j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
Is science fiction no longer entertaining television for mainstream viewers?
- Thread starter Vincent Tauscher
- Start date
dustinzgirl
Mod of Awesome
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 3,697
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.
and to answer "Is science fiction no longer entertaining television for mainstream viewers?"
Not since NBC screwed up Sci Fi channel.
jenna
smiling politely
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2004
- Messages
- 584
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..
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 148
Oh, and you want to see something bad? Check this article:
Yahoo! Movies Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies
Yahoo! Movies Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies
*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...
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...
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
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....
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....
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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 148
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.
What's even worse, the Sci-Fi Channel was turning into something paranormal which was really IMO unnecessary.
steve12553
The Enigma of Steel
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…..
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.
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.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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,348
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.
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.
Last edited:
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'.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
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)...
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.
Obviously, JD posted his response while I was still composing mine.
But now you have two answers to mull over.
But now you have two answers to mull over.
j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
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:
-- Frank Kelly Freas: The Art of Science Fiction, p. 36
steve12553
The Enigma of Steel
"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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 8,411
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
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
Similar threads
-
How Judy-Lynn del Rey shaped science fiction as we know it today- Started by paeng
- Replies: 2
-
Your top 3-5 favorite Science-fiction writers currently?
- Started by Dave Vicks
- Replies: 7
-
-
