After ‘Terra Nova’s Cancellation Does TV Sci-Fi Have 2 B FX heavy?

[jefferiestubes8]

I came across an article today called
After ‘Terra Nova’s Cancellation Does Science Fiction Have to Be Effects-Heavy?

which reminded me of other threads like Why is there no pure Sci-Fi on TV today? Part Deux which mentions VFX and scifi/crime hybrid shows.

Why should you care that Terra Nova was cancelled if you didn't watch it? It cost 3 million an episode to make and was on network television. Here are some major reasons why from a different article:

Terra Nova could have made room for sci-fi on the big networks. The networks do still occasionally do science fiction, of course; Fringe is still hanging on on Fox, for instance. But since Lost and the many failures to re-create its success, they’ve tended to focus on small-scale, real-world shows with little sci-fi twists (Person of Interest, Alcatraz) or fantasy (Once Upon a Time, Grimm). The epic-scale, effects-intensive sci-fi show has always been a tough sell on the networks, and to its credit, Terra Nova was trying a brand of sci-fi we hadn’t seen a lot on TV. Now big sci-fi will be an even tougher sell.

It was trying to make actual “family TV.

Which except for Disney XD, ABC Family, and Disney Channel you really don't get scifi that is real scifi that is for under age 14 (from rating TV-14) these days that is not Smallville (cancelled).

The purse strings may get tighter. Fox busted open its piggy bank for Spielberg and company (as NBC did, in a different genre, for Spielberg with Smash, which has its own difficulties). Each network has been trying to figure out how to break through and work out a business model in an era of smaller audiences, and Terra Nova could have proven that one thing networks do successfully is create big-event, big-ticket TV. And they may well again — TV is nothing if not good at un-learning lessons — but this failure did not make it any easier.

It’s one more reason not to be ambitious. This is in a way related to the first two, but it goes beyond genre or money. Say what you want about the new broadcast-network shows this season, but they at least involved some creative risks and premises that stretched beyond the standard genres. I may have liked some of the attempts better than others, but the fact that broadcast TV — which, cable notwithstanding, still has a lot of money to throw at show creators — was trying dramas like Awake, The River, Smash, Alcatraz, Touch and Terra Nova was encouraging. So far, though, there’s not one unqualified hit among them (Touch, maybe, but we have only one preview to go on), and that’s not going to make it easier to pitch a creatively risky project in the next development season.

Extinction-Level Event: Why You Should Care That Terra Nova Was Canceled

Sure in the next development season for 2013-2014 we may see a lot less sci-fi TV shows pitched.

the failure of the [Terra Nova] show will diminish the chances of networks taking a chance on purely sci-fi show in the future

can we think more creatively about communicating that the stories we’re telling are set in the future without using a lot, or any, special effects?

After ‘Terra Nova’s Cancellation Does Science Fiction Have to Be Effects-Heavy?
and this is what this thread gets at. Can we do TV scifi that isn't Falling Skies which is another alien invasion genre series like 'V'. Can we do TV scifi that isn't a crime-hybrid like Fringe or Alien Nation? Obviously a space opera space-set show has a high budget requirement for sets of a spaceship or alien planets. Even with greenscreen virtual set show like BSG Blood & Chrome it still is VFX-heavy.
But if you are going to watch a scifi show that requires VFX then like the other thread says:
Would You Watch A New TV Space Opera With Bad CGI?

 

[MacLeod]

^Wouldn't DW be classed as pure Sci-Fi.

Lead Character: An Alien
Mode of transport: TARDIS a sentient ship cabable of visiting any point in the universe at any time.

High audiance share in the region of 30-40%.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Nothing happening on the BBC can be use as an analogy to American TV. There are no American channels who have a guaranteed income from the government, and there never will. PBS is closest, and look how they are constantly attacked as boondoggle and a waste of tax dollars.

No American show gets 30-40% audience share unless it's the Superbowl, certainly no scripted show. Here's the most recent broadcast Top 25. The highest rated scripted show is NCIS, with 18M viewers. That's less than 6% of the US population.

Then it drops off pretty sharply to the 10-12M range, which is what a hit show looks like nowadays. Hit shows are viewed by less than 4% of the population.

Sci fi on broadcast is part of a bigger problem, of how broadcast is going to survive at all. The problem is, if they go cheap and mainstream, they lose even more audience to cable, which has an advantage of getting revenue from basic or premium subscriptions, and can create more targetted shows that appeal to various niche audiences. When broadcast tries to go niche, they can end up with an audience too small to support the budget. The same show on cable with the same audience can survive.

That's how we get Terra Nova with 7M viewers getting the axe, while Speilberg's other sci fi series, Falling Skies, is a big hit on TNT - also with 7M viewers! (Terra Nova also most likely costs more, but if Falling Skies can make convincing CGI aliens work within their budget, dinosaurs shouldn't be entirely out of the question.)

CBS is making the mainstream approach work for them, but I doubt there's a need for 5 broadcast channels all doing that. One seems sufficient.

CW is forging ahead trying to make its young-female targetting strategy work, with mixed success, but they haven't yet gone belly up. They would be smart to start branching out into the young-male demo; The Selection might tap into that market (males do like female leads, as long as they are kicking butt and not mooning over emo vampires).

That leaves ABC, FOX and NBC. ABC is sticking with a heavy female-dominated strategy. Women like fantasy, which explains Once Upon a Time's success. They also like horror and gossipy shows about scheming, overdressed beeotches, but The River and GCB haven't worked out as well.

NBC's hits (well, hits by their standards) look like escapees from ABC: Grimm and Smash. (ABC is chasing Smash with Nashville as well as several sf/f and horror pilots.) NBC and ABC are increasingly looking like twins.

That leaves FOX. So far, their drama pilot pickups are: spy, doctor, lawyer, cop. All the standard genres, how are they going to elevate them above the noise? The one cop show is actually Kevin Bacon playing a cop chasing a serial killer played by amazing hotty James Purefoy. That might work on actor magnetism alone. They've snubbed all their sf/f pilots. After taking a second look at the possibilities (cop shows in sf/f window dressing and superheroes), I think I know why.

So to bring this back to SFX and the budget, maybe broadcast just needs to admit that its business model can't support the expense, and that sort of thing needs to be done on cable, if at all.

Sure in the next development season for 2013-2014 we may see a lot less sci-fi TV shows pitched.

Well let's get thru 2012-13 first! There are plenty of sf/f pilots in the mix - not of the space opera sort, but that's not all there is to sci fi - and if several of them work out well, then 2013-14 could see a bumper crop. Keep in mind that other genres like cops shows and lawyer shows are flailing around, too. Broadcast is in trouble, not just sf/f on broadcast.

 

[Jetfire]

Smallville (cancelled).

The show ended...after 10 SEASONS!!! It wasn't canceled.

[edit] Sci Fi/Fantasy lite works on TV.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Say what you want about the new broadcast-network shows this season, but they at least involved some creative risks and premises that stretched beyond the standard genres.

And let's keep in mind that some of that risk has been rewarded. Once Upon a Time and Smash were both serious departures from the usual broadcast thing.

 

[lennier1]

OTOH, with the current audience a show like Twilight Zone or Outer Limits would be pearls before swine.

 

[MacLeod]

The BBC is not funded by the government, it is paid for via the license fee, paid for my the public. And it has a finite budget, so shows have to justify their existance. You have to remember the license fee pays just not for one channel. It pays for :-


TV

BBC1
BBC2
BBC3
BBC4
BBC News
BBC Parlaiment
CBBC
CBebbies

Radio

Radio 1
Radio 2
Radio 3
Radio 4
Radio 5
Local Radio Stations
+ Several more

Though if you want to discuss TV on mainstream channels in the US only, you should specify US channels only.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I don't think broadcast is going to experiment with the anthology format anytime soon. But next season is full of high-concept sf/f plus a smattering of historical fiction, so desperation is definitely making them bolder - ABC and NBC, chiefly.

 

[lennier1]

I don't think broadcast is going to experiment with the anthology format anytime soon. But next season is full of high-concept sf/f plus a smattering of historical fiction, so desperation is definitely making them bolder - ABC and NBC, chiefly.

The key isn't the anthology format, but something which merely uses science fiction as a means to tell its story (similar to how certain 60's shows used different planets and time periods to discuss real-world issues).

 

[Mistral]

I don't think broadcast is going to experiment with the anthology format anytime soon. But next season is full of high-concept sf/f plus a smattering of historical fiction, so desperation is definitely making them bolder - ABC and NBC, chiefly.

The key isn't the anthology format, but something which merely uses science fiction as a means to tell its story (similar to how certain 60's shows used different planets and time periods to discuss real-world issues).

I've heard of a show like that. Now, what was it called.....

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The BBC is not funded by the government, it is paid for via the license fee, paid for my the public.

So if you don't pay your license fee, the government isn't going to care? Then why does anyone pay? Suckers!

It's not a voluntary subscription paid to a corporation. It's a mandatory tax, enforced by the government, on anyone who owns a TV. That makes it totally unlike free TV (ABC, NBC etc) or subscription-funded cable (TNT, AMC, HBO, Showtime etc). Hence, there's no analogy and it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Though if you want to discuss TV on mainstream channels in the US only, you should specify US channels only.

You're the only one talking about anything else here.

I don't think broadcast is going to experiment with the anthology format anytime soon. But next season is full of high-concept sf/f plus a smattering of historical fiction, so desperation is definitely making them bolder - ABC and NBC, chiefly.

The key isn't the anthology format, but something which merely uses science fiction as a means to tell its story (similar to how certain 60's shows used different planets and time periods to discuss real-world issues).

The Walking Dead is doing that right now - issues of morality rather than current events. Of the shows that may appear next fall, Beautiful People is the most likely to be a metaphor type of show. Revolution could be. The Last Resort may be pretty political, but not necessarily in a metaphorical way.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I just scanned the list of greenlit pilots and realized that there's nothing on there that's going to require heavy SFX, so the networks and cable channels are both avoiding SFX heavy premises. The priciest shows are likely to be ABC's Beauty & The Beast (the CW one is modern-day, so it can be done cheaper) and maybe Gotham (which would probably require CGI monsters like Grimm has.)

So to answer the original question, no, sci fi doesn't have to be SFX heavy and it's not going to be either.

The expense will come from other sources. The Last Resort is lining up a big cast, and they're filming in notoriously expensive Hawaii.

 

[newtontomato539]

Terra Nova was FX heavy?

The Land of the Lost tv remake cgi puppets were better. Stop motion jerky movement used but its still better.

I understand the AMOLED displays had to be put in post production (like Avatar) because AMOLEDs hadn't been mass produced yet.

 

[23skidoo]

I don't think SF on TV has to be effects heavy. It simply has to be a concept that appeals to viewers. And not simply SF fans because the numbers are clear there aren't enough of us to keep shows on the air on American network TV. Terra Nova turned people off because the concept sounded stupid, full stop. Not that the show was stupid or bad (I never saw it, for reasons I'll get to) but the concept turned people off.

So why did OUAT make it, or Grimm? Other factors. OUAT has a strong novelty factor in that it features characters people already know. Plus as noted it appeals to women, which not a lot of SF/F series do, apparently. It has strong female leads (as does, interesting to note, Fringe which managed to last nearly a half-decade, which is a rousing success for network SF), and it also featured actors with built-in fanbases - Morrison from House, Goodwin from Big Love, Carlyle from Stargate. It was also scheduled as counterprogramming for football. It appeals to male and female viewers (there is a huge male fanbase for OUAT and if you haven't watched it and are curious why, I suggest you Google image search Jennifer Morrison, Meaghan Ory, Lana Parrilla, Ginnifer Goodwin and Emilie De Ravin, all of whom are viable candidates for Trek BBS's infamous Babe of the Week threads). And ABC promoted the hell out of it.

That last point is crucial. Promotion is everything. I had no idea Terra Nova was even on the air yet until it was halfway through. I saw no ads for it, and frankly I was under the impression it was a midseason replacement so after a while I stopped looking for it. And my life is too busy to spend every night in front of the TV.

I've gone to school on the value of advertising. And I've come to the conclusion that anything can be successful if it's promoted properly. Exhibit A on how not to promote something is John Carter (go to that thread and search my posts for a link to an eye-opening essay on how its promotion killed the movie). Of course some things can't be saved. The public decided they were tired of Star Trek on TV, so Enterprise was doomed from the start. In 1989 Doctor Who was still one of the most widely promoted series on English-language TV, but the British viewing public didn't give a damn and it went into hibernation. But with proper promotion a show like Terra Nova, or Firefly, or "insert name of a million other failed SFTV series" could well have caught the public's imagination and survived.

I think Lost proved you don't need to be VFX heavy for a SF series to survive. Most regular viewers probably had no idea it was an SF series.

Alex

 

[startrekwatcher]

I have noticed the increasing reliance by writers on FX to substitute for good writing. Films and tv shows more and more seem to have to be a dizzying whirlwind of fast pacing and visual spectacle.

I also have seen a trend by sf/f shows to want to be the next LOST and have adopted its style--large ensemble cast, lots of intriguing mysteries, flashbacks, fast pacing, single hours routinely crammed full of 2 hours worth of information and developed around a limited premise requiring answers--if there ever are any--to be dragged out for years to come. And they usually end up being too convoluted because the writers have no idea how to develop or provide satisfying payoffs opting instead to rely on immediate gratification provided by OMG moments, twists or cliffhangers.

For whatever reasons this style attempted by many different writers never seems to be able to be successfully pulled off--V, FlashForward, The Event, Alcatraz, Invasion, Surface, Threshold, post S1 Heroes, The River to name a few. The writers try to be over-the-top when they should just focus on the basics--interesting characters and good writing.

Personally I think things would work out better if they had a modest ensemble cast that receives development over a large expansive cast, straightfoward linear storytelling, and a handful of season long arcs that are well developed and resolved each season rather than dragging storylines over for years like LOSt did. I think this makes for a more manageable show for the writing staff and a better viewing experience for audiences.

And please let the networks butt out and stop telling writers to do mostly standalones. Arc material is infinitely more compelling than disposable padding for 22 episode seasons which is what standalones ultimately amount to anymore these days--who hasn't been frustrated when you just watched a myth-heavy episode and tune in the next few weeks only to be greeted by dull stale recycled one-offs that halt any momentum a show has generated(just look at Fringe or Alcatraz or Awake). By doing that it just turns the show from something unto itself into a garden variety cop show with the same dynamics and elements we've seen play out over and over for decades.

 

[intrinsical]

I know most people here don't watch Being Erica, but I feel that the show is the perfect example of how to do a science fiction show in this time and age. The show's premise of using time travel as a therapy tool is ingenious. The time travel aspects appeal to men while women are attracted to the lead character's life and friends. Toss in a believeable four season long arc where the lead character grows from a bumbling Bridget Jones-ish English-lit failure into a confident woman running her successful book publishing business... perfection.

Too many sci-fi shows focus on the special effects and cool looking tech rather than the characters and their stories. That's why so many science fiction shows have failed. I'm glad that a show like Being Erica can show a different (and successful!) way of doing sci-fi.

 

[The Wormhole]

That last point is crucial. Promotion is everything. I had no idea Terra Nova was even on the air yet until it was halfway through. I saw no ads for it, and frankly I was under the impression it was a midseason replacement so after a while I stopped looking for it. And my life is too busy to spend every night in front of the TV.

Well, Fox was showing commercials for Terra Nova since July, two months before it began airing.

 

[Sindatur]

That last point is crucial. Promotion is everything. I had no idea Terra Nova was even on the air yet until it was halfway through. I saw no ads for it, and frankly I was under the impression it was a midseason replacement so after a while I stopped looking for it. And my life is too busy to spend every night in front of the TV.

Well, Fox was showing commercials for Terra Nova since July, two months before it began airing.

Yea, and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the Ads on at least 1 or 2 other channels as well, so, it wasn't just FOX advertizing their own show on FOX. You must've just not been watching the right shows to catch the ads.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Land of the Lost tv remake cgi puppets were better.

No.

 

[newtontomato539]

Why? . . .