When does a show become SF or Fantasy?

[Perpetual Man]

I have been watching a couple of different series this year, and thought about bringing them up here in the television section.

Ostensibly most of them are not SF or fantasy, but it has led me to the question of is there a line that must be crossed for a show to be considered SF or fantasy?

There are certain programmes out there that would quiver in their boots if they were considered to be such, while at the same time there are those genre fans that would feel just as bad to hear that 'mainstream' series could possibly be considered SF.

So at what point does a show become 'genre'?

Does it need to be stipulated, or can it just be conferred by consensus?

 

[Moonbat]

I think it is in the eye of the beholder. There are several films that I can proudly state are 'sci-fi' that Sonia wouldn't think are, so I think same can be said about TV series. All that being said I think the writer/director/producer's opinion might hold more weight, but they may want it to be more of a drama than a sci-fi series in an effort to give their writing/direction/production more kudos, ultimately I expect the broadcaster/channel has the final say on what they advertise it at. We can argue all day if program x is sci-fi or drama but it'll be the market it is aimed at that (from a marketing POV) that defines its genre. IMHO.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

If you are talking about whether to post about something in the television section here, you can define SF/Fantasy as broadly as you please. Just as our members might talk about other elements in a show set on Mars, they might also be eager to discuss genre elements in something that was conceived with a different audience in mind.

For our purposes, who cares if the writers and producers are quivering in their boots? Let them quiver, or stay away from science fiction and fantasy elements altogether!

Meanwhile how much the genre label applies to any one particular story, and the intentions of those who created it, would be a fruitful subject for discussion in a thread devoted to that show.

 

[Gordian Knot]

PM, it would be helpful if you would give some examples of shows that are not marketed as SF/Fantasy, but that you think slip over the line.....

 

[Perpetual Man]

I deliberately did not shows in to start with because... well I was getting ready to push it a little.

One that springs to mind is the new Dallas.

What? Dallas?

The modern updating of the 80's global hit super-soap Dallas?

Well yes.

The first season was pretty much average, and the start of the second was 'meh' to say the least, but from the moment JR died (to accommodate the real life passing of actor Larry Hagman) the show became a gripping, twisting, turning drama that could have stood with any of the original series as the Ewings fight against those that are determined to destroy them.

But this is beside the point.

Why would I dare to suggest that an overly glossy soap opera, filled with 'beautiful people' could possibly, even remotely be considered as SF?

When the show starts we learn that the Ewing OIl empire of yesteryear is gone, consumed by Barnes Global. The family live a 'simple' life on Southfork, apart from JR who has fallen into a depression so deep that he lives his life in an institution, sitting in a chair doing nothing.

The main thrust of the first season is the forming of Ewing Energies, a new company that is prompted into life when Christopher Ewing introduces his new and highly efficient form of Methane production, extracting pockets from the sea.

It never goes into the science of what is being done (of course) but it seems to be a little in advance of what we are currently capable of.

So as slight as it might be, this sees the use of a technology slightly ahead of our own time.

Science Fiction?

 

[Parson]

Interesting question PM, I would label the "Dallas" thing not SF. But when I'm forced to defend that reasoning I'm forced into a matter of degree. Clearly, things like the TV series where they are trying to turn the electricity back on --- don't watch it and am terrible with all kinds of names --- would be SF, but then all the technology save a sliver is contemporary.

Perhaps its more a matter of significance to the story. Alias, had some SF technology and revisionist history, but since the story turned on the spies, their life outside of the spy game, and the mysteries they were trying to unravel I would also make that not SF.

So there's my not very focused contribution.... "It's all in the eye of the beholder. If SF is central to the plot it is, if it is not, it is not."


There all settled.

 

[Foxbat]

Personally, I think this question is rather similar to when is something a work of art?

Usually the answer will be because the artist says it is - even if the rest of us think it is a pile of ****.

With that in mind, it could be argued that the programme makers are the ones who decide.

 

[Gordian Knot]

It is my thought that most all of the series on TV are fantasy, in that realism takes a back seat to the story lines. That is, however, obviously an extremely broad definition of fantasy.

SF is easier, because it is a more defined subject. It seems to me that in order to be considered SF, the preponderance of the show must be SF in nature. Having one minor SF element in a soap opera like Dallas does not make it SF.

Mr. Webster's definition is "fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."

Defining the term has been a matter a great debate for a long time, and continues to this day. I am comfortable using Webster's definition in making a determination as to whether a form of media is SF or not.