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.)

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.

By that standard, CSI is SF too.

There have been a number of SF/fantasy shows that lasted 2-5 years on network television: Star Trek, Space 1999, Buck Rogers, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Roswell, Amazing Stories, X-Files, Millennium, Tom Corbett — Space Cadet, Lost in Space, The Wild Wild West, The Greatest American Hero, Superman, The Six Million Dollar Man, The Incredible Hulk, Lois & Clark, Wonder Woman, Quantum Leap and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, plus whatever you call shows like My Favorite Martian, Mork & Mindy, Third Rock from the Sun and Batman. I don't know the average length of time non-genre shows last, so I can't tell how handicapped SF really is.

What I do think is that marketing departments have more trouble figuring out how to promote SF shows. I think Firefly promoted as action-adventure or as ensemble drama would have had a better chance than it did positioned as wacky fun or from the guy who brought you Buffy.

How is the show not respectful to genre fans?

"Starbuck's a GIRL! Boomer's a GIRL! The Cylons aren't even robots! We wanted a continuation! Richard Hatch has been trying to get this project going for years, how dare they steal this out from under him! It's too dark and adult and it should be a fun show for the whole family! We're the True Fans, this should be what we want! How dare you lie to us and betray us and take our childhood memories and stomp all over them?"

Before it started, Olmos said something like, "If you loved the original show, you probably shouldn't watch this. You won't like it."

I think that many people involved with BSG are not respectful of SF and SF fans, but I don't think it comes across onscreen.

As for the GINO fan contingent, well, it's difficult to be respectful to fans who define "disrespect" as "having a show on the air different from the one I want in my head."

Strega, I wasn't trying to convince you sci-fi has a harder time on TV than any other type of show. I'd gone off on a side jaunt--that was talking about how well it does do at the movies. I don't know where I said or even implied that the things you were talking about don't count.

I do generally differentiate between sci-fi and fantasy. I don't see Ghost, Buffy, Angel, Wonderfalls, Ghost Whisperer, and Harry Potter as sci-fi. Alien (etc.), E.T., The Truman Show (I think; I haven't seen it, but the premise sounds it to me) yes. Lost probably is, but who can tell what the hell is going on with that show?

To you, what are the essential elements of sci-fi? I'm curious how magic/spiritual stuff like Ghost and Harry Potter gets in there.

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.

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.

Not so much--only if the argument had been: Every film with big special effects is going to be a hit.

What Jessica said. The show, as it airs, seems perfectly respectful to the SF fan. Bothersome for some OG fans, sure. But what show's not bothersome to someone, including in its technical target audience?