Why did Americans lose interest in space and space fiction in the mid 2000s?

[Alan Roi]

Personally, while I enjoy modern sensibilities on continuity and season story lines I really miss stand alone episodes. There are merits to stories told within single episodes and often these episodes are important to characterization and backstory.

The Marvel Netflix shows for example really suffered trying to tell season long stories. They also suffered from tying themselves to the same stories across multiple seasons. Iron Fist and Punisher particularly suffered from this. All shows would have benefitted from stand alone episodes.

Now that The Mandalorian is so popular we might see some changes to the format.

The Mandalorian doesn't really owe its popularity to its format, though. It kind of owes it to baby Yoda. We'll likely see more cute widdle guys before a return to series with a format of stories neatly wrapped up in 45 minutes and then never referred to again in the grand scheme of things no matter what game-changers they might present.

 

[Christopher]

I think the concept of "filler episodes" has become misunderstood. Just being a standalone story that isn't part of the seasonal arc does not make something mere "filler." A good standalone story is worthwhile in its own right. It used to be that most episodes of a TV series were standalones, that they were structured more like anthologies of independent stories than "novels" made up of chapters." In those days, there was such a concept as the filler episode, but it applied to episodes that were just routine and unremarkable, just going through the motions of plot formula and not adding anything of real value to the series. It didn't apply to those standalone episodes that told really good, compelling one-and-done stories. Nobody would call "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Trouble With Tribbles" filler, even though neither episode set up any continuing storylines (at least, not until the animated series). They were self-contained, but they were meaningful. They were episodes you would tell a new viewer that they must not skip -- not because they contributed to an arc, but just because they were good stories.

So even in a serialized season, a standalone episode isn't automatically filler. It's okay if it doesn't advance the main plot arc, as long as it's a good story in its own right, something you'd be missing out on if you didn't watch it.

It's really rather screwed up to believe that the only value a story has is about whether it sets up the next story after it. If that's the case, then no story has any actual value in itself. What does it matter if it sets up the next story if that story has no value beyond setting up the one after it? By that standard, all value and meaning in fiction is some future goal that you keep moving toward but never actually reaching, and that's just dumb. What is the point of experiencing fiction if you don't get something out of it while you're watching or reading it? The primary value of a story should be in the story itself. The long-term impact it has afterward is a secondary consideration, and an optional one.

 

[Alan Roi]

I think the concept of "filler episodes" has become misunderstood. Just being a standalone story that isn't part of the seasonal arc does not make something mere "filler." A good standalone story is worthwhile in its own right. It used to be that most episodes of a TV series were standalones, that they were structured more like anthologies of independent stories than "novels" made up of chapters." In those days, there was such a concept as the filler episode, but it applied to episodes that were just routine and unremarkable, just going through the motions of plot formula and not adding anything of real value to the series. It didn't apply to those standalone episodes that told really good, compelling one-and-done stories. Nobody would call "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Trouble With Tribbles" filler, even though neither episode set up any continuing storylines (at least, not until the animated series). They were self-contained, but they were meaningful. They were episodes you would tell a new viewer that they must not skip -- not because they contributed to an arc, but just because they were good stories.

So even in a serialized season, a standalone episode isn't automatically filler. It's okay if it doesn't advance the main plot arc, as long as it's a good story in its own right, something you'd be missing out on if you didn't watch it.

It's really rather screwed up to believe that the only value a story has is about whether it sets up the next story after it. If that's the case, then no story has any actual value in itself. What does it matter if it sets up the next story if that story has no value beyond setting up the one after it? By that standard, all value and meaning in fiction is some future goal that you keep moving toward but never actually reaching, and that's just dumb. What is the point of experiencing fiction if you don't get something out of it while you're watching or reading it? The primary value of a story should be in the story itself. The long-term impact it has afterward is a secondary consideration, and an optional one.

IMO, if a standalone story doesn't meaningfully offer insight or advancement in character, worldbuilding or genre exploration, in a episodic series can safely be considered filler. Discrete short stories in a collection that don't do anything meaningful with the above are lesser excercises at best. But in a serialized setting each episode is a chapter in a larger story being told. And if they are an exercise in wheel-spinning then yeah, they aren't serving their purpose. IMO, a major purpose of a chapter in a novel is to be additive, not neutral and not subtractive.

For better or worse, Discovery seasons are constructed as novels and not collections of discrete short stories. And shoehorning in discrete standalone eps into a Disco season will have the same effect of jamming unconnected short stories into a novel, something that doesn't generally work so well.

 

[Christopher]

But in a serialized setting each episode is a chapter in a larger story being told. And if they are an exercise in wheel-spinning then yeah, they aren't serving their purpose. IMO, a major purpose of a chapter in a novel is to be additive, not neutral and not subtractive.

But why does a show have to be purely serialized or purely episodic? That kind of binary thinking is the problem. Many, many shows have done well with a mix of the two, like Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5. I think it's good to have that mix of approaches. It gives a show versatility and variety that keeps it interesting. A good piece of music doesn't have a single constant tempo throughout -- it varies, has different tones and different paces, to create contrast and counterpoint. A good story does the same. Even when you have an overall arc, it's good to step back from it sometimes, let it breathe. After a big event, it can be good to slow down and deal with a side story so the audience and the characters have time to process the really big thing.

And let's talk about novels. I've written a bunch of them. And I've often found it useful to insert "episodic" chapters, to pick up with characters after a transition in their lives and take a little time to establish their new status quo with a relatively standalone incident before moving on into the main arc. I did it in The Buried Age, I did it in Only Superhuman, and so on. Novels need varying pace and structure too. Everything is a piece of the whole, including the self-contained parts. Just because something isn't obviously, directly advancing the main arc does not mean that it isn't additive to the story, because the arc is not the whole work, just a component of a larger whole. A figure needs a ground. Music needs rests as well as notes. Art relies on contrast, and on context.

After all, the writing staff of a modern TV season breaks the entire season's structure as a group. It's not like they plot out an arc, then stop and say "Whoops, we came out one episode short, let's find some unconnected story we can randomly stick in there." No. Of course not -- at least, not unless the network decides to extend the season order or something, like FOX did with Lucifer a couple of years back. But normally, if they choose to put a standalone tale at a specific point in a season, that's because they decide it belongs there at that point, because it serves the overall whole to have that piece there and not somewhere else. It's because they have a reason to tell that story at that point in the characters' lives. So it's naive to dismiss it as unimportant.

(Although a couple of the standalone episodes that Lucifer's producers made rather than padding out the planned story arc proved to be some of their most striking and impressive installments, and proved that episodic storytelling is something we don't get nearly enough of anymore. Episodes that are just chapters of serials are rarely memorable in themselves, but a good one-and-done can stand out in your memory for the rest of your life.)

 

[Alan Roi]

But why does a show have to be purely serialized or purely episodic? That kind of binary thinking is the problem. Many, many shows have done well with a mix of the two, like Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5. I think it's good to have that mix of approaches. It gives a show versatility and variety that keeps it interesting. A good piece of music doesn't have a single constant tempo throughout -- it varies, has different tones and different paces, to create contrast and counterpoint. A good story does the same. Even when you have an overall arc, it's good to step back from it sometimes, let it breathe. After a big event, it can be good to slow down and deal with a side story so the audience and the characters have time to process the really big thing.

i would remind you that both of the shows you mention had 22-24 episode seasons. Yeah, there's plenty of room in a 20-26 ep season to throw in something outside of the storyline, but when you are talking about 10-13 eps? that's a different story. The less running time you have, the less room you have to wander off the story you are trying to tell, IMO.

Now, do I think that short serials can get repetitive in their middle, sure, the Marvel series had a big problem with that. Now, do i think they would be better served by throwing in discrete episodes before getting back to the ar or by actually having enough material in their narrative to fill out the narrative to begin with. My preference is the latter. The Mandalorian, for instance, filled its middle with stock short eps that I've seen a dozen times before now done on Star Wars. We get to see a Star Wars version of Stock story #32 and #15. Yay? No, not really.

 

[Christopher]

i would remind you that both of the shows you mention had 22-24 episode seasons. Yeah, there's plenty of room in a 20-26 ep season to throw in something outside of the storyline, but when you are talking about 10-13 eps? that's a different story.

No, it isn't. It's simplistic to assume there's only one way to structure a season. Never trust a blanket generalization, including this one.

And it's a mistake to assume that episodic and serialized plotting are mutually contradictory approaches. It's entirely possible for something to be both at once. Babylon 5 is remembered as a serialized show, but if you actually look at it, it's mostly episodic. Its installments advance the overall arc, but they do so one piece at a time, with a given story event taking place entirely within one episode, then going away for a while and only coming back into play in a later episode, rather than being spread out across several episodes in parallel with other subplots. For that matter, Discovery season 2 did much the same thing in its first half. The episodes all contribute to the "search for the source of the signals" story arc and the "search for Spock" arc (so to speak), yet at the same time they break down into distinct episodic adventures -- there's the ship rescue episode, then the transplanted-humans episode, then the Klingon episode, then the Kelpien episode, etc. Each piece both advanced the arc and told a distinct and complete story of its own. They don't have to be opposed goals.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

i would remind you that both of the shows you mention had 22-24 episode seasons. Yeah, there's plenty of room in a 20-26 ep season to throw in something outside of the storyline, but when you are talking about 10-13 eps? that's a different story. The less running time you have, the less room you have to wander off the story you are trying to tell, IMO.

Now, do I think that short serials can get repetitive in their middle, sure, the Marvel series had a big problem with that. Now, do i think they would be better served by throwing in discrete episodes before getting back to the ar or by actually having enough material in their narrative to fill out the narrative to begin with. My preference is the latter. The Mandalorian, for instance, filled its middle with stock short eps that I've seen a dozen times before now done on Star Wars. We get to see a Star Wars version of Stock story #32 and #15. Yay? No, not really.

Series length shortened specifically because of serialization. Serialized stories don't work in long seasons (I enjoyed Nashville a lot episode by episode but by the time it got to the end of the 20+ episode season I'd forgotten most of what happened along the way).

If and when the pendulum swings back toward episodic storytelling, season lengths will start to stretch out again naturally because an episodic show tends to benefit from having more room to tell stories.

 

[Alan Roi]

No, it isn't. It's simplistic to assume there's only one way to structure a season. Never trust a blanket generalization, including this one.

And it's a mistake to assume that episodic and serialized plotting are mutually contradictory approaches. It's entirely possible for something to be both at once. Babylon 5 is remembered as a serialized show, but if you actually look at it, it's mostly episodic. Its installments advance the overall arc, but they do so one piece at a time, with a given story event taking place entirely within one episode, then going away for a while and only coming back into play in a later episode, rather than being spread out across several episodes in parallel with other subplots. For that matter, Discovery season 2 did much the same thing in its first half. The episodes all contribute to the "search for the source of the signals" story arc and the "search for Spock" arc (so to speak), yet at the same time they break down into distinct episodic adventures -- there's the ship rescue episode, then the transplanted-humans episode, then the Klingon episode, then the Kelpien episode, etc. Each piece both advanced the arc and told a distinct and complete story of its own. They don't have to be opposed goals.

If the episodes are advancing season character and/or plot arcs, which the episodes at the beginning of season 2 were, then they aren't discrete short stories.

 

[Christopher]

If the episodes are advancing season character and/or plot arcs, which the episodes at the beginning of season 2 were, then they aren't discrete short stories.

I literally just said that an episode can be both of those at once. Life is not binary. Art is certainly not.

 

[theenglish]

The Mandalorian, for instance, filled its middle with stock short eps that I've seen a dozen times before now done on Star Wars. We get to see a Star Wars version of Stock story #32 and #15. Yay? No, not really.

I enjoyed those stories. Each episode added to our understanding of who Mando was as a character, and the interactions with other characters were fun to watch.

As for the rest, maybe I am an old fogey brought up on TOS but I'm just going to have to disagree. I enjoy well written stand alone episodes. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in my opinion, was the best example of a show that blends stand alone episodes well with a larger season story line. Back then, I think as Christopher pointed out, the "filler" episodes were just the ones that were not very good or interesting.

The other version of a "filler" episode are "bottle" shows which set the entire episode within standing set designs to save money. Many of the best of the best of Trek episodes were "bottle" episodes because they provided opportunities for us to really get to know our characters.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I’m not sure the core audience ever did lose interest. Just the effects became cost prohibitive and you could please the casuals ore cheaply.

 

[Christopher]

I’m not sure the core audience ever did lose interest. Just the effects became cost prohibitive and you could please the casuals ore cheaply.

I don't think the audience lost interest in space shows, I think the network execs did. Probably what happened is that a few shows that happened to be about space ran their course or got cancelled, and around the same time a few genre shows that happened to be present-day and Earth-based were successful, and the execs made their perennial mistake of assuming the success or failure of a show is about its category rather than its individual merits. So they assumed that viewers wanted Earthbound shows rather than space shows, and so they only bought Earthbound shows as a result.

 

[JD]

I enjoyed those stories. Each episode added to our understanding of who Mando was as a character, and the interactions with other characters were fun to watch.

As for the rest, maybe I am an old fogey brought up on TOS but I'm just going to have to disagree. I enjoy well written stand alone episodes. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in my opinion, was the best example of a show that blends stand alone episodes well with a larger season story line. Back then, I think as Christopher pointed out, the "filler" episodes were just the ones that were not very good or interesting.

The other version of a "filler" episode are "bottle" shows which set the entire episode within standing set designs to save money. Many of the best of the best of Trek episodes were "bottle" episodes because they provided opportunities for us to really get to know our characters.

Whenever people talk about bottle episodes, all I can think about is an older show I've become a big fan of over the last couple years, Barney Miller. It follows a squad of NYC cops and all but a very small handful of the show's 170 episode take place entirely in only 2 rooms, the squad room and Barney Miller, the squad's captain's office. According Wikipedia, less than a dozen episodes feature scenes set outside of those two rooms.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't think the audience lost interest in space shows, I think the network execs did. Probably what happened is that a few shows that happened to be about space ran their course or got cancelled, and around the same time a few genre shows that happened to be present-day and Earth-based were successful, and the execs made their perennial mistake of assuming the success or failure of a show is about its category rather than its individual merits. So they assumed that viewers wanted Earthbound shows rather than space shows, and so they only bought Earthbound shows as a result.

I agree with this. I think X-Files being the big hit that it was sort of became what they felt everyone wanted more of. Plus Lost later on.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

Whenever people talk about bottle episodes, all I can think about is an older show I've become a big fan of over the last couple years, Barney Miller. It follows a squad of NYC cops and all but a very small handful of the show's 170 episode take place entirely in only 2 rooms, the squad room and Barney Miller, the squad's captain's office. According Wikipedia, less than a dozen episodes feature scenes set outside of those two rooms.

Yeah -- in the first season, they did a number of episodes with scenes in Barney's home or other places (the pilot spends about the first 1/4 of its runtime in Barney's apartment before getting to the precinct), but then they settled on keeping it almost entirely in the squad room, with only one or two later episodes that had a different setting.

Way back when I was in high school and learned about the classical unities of theater, I realized that a standard Barney Miller episode obeys two of the three -- it takes place entirely in one location and entirely within a single day. Though it breaks unity of action by having multiple subplots. But it was interesting how similar it was to Greek theater, in that various characters would arrive in this one constant location and describe the events they'd witnessed or participated in elsewhere.

Anyway, I would say that the Barney Miller stage consisted of three regular settings -- from stage right to stage left, Barney's office, the squad room, and the hall/stairway outside. The hallway was not regularly used, but there were occasional scenes or bits taking place there. And of course there was the holding cell within the squad room, but that was part of the same set. And there was the bathroom down the hall to the rear, but I don't think we ever saw inside it clearly.

I agree with this. I think X-Files being the big hit that it was sort of became what they felt everyone wanted more of. Plus Lost later on.

I was thinking of the later period we were talking about, the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s. Like how the 2007 Flash Gordon was initially pressured to stay mostly on Earth and emulate Smallville, so that by the time it shook that off and shifted the emphasis to Mongo, it had already lost most of its audience (which is a shame, since it got much better after most people stopped watching).

 

[theenglish]

Whenever people talk about bottle episodes, all I can think about is an older show I've become a big fan of over the last couple years, Barney Miller. It follows a squad of NYC cops and all but a very small handful of the show's 170 episode take place entirely in only 2 rooms, the squad room and Barney Miller, the squad's captain's office. According Wikipedia, less than a dozen episodes feature scenes set outside of those two rooms.

I remember Barney Miller well. Awesome theme music--great bass riff--and the late Ron Glass played one of the detectives. One of the great ensemble casts.

 

[tomswift2002]

Except none of these eps you mention are filler episodes. Each have important season arc plot points, character arc points and worldbuilding points in them that would leave viewers scratching their heads in following episodes what is going on.

Sorry, but those episodes I found could’ve been jettisoned as the information in them was in other episodes.

 

[Christopher]

Sorry, but those episodes I found could’ve been jettisoned as the information in them was in other episodes.

What??? Stories are not just about imparting data. They're not study materials for a final exam. They're entertainment. They're worthwhile if you enjoy them, if they affect you emotionally or stimulate your mind. You don't have to gather new factoids about the universe or story arcs to enjoy an episode, any more than you need to get to a destination to enjoy a roller coaster. You're there to enjoy the ride, not merely to use it as a conveyance to somewhere else.

 

[MANT!]

The shows simply need to advertise better..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Kirk Prime]

In the 90s up to the early 2000s we had TV shows set in space! Multiple Star Treks, Babylon 5, Space: Above & Beyond, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, and Firefly!

Ever since Battlestar Galactica ended it seems like space hasn't been as big in our culture as it was in the 90s!

What happened?

Was it the recession? After all there was no money for the space shuttle!

Presentation was different in the 1990s. Back then, a lot of shows aired on first run syndication, rather than networks. In fact, TNG and DS9 were two of those show. Airing in syndication was different than networks. The ratings requirements weren't so strong. They didn't air in prime time usually, and they even aired at different times in different areas of the country.

It was much easier to stay on the air in syndication.

Sci Fi Channel of course needed sci-fi programming back then. Unfortunately, they made some mistakes in abrupt cancellations that really deprived viewers of good finales.

Today, syndication really doesn't exist that I know of, and space shows don't do well on networks. However, with streaming, once again, you are finding venues that need content, and I think that's why you're seeing more space based shows coming back.