# Is science fiction no longer entertaining television for mainstream viewers?



## Vincent Tauscher (Mar 13, 2008)

I was browsing the web and came across an interesting article that talks about the degredation of television programming to appease the simple-minded "sheep" (as I call them). The basic claim was that, because people have gotten so lazy and stupid, the major network schedules were being filled with reality TV and crime dramas because of their simple nature.

I've noticed this over the years, but this article has reminded me of something else troubling. Has anybody noticed how science fiction shows simply do not work on any channels aside from the Sci-Fi channel? Back in the good ol' days, we had Star Trek and Mystery Science Theater, but now there's nothing except CSI and Survivor. The few science fiction-oriented shows all seem to get cancelled.

Just a few that I can remember: Bionic Woman, Jericho, Firefly, Terminator (my guess, from the FOX has been lately). I mean, maybe a lot of people have simply accepted this as a fact, but man, it's sure ticking me off to find nothing on TV except some murder investigation (I get enough of that living in the Big Apple, honestly). What ever happened to the good old days and is there any hope of getting some sci fi back on the major netorks?

Oh, and here's the article for your reading enjoyment:

The Degradation of Quality Television (article)


----------



## Fried Egg (Mar 13, 2008)

Bionic Woman got cancelled? They've only just started showing it over here...oh dear.


----------



## iansales (Mar 13, 2008)

There's always room for thought-provoking drama - sf or mainstream - and as chennels proliferate, they'll find homes. However... sf programmes are expensive to make. Reality tv is cheap. Guess which one gives a better return on investment...

Which is why I fully support the TV Licence and the BBC. Yes, they churn out some crap, but they've also given us some excellent innovative drama - like *Life on Mars*, or its "sequel", *Ashes to Ashes*. Not to mention all those nature programmes


----------



## Urien (Mar 13, 2008)

I'm not sure where one would place Lost or Heroes, most might categorize them as Sci-Fi. On the supernatural side we have things like Supernatural and Medium (is that the name). Though I admit I don't know the current US schedules. Right now there doesn't seem to be any fellows in space ships dramas.

I think these things come in waves; if someone comes up with a good and viable idea I expect they'll commission it.


----------



## Aniri (Mar 13, 2008)

It seems so.  Sad...very sad.  My husband said something the other that rang too close to the truth...he said the he is afraid for the future...afraid that it will be like that movie _Idiocracy._  *shudder*


----------



## Connavar (Mar 13, 2008)

Its the fault of the big basic tv networks in US, they keep killing off praised SF shows for predictable stuff that will sell.   SF doesnt sell apparently in their eyes.

Which is wierd since a couple of years ago the most praised shows was SF. Firefly,SG1,Farscape,4400 ,BSG etc

Lost,Heroes hurts the genre on tv more than reality tv.  They are predictable soap that is easy to sell and easy to make.  

I have given up hope on US sf tv shows.  Specially when they canceled promising shows like Daybreak,Jericho,Journeyman etc

Its *NOT* a coicidence that both Sci-fi channel and US network canceled many of their famous SF series after NBC Universal bought both in 2004......


----------



## Fried Egg (Mar 13, 2008)

> Which is wierd since a couple of years ago the most praised shows was SF. Firefly,SG1,Farscape,4400 ,BSG etc


People can praise shows all they want but if enough people aren't actually watching them then it's empty praise as far as the program makers are concerned.

On the other hand, people slate reality tv shows, but so many people end up watching them, almost a guity pleasure for many.

People who invest in program making are looking to make money and they do so by making programs that put bums on seats, not by drawing critical acclaim for shows that reach only niche audiences.


----------



## Parson (Mar 13, 2008)

Exactly Egg, 

I loved Journey Man, but everyone I talked to thought I was crazy. Few of them saw it, because they couldn't give up CSI Miami. I think that another time slot might have made Journey Man a winner. 

The masses love "American Idol," "The Bachelor," and the name that all these sort of shows should be called "The Biggest Loser."  Sigh! We'll just have to read.


----------



## ray gower (Mar 13, 2008)

I suspect there are a lot of reasons floating around:

The proliferation of television stations. They may create 'choice', but they are all fishing from the same pool for revenue and with the tight economic climate, that pool is getting smaller.

Imagination- Mainstream SF over the last dozen or so years seems to be taking itself too seriously, even re-branding itself 'future fiction', which basically means it is concerning itself far too much with will it work tomorrow based on what we knew yesterday, not what might be possible in a hundred years time; they are dull even for an avid SF reader let alone the peasantry. Mean while the television companies, because of the limited funs and dearth of anything that would be popular, are having to play safe: retreading popular but overplayed and worn out ideas.

Attitude- During the Sixties and Seventies, the US and Russia were locked in to a battle to reach space and technological advances appeared every other day. There was a general interest in what science might bring that might offer a future other than annihilation (Suez, Cuba, Vietnam, Six Day War etc). Even in he early eighties there was the Shuttle. But since then there has been nothing. The International Space Station is simply a bigger version of Nia- the air still smells, things are still glued to the wall with sticky tape etc. Been there, done it, got the tee-shirt- hardly visionary and certainly not going to fire the imagination.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 13, 2008)

Aniri said:


> It seems so. Sad...very sad. My husband said something the other that rang too close to the truth...he said the he is afraid for the future...afraid that it will be like that movie _Idiocracy._ *shudder*


 
Sorry, I don't mean to snipe, but the mere _mention_ of that film!!!! I attempted to watch it, and was so ticked off by the obviousness and crudity of the satire -- not to mention the fact that it's a direct rip-off of C. M. Kornbluth's classic tales "The Marching Morons" and "The Little Black Bag" -- that I see red whenever it's mentioned. You want to see a more stinging indictment of this trend? Read the Kornbluth originals. They make that piece of dreck absolutely vanish in comparison....

On the current topic (actually, the above is related, I'd say), don't forget that anthology shows used to be fairly common, from straightforward dramas such as _Playhouse 90_ through the sf and fantasy shows such as _Twilight Zone_, _The Outer Limits_, and _Thriller_ (or even _Night Gallery_, though the quality there was a little more variable -- not quite as much as it has the reputation for being, though). These were all fairly popular series, and have been considered classic television ever since. But just try to get a true anthology program going today.

Frankly, I'd say it all has to do with what people are comfortable with. It's one thing to have a fantastic set-up where no deep emotional chords are being struck, or to watch a soap-operaish reality show that feeds into the most venal and degrading aspects of human nature, but good science fiction or fantasy is troubling -- it asks provoking questions, makes one think and explore the options, extrapolates on trends and probes what it means to be human... and often asks us to reach in there and take the hard road of following our noblest aspirations. That's a lot of work, and it's also saying this isn't just "the way things are", but that we have a hand in making them that way, and we also have the responsibility for changing them. None of that sets all that well with most people, who are frankly fed up, feeling helpless, and tuckered-out from the amount of work they put in to simply keep a family alive.


----------



## Connavar (Mar 13, 2008)

Fried Egg said:


> People can praise shows all they want but if enough people aren't actually watching them then it's empty praise as far as the program makers are concerned.
> 
> On the other hand, people slate reality tv shows, but so many people end up watching them, almost a guity pleasure for many.
> 
> People who invest in program making are looking to make money and they do so by making programs that put bums on seats, not by drawing critical acclaim for shows that reach only niche audiences.



Its not reality tv shows that are killing them off but the idea that there must be a 10 CSI, a 1000 Grey,OC etc......

If it was reality tv, it should hurt other genres too not only SF.

The problem was the cable shows before was happy with 2-3 millions watching a SF show that only had to compete with other series of its type in a small cable channel.

Like Dexter, who has 2 mill viewers for showtime which is like 20 million for NBC seeing how few people have showtime. That use to work for sf shows on cable but not anymore apparently.

Basic tv sf like Jericho,Journeyman are even more screwed.

NBC cancel sf shows to show reruns,wrestling.   Check out the sc-fi channel.  Its not sf anymore.

Thats the sad truth.  Its like they are making an effort to wipe out sf shows.

Which is messed up since hollywood idea's a good sf is something like Doom.....


----------



## ravenus (Mar 14, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> ...don't forget that anthology shows used to be fairly common...But just try to get a true anthology program going today.


Oh man, tell me that. In India, when the central/state government sponsored television was the only thing we had, and no one had to worry about having to cater to the lowest tastes, we had a slew of good anthologies, giving us nice adaptations of classic stories, with several by the likes of Maupassant and Saki, and also reknowned Indian authors like R.K. Narayan. Also some cool horror anthologies (given the limitations of production budgets). This was during the 1980's.

Now TV out here is divided between puke-worthy daily soaps, puke-worthy reality shows and headache-inducing cricket matches.


----------



## Fried Egg (Mar 14, 2008)

I think the only way forward for sci fi on tv (or any other niche interest) is for subscription  channels that do not have to rely on advertising for funding. Sci Fi fans will have to pay, and pay handsomely for their tv shows.


----------



## Delvo (Mar 14, 2008)

The original post's question is whether SF is entertaining to mainstream viewers. To blame the lack of it in the TV schedules right now on market forces compelling the TV businesses to broadcast other stuff that gets more viewers is to acknowledge the fact that the answer is "No". If it were, then those same market forces would compel the TV businesses to broadcast that instead.

That's simple enough. The only problem with the original post is the word "anymore". I don't see any evidence that it ever has been...


----------



## Aniri (Mar 14, 2008)

Hey, hey, hey...what's wrong with LOST and Heroes??  I happen to dig both of these shows.  I must be a moron if they are predictable.


----------



## Spade (Mar 17, 2008)

All Sci-fi has become stupid to the mainstream except for Star Wars and The Matrix, it seems. It's sad but true.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 18, 2008)

Aniri said:


> Hey, hey, hey...what's wrong with LOST and Heroes?? I happen to dig both of these shows. I must be a moron if they are predictable.


 
Haven't seen _Heroes_, but I've watched a fair portion of _Lost_ -- and there it's not predictability so much as having very good concepts that are often very poorly thought-out... it has the feel of "being made up as you go along", and with such things as time-paradox stories, this is fatal, as it leaves you with all sorts of holes in the logic of your story.... A pity, that, as they really are very good concepts, and some of the way they're handled is quite well done; certainly the performers do well with the material. But it seems rather evident to me that, though the creators may well have had a way they wanted to go with this originally, they've thrown in so many added elements that weren't originally part of the scenario, that it has derailed any logical development and simply become a continuity nightmare, much like _X-Files_....


----------



## Pyan (Mar 18, 2008)

I could kick myself over "Lost"...I watched the first couple of episodes, and then gave up, thinking it was just going to be a survival-on-a-desert-island/group dynamics thing.
By the time I found out about the real agenda of the show, it was too late to pick up the thread...


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 18, 2008)

pyan said:


> I could kick myself over "Lost"...I watched the first couple of episodes, and then gave up, thinking it was just going to be a survival-on-a-desert-island/group dynamics thing.
> By the time I found out about the real agenda of the show, it was too late to pick up the thread...


 
Not necessarily... they've actually had at least one "recap" episode, which was designed specifically to fill in new viewers; one is available online, should you be so inclined.... It's titled simply "Lost: Past, Present, & Future"....


----------



## Pyan (Mar 18, 2008)

Thanks, j,d, - I'll look it out...


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 18, 2008)

pyan said:


> Thanks, j,d, - I'll look it out...


 
De nada....


----------



## dustinzgirl (Mar 18, 2008)

Lost and Heroes are not shows you can just watch. They are soap operas, only not as cool as Dark Shadows. 

and to answer "*Is science fiction no longer entertaining television for mainstream viewers?"

Not since NBC screwed up Sci Fi channel.


*


----------



## jenna (Mar 18, 2008)

In my opinion Lost is pretty much the best show on TV at the moment. But what I've been hearing since last season is that people stopped watching because it got "stupid" - ie, it got more intricate and more genre-based, with the afore-mentioned time travel and other sci-fi elements. Basically as soon as it gets really good, the mainstream stops being interested.

I happen to think that if they did CSI: Mars and added martians and space travel, it wouldn't rate very well either. Mainstream reality TV lovers just don't get sci-fi..


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Mar 22, 2008)

*Oh, and you want to see something bad?  Check this article:*

Yahoo! Movies Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies


----------



## Lith (Mar 23, 2008)

*_brings out her really BIG preaching box, and a ladder with which to climb up it..._*

Hm, SF television has a long history of short runs. And yes, in years past I've seen nearly all my favorite shows cancelled for lack of ratings. I think Lost is the ONLY show I've ever watched that has been a big hit while I was watching it (it does count as SF. Barely). 

SF shows only work when not on the Sci-Fi channel. But that would probably be my unbridled SF Channel prejudice showing again.

Then I discovered, that ALL television was mostly crap. Even the well-regarded shows are half filler (is there an episode of Lost where they _don't_ get into a fistfight?). Producers will always be ready to pull the plug on SF, because it's expensive for the kinds of returns they get (space battles, makeup, aliens, 3D models, they're expensive). As an experiment I'm sure no one will volunteer for, throw out your television. Watch nothing for at least a year. NOTHING. Then turn it on, and see if your favorite shows are as good as you remember. (Then feel smug about your expanded world. Then feel embarrassed because you have so little in common to talk to with other people, because they are all addicted to the tube. Sigh.)

It's television, which will always tend to appeal to human laziness. That's not to say there isn't the odd exception, but people watch TV because it's easier than reading. And so is it any wonder most gravitate toward the next step, stuff that taxes neither the imagination or the brain? How many months did the writer's strike go on, without any noticeable dent in programming? (Unless I didn't notice; since my only show was on hiatus... for like 9 MONTHS!)

*_gets off her big box rather carefully, so she doesn't break her neck_*

Now, if they would only put out "Eerie, Indiana" and "Remember WENN" on DVD. Alas, it seems it will never happen...

Pyan- you know, the first three seasons are out on DVD- you may be able to find them at a video rental store, or through Netflix. And you may be at an advantage, since you can watch them all at once. They've also had lots of "recap" episodes. Don't know how much of it makes it to the UK, but half the time here, they repeat the previous week's episode the hour before the current episode, in addition to the recap episodes, which seemed to happen after every hiatus. I've never seen a network do that before. 

I'm ticked off at Lost right now, and if it wasn't for other family members, wouldn't have picked it up again till it was done. Not because of the show itself (barring the drab first half of season 3), but because of their arcane production schedule. If you've got a full plan for the rest of the show, film it and show it! Don't drag it out for three more years of incomplete seasons!

Edit:  just saw this in the article...





> If you flip open the TV guide, you can find a plethora of reality television shows on several dozen channels.


No, you won't find anything but television gossip.  Even my TV die-hard mother cancelled her subscription, because it had become so useless...


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 23, 2008)

Lith: If you've never read Ellison, I heartily recommend you find a copy of his essay, "Revealed at Last: What Killed the Dinosaurs (And You Don't Look So Terrific Yourself)"; it can be found in his collection *Strange Wine*, as well as his collection of essays, *Sleepless Nights in the Procrustean Bed*. I think you might get a kick out of that one....

On the thesis itself: I've gone for long periods without a television. In fact right now, I have one, but only use it for watching DVDs (and seldom even then -- I almost never have that much time at one go where reading isn't much more of a priority), so what little TV I watch, I catch online. So I've gone for long periods without any of my "favorite" shows (which have long tended to be very few to begin with....). Those that were quality programming remain such when I return to them... at least, the ones I was impressed with to begin with; new work on the show may fall off in quality, though... or may maintain the same level (or, occasionally, exceed it).

The problem is that, out of all the hours of programming, I'd say that at or less than 10% (this is including educational channels, PBS, etc.) are truly worth bothering with. After watching a fair chunk of _Lost_ in order to "be culturally aware", I can't say that it's in that number, for me. Close, maybe; but no cigar.

However, this isn't just the fault of television (though television, aimed at the largest mass audience and therefore normally sinking to the lowest common denominator sort of thinking, tends toward it more), but of nearly any series that continues for very long, unless the writer(s) concerned are quite exceptional. It was certainly the case with the majority of pulp series, whether of the Westerns or the sf (or marginal sf) kind, the hero pulps, etc. That's because they're having to grind the things out to a regular schedule, regardless of any lack of inspiration, anything to say, or a complete loss of ideas on where to go with the darned things. Even the best of such series have their "filler". (Reminds me of something John W. Campbell -- iirc -- once said: that sometimes, just to fill the pages of your magazine, you end up printing a story you'd much rather see in the competition....) So it isn't only the viewers' (and writers') laziness that lies behind this, but the very nature of the beast....


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 23, 2008)

Lost did seem to get into trouble for a while last season, because there were a number of episodes that just meandered around without really going anywhere.  (Not that you ever know _where_ it's going on this show, but generally there's a sense of forward movement.)  But then the writers pulled themselves together and turned out a number of excellent episodes.

Right now, my daughter and son-in-law are working their way through the first two seasons on DVD.  I don't know if it's easier to put the puzzle pieces into ... well, some kind of order ... when you see so many episodes in quick succession, but I will say they've been riveted to the TV set, night after night.


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Mar 23, 2008)

*That above-mentioned link is simply another point that this is one example of the Mainstream's condescending attitudes toward Science Fiction.  (Don't get me started on that term, "Sci-Fi.")   What's even worse, the Sci-Fi Channel was turning into something paranormal which was really IMO unnecessary.*


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 23, 2008)

TV is the epitome of human truth. It is driven by money (at least in the English speaking free world). Good Science Fiction generally does not attract enough of a percentage of the viewing population to justify its existence. Hence, those of us who thrive on the good stuff have to suffer with pseudo-science fiction that is crammed with filler (action, romance…) for the larger percentage of the viewing public or decent production that is short lived. There are a few exceptions but relative to everything else, very few. Good Science Fiction either warns or inspires. When people turn on the “Idiot’s Lantern”, well…..


----------



## Montero (Mar 24, 2008)

Likewise to Aniri on Heroes (not seen Lost).

Dr Who and Torchwood also worth a mention here I think.  
(May be occasionally wobbly on the scientific logic as discussed in the Torchwood forum but still definitely popular SF.)

I mean, heck, the Christmas Dr Who special had Kylie Minogue AND the Titanic  - that's the way to fetch a big audience.   and it was still SF.


----------



## Montero (Mar 24, 2008)

Further thought - we've just had a thread on what makes fantasy, fantasy in the book section, which was pretty varied.
Some of the comments in this thread shows that people have very different ideas as to what they expect from SF.  Almost worth looking at what people want from SF, if anyone is interested.

By the way, brsrkrkomdy, what is wrong with "sci-fi"?  Been meaning to ask that question for a while on this forum.  I've always known SF as sci-fi but since coming on the forum become aware that some people seem to regard the term with loathing.  Bit puzzled by that.  I know you said "don't get me started" but seemed a good time to ask.


----------



## D_Davis (Mar 24, 2008)

Besides the old anthology shows, I've never really loved any sci-fi television.

The thing that kills it most for me is the fandom associated with the shows, and not so much the shows themselves, although they don't do much for me either.

I've never warmed up to Joss Whedon, so that killed Buffy, Angel, and Firefly for me.

I always thought that the Sam Raimi produced stuff was no good.

And I've never really liked Stargate, Farscape, Babylon 5, or any of the other shows.

I guess the modern, live-action, western televised sci-fi just doesn't do it for me.


If I need to get my fix of televised sci-fi, I usually turn to Japanese animation.  I find stuff like Ghost in the Shell: SAC to be far superior.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 24, 2008)

The last and only quality Science Fiction to be shown on British television was in the 1950's and the titles always included the name 'Quatermass'.


----------



## spaceseed (Mar 25, 2008)

I think there is still a thirst for quality sci-fi; the studios are just using "easy" entertainment as an excuse. The true reason there are so many reality shows on television is because they are cheap to produce, not because they are the "only things audiences will watch".


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 25, 2008)

Montero said:


> By the way, brsrkrkomdy, what is wrong with "sci-fi"? Been meaning to ask that question for a while on this forum. I've always known SF as sci-fi but since coming on the forum become aware that some people seem to regard the term with loathing. Bit puzzled by that. I know you said "don't get me started" but seemed a good time to ask.


 
Well, I'm not brsrkrkomdy, but I'll take a whirl at this one, as I'm also from the generation that loathes that particularly ugly neologism.

Take a gander at the following for some of the reasons why that term is offensive to some:

Science fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harlan Ellison Webderland: Harlan Ellison on Heaven's Gate

The latter is a bit polemical in approach, but it does sum up what that term stood for for so long (and many, myself included, would argue it still does)...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 25, 2008)

Montero said:


> By the way, brsrkrkomdy, what is wrong with "sci-fi"?  Been meaning to ask that question for a while on this forum.  I've always known SF as sci-fi but since coming on the forum become aware that some people seem to regard the term with loathing.  Bit puzzled by that.  I know you said "don't get me started" but seemed a good time to ask.



The problem with answering that question is that it's usually more of a rhetorical question by someone who doesn't actually want to _know_ why -- and any answer is far more likely to elicit an argument than provide enlightenment.

However, in the reckless hope that you may be different, I will throw myself into the breach and attempt an explanation:

The term "sci-fi" was invented by science fiction insiders, however, it never really caught on because most fans were perfectly happy with the abbreviation SF.  For many, many years, just about the only time you heard (or read) the term "sci-fi" it came from the lips (or the typewriter) of someone who was obviously using it in a flippant and dismissive way.  Or it was being used by someone who really hadn't a clue about what real science fiction was.

(It's like when someone who doesn't like you very much insists on calling you Bobby, no matter how many times you tell them that your name is Robert.  Your friends don't call you Bobby, your family doesn't call you Bobby; it's only this person who's pretending to be cute and funny, while actually treating you with contempt.)

So, for many of us who are old enough to remember when the term "scif-fi" was applied in that spirit, the use of the word always induces a cringe reaction.  Yes, yes, yes, we do know that most people who use it these days don't mean to be condescending or unfriendly -- usually it's quite the reverse -- but when people tell us, "oh, you shouldn't feel that way" ... well, if anyone has ever said that to you about anything, you probably know that it's far more likely to make you feel that way _more_ rather than _less_.

A much better response (not that I'm coaching you or anything) is, "Ah, I see, " whether you do or not.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 25, 2008)

Obviously, JD posted his response while I was still composing mine. 

But now you have two answers to mull over.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 25, 2008)

And, at the risk of overkill, I'll add a third point. "Sci-fi" is a holdover term from a period when sf was considered "that far-out space trash" -- which is still the opinion a great number of people hold of the genre, in part due to the way it was presented. To quote Frank Kelly Freas, one of the major artists in the field:



> There were more Wild, Wayward, Willing and Wanton Witch-Women in the cover blurbs than ever got into the stories, and the 3-B cover was an almost inviolable rule: Boob, Babe, and BEM.... Anything else was purely incidental....


 
-- *Frank Kelly Freas: The Art of Science Fiction*, p. 36​


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 25, 2008)

"Sci-Fi" ended up in the same category as "Trekkie". Hard core Star Trek fans prefer to be "Trekkers". They consider "Trekkies" as people who want to have sex with Mr. Spock (a la "groupie"). Millions of people unknowingly insult "Trekkers" all the time along with their unintentionally facetious "Sci-Fi" references.


----------



## Connavar (Mar 25, 2008)

Wow i never knew Sci-fi meant things like that.  

I will never use it again !  

I didnt know it refered to things people think are SF that i dislike.  When people that dont read SF ask why i read so much of it they assume i read cause i like the dumb "Sci-fi" movies they see .


Which is really the opposite from the kind SF books i like.

Thanks Teresa and JD for making it clear


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 25, 2008)

Well, that's a more complicated issue altogether, Steve.  "Trekkie" is the older term, and it appears to be the one preferred by Gene Roddenberry.  (I know I heard the word "Trekkie" in use at SF conventions a long time before I ever heard of "Trekkers," and then I thought it was a misprint in a newspaper article.)  But when newer fans began to self-identify as "Trekkers," so began the debate as to which term was more correct and respectful.  The "Trekkers" eventually won out by sheer force of numbers, but the "Trekkies" do have seniority on their side.   It probably is safer to say "Trekker," since there are more of them, and any chance Star Trek fan you might meet is more likely to prefer that term and deride the other.  Still there are a few old "Trekkies" still hanging around.

Meanwhile, fans on either side of this schism attempt to prove that their group is the more devoted, knowledgeable, and authentic, while simultaneously asserting that _they_ are the ones who actually have lives outside of Star Trek.


----------



## Lith (Mar 25, 2008)

I thought the division was that Trekkies were fans of the old show, and Trekkers were fans of the new? But use of Trekkers has to stay firmly within fandom; attempting to correct someone from Trekkie to Trekker will result opening yourself up to more derision than you originally were.

The problem with Sci-Fi is that it just rolls off the tongue so much easier than any other term. You can't say SF, and science fiction is just too formal. So I'll be a bit like the young physicist, waiting patiently for all the bitter, old fans (er, physicists) to die off...


----------



## D_Davis (Mar 25, 2008)

I prefer the catch all term:

Nerd

/is one


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 25, 2008)

Lith said:


> You can't say SF, and science fiction is just too formal.



And yet so many of us have managed the feat over the years.

In any case, in writing SF is by far the best alternative.  As an abbreviation, it's quick and easy.  No one is likely to correct you.  And the possibility of some old-timer coming along and (metaphorically speaking) beating you over the head with a cane or impaling you with a knitting needle is _greatly_ reduced.


----------



## Montero (Mar 25, 2008)

Thank you very much to everyone for explaining sci-fi in so much detail, now I know why.  Do like to know why.  
(Probably because I'm a scientist, or maybe I became a scientist because I like to know why....)

All the Star Trek fan discussion and nerd comment puts me in mind of an interview I saw on TV a few years ago.  Terry Pratchett at a con being interviewed by Craig Charles from Red Dwarf (who should have known better, unless it was a planned feed line).

Craig Charles: "So do you think fans are the salt of the earth then?"
Terry Pratchett: "Yes, they're pale and sharp."


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 25, 2008)

Lith said:


> The problem with Sci-Fi is that it just rolls off the tongue so much easier than any other term. You can't say SF, and science fiction is just too formal.


 
I'll have to disagree there. "Sci-Fi" is, as I noted, an ugly neologism. It also does not cover a great deal of what science fiction does or is. And, considering that many pronounce the term as "skiffy", that makes the point even more strongly.

As for SF... while it's not a term that is particularly mellifluous, it is quite easy to say, and has been used by an enormous number of us for at least a good half-century or better. It is also a term that can mean "science fiction", "science fantasy", "speculative fiction", or any or all of the above, and any combination within a single piece of work; thus allowing more breadth while also (paradoxically) simultaneously being more specific....

At any rate, relating this to the point of the thread... I think that this is a part of what makes sf so difficult for the laity: they're not used to creating a new world with each story/series; they're not used to thinking in broader speculative terms; and they're not used to the idea that sf can cover an incredibly wide range of topics and story types. Ask the majority of viewers who saw it if they considered Charly science fiction or sf, and you're likely to receive a blank stare. Yet it most definitely is, and is in fact an adaptation of the Hugo-award-winning story "Flowers for Algernon" (and its novel descendant). Heck, even here we have disagreement between iansales and myself on whether or not Last Year at Marienbad is sf... yet it was nominated for a Hugo that year. SF encourages people to not only think, but to think about the "big" issues, to ask uncomfortable questions, to look for their own answers rather than having them spoon-fed to them. This isn't either what they're used to in general or when they see the term "science fiction" -- which they generally associate with extraterrestrial invasions, mutant monsters or "creature features", and simplistic, jargonistic, jingoistic tripe that does tend to spoon-feed them values... and values that are, in general, either ethically or intellectually bankrupt at that!

At the same time, we're seeing a _slight_ maturation where visual sf is concerned -- it is no longer _just_ stuck in the types of stories that were being done in the magazines (I'm talking about level of complexity, character development, thematic ideas and concepts, etc.) in the 1920s and early 1930s, but hitting a level one saw during the "Golden Age" of sf. That's still some 60 years behind the written form as far as development, but it _is_ a development, and one the mass audience has simply not been prepared for. How _can_ they be, when most sf in _films_ these days (at least those Hollywood blockbusters) hearks back to the grand old space opera as the epitome and _ne plus ultra_ of what science fiction is about?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 25, 2008)

You wield a mean cane, JD.


----------



## Lith (Mar 26, 2008)

> I'll have to disagree there. "Sci-Fi" is, as I noted, an ugly neologism. It also does not cover a great deal of what science fiction does or is. And, considering that many pronounce the term as "skiffy", that makes the point even more strongly.
> 
> As for SF... while it's not a term that is particularly mellifluous, it is quite easy to say, and has been used by an enormous number of us for at least a good half-century or better. It is also a term that can mean "science fiction", "science fantasy", "speculative fiction", or any or all of the above, and any combination within a single piece of work; thus allowing more breadth while also (paradoxically) simultaneously being more specific....


Nope, sci-fi has a beautiful* sound to it. It's just your tainted experience showing through.

Science Fantasy is practically a contradiction in terms. Speculative Fiction really applies to ALL fiction, and so is redundant. SF looks far better in print, but as I said, it's unpronounceable. So, as a catch-all term, it's still sci-fi. For better or worse. No one's ever corrected me or looked at me funny when I've mentioned it in RL, probably because they're too excited to have met another fan. On the internet, I do watch it a bit, because it makes some bristle. However, science fiction fans already have a strong pedantic reputation, why make it worse by arguing over the terminology of the genre?



*I mean that, too.  It's not a joke.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 26, 2008)

The thing is, Lith, I've looked back over this thread several times, and from my perspective it looks to me like you're the one who is arguing -- proving my initial point that explanations only lead to arguments -- while JD and I are just trying to answer the question that was posed.  





However, before some of us old folks get really testy, I think that it's time we pulled this thread back on topic.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2008)

Teresa:



> You wield a mean cane, JD.


 
LOL. That reminds me of something Asimov once said, about the day when someone talked to him about the "Golden Age" of 1970s sf, he would rise from his wheelchair and beat them with his cane....



Lith said:


> Science Fantasy is practically a contradiction in terms. Speculative Fiction really applies to ALL fiction, and so is redundant.


 
On the first: hardly. It is a long-recognized subgenre, and includes works by writers as diverse as Jack Vance, Andre Norton, Lin Carter, Michael Moorcock, J. G. Ballard, Harlan Ellison, C. L. Moore, Henry Kuttner, Rod Serling, Charles Beaumont, Joanna Russ, Richard McKenna, Roger Zelazny, and James Tiptree, Jr., to name only a few.

On the second: technically, yes. However, it is also a label that Heinlein originally gave to SF back in the 1940s, and which was picked up on by Alfred Bester and other writers of that bent; championed by the writers of the "New Wave" (including those who were later adopted into the movement) as much more fitting for stories which were light on the overt scientific elements, yet in which they played an integral part (the story would not work without the influence of these scientific -- or pseudoscientific -- aspects, including their effects on the mores of the cultures presented. Again, writers who specified that they wrote "speculative fiction" included Moorcock, Ballard, Disch, Merrill, Platt, Burroughs (W. S., not E. R.), Michael Butterworth, Russ (again), Tiptree, Jr. (again), Ellison (again), Bernard Wolfe, Josephine Saxton, Pamela A. Zoline, etc. (again, to name only a handful). Nor were these simply fictional writers... they were also often acute critics of the genre(s), with both a keen understanding and incisive grasp of the literary canon and theory. Given the long history of its use by such as either a subdivision of the broader realm of SF, or as a separate but related genre, I'd say its legitimacy has been more than established.

Therefore, I maintain that SF is a better term, as it encompasses all three either separately or together.

And, to once again relate this to topic: This ties in with what I was saying earlier about the preconceptions about SF and why the average audience member (and, sadly, many younger readers in the field as well) have a sort of "tunnel-vision" approach to the genre, when -- like fantasy -- it is an enormously rich, complex, and fertile field that extends far beyond the limits all-too-often imposed upon it. Again, who among the usual audience would even think of, say, Moorcock's Cornelius stories (especially such pieces as *A Cure for Cancer*, or those in *The Lives and Times of Jerry Cornelius*, or *The Adventures of Una Persson and Catherine Cornelius in the Twentieth Century*) as "science fiction", let alone "sci-fi".... Yet these are very comfortably accepted into the  genre in written form.

And then there's always the original broadcast version of *The Lathe of Heaven*....



> However, science fiction fans already have a strong pedantic reputation, why make it worse by arguing over the terminology of the genre?


 
It isn't being pedantic. The terminology itself has a meaning, a history, and a host of associations connected to it. As long as "sci-fi" remains associated in the minds of so many with "the three B's" (see above), use of the term for all SF reduces all SF to that level of hackneyed balderdash. And, whatever fans within the genre have come to feel about the term, in the general laity, "sci-fi" is still chiefly synonymous with poorly-written, immature, utterly fantastic (in the negative sense of the term) drivel with no relevance whatsoever to either literature in general or life... and that association makes it very important to draw a distinction between the _Buck Rogers_/_Battlestar Galactica_ (original series) sort of tripe and, say, _The Prisoner_, *The Lathe of Heaven*, *Charly*, *2001*, *A Clockwork Orange*, *Gattica* (with all its faults), or *Solaris*....


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 26, 2008)

Speaking of _The Prisoner_, I heard a while ago that there was a remake in the works, but apparently that's been called off.

I'm very glad that it has, since I don't see how they could make it appealing to contemporary audiences and still keep it true to the original.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2008)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Speaking of _The Prisoner_, I heard a while ago that there was a remake in the works, but apparently that's been called off.
> 
> I'm very glad that it has, since I don't see how they could make it appealing to contemporary audiences and still keep it true to the original.


 
Not necessarily, Teresa. I hadn't heard anything about it for a while, so went searching. It seems that the company that was originally going to do it dropped it, but ITV has now picked it up again -- at least, as of October 2007:

Prisoner-Remake - McGoohan - Eccleston - Six of One

http://www.netreach.net/~sixofone/TheSUN.jpg

I have grave doubts about this one too, though. Reducing the story arc from 17 episodes to 6 (even though McGoohan himself originally conceived of it as 7) means some drastic changes in the complexity of the thing... and there was little actually wasted in the original (with the possible exception of "The Girl Who Was Death", which was a much-needed light episode before plunging into the extremely intense final two episodes).

However... we'll see....


----------



## ctg (Mar 26, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> _The Prisoner_, *The Lathe of Heaven*, *Charly*, *2001*, *A Clockwork Orange*, *Gattica* (with all its faults), or *Solaris*....



Can general audience understand what 2001 or Clockwork does stand for? I mean do they have wits to understand the visual symbols or hidden meanings in these visuals?


----------



## D_Davis (Mar 26, 2008)

ctg said:


> Can general audience understand what 2001 or Clockwork does stand for? I mean do they have wits to understand the visual symbols or hidden meanings in these visuals?



It doesn't matter.  Good films can be enjoyed on a variety of levels.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2008)

ctg said:


> Can general audience understand what 2001 or Clockwork does stand for? I mean do they have wits to understand the visual symbols or hidden meanings in these visuals?


 
People can understand a lot more than they're given credit for. A large part of it is being conditioned too much to only a literal view of what they see or read. After all, most children get the morals of fairy tales or parables, and allegory remains a rather popular form across the board.

As far as the films mentioned: they were quite successful popularly when they were released, and still have a fairly wide appeal to this day. My point was, simply, that the makers of films shoot for the "western-in-space" or "robot-run-amok" or "invaders-from-planet-X" okey-doke, rather than thoughtful SF (generally speaking), and thus reinforce the idea that SF is a lowbrow, vacuous branch of the arts. And, of course, a large part of that is because those behind the money don't "get it" (vide any number of stories writers of various films and tv shows have to tell on this aspect of things), and have the firm conviction that therefore audiences won't get it, either....


----------



## ctg (Mar 26, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> People can understand a lot more than they're given credit for. A large part of it is being conditioned too much to only a literal view of what they see or read. After all, most children get the morals of fairy tales or parables, and allegory remains a rather popular form across the board.
> 
> As far as the films mentioned: they were quite successful popularly when they were released, and still have a fairly wide appeal to this day. My point was, simply, that the makers of films shoot for the "western-in-space" or "robot-run-amok" or "invaders-from-planet-X" okey-doke, rather than thoughtful SF (generally speaking), and thus reinforce the idea that SF is a lowbrow, vacuous branch of the arts. And, of course, a large part of that is because those behind the money don't "get it" (vide any number of stories writers of various films and tv shows have to tell on this aspect of things), and have the firm conviction that therefore audiences won't get it, either....



Look at the 2001 extras, and they stay that when Kubrick/Asimov masterpiece rolled into the theatres, the seat stayed empty for a long time, up to the point where they were ready to pull it, but then suddenly these young people who liked to smoke some pot came in and stayed there for length of the show. 

However, when  I show 2001 in private screenings to my friends and their friends, people usually go to play RPGs or make so food in order to get in more ... viewer friendly stories. The biggest sighs can be heard from people when the colourful images at the end hit for nearly ten minutes ... and most of the people doesn't get the story. They don't see it as a creation story.

When it comes to the Clockwork Orange, it's bit different, as people look for the sex and violence in it, but rest ... well I think I think you know what I mean, if I say its bit too arty. Well Kubrick was after all a artistic genius like Picasso, wasn't he?

However, the general audience loves science-fiction, just look at the viewing ratings on Galactica for example. If they wouldn't, the moneymen would have closed their suitcases long time ago, and walked in another direction. And isn't it the the fact that Lucas and Spielberg are so rich, because of their love for the good old SF.


----------



## Connavar (Mar 26, 2008)

I had a job interview last week and suddenly we were talking about genre books we liked and i had no trouble saying _*Science Fiction*_ is for me 


Whats funny is that over here in sweden is SF is known mostly to stand for the biggest cinema chain.  Standing for Svensk Film aka Swedish Film i assume cause you only hear SF all the time


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2008)

ctg said:


> Look at the 2001 extras, and they stay that when Kubrick/Asimov masterpiece rolled into the theatres, the seat stayed empty for a long time, up to the point where they were ready to pull it, but then suddenly these young people who liked to smoke some pot came in and stayed there for length of the show.


 
Granted, 2001 was not an immediate success. But it did become a success, and remained in theatres for quite a respectable length of time. As for your personal experience with showing it to friends... that's an interesting bit of information; but I'm not sure how accurate that impression is generally. I tend to run into the reverse of that: people who are awed by the film, and burble enthusiastically about it. It also seems that, any time there's a revival of the film at any of the theaters around here (on campus or off), it pulls quite a crowd.

The best indicator of whether this film still has a respectable audience is the fact that it hasn't been allowed to go out of print with either VHS or DVD for any length of time, and that they are releasing new editions of it, with quite respectable sales. As for it being a creation story... I'd say that's only one interpretation of this one, and not necessarily one I agree with....



> When it comes to the Clockwork Orange, it's bit different, as people look for the sex and violence in it, but rest ... well I think I think you know what I mean, if I say its bit too arty. Well Kubrick was after all a artistic genius like Picasso, wasn't he?


 
Again, I can't quite agree with that assessment, either. Oh, I've met quite a few people who saw it as a "weird" film, but most seem to "get it" just fine, and see the social satire as well as the very serious aspects of the film. And, again, this is a film that hasn't been allowed to go OP for any length of time since first becoming available; and that tends to indicate that it has a broader audience appeal than many of the more recent films, in the genre or out of it.



> However, the general audience loves science-fiction, just look at the viewing ratings on Galactica for example. If they wouldn't, the moneymen would have closed their suitcases long time ago, and walked in another direction. And isn't it the the fact that Lucas and Spielberg are so rich, because of their love for the good old SF.


 
The first goes to my point that, presented with quality, audiences do often (though by no means always) respond... if the show is given a chance and not axed by "the moneymen" before it has an opportunity to get off the ground.

The second... I'm afraid I see Lucas and Spielberg as largely (albeit not solely) responsible for the degradation of SF from intelligent, thought-provoking films back into the "good ol' space opera" days of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, only with better effects.

Don't misunderstand me: I can enjoy some of their films just fine, but they *have* done an awful lot to turn what is supposed to be a field full of ideas and possibilities back into a very reactionary, simplistic, jingoistic, and muddle-headed genre filled with lots of "whizz-bang" and not much else....


----------



## D_Davis (Mar 29, 2008)

I found this on one of my favorite websites this morning:

“Sci-fi,” the widely used abbreviation for “science fiction,” is objectionable to most professional science fiction writers, scholars, and many fans. Some of them scornfully designate alien monster movies and other trivial entertainments “sci-fi” (which they pronounce “skiffy”) to distinguish them from true science fiction. The preferred abbreviation in these circles is “SF.” The problem with this abbreviation is that to the general public “SF” means “San Francisco.” “The Sci-Fi Channel” has exacerbated the conflict over this term. If you are a reporter approaching a science fiction writer or expert you immediately mark yourself as an outsider by using the term “sci-fi.”


From:

Common Errors in English

This site is awesome, it lists a ton of common errors people often use when writing English.


It's funny though, I've been reading science fiction for over 20 years, and I've never even heard of this problem until about a week ago, in this thread!


----------



## Parson (Mar 29, 2008)

D... Same for me, except I've been reading (careful now) SF for more than 50 years and hadn't heard of it until this week. 

By the way, I generally like the so called "Western or Robot Run Amok" story. Light escapism reading is never a bad choice in my estimation.


----------



## ray gower (Mar 29, 2008)

I suspect the argument between whether it is Sci-Fi or SF, in this context, is akin to dogs arguing over a bone. For most on the receiving end the difference is marginal and irrelevant.

On television the first requirement is entertainment to hold the peasant hordes interest between the adverts. Usually that means something that they can relate or aspire to. If it includes an allegory or parable then that's cool, but the first rule is to offer something that interests the mass.

For books, yes, the distinction may be more important to some, but that is personal and there is a wide market for taste. But you can get away with a lot more. 

Cinema sits between the two. Their victims have volunteered to surrender two hours of their lives because they think they are to receive something.


----------



## D_Davis (Mar 29, 2008)

Parson said:


> D... Same for me, except I've been reading (careful now) SF for more than 50 years and hadn't heard of it until this week.
> 
> By the way, I generally like the so called "Western or Robot Run Amok" story. Light escapism reading is never a bad choice in my estimation.



I've always said "sci-fi," and thought that SF was just a further abbreviation and this abbreviation.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 29, 2008)

I think there is a distinction to be made between people who have been reading science fiction for xx number of years, and people who have been actively _talking_ about science fiction with a large group of like-minded individuals for the same span of years.

Not that one is any better than the other, but if you'd been going to SFF conventions, and joining SFF clubs and writers groups for the last twenty, thirty, or fifty years, you would certainly have been aware that most hardcore science fiction fans don't care for the word "sci-fi."  


As for that story about _2001_ and the folks in the front row smoking pot, I've heard that one before.  I don't know if it's true.  Again, it may be a matter of perception, based on where and when and among which people we've each been discussing the movie in the past.  I haven't seen the movie myself, but my early impressions of it were formed by hearing my friends who were the most hardcore of hardcore SF fans speak of it with reverence.


----------



## Connavar (Mar 30, 2008)

Im just glad i know better now before i go to a SFF convention....


----------



## Steve Jordan (Apr 2, 2008)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> As for that story about _2001_ and the folks in the front row smoking pot, I've heard that one before.  I don't know if it's true.



I'm pretty sure it is true, and that MGM knew it: When they re-released the movie for years afterward, the poster's accompanying blurb was, "The Ultimate Trip..."

Regarding the thread's original question: You have to give mainstream viewers what they want to see.  If that's sex, give 'em sex.  If it's mindlessness, give 'em mindlessness.  If it's space battles and monsters... give it to 'em.  Series like _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ and _Star Trek_ catered to the things mainstream audiences wanted, and they were very popular and successful (until they'd been on for years, and people just got tired of them).  It's not impossible for SF TV to accomplish the same thing again, and regain popularity.

Right now, we're in one of those phases where mainstream audiences aren't looking for thoughtful TV... but that can change.  In the meantime, any SF that isn't so... thoughtful... can be successful.

I think they're also getting tired of remake formulas, which is why _Bionic Woman_ and _Knight Rider_ are dying as they are born.  But fresh SF ideas have a better chance.  _Lost_ and _Heroes_ are good examples of those fresh ideas (well, mostly _Lost_), which are doing better.  _Lost_, at this point, has about come to the end of the period in which thoughtfulness was working for them... they may as well degenerate into an island-wide ongoing war at this point, and make sure all those hard bodies get their clothes ripped right down to their undies.  They'll get plenty market share...


----------

