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.

---

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.

Ah, yes. "It sucks, but I have to watch it -- it's Star Trek." I have trouble seeing that kind of person as a bonus.

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.

The stuff you're saying about technospeak -- yes, that is offputting to some people. But those aren't essential elements of SF. Not liking that kind of story doesn't mean you don't like SF.

if, when SF is presented as a feature film--maybe it attracts fans of the action movie

If you're thinking of things like Independence Day and Terminator and the Matrix. Of course movies can do gee-whiz FX extravaganzas better than TV can, but not all gee-whiz movies are SF, and not all SF movies are full of explosions. E.T., The Truman Show, Alien, Ghost, and Harry Potter are also SF. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but one more time: SF isn't just about spaceships and aliens and temporal anomalies, in any medium. There is plenty of SF on TV, and I think there always has been, but it's not recognized as SF because it's not about people in pajamas fighting people with prosthetic foreheads. Most TV mysteries don't have trenchcoated private detectives; but nobody's saying, "Gee, why don't people want to watch mysteries?"

If you're going to convince me that SF has a harder time on TV than any other kind of show, it'd help if you explained how you're defining SF, and why the stuff that I'm talking about doesn't count.

It has to be respectful to SF fans but welcoming to casual viewers.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with the first part. I'll point again to Galactica.

---