Glory ,'Potential'
[NAFDA] "There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer." From Zorro to Angel (including Wonderfalls, The Inside and Drive), this is where Buffistas come to anoint themselves in the bloodbath.
No need to shout. I am sure that Tim has a well-supported argument. I am fiddling around with the defintions of "TV" and "last"-ing.
In recent years, TV has gone to larger channel numbers, for me. If Tim is doing a history lesson on TV ... nah. He is talking about current and coming events.
M*A*S*H ran for a long time, didn't it?
11 years if memory serves.
Grr. The audience for SF on TV is smaller because the audience for SF is smaller in the population.
SF people are not necessarily smarter than anyone else, or better in any other way. They just have the SF-gene.
SF people are not necessarily smarter than anyone else, or better in any other way.
I didn't see anyone claiming otherwise.
I don't think that there's a select group of "SF people" who are the only ones who'll watch SF shows. That's what I tried to say before. If the audience is that limited, it's odd that so many successful movies are SF.
Lost was already mentioned; if I stick to the broadcast newtorks, I can think of Ghost Whisperer, Smallville, and Supernatural. If you're defining the genre in such a way that only cult shows count, then sure, there's only a cult audience.
Lost is not better than Eureka. Take that back.
It's possibly true that I lack perspective.
Medium had something like 25 million viewers its first season, didn't it?
I also maintain that the idea of having a U.S. President as principled as Jed Bartlet in this day and age involved as much fantasy as any Whedon show.
I think there's an audience more endeared to sci-fi. You know, the kind of person who'll check out a sci-fi show because it's.. uhm.. sci-fi. In a way, that audience acts as a nice bonus.
However, there's also the more casual viewer who doesn't care what speed the ship flies at, and doesn't want to know if it's one solar system or 12 and a half. Those are the people you have to reach to be successful, as they provide the viewing figures.
"Serenity" is a great example of this. A large section of Browncoats could be described as the SF audience - they were suspible to the show, they gathered around it and hunted out the DVDs, trailers etc. They set up booths at cons (me included), they did their own posters, got in newspapers, got everywhere they could... But ultimately, it didn't reach out of that audience as much as it needed to for sequels. In TV land, that'd be cancellation of a Sci-Fi show - because it failed to reach outside of the built in audience of the genre.
I don't think that there's a select group of "SF people" who are the only ones who'll watch SF shows. That's what I tried to say before. If the audience is that limited, it's odd that so many successful movies are SF.
It's way early in the morning, so caveat lector...but I wonder if, when SF is presented as a feature film--maybe it attracts fans of the action movie, as well. Isn't there usually big, spectacular stuff in SF films--special effects, etc.?
I've never really understood why SF struggles on tv. I reckon you could argue that 27 of the top 30 all time highest grossing films at the US box office are genre films. Colour me confused :)
Isn't there usually big, spectacular stuff in SF films--special effects, etc.?
Yup. Whereas your general sci-fi show, while it might have a lot of special effects, aren't very often flashy.