Mal ,'Heart Of Gold'
[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.
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 movieIf 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.
By the same argument, though, Serenity is a sci-fi action flick, heavy on the action and blowing shit up - so should have been a success.
I remember Tim saying his uncle (I think) couldn't get in to Angel, because the character was a vampire. Barriers are a huge problem, and to be honest, Joss is the master of erecting them - see also: the title 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer'. Firefly - mixed genres, both of which haven't been successful on TV for years. That said, his barriers tend to be part of the reason why the show is compelling in the first place to the hardcore viewers (ie the people who actually bother to watch).
E.T., The Truman Show, Alien, Ghost, and Harry Potter are also SF.
Do you have a distinction between sci-fi and fantasy? Or do you lump them together into the SF of speculative fiction?
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.
How is the show not respectful to genre fans?
SF isn't just about spaceships and aliens and temporal anomalies, in any medium.
Take Star Wars/Trek out of the picture, and spaceships are historically a near-universal audience turnoff, in both film and TV. Sad (for people who like spaceships), but true.
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.
When TV Guide was doing their "Hottest Men and Women of SciFi" feature (which I think has now been killed, or at least pushed back), I was lobbying hard for House to be included, on the basis that there's at least as much fictional science in there as there is in Lost.
If Tim's still around, I want to know if his inseam changed. Because I could so use another inch. (Of height, you filthy-minded creeps.)