Sci-Fi on tv...what has gone wrong?

Richard Dower

The glory days seem over for the most part, there used to be a multitude of quality Sc-fi shows on tv, but these days it seems more and more shows are not getting picked up or axed after one season.

Consider the current season, Flash Forward/V/Caprica and SGU all in danger of cancellation this year!....numerous pilots also axed (Viturality etc.)

What is going on?...who are to blame?, is it just poor scripting and basic premise or does the viewer appetite for Sci-fi no longer exist?

L31mr0d

I think the genre is jaded. It suffers from trying to build on the shoulders of giants. Even relatively good Sci-fi like Fringe can't help but appear hackneyed next to the X-Files.

Virtuality was the first sci-fi in a long while for me that showed promise because it looked set to deal with the psychology of space travel. The writing wasn't really polished and the acting needed work, but it was only the pilot. I would of liked to of seen at least a season of it to see how it progressed.

Then there's Jericho. I grit my teeth every time I think of that show getting cancelled. It had so much scope and room to grow, with a fairly competent cast and script.

I think the issue atm is the bottom line, it costs more to make a space Sci-fi, and the networks probably think "why bother" when they can just churn out another hospital drama or reality TV show for next to nothing.

Hank_Jones

Personally I think sci-fi shows now just don't have the same interesting storylines and characters (or even actors) as they used to.

Sci-fi shows now rely too much on special effects and just don't seem to have the same sort of character development as they previously did.
It could be that there just too many shows being produced,
so where previously there were only a small number of sci-fi shows,
now there are quite a few so the numberof good sci-fi writers per show has possibly become more limited.

Tristram

When was this golden period you speak of?

Conor108

SGU has already been renewed! Filming on the 2nd season started the other day! And the rest of season 1 looks QUALITY!:eek::eek:

Hoping Caprica gets renewed aswell....

L31mr0d

Tristram wrote: »

When was this golden period you speak of?

The 90's. The Star Treks, Babylon 5, The X-Files and Buffy.

Tristram

L31mr0d wrote: »

The 90's. The Star Treks, Babylon 5, The X-Files and Buffy.

The 00's. FarScape, Firefly, BSG... ?

edit: Buffy was sci-fi?

Hank_Jones

Personally I think that it was during the mid -late 80's and the 90's.

Star Trek:The Next Generation, Sliders, Star Trek:Voyager, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Stargate SG1 in it's prime, X-Files, Quantum Leap, even The Outer Limits.

Of course there are shows that came after which are good.
I just felt that this has been the best time for sci-fi, certainly in my life time.
Might have something to do with the fact that I was growing up watching it though.

rolion

I have to agree with you...don't forget SG Atlantis ! SG Universe,don't really get it.

We watch here with the kids and they look that are really enjoying it.What is nice is watching twice same episode and looking at the things in a different way,maybe better understand them...

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Personally I think that it was during the mid -late 80's and the 90's.

Star Trek:The Next Generation, Sliders, Star Trek:Voyager, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Stargate SG1 in it's prime, X-Files, Quantum Leap, even The Outer Limits.

Of course there are shows that came after which are good.
I just felt that this has been the best time for sci-fi, certainly in my life time.
Might have something to do with the fact that I was growing up watching it though.

bonerm

Can't speak for the others but (only 4 eps in and) "V" is alreadybeing killed by the romantic teen-subplot that they've decided to put in there for some reason. I guess it worked on their test audiences but I predict it'll be the key factor in ensuring the show never makes it to season2.

L31mr0d

Tristram wrote: »

The 00's. FarScape, Firefly, BSG... ?

Okay, well Buffy is more fantasy than Sci-fi, even still.

00's
Farscape: 4 Seasons
Firefly: 1 Season
BSG: 4 Seasons

Total: 9 Seasons

90's
Star Trek - (TNG, DS9, Voyager): 21 Seasons
X-Files: 9 Seasons
Babylon 5: 5 Seasons

Total: 35 Seasons

Richard Dower

Defying Gravity - axed, showed potential. T:TSCC, Dollhouse...list goes on.

Mr E

TV Exec 1: "We have 2 shows to pitch. One is a really edgy sci-fi show that will get us a couple of million viewers, after a few seasons it might build up to something huge, it will cost a fortune to make due to the special effects, and will be mainly watched by men under 35. Or we have a cookie-cutter cop/medical show that will be watched by millions across all demographics, can be syndicated world-wide and make us a bloody fortune in syndication and DVD sales for years to come."

TV Exec 2: "Ummm....."

ixoy

Richard Dower wrote: »

Consider the current season, Flash Forward/V/Caprica and SGU all in danger of cancellation this year!....numerous pilots also axed (Viturality etc.)

'Stargate: Universe' has been greenlit for a second season. 'V' hasn't aired nearly enough episodes for any decision to be made either.

What is going on?...who are to blame?, is it just poor scripting and basic premise or does the viewer appetite for Sci-fi no longer exist?

'Flash Forward' has a good premise, poorly executed. I also think people over-analyse it as there's rarely been a time when there's multiple good sci-fi shows on, mostly just one or two in a particular era.

L31mr0d wrote: »

I think the genre is jaded. It suffers from trying to build on the shoulders of giants. Even relatively good Sci-fi like Fringe can't help but appear hackneyed next to the X-Files.

That's true - it's difficult to get a unique premise. 'Fringe' differentiates itself quite a lot in its arc storylines but the "monster-of-the-week" stuff does seem too reminescent of "The X-Files". You can see similar patterns elsewhere, but that's much the same with most TV where there are a limited number of premises.

Then there's Jericho. I grit my teeth every time I think of that show getting cancelled. It had so much scope and room to grow, with a fairly competent cast and script.

See I thought 'Jericho' was awful and had to eventually give up on it - the script and characters being paper thin and clichéd... Each to their own but if I didn't like it chances are others didn't and the number of sci-fi fans who'd watch it dropped below that critical threshold.

I think the issue atm is the bottom line, it costs more to make a space Sci-fi, and the networks probably think "why bother" when they can just churn out another hospital drama or reality TV show for next to nothing.

There's that - it's important. Even the sci-fi we do have is generally contemporary so as to reduce budget - think of "Lost", "Warehouse 13", "Eureka", "Smallville", "Sanctuary", etc. It enables them to cut down on costs (and sometimes imagination!) by using existing cultures, people, settings and just throwing on a layer of sci-fi on top.

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Personally I think sci-fi shows now just don't have the same interesting storylines and characters (or even actors) as they used to.

Sci-fi shows now rely too much on special effects and just don't seem to have the same sort of character development as they previously did.

Just curious - what sci-fi shows are you speaking of with good characters and storylines? Babylon 5 immediately springs to mind but what others? I mean "The X-Files" had good stories but I never thought characterisation was a strong point. "Stargate: SG-1" had good characters and decent storylines. There's a host of failures in there though too, or those that never had an impact - "Wild Palms", "VR.5", "Total Recall 2025", etc.

ixoy

L31mr0d wrote: »

00's

Farscape: 4 Seasons
Good example.Firefly: 1 Season
BSG: 4 Seasons

Total: 9 Seasons

I'd throw in 'Stargate: SG-1' into that mix as well to bulk it up by ten.

Star Trek - (TNG, DS9, Voyager): 21 Seasons

I would never consider 'Voyager' good sci-fi. Ever. Sure just throw 'Andromeda' in in that case... Also TNG was equally an '80s show and 'Voyager' trailed into the '00s.

X-Files: 9 Seasons

It may have been 9 seasons but I wouldn't consider them all good - it tapered off after 6. It's often held as a text book example of how to keep going on when you should quit.

Babylon 5: 5 Seasons

This just rocked.

mike65

When I was Richards age (14) we had nothing but Blakes 7 and Dr Who

Richard Dower

^ hold on...Voyager excelled when Jeri ryan joined, her and the doctor were the best part of the show. You can't fault all The Borg related episodes. "Drone"....fantastic episode, alot of the Borg two parters were amazing.

Richard Dower

mike65 wrote: »

When I was Richards age (14) we had nothing but Blakes 7 and Dr Who

Smart arse :mad: ...i watched Blake's 7 on the beeb each week.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no they weren't, not in the slightest. Voyager ruined the borg as a star trek enemy. I'd be more scared of tribbles at this stage.

ixoy

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ hold on...Voyager excelled when Jeri ryan joined, her and the doctor were the best part of the show. You can't fault all The Borg related episodes. "Drone"....fantastic episode, alot of the Borg two parters were amazing.

It most certainly was not. I hold 'Voyager' responsible for utterly destroying the Borg menace that TNG built up. I mean Borg children? Seriously? Utter muck.

Richard Dower

^ well i liked them, and the fact we got more backstory on the Borg.

Hank_Jones

ixoy wrote: »

Just curious - what sci-fi shows are you speaking of with good characters and storylines? Babylon 5 immediately springs to mind but what others? I mean "The X-Files" had good stories but I never thought characterisation was a strong point. "Stargate: SG-1" had good characters and decent storylines. There's a host of failures in there though too, or those that never had an impact - "Wild Palms", "VR.5", "Total Recall 2025", etc.

I felt that the character development in the Star Trek shows was quite good. Data, Picard, Worf, even Wesley Crusher all developed as characters during The Next Generation. Sliders had as much character development as was possible with the fact that they were basically in one world every episode and things started over each episode (somewhat). SG1 certainly had some good character development, Teal'c was always different from the others but still trying to adapt himself to a human way of life. And relationships developed between all the characters, they became close.

Deep Space Nine had the father/son dynamic as well as a lot of other well developed characters such as Kira and Odo. Voyager had somewhat the same kind of development as The Next Generation.

Richard Dower

Maybe they could reboot Star Trek, but teenie-fy it: Star Trek Academy.....group of trainee cadets going through the paces, might be a hit!

L31mr0d

ixoy wrote: »

I'd throw in 'Stargate: SG-1' into that mix as well to bulk it up by ten.

The first 3 and, imo, the best seasons of SG1 where in the 90's.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into numbers over this, or personal tastes (I liked Voyager, and every season of the X-Files even though it did drop in quality coming up to the end). There was just far more good, consistent Sci-fi in the 90's for all tastes. I'm only naming the big shows off the top of my head, but there where a lot of other shows that where on also that have been mentioned (add Space: Above and Beyond)

Are you really saying the 00's where equal or better in quantity and quality to the amount of popular Sci-Fi in the 90's?

Hank_Jones

Richard Dower wrote: »

Maybe they could reboot Star Trek, but teenie-fy it: Star Trek Academy.....group of trainee cadets going through the paces, might be a hit!

I don't think so. After the Enterprise (01-05) debacle I really don't see there being another Star Trek for quite some time.
I think what went wrong with it is that they should have gone back in time, to the very beginning.
The other newer shows were always always around the same timelines, so there was no real need to explain anything.

ixoy

L31mr0d wrote: »

Are you really saying the 00's where equal or better in quantity and quality to the amount of popular Sci-Fi in the 90's?

Well with a few exceptions above, possibly not. I've a nasty feeling that some of the shows I'm thinking were '00s were actually '90s.
If you do include fantasy genre then it can potentially veer in other directions.

I suppose, from my perspective, that I was never a big Star Trek fan after DS9 so it's faded a bit from my memory, even though its best era was definitely the '90s (later seasons of TNG and all of DS9).

I just think the '00s brought us a fair few classics, such as 'Farscape' and is being dealt a bit of a raw deal, perhaps due to a bit of nostaliga!

Richard Dower

Enterprise was set before Kirk, but yet the tech and ships looked more advanced?...i hated Enterprise, for me Bakula was a terrible choice for starship captain.

Richard Dower

Thing is, there is ALOT of untapped talent out there, writers....doing great work, books and graphic novels. It can't all be budget related....name a show that relied less on CGI and more stories but suceeded?

Hank_Jones

Richard Dower wrote: »

Enterprise was set before Kirk, but yet the tech and ships looked more advanced?...i hated Enterprise, for me Bakula was a terrible choice for starship captain.

Yeah, who was doing the casting for that?

Ok, so we'll take the lead from another quite popular science fiction show and make him the lead for a Star Trek show. It's clearly got win written all over it.

All they needed was Al to jump out and say that Ziggy calculated he may not be able to make the next leap...

Hank_Jones

Richard Dower wrote: »

Thing is, there is ALOT of untapped talent out there, writers....doing great work, books and graphic novels. It can't all be budget related....name a show that relied less on CGI and more stories but suceeded?

Quantum Leap.

Think a case could be made for X-Files as well.

MisterAnarchy

Mr E wrote: »

TV Exec 1: "We have 2 shows to pitch. One is a really edgy sci-fi show that will get us a couple of million viewers, after a few seasons it might build up to something huge, it will cost a fortune to make due to the special effects, and will be mainly watched by men under 35. Or we have a cookie-cutter cop/medical show that will be watched by millions across all demographics, can be syndicated world-wide and make us a bloody fortune in syndication and DVD sales for years to come."

TV Exec 2: "Ummm....."

Spot on Mr E.
Most tv shows these days are either reality/fly on the wall/diy/renovation/formulaic drama/unfunny comedy .
Everything must try to appeal to the lowest common denominator ,its tv by numbers.
Sci fi is just too intelligent for the dumb masses to appreciate.
Its not only on tv,I could count on one hand the number of decent original scifi films or thrillers released each year.They just arent being made anymore.
Far easier to release some slasher/teen/zombie horror or dumbed down drama.

bonerm

Yes, but all stuff about cops and med shows was equally true 10 years ago and 20 years ago (eg ER has/had been on the air for nearly 20 years now and we had stuff like St.Elsewhere before that), so why has sci-fi only ground to a halt in more recent times?

My own suspicion is that the makers of TV shows realise that Sci-fi fans are at the vanguard of stuff like technology (and therefore download piracy etc) and that as a result their particular demographic has more or less disappeared off the tv radar. They used to be there 10 years ago but developments in broadband etc means they're all but gone, and not coming back. So why make tv shows for people who are no longer even watching TV?

Richard Dower

^ ALL tv shows are subjected to piracy!...Spartacus, DVD screeners for ALL 13 eps. exist. So i don't think it's that....i thought you were hinting at the fact sci-fi fans are at the vanguard of technology and in such they are more hyper critical of sci-fi and analyse every aspect of a show.

As such plots and storylines get more scrutinised then other shows, ergo sci-fi provokes more of a reaction, and sci-fi fans are more likely to scream and moan about a show then their non sci-fi counterparts.

bonerm

Obviously everything is subject to piracy but my point is that sci-fi even more so. You get 1000 fans of some cookie-cutter copshow and 1000 fans of some scifi show and ask how many of each (honestly) watched the latest ep via a pirated download I'd bet the sci-fi show would have a *much* higher percentage.

Aside from real point but I don't agree either that sci-fi fans are more critical viewers. For the most part they don't want innovation either and it's relatively easy to write for them imho and most of the shows they watch are utter garbage. Otherwise stuff like Star Trek wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

Hank_Jones

bonerm wrote: »

Obviously everything is subject to piracy but my point is that sci-fi even more so. You get 1000 fans of some cookie-cutter copshow and 1000 fans of some scifi show and ask how many of each (honestly) watched the latest ep via a pirated download I'd bet the sci-fi show would have a *much* higher percentage.

Aside from real point but I don't agree either that sci-fi fans are more critical viewers. For the most part they don't want innovation either and it's relatively easy to write for them imho and most of the shows they watch are utter garbage. Otherwise stuff like Star Trek wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

I agree with what you are saying regarding downloads.

Are you calling Star Trek utter garbage though?
That's what it sounds like..

Richard Dower

^ LOL...i picked up on that but kept schtum! :-)

bonerm

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying regarding downloads.

Are you calling Star Trek utter garbage though?
That's what it sounds like..

I guess I am. I used to think it was great but even at the time it seemed to me that everything after TNG felt a bit "safe" like nothing truely surprising, mature or innovative was ever going to happen in it. Even on reviews TNG doesn't hold up for me personally and just feels a bit like a show that's going thru the motions. I think TV viewers expectations have risen sharply over the past 10 years and stuff like Star Trek just doesn't hold water anymore.

Richard Dower

I bet you think Kirk is better then Picard...right?

:-)

L31mr0d

bonerm wrote: »

Star Trek just doesn't hold water anymore.

Completely disagree. TNG covers more topics on philosophy, morality, race, religion and science than any show that has preceded and succeeded it. The majority of the episodes are pointed examinations of parts of the human psyche and the varying schools of thought on them.

bonerm

Richard Dower wrote: »

I bet you think Kirk is better then Picard...right?

:-)

Nope, I leave that important debate to you guys.

Hank_Jones

Are you referring to the effects?

Or do you think the characters don't hold up?

Personally I think that TNG is clearly not going to hold up fantastically well, it began 23 years ago and effects have moved a long way since then.
Plus I think that characters were more wholesome then, so they seem a lot different to the edgier kind of characters that we are used to now.

Personally I thought that Voyager was a great show, as was Deep Space Nine. I really don't see how you can call Star Trek garbage (Enterprise not inculded of course).

TonyD79

BSG was great scfi. As for character development Caprica has attracted criticism for not enough Scfi and too much character development.Stargate Universe has the potential for greatness imo but then again its all about opinion.
They gave a whole season to Flash Gordon yet only half a season to Journeyman which I thought was excellent and on par with Quantum Leap.

eamon234

It's weird I never liked the Stargate spinoffs (although I met Amanda Tapping once and she was lovely:) - loved the movie (probably the only decent thing Emmerich has done), but I really like SGU it's completely different to the others it's grittier, the ensemble cast is excellent and I like the fact that they're strangely marooned on a ship yet get short bursts away from it from time to time. The power plays going on in the background make for some interesting sub plots. So far it's worked really well for me and fills the sci-fi void left by BSG for now.

Caprica I can take or leave really it seems a bit too focused on teens yet the subject matter is probably a bit too adult for teens to handle. I can see where they're going with it but I'm not sure if it's my bag. I also hate the way that every time someone makes a movie or a show about future societies they always seem to think that dressing them in forties and fifties style clothes is the only way to so it - Brazil, Bladerunner, Dark City the list goes on.

I can't watch any of the old trek stuff anymore it just looks too bad and it's just way too cheesy. It was great at the time, mainly because there was shag all else on, but now it just looks dated and there are some eps on TNG which are downright awful. (two words: five lights)

I've seen some reruns of X-Files and they seem to stand the test of time a little better but Fringe is more interesting with better characters and a good story arc.

Lost is one of the finest and most original shows ever made and I'm really enjoying the final season but at least they knew when enough was enough.

Flash Forward is it's poor cousin and I find the cast really annoying they overplay every scene and are constantly posing and pouting the premise is good and apparently the rest of the season is excellent so I'll wait and see.

bonerm

eamon234 wrote: »

I can't watch any of the old trek stuff anymore it just looks too bad and it's just way too cheesy. It was great at the time, mainly because there was shag all else on, but now it just looks dated and there are some eps on TNG which are downright awful. (two words: five lights)

Actually that example pretty much sums up my main issue with Star Trek. It's completely derivative. The piece that Eamon refers to was considered on of the more dramatic sequences for Picard in the series but what it is is essentially just a blatant rip-off of a sequence from the book Nineteen Eighty Four. Someone her earlier regailed us with the virtues of the show it's philosophy, morality etc but deep down every single aspect of the show is just watered-down ideas taken from somewhere else and repackaged & presented for the lowest common denomonator viewship. Go to the source if that's what you're after.

icdg

No mention of Doctor Who's current popularity. It really has taken sci-fi mainstream in the UK.

As far as US sci-fi is concerned, its rise and fall seems to depend on the state of Star Trek at any particular time. Star Trek suffered from being on TV far, far, too long and after 18 straight years on TV (for 7 of those years in two simultanious incarnations) it had gotten too stale. Enterprise was supposed to be a shake-up, but despite being set before Star Trek, it firmly belonged to the TNG era production team who had been running the show for 14 years at that stage and quite frankly had begun repeating their plotlines and the characters had gotten too bland.

I don't really like the current trend in US Sci-Fi for "dark" sci fi - Battlestar Galactica (2000s), Caprica, and Stargate Universe all firmly belong to this - I prefer my sci-fi with a happy ending as Star Trek and the earlier incarnations of Stargate gave us. (Having said that I loved Babylon 5, at least up to mid-way through Season 4).

Pepe LeFrits

Space operas started to reach saturation point with the viewers in the nineties. Garbage like Star Trek Voyager contributed to sci-fi becoming somewhat tainted and difficult to market and make a success of.

With regards to comparisons of the two decades, the nineties didn't have the Battlestar Galactica re-make. The end.

I'm really enjoying Universe though so I hope it gets a proper run. It's the first space opera in, well, possibly ever, that does a decent job of capturing the sense of wonder that you'd think would come with space travel. Thanks to the general tone of the show and some glossy, intelligently used visuals of space, it almost feels like they are half way across the universe at times, and not in some cheap hollywood parking lot. Galactica, for all its brilliance, never really captured a sense of how lost in the depths of space they were (although it captured how lost they were, mentally).

Caprica is pretty good too but I imagine it'll get canned before too long. It's too high brow to succeed.

iguana

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Yeah, who was doing the casting for that?

Ok, so we'll take the lead from another quite popular science fiction show and make him the lead for a Star Trek show. It's clearly got win written all over it.

An actor my husband knows made the shortlist to play Captain Archer but after his final callback they told him they liked him but they were after someone more "Scott Bakula-esque." A month later they announced they'd signed Scott Bakula, he was who they always wanted.

bonerm

iguana wrote: »

An actor my husband knows made the shortlist to play Captain Archer but after his final callback they told him they liked him but they were after someone more "Scott Bakula-esque." A month later they announced they'd signed Scott Bakula, he was who they always wanted.

Kinda weird seeing Capt.Archer wasn't really that Bakula-esque himself, or at least he isn't that similar to the Dr. Sam Beckett role he played in Quantum Leap imho. If anything Archer felt like the personification of Republican party foriegn policy.

Richard Dower

Bakula had a recognised face in Sci-Fi so it was more about getting someone who could sell the show, that stupid dog as well.....waterboarding dog or whatever breed it's called.