Mal ,'Ariel'
[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.
But is that actually insulting to SF fans in particular, or just insulting to its audience the way that all bad TV is? I was working off of "It has to be respectful to SF fans but welcoming to casual viewers." That sounded like it meant something more specific than "it should be good." CaBil, can you clarify?
However bad Enterprise was, it lasted four years. Largely, if not entirely, because of SF fans.
I think with Enterprise, you could make the argument that it was not respectful to *Trek fans*, rather than sci-fi fans as a whole. I mean, I figure it's generally the Trek fans who will care when a show stomps all over thirty years of canon.
And yet, I was one of the ones who kept watching Enterprise, and I was rewarded when they brought Manny Coto in and the show stopped sucking.
I am much more likely to be loyal to an actor (or a Tim-like person) than to a genre, I think, but I feel like that's partly influenced by how I participate in fandom.
Seasons 3 and 4 were pretty decent and the second last episode of Enterprise was one of the best Trek episodes of any series. Andromeda on the other hand, that's a different kettle of fish.
I find it difficult to define the line between science fiction and fantasy. I mean, sometimes it's easy to say a story is one or the other, but if the mysterious, big-eyed humanoid creatures messing with people are fairies, it's fantasy, and if they're aliens, it's science fiction. There's a David Brin story where they're both, or possibly neither. Is it sci-fi or fantasy?It's the progenitor of Lost. Seriously, I agree. I don't think I've heard the term "speculative fiction" before. At least, it hasn't stuck with me.
Andromeda on the other hand, that's a different kettle of fish.
"The Unconquerable Man" was great TV.
I don't think I've heard the term "speculative fiction" before. At least, it hasn't stuck with me.
The first paragraph at Wikipedia describes how I've usually seen it used, though I know there is some history of people taking, and causing, offense with "SF" versus "sci-fi," and whatever else people find to fight about. I just find it a more useful term than sci-fi.
Yes, it seems to be more useful, because an awful lot of people mean Sci-Fi + Fantasy, when they just say "Sci-fi". I don't like to refer to it as genre, because there are all sorts of genres, and it confuses me.
Is the taking and causing offense due to the bat-shit crazy fandom genre?
But, you know, romance readers and writers are as batshit as the best of 'em. The batshit is found in all walks of life. (And can be cleaned off with the Hose of Reality.)
I don't like to refer to it as genre, because there are all sorts of genres, and it confuses me.
Me, too, Cindy.
I do like the term "speculative fiction." That seems to encompass what I think of when I think "sci-fi." Which, of course, is more than just sci-fi in my own little brain.
While I'm not opposed to the term "speculative fiction," I don't see how it's any narrower than "genre," really. All fiction is speculative, that's why it's fiction.