Would it be possible to make a TV show set in space that is not Star Wars or Star Trek that would be a hit with the mainstream?

[CmdrShepN7]

When I heard Syfy was making "The Expanse" after a couple years of ghost hunting crap, wrestling, reality TV, and shark tornadoes I thought millions of TV show watchers would be hungering for a new space adventure after BSG left a void for several years after it ended in 2009 and flock to it but "The Expanse" ended up getting a little more than 1 million viewers.

Star Trek Discovery ended up getting almost 10 million viewers when it premiered on CBS but some fans complained about the new direction Star Trek was going in.

I found Nat Geo's Mars to be boring.

Would it be possible to make something that is set in space that is not Star Wars or Star Trek that would be a hit with the mainstream?

Do we need something that would make people excited for the future again? Do we need something that makes space cool and exciting again?

 

[Droflet]

Hang on. You're talking about originality. The way tv shows are slapped together these days, hmm, I wouldn't hold your breath.

However, I can only hope that something, adult, involving, exciting and new, slips through the corporate cracks.

 

[Pyan]

Bring back and expand Firefly, I say.

 

[Astro Pen]

That is no longer possible for the same reason comedy is no longer possible.

 

[Ed Lake]

Would it be possible to make something that is set in space that is not Star Wars or Star Trek that would be a hit with the mainstream?

Do we need something that would make people excited for the future again? Do we need something that makes space cool and exciting again?

It's certainly possible, but we're talking about an art form, and there is no set formula for creating a hit TV series, especially sci-fi.

Traveling in space is now a routine sci-fi feature. So, to create something "new" would probably require an idea that is not about "traveling" but about living in space, like on a rotating space station -- or on some strange planet.

 

[Montero]

Babylon 5 did living in space - and very well indeed.
Star Trek Deep Space Nine was another space station one.

 

[AlexH]

That is no longer possible for the same reason comedy is no longer possible.

You're right - I can't even think of an amusing reply!

On a serious note, we still have Red Dwarf, Doctor Who, and is Futurama still going? Black Mirror episodes have been set in space.

 

[Dave]

On a serious note, we still have Red Dwarf, Doctor Who, and is Futurama still going? Black Mirror episodes have been set in space.

Which have do forums here, or threads, at least.
Also we have forums for: The Orville
And for: Raised by Wolves

Raised by Wolves started out really quite promising, though I thought it went a little downhill, and certainly went a little weird. It is getting a second series though so "the mainstream" that you mention must have liked it.

Do we need something that would make people excited for the future again?

Well, I think that in Raised by Wolves life on the Earth has ended in a war, so it didn't make me too excited for the future it showed.

 

[tinkerdan]

I do not know what the OP is talking about.

List of science fiction television programs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Robert Zwilling]

There are plenty of science fiction programs but none have the name recognition of Star Trek or Star Wars. Imdb has a list of the most popular sci fi programs. The first 50 are mostly programs from the past 5 years. It has The Expanse was rated 10, Star Trek series at 21, 26, 35, 45, 50. This is probably driven by what can actually be seen on the TV screen. The remake remake remake of Superman and Lois (2021) is number 1 on the list. I don't even think of Superman as science fiction. It has its own space in my head. Picard is 53, Futurama 54, Firefly 55, Battlestar Galactica 56, and The Orville is 57. Babylon 5 is 86.

What stays at the top of the list may be a problem of branding, where the corporate interests brand information into massive numbers of consumers skulls, skewing reality. There are rock n roll bands that don't have any original members, only playing fan favorites, that are making more money than the original bands ever did. That's the power of marketing, the hand holding the brand is what counts, not what is being branded. There are plenty of programs to watch, you just have to search for them. Not all of them are new, but sometimes, a new program like The Expanse does pop into view on the crowded horizon, but that's the beauty of the internet, it doesn't take talent or effort to find something good watch.

Maybe people like a prograsm that shows solutions to problems we see everyday. Sometimes I think all the drama being pumped into programs and movies is so popular because that part of the program seems to have a relevant message no matter what the actual program is about. For me, that only dilutes the program I am trying to watch when it's not part of the actual program's story.

 

[KGeo777]

I think something like Gulliver's Travels in Space --a lone character traveling through space might be a worthy change--the space crew storyline is kind of blandish.
Unless it's something unusual --I think Star Trek could do a show about transporter repair crews--that would be like Reno 911 of sci-fi.
A crew going around to repair transporters--the excitement, the tragedy, how many Heisenberg compensators does one need to have on hand?

 

[Astro Pen]

"Love in Space"
Featuring a handsome Welsh starship captain in his late sixties, ( or at least it will if I get to write the scripts. )

 

[Parson]

That is no longer possible for the same reason comedy is no longer possible.

This confuses me. It seems to me that trying something is more possible now (with the scores of streaming services) than ever before. What is far less possible is that it becomes iconic. That's because the television viewing audience is now extremely fragmented, and few people will organize their weeks around their weekly TV shows as was done between the 60's up until about 90.

 

[paranoid marvin]

This confuses me. It seems to me that trying something is more possible now (with the scores of streaming services) than ever before. What is far less possible is that it becomes iconic. That's because the television viewing audience is now extremely fragmented, and few people will organize their weeks around their weekly TV shows as was done between the 60's up until about 90.

I totally agree with this. Science fiction has never been more mainstream than it is now, and so it follows that there have never been as many sci-fi shows being made as there have now.

But quantity quite often dilutes quality, and nowadays shows (because of just how much stuff there is out there) don't have to be overly successful, they just have to do enough; and unfortunately just enough adequately describes many tv series in general. So we don't really seem to get anything as innovating or exciting as early(ish) Trek, BSG , Doctor Who, X Files etc.

Perhaps when the sci-fi genre was more niche we got less quantity but better quality? Or maybe that was because there were less programmes being made? Or maybe because I'm wearing rose tinted specs? I don't know, but I do know that currently there are no current sci-fi programmes that I regularly watch, when in the past I was glued to the shows mentioned above every week.

 

[Parson]

Perhaps when the sci-fi genre was more niche we got less quantity but better quality? Or maybe that was because there were less programmes being made? Or maybe because I'm wearing rose tinted specs? I don't know, but I do know that currently there are no current sci-fi programmes that I regularly watch, when in the past I was glued to the shows mentioned above every week.

Speaking for myself (and perhaps my feeling could be generalized), I am more demanding of my TV/Movies than I was in my teens and twenties. Then I wasn't looking with nearly as critical an eye as I now have. For example: I loved the original Star Trek when it was first broadcast (I was 16ish). It was absolutely must see TV. When I watch the odd one now the plots seem wooden, the acting, meh, situations were predictable (Kirk was likely to outwit a genius level machine, anyone in red on an away mission was likely going to die, Scottie would likely find something to complain about etc. and the special effects were horrible. (To be fair it was state of the art back then.) ---- Now anything that predictable, if watched, is watched with a resigned attitude: "It's better than every other terrible choice."

 

[paranoid marvin]

Speaking for myself (and perhaps my feeling could be generalized), I am more demanding of my TV/Movies than I was in my teens and twenties. Then I wasn't looking with nearly as critical an eye as I now have. For example: I loved the original Star Trek when it was first broadcast (I was 16ish). It was absolutely must see TV. When I watch the odd one now the plots seem wooden, the acting, meh, situations were predictable (Kirk was likely to outwit a genius level machine, anyone in red on an away mission was likely going to die, Scottie would likely find something to complain about etc. and the special effects were horrible. (To be fair it was state of the art back then.) ---- Now anything that predictable, if watched, is watched with a resigned attitude: "It's better than every other terrible choice."

I know what you mean , but I would give Star Trek a little latitude, as it was (afaik) the first sci-fi series on tv; it had to be familiar and to some extent predictable, as if it had been too alien then it likely would have put audiences off watching it. Same goes for the acting (to some extent); they were pretty much doing it for the first time, there wasn't really anything for them to compare themselves again. And with other shows being able to learn from 60 years of sci-fi on tv, they should be much better. The fact that many aren't is tribute to shows like Star Trek. Having said that, compare it to Blakes 7 which came along only a decade later, and you do see a marked increase in acting and much less predictable storylines.

I totally agree with you about expectations today though. Any tv show with poor acting and/or poor storylines gets dumped after a few episodes. Only problem is that most shows are of a similarly low calibre.

 

[KGeo777]

Scotty had to complain about something! I like that tv-level acting of the time--people spoke clearly-they never mumbled their lines.
They wanted to recast Khan for Star Trek 2 because they felt Montalban was too "tv" an actor but come on--would Robert DeNiro have been a better choice?
Just because they did a lot of tv doesn't mean they didn't have traditional acting skills.



I think a crew going through space on exploration is just too boring. You would need a cast that is really appealing.
It's not impossible--SPACE 1999 did something different. Wasn't my favorite but it was different.

I wasn't into Doctor Who but it seems to me that all you need is a really interesting actor for the role and you can breath new life into it.
It seems less restricted than a Star Trek show because they have to be on this ship flying through space.


Imagine if every OS Star Trek episode had the budget of a 2001 Space Odyssey!
How much more fancy the ships and the environments would have been.

 

[Vince W]

While it should be possible to come up with something I think pay to view streaming services are part of the problem. I noticed it with Netflix first. They have a pretty good idea, the script is okay and splashing out on big names means a draw in viewers. However, because there are no limits on duration I've found most of these pieces meander in pointless directions and are often 30-50 minutes too long for the material. I've said many times that pieces could have been very good for want of a good script and film editor.

This and taking real risks with stories are needed. Risks without adding elements to appeal to a wider audience. Make science fiction television that science fiction fans want to watch, not generic programs with science fiction chrome bolted on.

 

[paranoid marvin]

While it should be possible to come up with something I think pay to view streaming services are part of the problem. I noticed it with Netflix first. They have a pretty good idea, the script is okay and splashing out on big names means a draw in viewers. However, because there are no limits on duration I've found most of these pieces meander in pointless directions and are often 30-50 minutes too long for the material. I've said many times that pieces could have been very good for want of a good script and film editor.

This and taking real risks with stories are needed. Risks without adding elements to appeal to a wider audience. Make science fiction television that science fiction fans want to watch, not generic programs with science fiction chrome bolted on.

This is kind of what I was saying earlier. As sci-fi becomes more popular/mainstream, the danger is that companies will jump on the bandwagon by adding a sci-fi element to their programme in order to buy in those extra viewers - but it isn't really scifi.

I suppose to some extent it's like the Star Wars fans who have seen the genre expand in so many ways, and deviate from the original canon that it doesn't feel like Star Wars any more. And perhaps the same could be said for fans of Marvel with all of the movies.

When a genre is more niche, it can feel more 'special'. And those delivering product to that niche audience know what is expected. As the genre becomes more popular/mainstream and a much wider audience has to be catered for, those elements that made it what it was can be lost in the rush to sell to a larger audience.

 

[BAYLOR]

Warhammer 40 K could work as a television series.