Why are there so many bad Sci Fi shows?

[Starrtom]

Yep, but in a way its a good thing because when I find people who are in the same boat ; they always seem to become good friends. So it isnt all bad at all. Thanks for understanding though, not many seem to

that said, I entirely agree with your post there.

I also understand totally where you are coming from. I get accused a lot of being a snob in the sense that I don't like to conform to the main stream.
Keep playing your music and making your brand of Sci Fi, I think thats great. Question though, what is your definition of good Sci Fi? I'ld be interested to know.

[Acolyte Of Bli'l'ab]

I also understand totally where you are coming from. I get accused a lot of being a snob in the sense that I don't like to conform to the main stream.

Thanks bro, thats appreciated.

Question though, what is your definition of good Sci Fi? I'ld be interested to know.

I find the warhammer 40,000 universe very compelling in that it has so much depth. It has an almost consistant canon and huge time-line, but just enough it leaves plenty of mysteries open or for anyone to input anything they want...and hey I love ground-based sci-fi war. I adore HP Lovecrafts writing due to its sheer scope and litteral cosmic-horrors i.e. I love the idea of their gods being the survivors of a previous universe and existing with the laws and physics from that universe alike. Olaf Stapledon is sci-fi writer I relate to and love the worlds, civilizations and ideas behind his stories and he influenced writers like Arthur C. Clarke (another person who I admire and respect) Olaf wrote classics like 'Star Maker' which is a fictional entire history of life in the universe which also contained the first known description of Dyson spheres, a concept which never ceases to impress me. TV show-wise I thought babylon5 was perfect and features some of the best sci-fi characters ever, espcially ones like Kosh and G'kar (RIP Andreas!), the stories and concepts were top-notch IMO. The Outer Limits was great too, always told really good sci-fi episodes with good twists, depth and -meaning-.

[AnUbIs2004]

Personally, I just see the key to having success for any Science Fiction show is for it to be syndicated and NOT tied to just the SciFi channel.

I know I am extremely biased against this channel, but it is for good reason. For years they have done EVERYTHING wrong. It is not just that they cancel shows I like, but also how they go about doing it. At the same time they have given us tons and tons of garbage shows (Painkiller Jane, Flash, Scare Tactics, etc..) and passed this off as Science Fiction.

It is not that I necessarily want to see this channel go out of business, if they started putting on good shows and supported them, I would be a big supporter of this channel, as I used to be years back before they canceled Farscape.

When you look at what this channel has offered the past two years, it could hardly be called a SciFi channel. Dresden Files was NOT science fiction, Eureka is SciFi fluff, Painkiller Jane..I dont know what the f*** that was, and now Flash trash.

What is encouraging, as some are mentioning future possiblities, is this. Sancutary is a perfect example of maybe HOW to do it. Screw the networks, just go direct to the audience. At $2.49 for High Def version, this is absolutely a good deal. No commercials, download and watch at YOUR convenience. What better way to put out quality Science Fiction. I do hope this succeeds and motivates others to put out some similar shows, and say to hell with the SciFi channel

[Acolyte Of Bli'l'ab]

What is encouraging, as some are mentioning future possiblities, is this. Sancutary is a perfect example of maybe HOW to do it. Screw the networks, just go direct to the audience. At $2.49 for High Def version, this is absolutely a good deal. No commercials, download and watch at YOUR convenience. What better way to put out quality Science Fiction. I do hope this succeeds and motivates others to put out some similar shows, and say to hell with the SciFi channel

This goes with why I think DIY is the best way to go. I think in general TV would be better like this ; as it would be free from the flawed Ratings-systems that dominate the TV industry i.e. if they make enough profit from downloads they can keep it going and this would mean shows would probably have more chance of surviving because everyone that downloads it is a paying customer. This would probably lead to more chance of more obscure shows happening and less chance of shows being canceled.

I really do hope "Net-TV" happens, shows like Sanctuary have given me hope it might go this way and yes its what I plan to do with Cyber Warfare Productions (sell 45-min episodes online at $1 each per download).

[smurf]

<Spoilering for space>

Spoiler:

The whole point of the DIY ethic is to do what you want to do, commercial success is only a happy side-effect.

I dont even break-even when I release CD's half the time, I do it out of love and because its what I want to hear and listen to as alot of music out there doesnt "do it for me" like the stuff I make for myself does. The same goes for sci-fi. Its a labour of love. I have a dayjob for a reason.

The only success in my eyes is if im happy with what iv made andv made the thing iv wanted to watch my entire life. If other people are unhappy with commercial sci-fi are able to do this then you'd have more alternative



Characters are important but the ideas and concepts are what should come first. Characters should just be there to explore the ideas and concepts IMO, but your perspective has its place too.



I think the characters can be anything, they dont have to be human-beings in the least. And humans are only capable of doing so many things realistically. And denying alien and non-human characters would be denying a large and very interesting part of sci-fi. If I want to make something based around weird aliens and thats what I enjoy then I dont see anything wrong with it, if people dont get it, its no big deal they can watch something else instead.

Sorry but I find this rather insulting as it sounds like you are dictating the facts I already know like I am stupid to be not aware of them, I dont know if this is intentional as its hard to see over the net but felt it needed to be said none the less. For one, the majority dont even come into it. They have their stuff already, they can enjoy their shows, I dont care..more power to them if they enjoy stuff I dont . I am part of one of those minorities that ARENT social animals and dont always care for these mainstream mentalities and simply offering my opinions, views and solutions on how to get people like myself stuff we can enjoy too, its not moaning because im not upset and rambling without point. I have alot of passion and want the best for the genre iv loved as a kid so apologies if I come across as aggressive or insulting in previous posts.

as a disclaimer though, I dont consider my views "better" because im part of an underground taste, but I dont think my views are "less" either because more people would disagree with me.

Spoiler:

I think that goes for anyone, and any genre existing. Commercial of Indie.



Well, it hasnt always been a kids show. If you watch some of the 80's episodes (alot of Davison, Colin bakers first season and the last season of mccoy), the 90's Virgin New Adventures novels they were a more adult direction with many dark themes including the Lovecraft Cthulhu Mythos which IMO was great. So going back to a family show is a back-step from my personal point of view, as it disallows alot of great things in the mythology and format due to it being non-child friendly.



Well, I dont really care too much if the science is spot-on or not, as long as the concepts and ideas are good and make me think. Thats what I find "fun" personally



nobodies been looking down on characterisation, iv even mentioned some of my favourite sci-fi shows are character based (babylon5/bsg) it has its place for sure. And I thought we explained why we are hung up on the science-fiction parts in sci-fi television shows ; because in my opinion they arent original, because usually they are recycled, and because they havent really done anything different. I want to be excited by amazing concepts and ideas that make me think and escapism like that can be a great thing, thats what I personally look for in sci-fi, if it isnt there then I wont be interested in it and thats why I dont like alot of sci-fi shows and why I am saying people should make their own if they are like me also unhappy with mainstream offerings...sometimes if your unhappy with something you have to do it yourself.

I dont see why its so hard to understand where we'ere coming from. I know plenty who disagree but still see where my thinking is at...

Apologies if that came off as insulting, I didn't mean it to. (Also it wasn't directed at you specifically, as I said all "you"s are general.)

It's not hard to understand where you are coming from, but I think if you believe that the concept and ideas should come before the characterisation, then you will always be dissatisfied with what is available. As MarshAngel says television is too expensive to produce for a small audience - although to be honest that is what a channel dedicated to science fiction should really be doing.
Essentially, it isn't designed for you, because your definition of what makes sci-fi may be too narrow. For example; to me sci-fi is about possible, or even seemingly improbable, science and how it relates to the "human" condition. Whether that means sticking it in the some future alien world, or CSI:NY (a show so very full of science fiction ).
For people like you DIY seems to be the way forward. It's the reason why most great, pure sci-fi is in novel form.

Also by normal I don't mean human as such, but to be relatable in characterisation. There are plenty of human, or human form, protagonists in sci-fi who are just so frustrating to watch that they can kill a perfectly good show idea - yes, I'm looking at you Gwen from Torchwood (although, admittedly it's not all your fault).

[Wordsmit2]

Good characters are great and interesting relationships are fine, but if it sacrifices the sci-fi, originality and most importantly the "ideas and concepts" (Which IMO are what defines sci-fi) then it fails. Good sci-fi should be about innovative ideas and concepts first and foremost, ones that push the limits and try to take things further.

Science fiction is about people (beings) *coping* with new, changing, or twisting things. --Selling, recognizing, investigating, mistaking, denying, acknowledging, adapting to, fighting... When you can make it a non-issue by zapping a magic wand (button, missile, bit of good luck...) at it, you have nothing but an audience that feels ripped off. "I wasted an hour of my life for *that*?! Sci-fi fans *must* be losers if they watch *this* stuff! So, do you think characters A and B will get together?..."

[Daedalus-304]

Does anyone else think that Video Games are producing better quality Science Fiction than TV and Movies these days, and it's often Sci Fi and Fantasy games that are the most popular and make the most money. Look at several of most popular video games: Halo, Half-life, Metroid, they have a very good science fiction story.

[Wordsmit2]

So I do have to ask why so many are hung up on the "pure" science aspect,

Because the audience wants to play along, and hates it with a passion when the show/movie/book contradicts itself or ignores the oh-so-obvious. It ain't the science (or pseudo-science), it's the *consistency* within the nature or character presented.

Take Back to the Future for instance. The flux capacitor is ridiculous in every respect. But the film isn't about what it is and how it works. The film is about what Marty has to do (and try to keep from doing) to get it working again and return to his own time. The film establishes its own rules and shows what happens when they're broken and repaired. Thus, people like the film.

and CGI, of most science fiction TV,

It's camouflage. --Because real men aren't supposed to care, they're supposed to be impressed by skin, fast vehicles, and explosions.

Hands up men, how many of you secretly own a copy of Ladyhawke? *crickets chirp loudly in the sudden silence*

whilst looking down on the characterisation

When the characterisation is pointless, by the numbers, or hard to credit. One seldom reads a simple criticism like "Why couldn't they spend less time on the characters and more on the CGI?" It's almost always "Why was so much time wasted on character A being stupid when something much more interesting was supposed to be going on? Why couldn't they have showed..."

[Wordsmit2]

Well, it hasnt always been a kids show. If you watch some of the 80's episodes (alot of Davison, Colin bakers first season and the last season of mccoy), the 90's Virgin New Adventures novels they were a more adult direction with many dark themes including the Lovecraft Cthulhu Mythos which IMO was great. So going back to a family show is a back-step from my personal point of view, as it disallows alot of great things in the mythology and format due to it being non-child friendly.

I suggest the population look back to when it was a kids show and redefine their ideas of how thick yet delicate they imagine children to be these days. Have children devolved so much in twenty to forty years?

"The Keys of Marinus", anyone? "The Crusade"? "Pyramids of Mars"? "Image of the Fendahl"? (Actually, every Tom Baker from "The Ark In Space" through "Image of the Fendahl".) Every single Dalek episode ever? Most of 'em are on YouTube and available in VHS, folks, many are available on DVD, and you can still find the Target novelisations in used bookstores.

[Admiral Mappalazarou]

That's exactly it.
So I do have to ask why so many are hung up on the "pure" science aspect, and CGI, of most science fiction TV, whilst looking down on the characterisation - no soap opera isn't good, but more often the "soap" aspects help us understand the character's motivations/reactions to the science.


I find "family friendly" is a euphemism for "suitable for children". There are plenty of "childrens shows" I enjoy. Still, either way, if you are looking for accurate science over (mostly) fun and adventure you'll probably have a hard time enjoying it.

Yes because huge toilet shaped vessels travelling through wormholes to other galaxies is realistic enough.

[smurf]

Because the audience wants to play along, and hates it with a passion when the show/movie/book contradicts itself or ignores the oh-so-obvious. It ain't the science (or pseudo-science), it's the *consistency* within the nature or character presented.

Take Back to the Future for instance. The flux capacitor is ridiculous in every respect. But the film isn't about what it is and how it works. The film is about what Marty has to do (and try to keep from doing) to get it working again and return to his own time. The film establishes its own rules and shows what happens when they're broken and repaired. Thus, people like the film.



It's camouflage. --Because real men aren't supposed to care, they're supposed to be impressed by skin, fast vehicles, and explosions.

Hands up men, how many of you secretly own a copy of Ladyhawke? *crickets chirp loudly in the sudden silence*



When the characterisation is pointless, by the numbers, or hard to credit. One seldom reads a simple criticism like "Why couldn't they spend less time on the characters and more on the CGI?" It's almost always "Why was so much time wasted on character A being stupid when something much more interesting was supposed to be going on? Why couldn't they have showed..."

I'm a bit lost, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Like you are saying, the consistancy of the science within that world should be more important than the accuracy to pure science. Same as the CGI should only be there to enhance a story rather than be the story.

I tend to find it's repeatedly "There's no good sci-fi because CGI is too expensive." or "X isn't sci-fi because there isn't enough science/the science is inaccurate/they spend too much time on relationships".

If the characterisation is pointless, then surely the fix should be better characterisation rather than more CGI, or throwing more ideas at the screen no-one is really concentrating on because they have no emotional connection with the story?

Would Back to the Future have worked without Marty McFly and Doc. Brown?

Yes because huge toilet shaped vessels travelling through wormholes to other galaxies is realistic enough.

Damn straight. Toilet-ships, and characters who are there merely to move the story along or stand mutely in the background. That is how you create a successful, long-term show.


BTW, apparently Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott

[MarshAngel]

BTW, apparently Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott

I don't know about dead. But he's certainly right about all the ideas are already used up. But that's only relevant if you think originality is the end all and be all of everything. You can make the same story several different ways and have a brilliant take, a superbad version and several mediocre films with the same story. It doesn't have to be something "new" just "better". How many times has Pride and Prejudice been made?

This is where characterization makes the difference. The basic idea may be the same but a new character in the same role can be the one thing that makes the difference. You can identity swap a hundred times but if none of those characters are interesting then it's a rehash without value.

[AvatarIII]

sci fi's are as dead as westerns? well westerns are still being made and making money. and i'd say a lot of good sci-fi literature has been written since the likes of 2001, star wars, alien, dune and bladerunner were made. the problem is film makers are stuck in the mind set of "Sci-Fi > Big Effects > Blockbuster" only a few recent sci fi films have gone against that thinking, like A Scanner Darkly, eXistenZ, Gattaca, and more recently Sunshine. what we need is more producers thinking outside the box.

[Pitry]

I thinkt here are two factors in it.

First, the prejudice factor. It comes from everywhere - funding (inefficient funding is always a problem, whether it costs good actors, good lookign locations/sets or good CGI), networks'/show developers' diea about what would a sciecne fiction fan like (as in, "oh, we can do everything. As long as there are haf-naked women adn explosions, there will be an audience) - to the actors themselves. A lot of the actors are not acquiented with science fiction and either don't think too highly of hteir job or can't understand the demands/ how things will look etc. Some of them are good enough actors to cover for it - I remember a Torri Higginson interview where she said something like "and then I relasied it's just like becoming a kid again, all make-believe". But Torri Higginson, whether inclined to sceince fiction or not, managed to makie her character work and act believably. A lot of actors - sometimes regulars, but very very often extras/ guest stars - can't. And it hurts the show.

I'm not saying you cna't have a small-budgeted sciecne fiction show and have it be good, as well. But it's harder and you need better creative people.
Think of it, not all creative people in sciecne fiction shows come from a sceicne fiction background, as well. Sometimes it's unnecessary.... but it definitely helps.

The other is the fact that, well.... Have you read science fiction/ fantasy books lately? It's not just the television programmes. There are so many imitations and badly written books that it's killing. Take for example the Dragonlance books. good idea. So badly written. Or your basic Tolkien-copying fantasy writer, always the same world etc.
Trek_Girl (downt here, in the thread, find it!) is right. Science fictino is about human beings, more than it is about anything esle. And the vast majority - if not all - of the writers who made it big and made their name as genre writers are people who've realised it. Like Asimov, who always wrote about people as much - if not more - as about technology. A lot of people get stuck in the world part of their story, or the cool plot part - or even the sciecne paqrt, I mean, I know it's a famous and renouned boko and all that, but can anyone honestly quote Rendezvous with Rama as their favourite book?! - and then the book is just boring.
Same with television shows.

[boxvic]

I think a lot of it honestly comes down to the fact that sci-fi doesn't translate well to the screen. There are a lot of great sci-fi stories out there, that if they were turned into a TV series would suck.