# Which is worst, bad US or bad UK science fiction?



## Mighty mouse (Dec 5, 2006)

Unlike those who try to watch Torchwood (presumably through a misguided loyalty to Doctor Who) I tried to slake my addiction for SF by watching Andromeda. In a moment of post fix clarity I have to say whilst Torchwood seems to neatly encapsulate what is wrong (and occasionally good) with UK SF, Andromeda, in parallel, seems to illustrate what is wrong with American SF. 

The SF equivalent of a nothing chamber, it features a geek called Harper who talks like you have FF him and a religous nut called Rev who talks like a bad thesaurus. As far as I can discern, few of the plots make sense and serve minimally to allow Sorbo to procreate.

Perhaps the 'writers' are of a religous leaning and feel the need to imbue nay immerse the story lines with metaphysical meaning. Well Dune may have achieved a heady mix of belief systems but Andromeda struggles a little but then gives us rabid garbage akin to that uttered by those people who mutter in the street. Eye candy wrapped up as mind candy.

Then we have Torchwood, which, apart from employing actors who apparently cannot afford to have their teeth fixed, features a secondary lead called Gwen who doesn't seem to want to be there. The lead Captain Jack is surrounded by what seem to be the props from an amateur dramatic society and who you can occasionally actually see wince at some of the 'acting' around him. 
The rest of the 'characters' are so irritating that your only interest in them is finding what medication they are on in order to avoid it in the future.
There appears to be no critcal review of the scripts with about one in five being watchable, and a concept of SF limited to the single idea of contact with alien cultures having the sole interesting facet of sex in a unusual way. Whatever next? Sex with an embyo? Then there is the car with 'Torchwood' on the side. SF aversion therapy.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Dec 5, 2006)

It's the standard of writing which is the fatal flaw in these shows, and the fact it just _looks_ cheap, even when it isn't.
I'm not a huge fan of collaborative writing but I do think you need to borrow that system from the yanks where, rather than write in isolation, the writers work together and act as critics of each others work. Of course this means parking your ego and being concerned about the programme rather than themselves.


----------



## Coolhand (Dec 5, 2006)

Well, anyone’s who browsed the chronicles sub forum on this latest Doctor Who spin off probably already knows what I think of TorchWood AKA Got-Wood AKA Touch-Boob.  I could really go off on a rant about how poor Torchwood is but I’m trying to get a curb on my negative tendencies and I’d just bore everyone to tears.

I haven’t seen Andromeda but to be honest plot holes, dull writing and bad characters just suck whatever the accent they happen to suck in.


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 5, 2006)

Gotta admit there's just something about the English accent that just gives and actor more credibility and gravitas and so for me UK SF can get away with much more than US.


----------



## Paige Turner (Dec 5, 2006)

Pointfinder said:


> Gotta admit there's just something about the English accent that just gives and actor more credibility and gravitas and so for me UK SF can get away with much more than US.



Yer righ' there, mate. 'Cor blimey! Not 'alf!


----------



## Lucien21 (Dec 5, 2006)

Bad US sci-fi is usually miles ahead of even the best of British sci-fi in terms of budget and looks etc.

British Sci-fi can sometimes get the script or the character right, but can't compete with the US on TV terms.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 6, 2006)

I've seen bad SF from both sides of the pond. It seems that the god of quality does not discriminate. I can handle bad sets because of lack of finance but bad scripts from _anywhere_ is too much to take and I just switch off. 

As for Torchwood....it's just not working as far as I'm cocerned.


----------



## intheknow (Dec 8, 2006)

i'd have to say they both have their share of black eyes and gold mines. it smight be an even split...


----------



## Talysia (Dec 8, 2006)

It depends on the shows you watch, but in my opinion, it doesn't matter if it's UK or US - bad is bad.  Still, there's no denying that US shows get more budget for their SF shows than the UK (especially if the programme hasn't been commissioned by the BBC), so in terms of appearance at least, for the most part US shows look better.  UK shows might have good ideas for plotlines and such, but they lack the funding for sets/cast and whatnot.
Mind you, sometimes there is a show that I'll like regardless of how bad it is.  Especially some of the older stuff.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 8, 2006)

I have to agree with Foxbat. Poor budget for special effects, sets, etc. I can forgive. But a poor script, the very first building-block ... no. I've seen lots of films, television productions, and plays where the budget was small (not to mention, of course, minimalist productions), but the acting and the script called to the imagination, and there was no need for the rest. It's nice, but it's not necessary. A bad script, though, there's not really much that you do with that; it stinks no matter how much money you throw at it. Same with bad acting.


----------



## Urien (Dec 8, 2006)

Nobody does better bad science fiction than the SCI-FI channel. The original movie Basilisk, Dino-Croc; a bunch of C actors chased and eaten by a bad CGI myth/experiment.


----------



## Mighty mouse (Dec 17, 2006)

I find my attitude towards US SF fairly objective but with UK stuff I am either too loyal or flip the other way and am inappropriately harsh. I suppose as US TV has a budget you get to enjoy the talents of some capable artists whereas with infantile UK SF I tend to hit my (worn out) off button.

I also think the UK audience is just frightningly grateful for the SF they are served up. A situation which may be changing as the SF audience is technologically aware and are no longer limited to just accepting UK transmissions.

Perhaps US TV is also more technically creative. Take Blakes' 7. The special effects had a static camera taking pictures of a moving model. Whereas (whatever you may think of his scripts) Lucas broke ground by using a static model and moving the camera.

The intense commercial nature of US TV also perhaps makes it's characters of a more narrow range. The leads have an almost numbing purity and I find it difficult to 'feel' for many of them.


----------

