network executives it results in entertainment that appeals to the lowest common denominator, creativity be damned and they can't seem to help remaking the same films, reusing the same old ideas and depnding too heavily on baseless "science" that can be ripped apart by a child, to manipulate weak stories. Truly original ideas aren't given much of a chance because they dont fit an easily marketed mold.

I think cable series has spurred more creativity in recent years but whether more people are willing to give those series a chance on network TV remains to be seen. I'm crossing my fingers that we'll see more successful series and better writing in the near future.

[NG.1]

I think scifi series are somewhat underrated but many do fall victims to cliches, bad and inconsistent writing and low budgets. If not for the occasionally brilliant writer, scifi series as a whole would get even less respect than they already do based on the amount of crap that's out there and I think that has something to do with the network formula that too many feel they *have* to stick to in order to appeal to as many viewers as possible.

Science Fiction, being genre fiction already is by nature somewhat formulaic.
Unfortunately when in the hands of bad writers and network executives it results in entertainment that appeals to the lowest common denominator, creativity be damned and they can't seem to help remaking the same films, reusing the same old ideas and depnding too heavily on baseless "science" that can be ripped apart by a child, to manipulate weak stories. Truly original ideas aren't given much of a chance because they dont fit an easily marketed mold.

I think cable series has spurred more creativity in recent years but whether more people are willing to give those series a chance on network TV remains to be seen. I'm crossing my fingers that we'll see more successful series and better writing in the near future.

I agree with you and also can hope for more succussful series.
And there is definitely a lot of crap out there that not even a true science fiction fan can stand.

[Easter Lily]

To answer your original question... there's a little bit of both...
I do think it is a largely misunderstood genre as a whole and there are times when a show has run its course and TPTB (the powers that be) continue to flog a dead horse...
I live outside the US, where the genre is even more mishandled... It constantly gets shoved into late night spots and when there are live sporting events being televised, it often gets shafted. Scif-fi fans are a nonentity where the programmers are concerned. It boggles the mind that they insist on buying programmes, put them on at unearthly hours, take them off without warning and put them on without warning again. How they expect to garner a wide-ranging audience when they continue to give it the worst end of the stick, is beyond me. A brilliant show like Firefly was never given a chance to go the distance and was canned after 14 episodes speaks volumes about the lack of commitment that many networks have to the genre.

More and more, I'm coming to the conclusion that for better or worse, shows should have a set arc. I would like to see more shows attempt to construct a decent story for say, about 4-5 years, and pace it accordingly. Most shows seem to be good for about that time period and then jump shark not long after. A good idea can only last for so long before it becomes a tired idea and it is a rare thing for producers and suits to know when to say enough is enough. If we expect to get closure from books, why can't we expect it of our television shows?

[Perriman33]

I think part of the problem with bad ratings is the continuation side of things.
Most sci-fi shows have a prolonged storyline which only makes sense if you watch almost all the episodes.
The exceptions being TNG which had almost no story arc and the X-files which didn't at the start. Almost all the people I know watched these two shows on a fairly regular basis.But when you ask them about DS9 or even stargate they said because they missed a couple of shows or the pilot they couldn't get into it.
Unless you have characters people can relate to sci-fi will always be for the minority of us. Which is why the soap operas do well, because although rapes ,child molesters, major disasters and close friends dying isn't something that happens every week in real life(well not to me anyhow). People somehow relate to the characters and their lives.
Personally I hope sci-fi doesn't go that way!

[Carbito]

Shows like Battlestar Galatica are in a way re-defining or at least bringing many new elements into Sci-Fi, this is where its strength lies.

However in my opinion this biggest weakness of Sci-Fi is that the same episode structures and plot lines are repeated in many of the shows. The worst part about this is that these repeated plot lines are always really bad. For example take the whole thing about people switching bodies/conciousness with another character. This is something that both Star Trek and Stargate have done on numerous occasions - always with disastorous results. In order to improve Sci-Fi and make it more main stream the writers of these shows need to ditch these tired old story lines which shows have been recycling for decades.

[NG.1]

To answer your original question... there's a little bit of both...
I do think it is a largely misunderstood genre as a whole and there are times when a show has run its course and TPTB (the powers that be) continue to flog a dead horse...
I live outside the US, where the genre is even more mishandled... It constantly gets shoved into late night spots and when there are live sporting events being televised, it often gets shafted. Scif-fi fans are a nonentity where the programmers are concerned. It boggles the mind that they insist on buying programmes, put them on at unearthly hours, take them off without warning and put them on without warning again. How they expect to garner a wide-ranging audience when they continue to give it the worst end of the stick, is beyond me. A brilliant show like Firefly was never given a chance to go the distance and was canned after 14 episodes speaks volumes about the lack of commitment that many networks have to the genre.

More and more, I'm coming to the conclusion that for better or worse, shows should have a set arc. I would like to see more shows attempt to construct a decent story for say, about 4-5 years, and pace it accordingly. Most shows seem to be good for about that time period and then jump shark not long after. A good idea can only last for so long before it becomes a tired idea and it is a rare thing for producers and suits to know when to say enough is enough. If we expect to get closure from books, why can't we expect it of our television shows?

The same where I live...South Africa. Here they kept on repeating the first three seasons of Stargate and only when I went through all the trouble to purchase all the seasons did they finally decide to continue, and now even shows Atlantis.

One only needs to read our TV Guide to see how people love Stargate but alas TPTB thinks different.

Luckily we were now finally lucky to get Battlestar Galactica, but it only shows at 10pm at night.

[NG.1]

Shows like Battlestar Galatica are in a way re-defining or at least bringing many new elements into Sci-Fi, this is where its strength lies.

However in my opinion this biggest weakness of Sci-Fi is that the same episode structures and plot lines are repeated in many of the shows. The worst part about this is that these repeated plot lines are always really bad. For example take the whole thing about people switching bodies/conciousness with another character. This is something that both Star Trek and Stargate have done on numerous occasions - always with disastorous results. In order to improve Sci-Fi and make it more main stream the writers of these shows need to ditch these tired old story lines which shows have been recycling for decades.

Agree with you. What sorta impressed me about Battlestar Galactica is that there were no easy answers in their storylines and that they didn't hesitate to kill of children.

I know it sounds horrible to say that, but I had something against stories where they always found an easy way to save the children where if it was real life it just wouldn't have happened.

The fact is children can die just as easily as grownups.

[jyh]

I know what fx is and I think I know what cgi is, but what is T&A. Excuse my ignorance, but English isn't my motherlanguage therefore I struggle with some abreviations.

fx (or f/x) = effects, as in special effects; also known as sfx
cgi = computer-generated image
t&a = reference to female body parts, t** and a** (think Charlie's Angels); also known as the "jiggle" factor.



Personally I've never been able to figure out why sci-fi shows don't have a category in the traditional Emmy awards. I guess a plausible reason could be that it would be difficult to define what's sci-fi and what's not. And isn't it interesting that Lost is considered a sci-fi show? We haven't actually seen anything that can be considered supernatural. Right now all it is is a situation in which there is not enough information with which to come up with a theory the circumstances (either for viewers or for the crash survivors).

[NG.1]

fx (or f/x) = effects, as in special effects; also known as sfx
cgi = computer-generated image
t&a = reference to female body parts, t** and a** (think Charlie's Angels); also known as the "jiggle" factor.



Personally I've never been able to figure out why sci-fi shows don't have a category in the traditional Emmy awards. I guess a plausible reason could be that it would be difficult to define what's sci-fi and what's not. And isn't it interesting that Lost is considered a sci-fi show? We haven't actually seen anything that can be considered supernatural. Right now all it is is a situation in which there is not enough information with which to come up with a theory the circumstances (either for viewers or for the crash survivors).

First of all thanks for the info.

Secondly you are right. Maybe then sci-fi will come into their own right. Also sometimes there is a small devide line between sci-fi and paranormal and horror. e.g. Pretender - could never figure out what it was...sci-fi or paranormal.

[ibwolf]

TV SF faces two, related, problems. Most importantly is the 'popular' image of Science Fiction as non-mainstream. Appealing mostly to geeks etc. The ordinary viewer simply isn't interested in space ships and aliens. It is a simple fact that 'blatant' SF shows rarely do well on Network TV because these trappings turn people away. They are simply not capable of suspending disbelive when you have rubber headed aliens etc. A large part of the TV viewing public are therefor unlikely to accept any overt SF series.

Series such as the X-Files and Lost have an easier time, since there are no such blantantly 'out there' concepts. The people we are watching are (reasonably) normal and the SF elements are mostly relegated to the 'mystery.' What is going on? I only hope that Lost does not fall into the same trap as the X-Files, that is rambling on season after season, without ever giving any closure.

All of this is unfortunate, because, as we all know, SF shows can often have extremely good stories underneath the makeup. However, this is where the second problem enters.

"Network Execs" are aware of the general view of SF held by so many viewers. As a result they are often unwilling to risk SF series (at all or) unless there is some effort to 'mainstream' it. Appeal to the 'lowest common denominator'. Or in other words insert a 'jiggle' factor

Not that the 'jiggle' factor is the only solution, but it is a common one. Other ideas involve mostly ripping off successful movies (which is usually done poorly) or something equally stupid.

In fact, very few sci-fi (or fantasy) series have survived on Network TV without 'selling out' in some way. TNG (although it was syndicated and not a Network show) probably came the closest, but it was helped by the enourmous success of the franchise. Somehow Star Trek had become mainstream, even if SF in general had not. Even this didn't last very long and Voyager was soon forced to resort to the 'jiggle' factor.

Most of the really good SF shows over the last 10 years have come from cable channels (many in fact from the SciFi channel). Farscape, Stargate (both), Battlestar Galactica are the prime examples. Heck, even Babylon 5 couldn't survive in the syndication market and we owe its 5th season (and movies) to TNT. And without the reruns on the SciFi channel, the DVDs would probably never have seen the light of day.

Luckily for us, the TV viewing market is segmenting. Where there were once only a handful of networks, there are now a huge number of channels offering diverce programming. This means that more specialized channels are willing to invest in what were considered niche markets before. The SciFi channel (for example) does not need to 'dumb down' or otherwise dillute its SF shows, because it knowns its audience can take it! In fact, its audience demands it.