sf/f TV development news - 2013

[RJDiogenes]

The space opera equals science fiction mistake doesn't bother me so much; it's the ghosts and vampires equal science fiction mistake that's more troublesome.

[Greg Cox]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

The space opera equals science fiction mistake doesn't bother me so much; it's the ghosts and vampires equal science fiction mistake that's more troublesome.

On the other hand, I admit I've grown a bit weary of the constant protests that such-and-such "isn't really science fiction!"

Can we just stipulate that most articles or threads that talk about "The Best New Science Fiction Movies" or whatever actually mean sf, space opera, superheroes, fantasy, and horror? There's enough overlap that I don't really see the point in trying to keep the genres pure and separate.

Personally, I don't mind getting chocolate in my peanut butter. It's tastier that way . . . .

[Guy Gardener]

Imagine a series that deals with the immortal centuries long grudgematch feuds between vampires and clans of vampires... A fight starts in the 10th century, and we check in on what's going every few decades, skip a century here and there, as fashion and technology changes towards the present and then into the future... From cave men vampires to vampires in Tin foil on Jupiter. And of course each 40 minute story would have a different primary cast pursuing different adventures that as the series continues of you'd see them glancing in upon one another until a larger plot first unseen develops.

Liza Weil.

Why the hell isn't she on a pedestal?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

On the other hand, I admit I've grown a bit weary of the constant protests that such-and-such "isn't really science fiction!"

Seriously.

It's all skiffy stuff. Damon Knight's definition of science fiction is the only one that's worthwhile.

[Temis the Vorta]

Dominic Monaghan joins Crackle series Unknown.

Dominic Monaghan has been cast as the narrator of Crackle‘s original horror-thriller anthology series The Unknown, which launches later this year on the Sony TV-owned multiplatform network. Monaghan (Lost, The Lord Of The Rings trilogy) will play a blogger who chronicles the unexplained phenomenon that occurs in each of the six half-hour episodes.

Sounds interesting, but I wonder how they plan to spread awareness. Other than this thread, how many people here have heard of Crackle or have seen any of their existing original series?

[RJDiogenes]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

On the other hand, I admit I've grown a bit weary of the constant protests that such-and-such "isn't really science fiction!"

Can we just stipulate that most articles or threads that talk about "The Best New Science Fiction Movies" or whatever actually mean sf, space opera, superheroes, fantasy, and horror? There's enough overlap that I don't really see the point in trying to keep the genres pure and separate.

Personally, I don't mind getting chocolate in my peanut butter. It's tastier that way . . . .

Same here. I love mixed genres. But chocolate is still chocolate and peanut butter is still peanut butter. Words should have meanings that actually mean something, otherwise we might as well just say "stuff" and "thing" all the time.

[Bob The Skutter]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Dominic Monaghan joins Crackle series Unknown.

Sounds interesting, but I wonder how they plan to spread awareness. Other than this thread, how many people here have heard of Crackle or have seen any of their existing original series?

I'd only heard of Crackle because they're one of the new apps released on the new Xbox dashboard.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

Same here. I love mixed genres. But chocolate is still chocolate and peanut butter is still peanut butter. Words should have meanings that actually mean something, otherwise we might as well just say "stuff" and "thing" all the time.

But what words mean should be a factor of how they're used. If the majority of the population has used a word in a certain way for a generation or more, it doesn't make sense to cling to some old, hyperliteral, prescriptivist definition for it, because most people don't use it that way. Words aren't antiques to be kept up on a shelf gathering dust, they're living entities, everyday tools for communication. So the "correct" use of a word is the one that is most clearly understood by the most people, even if that usage has changed from its origins or literal definition. Countless words we use today have changed in meaning from how they were originally used, and trying to cling to their original definitions would obscure communication, not promote it.

Of course one shouldn't use nonstandard definitions recklessly, since communication requires clarity. But if a "misuse" has gone on long enough and become widely enough accepted to be the default standard usage, then resisting that change works against clarity, not for it.

[stj]

So, the consensus is that we should just say and write "weird shit." This is good marketing practice, because some readers and viewers are temperamentally unsuited to that kind of willing suspension of disbelief, while others are. Sounds like a good idea, we're all creatures of mass commerce.

And, to uphold mass commerce against the vile prescriptivists, we should insist scientists stop obscuring communication by misusing the word "theory," which has long meant "personal opinion." And "materialism" would just mean "greed" (but not "avarice.") And so forth.

Obviously science fiction criticism isn't of great importance (as opposed to possible interest) but also obviously the refusal to even engage the subject is, well, "obscurantist" is the word that comes to mind. But pardon me for lapsing into the old prescriptivist language. I think the official phrase is "blowing smoke."

The people who like to cite Damon Knight's definition (and those who like Norman Spinrad's, too) are rarely, if ever intested in troubling to point, much less discuss what they point at, or in discussing marketing (advances, maybe) either. The tacit assumption skiffy stuff's in nothing but stupid stuff fit for the slumming mind only has its complacency to recommend it. No, if you intend to criticize, excuse me, "chew over" SF, taxonomy is essential. It's essential to biology, how is literary criticism superior?

[Temis the Vorta]

Pilot Buzz Update.

Kind of a mixed bag of good news/bad news...just like in previous years, this process is always disappointing and frustrating.

ABC

On the male/genre side, LAST RESORT looks solid, GOTHAM came in OK, while 666 PARK AVE has started to fade after very strong early buzz. There is not much feedback on ZERO HOUR or the UNTITLED ROLAND EMMERICH dramas, but word is the former came in too long and the latter came in stronger than expected, with both reportedly still in contention. As for BEAUTY & THE BEAST, because of extensive visual effects, it hasn’t been seen in its finished form yet.

I like how they're assuming anything but the straight-up soaps are "male." They've got some fantasy/soaps on the genre side that also skew female. Do they really think Beauty & the Beast is for guys? Everything ABC does skews female - Last Resort is the only exception on this list, being (arguably) sci fi as well action/military.

I'm most interested in 666 Park Ave. Zero Hour and the Emmerich show (which is about the antichrist running for President - I thought it had been renamed Dark Horse already) are interchangeable in my mind, along with NBC's Midnight Sun - more Children of Lost - which don't have a great track record in living up to their initial promise.

NBC

DO NO HARM...has lost some momentum but is still very solid. Another early frontrunner, mystery drama MIDNIGHT SUN, has cooled off. I hear Western-flavored FRONTIER is well-liked among NBC brass despite mixed testing results...Off-cycle pilot BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is cold.

Rats, Beautiful People is one of the more interesting premises this year. (However, in the past I've seen shows do a 180 from cold to hot right before upfronts.) Frontier would be a huge risk, but would be very different from the normal broadcast routine, and I'd love to see it.

JJ Abrams' Revolution is still not being mentioned, but someone in the comments section claims its DOA. No great loss.

CW

Along with early frontrunners ARROW and THE CARRIE DIARIES, I hear BEAUTY & THE BEAST came in good and is picking up momentum. CULT continues to be strong, with Hunger Games-esque THE SELECTION...

Because everything on the CW that doesn't include the ever-smouldering Damon Salvatore is doing crappy, all the pilots have a good shot at being picked up. I wanna see Alaric vs. T-Bag (aka Cult) as well as the Hunger Games ripoff.

CBS and FOX have no genre pilots in contention.

TNT is also listed - my favorite, LA Noir, is said to be "quiet." TNT would be nuts not to pick of a series with that kind of cast and pedigree!

[JD]

Does anyone know if there's anyway to legally see the original Beautiful People, (that's the robot show right?)? It seems like when they do this kind of stuff no matter how hard they try they can never quite match the quality of the original.

[RJDiogenes]

Christopher wrote:

---

But what words mean should be a factor of how they're used. If the majority of the population has used a word in a certain way for a generation or more, it doesn't make sense to cling to some old, hyperliteral, prescriptivist definition for it, because most people don't use it that way. Words aren't antiques to be kept up on a shelf gathering dust, they're living entities, everyday tools for communication. So the "correct" use of a word is the one that is most clearly understood by the most people, even if that usage has changed from its origins or literal definition. Countless words we use today have changed in meaning from how they were originally used, and trying to cling to their original definitions would obscure communication, not promote it.

Of course one shouldn't use nonstandard definitions recklessly, since communication requires clarity. But if a "misuse" has gone on long enough and become widely enough accepted to be the default standard usage, then resisting that change works against clarity, not for it.

You've just explained why people like Stanley Schmidt are right and people like Damon Knight are wrong-- there's a difference between the evolution of terms and mere low standards. It's one thing for something that used to be considered wrong to become accepted because it fills a linguistic need (e.g. "they" as the third person singular of undetermined gender) or because there is no good reason for it to be considered wrong (e.g. splitting infinitives), and it's another thing to just give in to ignorance. Language is about communication, and if a term can mean anything then it means nothing. And it doesn't matter how many people don't understand the definition of irony, Alanis Morrisette is still wrong.

stj wrote:

---

So, the consensus is that we should just say and write "weird shit." This is good marketing practice, because some readers and viewers are temperamentally unsuited to that kind of willing suspension of disbelief, while others are. Sounds like a good idea, we're all creatures of mass commerce.

And, to uphold mass commerce against the vile prescriptivists, we should insist scientists stop obscuring communication by misusing the word "theory," which has long meant "personal opinion." And "materialism" would just mean "greed" (but not "avarice.") And so forth.

Obviously science fiction criticism isn't of great importance (as opposed to possible interest) but also obviously the refusal to even engage the subject is, well, "obscurantist" is the word that comes to mind. But pardon me for lapsing into the old prescriptivist language. I think the official phrase is "blowing smoke."

The people who like to cite Damon Knight's definition (and those who like Norman Spinrad's, too) are rarely, if ever intested in troubling to point, much less discuss what they point at, or in discussing marketing (advances, maybe) either. The tacit assumption skiffy stuff's in nothing but stupid stuff fit for the slumming mind only has its complacency to recommend it. No, if you intend to criticize, excuse me, "chew over" SF, taxonomy is essential. It's essential to biology, how is literary criticism superior?

This is exactly it. Mundanes see anything beyond their football games as "weird shit" and science fiction has become the catch-all term for that weird shit. And, as insecurity has grown in genre fandom, the trend has been to go along with those low standards in desperate hope of acceptance. It's like the nerdy kid in junior high school who laughs too loud at the jock's stupid jokes-- it's awkward and embarrassing.

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

I like how they're assuming anything but the straight-up soaps are "male."

It boggles my mind that culture is still this chauvinistic. Every day I wake up thinking it's the 21st century, and every day I'm reminded that it's still 1950.

[xortex]

How is horror science fiction? unless there is a scientific explaination for it? Maybe the devil is a Trekkie. Is wrestling science fiction then. There is a science to it and a fictional outcome and it might be run by alien devils. Cooking too.

[Christopher]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

I like how they're assuming anything but the straight-up soaps are "male." They've got some fantasy/soaps on the genre side that also skew female. Do they really think Beauty & the Beast is for guys?

Yeah, that's ridiculous and outmoded thinking from whoever wrote that article.

the Emmerich show (which is about the antichrist running for President...)

Ah, so it's a documentary about the Santorum campaign?

Rats, Beautiful People is one of the more interesting premises this year. (However, in the past I've seen shows do a 180 from cold to hot right before upfronts.)

I hope you're right -- that's potentially one of the more interesting premises.

CBS and FOX have no genre pilots in contention.

Not surprising for CBS, very surprising for FOX. Historically, of all the broadcast networks, FOX has had the highest percentage of shows in its schedule that were genre-oriented (roughly tied with the now-defunct UPN), while CBS has had the lowest percentage by a wide margin.

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

You've just explained why people like Stanley Schmidt are right and people like Damon Knight are wrong-- there's a difference between the evolution of terms and mere low standards. It's one thing for something that used to be considered wrong to become accepted because it fills a linguistic need (e.g. "they" as the third person singular of undetermined gender) or because there is no good reason for it to be considered wrong (e.g. splitting infinitives), and it's another thing to just give in to ignorance.

Actually singular "they" is not a recent development. It's been a part of English usage at least as far back as Chaucer, and is also found in Shakespeare and the King James Bible, among plenty of others. Like the so-called "split infinitive," the rule declaring it "wrong" came along only a couple of centuries ago, even though it had been standard usage for many times longer.

And it doesn't matter how many people don't understand the definition of irony, Alanis Morrisette is still wrong.

True, but it's occurred to me that maybe the reason so many people use "irony" in that way is because we need a word that actually does mean that (i.e. something that is unexpectedly and poetically appropriate) and don't have one. It's a concept in need of a word, and people use "irony" for lack of a better alternative. And it's probably a losing battle. Once enough people use "irony" that way, the dictionaries will have to adapt.

And, as insecurity has grown in genre fandom, the trend has been to go along with those low standards in desperate hope of acceptance. It's like the nerdy kid in junior high school who laughs too loud at the jock's stupid jokes-- it's awkward and embarrassing.

If you're talking about mass-media science fiction, you should consider that the earliest entries in the genre were things like the cheesy adventure serials of the '30s and '40s, and Z-grade monster movies and kids' shows like Captain Video in the '50s. The standards started out low and have actually increased over time -- first with writers like Rod Serling and Gene Roddenberry bringing more adult storytelling sensibilities, more recently with writers like J. Michael Straczynski and Michael Piller and Joss Whedon raising the literacy and complexity of the material. If you're talking about the lines between strict SF and fantasy, those have always been vague in the mass media (which one does Flash Gordon or The Twilight Zone fall into?), but it's a distinction that has nothing to do with standards of quality. Ray Bradbury's prose fiction is as much fantasy as SF, but few would dispute its very high quality.

[xortex]

So are standards set by the masses or by people like GR and RS? There's good shit and bad shit after all. 'Singing in the Rain' could be science fiction too. In that sense everything or anything can mean anything, subjective vs objective truth. The quality of good or bad does not make something science fiction.