Actually, I would argue that part of the reason that SF shows fail is because they are aggressively written for non-SF fans. That was the whole bit that the ST staff repeated in interviews for the last few seasons of VOY and ENT.
Which I think is a mistake. It has to be respectful to SF fans but welcoming to casual viewers.
The story has to be welcoming to casual viewers
The setting has to be respectful to genre fans.
To analyze Firefly for a moment, you could strip out the sci-fi aspects of every story and you still would have (for the most part) a excellent story, that wouldn't have required any handwaving to get. That is what people who don't care about sci-fi enjoy, not having to understand tech, or the goobley gook to understand what is going on, and understand people's motivations.
But Firefly was clearly a sci-fi show, with consistent rules and setting, where the setting was NOT just a tool to be randomly manipulated for the story. It allows one to explore concepts and ideas that are not our everyday ones, or explore them in novel ways, but the characters react to them as we can, even if we don't
That spirit is best exemplified in the final episode, where Wash and Zoe have the exchange about living on starship. Because it is sci-fi and normal at the same time...
Just random musings...
ETA the highlighted NOT
By that argument, Firefly should have been a huge hit.
ijs.
Hrm. Let me say that this are necessary preconditions.
Let me take it back to something that was a huge hit, X-Files. The good years at least, the first two-three seasons. I would argue that those early episodes follow this formula mostly...
By that argument, Firefly should have been a huge hit.
While I'd like to blame most of the failure of FIREFLY on World Series pre-emption, a Friday night death slot, and wacky episode re-ordering (in multiple senses), I also think the fact that it dealt in western genre tropes as much as it did sci-fi ones may have been the biggest factor in why people might have watched and not stayed with it. Indeed the fans of one genre were probably put off by the presence of the other.
IOW, there was a lot more stacked against FIREFLY than the fact that it was sci-fi, however well the sci-fi was handled.
Honestly, I don't know if
Firefly
would have pulled it off, on any network, on any night. I think there were too many barriers to entry, including what you say here, Frank:
I also think the fact that it dealt in western genre tropes as much as it did sci-fi ones may have been the biggest factor in why people might have watched and not stayed with it. Indeed the fans of one genre were probably put off by the presence of the other.
I still go back to the bigness of film. Most of the TV sci-fi and fantasy that is beloved among my friends seems to be about storytelling. Cinematic sci-fi seems more like an action/special effects extravaganza, to me. I think that draws in the dick flick action-movie crowd (who seem to usually turn out in big numbers, at the box-office).
the dick flick action-movie crowd (who seem to usually turn out in big numbers, at the box-office)
How much do I love this phrase? Lots, that's how much.
Most of the TV sci-fi and fantasy that is beloved among my friends seems to be about storytelling. Cinematic sci-fi seems more like an action/special effects extravaganza, to me.
I don't think that's unique to SF, though. Take a typical TV show and a typical movie of almost any genre -- the TV version will involve more complex arc-driven storytelling, and the movie version will involve more shit being blown up. And yet, the average cop show lasts longer than the average SF show.
Actually, I would argue that part of the reason that SF shows fail is because they are aggressively written for non-SF fans.
Someone at the
TV Guide
panel at Comic-Con made an interesting observation. He noted that in the last ten years (I don't remember his specific parameters), sci-fi shows set in the future were not as successful as those set in the present.
How much do I love this phrase? Lots, that's how much.
Years ago, someone's dh (he might have still been a boyfriend) said "chick flick" one too many times and it was born. I doubt it's original to me, but it was original for me, at the time.
I don't think that's unique to SF, though. Take a typical TV show and a typical movie of almost any genre -- the TV version will involve more complex arc-driven storytelling, and the movie version will involve more shit being blown up.
I agree with the above. And then with this:
And yet, the average cop show lasts longer than the average SF show.
But that second half is where you get into the barriers-to-entry for Sci-fi and fantasy TV. In general, Sci-fi and fantasy (film or tv) have more barriers to entry than a cop show, or the like. When Sci-fi is presented in a feature film, rather than on episodic TV, I think it may well draw the action crowd (that isn't going to be interested in how it's presented on the small screen) because of the special effects, etc. The spectacle is a gateway to entry that TV sci-fi doesn't have (or doesn't have as GREAT BIG MUCH of).
People already know what cop/medical/legal shows are about. That makes the barrier to entry really low. Since you can have a cop/medical/legal SF show, the barrier got upped, because the average viewer doesn't feel they know what it's about anymore.
