Earth vs Space based SCI FI V (aka why Space 2099 might succeed)

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

The recently announced Space 2099 which presumably will feature the moon traveling through space like the first series has a good chance of actually suceeding for the reason that it is space based. Some of the most Sucessful Trek series and non trek like Farscape were all space based.

It seems in the last decade there has been an over saturation of Earth based series...and the trouble with those is that they quickly fall on the crutch of being pretty much regular series with a sprinking of SCI/FI and they usually feature plenty of cops, lawyers, businessmen and doctors as well as having a heavy emphasis on family drama and particularly teen angst. Such notable failures include V-The Reboot, Terra Nova, Flashforward and the Sarah Connor chronicles.

Even modestly sucessful series like FALLING SKIES also seem more interested in highligting family drama over the hard science fiction elements.

Though 2099 is being made by the V people they will be forced by the premise not to fall back on a car chase, legal drama or the angst of a teen who can't relate to their parents...plus it will be in the future so they can't window dress Moonbase Alpha to look like 2012 wtih a few minor changes.

Hopefully the pilot will get picked up and will run off network in syndication so it will have a fighting chance.

 

[Sindatur]

The recently announced Space 2099 which presumably will feature the moon traveling through space like the first series has a good chance of actually suceeding for the reason that it is space based. Some of the most Sucessful Trek series and non trek like Farscape were all space based.

It seems in the last decade there has been an over saturation of Earth based series...and the trouble with those is that they quickly fall on the crutch of being pretty much regular series with a sprinking of SCI/FI and they usually feature plenty of cops, lawyers, businessmen and doctors as well as having a heavy emphasis on family drama and particularly teen angst. Such notable failures include V-The Reboot, Terra Nova, Flashforward and the Sarah Connor chronicles.

Even modestly sucessful series like FALLING SKIES also seem more interested in highligting family drama over the hard science fiction elements.

Though 2099 is being made by the V people they will be forced by the premise not to fall back on a car chase, legal drama or the angst of a teen who can't relate to their parents...plus it will be in the future so they can't window dress Moonbase Alpha to look like 2012 wtih a few minor changes.

Hopefully the pilot will get picked up and will run off network in syndication so it will have a fighting chance.

There is no First Run Syndication today, so that's a non-option. It's best hope is a Cable Channel, where it can be successful with 3+ Million viewers. definitely it is extremely unlikely it can survive on the Broadcast Channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW)

About the Teen Angst and not relating to their parents, the premise is no guarantee they won't go there, the channel it ends up on will determine if they go there.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Even modestly sucessful series like FALLING SKIES also seem more interested in highligting family drama over the hard science fiction elements.

Falling Skies is a solid success by TNT's standards and it's as much about warfare as family issues (as well as non-family interpersonal issues; everyone on the show is not related to each other) so it's definitely not one of those tedious cop/doctor/whatever shows in sf/f window dressing.

It's a mystery to me why nobody seems willing to take a chance on a non-Earth-based setting. In actual practice, what do you see? Space stations and starships (interiors) and planets which invariably look a lot like Earth (exteriors). So you really don't end up with anything that couldn't be on Earth anyway.

Take Falling Skies and transport it to an Earth colony under attack by aliens, and you'd have effectively the same show. The only excuse I can think of is budgetary impact of the lack of urban exteriors that don't have to be constructed. Toronto can pass for Boston, not so much for Alpha Centauri.

But why not have the colony be new, without any large population centers? Red Dead Redemption on SyFy a while back did a decent job turning some rusted out Eastern European factory into a Mars colony.

The other problem would be an assumption that it's easier to get people to watch a show about aliens attacking Boston vs aliens attacking Alpha Centauri.

 

[23skidoo]

There is no First Run Syndication today, so that's a non-option.

Note quite true - there is a huge first-run syndication industry. Problem is it moved from scripted programming like Star Trek TNG into reality and talk programming. Definitely a cautionary tale as far as where network TV might be going.

It's best hope is a Cable Channel, where it can be successful with 3+ Million viewers.

Agreed. Love it or hate it, SyFy is the best bet. It needs some place where it won't be cancelled after the first 2 weeks because it doesn't generate 10 million viewers on the first go.

(Having said all that, everyone expected Once Upon a Time and Grimm to be done in 6, and they defied expectations. And Fringe, ratings be damned, has run a long time. Being picked up by a network is not necessarily a death knell. Just the odds are against it, is all.

As to whether a Space: 2099 premise will be successful, it relies on a few factors:

1. The ability of today's audiences to suspend disbelief. Reading some of the initial discussion it really does seem like today's viewers are physically incapable of suspending disbelief, which will make selling the idea of the moon leaving orbit a hard sell indeed. Prediction: the earth will be destroyed instantly, and not continue on like it did in the original series. Aside from the suspension of disbelief thing, it's also trendy to sci-fi to feature the "last survivors of XYZ" angle, as seen in Doctor Who, Abrams' Star Trek, even Star Wars with the "last of the Jedi" stuff.

2. Cast. If they're able to assemble a cast that gels the way nuBSG's cast did, that will go a long way.

3. Is it going to be played straight or will it be a send up. And will they stay consistent? I love Once Upon a Time to bits, but I did get a bit of twinge when they started to segue into Twin Peaks territory in recent episodes. Consistency of storytelling and tone is vital.

4. And in my opinion most important because I've seen a number of remakes crash and burn in part because of this: are the makers of Space: 2099 respectful of the original, or do they think it was crap? If they're out to fix what they feel was broken, it won't work. That's not to say they have to do something verbatim to what was done back in 1975, but if they approach it from a direction of respect - like the makers of the Get Smart movie did - that will if nothing else generate goodwill from viewers who remember the original series. And that includes getting people involved who actually know the original series and understands why it worked. I'll never forget when the Thunderbirds movie came out and I think the director said he'd never watched the original series and knew nothing about Thunderbirds; so of course it failed (and it's no coincidence that the only element of the entire movie that worked was the portrayal of Lady Penelope by Brit Sophie Myles who, presumably, was well familiar with the series and knew what to do). If anyone working on Space: 2099 goes "Martin Who?" I'd get concerned.

Alex

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There's a recent thread about Space: 2099 here.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Note quite true - there is a huge first-run syndication industry. Problem is it moved from scripted programming like Star Trek TNG into reality and talk programming. Definitely a cautionary tale as far as where network TV might be going.

They've already gone there! But I don't think it's a cautionary tale about network TV so much as a history lesson. If cheap reality and talk were the future of network TV, why did NBC's Leno experiment a couple years back crash and burn so spectacularly?

The lesson there was clear: ya gotta spend money to make money. The audience does want expensively produced high quality shows. The trouble is, then they don't necessarily like the specific niche the show is appealing to, and you end up with an audience too small to pay the bills in a wholly ad-supported environment. Cable gets money from subscriptions, too, which is why that system can work for them, but on broadcast it's a lot tougher.

Since then, both NBC and ABC have hired people from cable to run things, which is an admission that Cable Knows Best. But does it? They're still running into the too-pricey-for-ad-eyeballs problem because they can't predict which niches are big enough.

It's a problem of needing to be small enough to be appealing to some niche, but big enough to keep the lights on. Pan Am, The River, Alcatraz, Awake, Terra Nova and Playboy Club - too small. Smash - maybe big enough. Grimm - big enough for Fridays. Once Upon a Time - definitely big enough.

Now who could have looked at that list last summer and predicted that the shows would sort themselves out that way, that fairy tales represents a healthy niche, while 1960s historical dramas don't?

You can't say that list is sorted by quality. All the shows on that list have a certain broadcast blandness to them that are/were dragging them down. The River, Terra Nova and Playboy Club were outright awful but Pan Am was pretty decent in many ways. Awake is one of the best on that list, but the way the ratings are going, don't expect it to come back next year. (Too early to make a call on Touch, but my hunch is that it's going to do a ratings swan dive.)

Broadcast has such immense problems that I wouldn't expect them to swing for the fences with a space opera series anytime soon. Then again, maybe their immense problems are exactly what would induce one of them to do that? NBC in particular has been rewarded by risk - Grimm and Smash were both big risks and are almost certain for renewal. Maybe they need to push that process further?

 

[Christopher]

The recently announced Space 2099 which presumably will feature the moon traveling through space like the first series has a good chance of actually suceeding for the reason that it is space based. Some of the most Sucessful Trek series and non trek like Farscape were all space based.

Uhh, yeah, but there have also been a ton of space-based series that failed, like Quark, Mercy Point, Space Rangers, Earth 2, Homeboys in Outer Space, Firefly, etc. Not to mention the original Battlestar Galactica and its abysmal sequel Galactica 1980. And space-based backdoor-pilot movies that never went to series, like Earth*Star Voyager and Virtuality.

There's no historical correlation between whether genre shows are Earth or space-based and whether or not they do well. Yes, there are a number of successful space-based genre shows, but just as many successful Earthbound ones, like The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, The Incredible Hulk, Quantum Leap, The X-Files, The Dead Zone, Eureka, etc. And there are plenty of flops in both categories as well.

I'll never understand why people want to think that success or failure can be attributed to the category a thing belongs to. If it were that simple, nobody would ever fail, because it would be easy to tell which ideas would do well. But that's not how it works. For every success in a given category, there are many more failures in the same category. We see this every time a new show becomes a breakout hit, after which the airwaves are littered by multiple imitators that fail miserably. What makes the difference is the execution, the care and quality with which the concept is carried out -- plus a fair degree of luck.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Somebody should just frakking do a space based show that has the same appeal as The Walking Dead - small group of well-acted, appealling characters facing a dire and dangerous situation, with as much violence as permissible (even on broadcast, shows can get pretty violent nowadays).

Ideally, this should be on cable for maximum potential to not suck, but I could see NBC or ABC pulling it off, too. It could work if someone would have the guts to try. Just forget about cop show elements and no teen angst!

And we need to forget about SyFy. They've settled comfortably into doing sf/f versions of USA shows, and the success they're having with that style of show gives them no incentive to take risks. All the interesting stuff will happen on cable channels where creative risks are part of what they're selling, or on broadcast channels that are particularly desperate.

What makes the difference is the execution, the care and quality with which the concept is carried out -- plus a fair degree of luck.

You forgot two extremely important elements: knowing the audience for any given channel, and giving them what they want; and not boxing yourself into needing a budget that can't support the audience level you're likely to get (that's what killed Terra Nova.)

Those factors easily explain why there's no correlation between quality and success. It all depends on whether the show is someplace where quality is rewarded (AMC, HBO, Showtime), or whether the audience wants formula (CBS, CW, SyFy nowadays). Shows that pay attention to the audience that is likely to be watching do tend to be "luckier" than most.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The recently announced Space 2099 which presumably will feature the moon traveling through space like the first series has a good chance of actually suceeding for the reason that it is space based. Some of the most Sucessful Trek series and non trek like Farscape were all space based.

Uhh, yeah, but there have also been a ton of space-based series that failed, like Quark, Mercy Point, Space Rangers, Earth 2, Homeboys in Outer Space, Firefly, etc. Not to mention the original Battlestar Galactica and its abysmal sequel Galactica 1980. And space-based backdoor-pilot movies that never went to series, like Earth*Star Voyager and Virtuality.

There's no historical correlation between whether genre shows are Earth or space-based and whether or not they do well. Yes, there are a number of successful space-based genre shows, but just as many successful Earthbound ones, like The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, The Incredible Hulk, Quantum Leap, The X-Files, The Dead Zone, Eureka, etc. And there are plenty of flops in both categories as well.

I'll never understand why people want to think that success or failure can be attributed to the category a thing belongs to. If it were that simple, nobody would ever fail, because it would be easy to tell which ideas would do well. But that's not how it works. For every success in a given category, there are many more failures in the same category. We see this every time a new show becomes a breakout hit, after which the airwaves are littered by multiple imitators that fail miserably. What makes the difference is the execution, the care and quality with which the concept is carried out -- plus a fair degree of luck.

While not disagreeing with any of this, it's worth adding that, all other things being equal, the show with the bigger budget is both the bigger risk and the one expected to benefit the bottom line less. That their budgets would be bigger than otherwise comparable shows is the commonly given reason for why there aren't a lot of science fiction shows these days to begin with. Budget considerations are a primary reason Lucas has given for keeping Star Wars: Underworld in development for the time being.

 

[Christopher]

While not disagreeing with any of this, it's worth adding that, all other things being equal, the show with the bigger budget is both the bigger risk and the one expected to benefit the bottom line less. That their budgets would be bigger than otherwise comparable shows is the commonly given reason for why there aren't a lot of science fiction shows these days to begin with.

That's true, and I considered mentioning that myself. Although it's not just "these days." If anything, genre shows are a lot more affordable now, in the age of CGI visual effects, than they were in previous decades. Making SFTV has always been a very expensive proposition, and that's always been part of what's stacked the deck against its success. And space-based shows are generally going to be more expensive to make than Earth-based shows.

On the other hand, sometimes a bigger budget can be an investment in a bigger payoff. If a show gets the budget it needs to be a top-notch production that people enjoy watching, like TNG or Farscape, that can help it succeed. Whereas if a show's producers are stingy and insist that it be done on the cheap, as with Andromeda, that can drive away viewers and undermine its long-term success.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If a show gets the budget it needs to be a top-notch production that people enjoy watching, like TNG or Farscape, that can help it succeed.

The trouble is, there are no good current templates to follow. TNG was made before broadcast ratings really came under competitive pressure. Farscape was never really a ratings hit, and now SyFy has learned there are cheaper ways to get the same ratings, or better.

 

[DarthTom]

[
Take Falling Skies and transport it to an Earth colony under attack by aliens, and you'd have effectively the same show. The only excuse I can think of is budgetary impact of the lack of urban exteriors that don't have to be constructed. Toronto can pass for Boston, not so much for Alpha Centauri.

Perhaps because of the ratings failure with the recent ABC show of Defying Gravity, and dare I say, Star Trek Enterprise.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

TNT wouldn't necessarily think the failure of an ABC or UPN series was relevant to what they should do. They aren't in the broadcast business.

Of course, TNT isn't going to be doing another show about aliens anyway because they've got one that's working great now. They need to be thinking about genres they don't currently have in their lineup. They've got the right idea with LA Noir, which is part of a larger trend in historical series, but not an obvious imitation of any series in particular.

More likely, Falling Skies' success would inspire FX or AMC to give space aliens a shot. AMC, probably not in the near future - they've already got a sci fi series in development (99 Stories) but I could see FX doing a series about war and politics on some far-flung grungy space colony that could be shot out in the desert somewhere, maybe without aliens or with some faceless enemy entirely clad in armor that makes you wonder who the heck they are...?

Something nutty, sexy, warped and violent, like American Horror Story. So, basically, nothing like Falling Skies except in the most general way. FX had Powers in development for a while ("gritty" superhero show) but that's fallen through. They've got a slot open for sci fi.

 

[Christopher]

Well, "nothing like Falling Skies" sounds good to me. That turned out to be a really dumb and disappointing show.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's good enough to keep me watching. That might just be desperation talking.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Dumb and disappointing was exactly what I expected from Falling Skies. Happily, I wasn't disappointed.

 

[xortex]

It's very hard to tie into the collective unconscious public psyche as it and the target audience are always changing making any concept hard to sustain. Concept is king but it has to have a timeless powerful philosophical and metaphysical idea and meaning behind it. 'Falling Skies' is an excellent title but with a light weight follow through concept. Space 2099 will only be good if an audience can relate to the metaphysics of it and it resonates with a familial and indentifiable situation. Like Beethoven's three g's and an e flat in lesser hands wouldn't represent metaphorically the sound of fate or more likely his landlady demanding the rent. Identifiable.

 

[Silvercrest]

Dumb and disappointing was exactly what I expected from Falling Skies. Happily, I wasn't disappointed.

So, you're not disappointed that you're disappointed? On the other hand, if you hadn't been disappointed, you'd have been disappointed.

I'm not sure if that's a win-win scenario, or a no-win.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Mu.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's very hard to tie into the collective unconscious public psyche as it and the target audience are always changing making any concept hard to sustain.

Fortunately nobody needs to do anything so grandiose. They just need to do some research into their own audience and if they're getting ambitious, into competitors' audiences, and draw sensible conclusions.

Fundamentally it's no different from selling dog food. And I guess that explains why the lineups of the most successful channels (CBS, USA) just seem like different flavors of Alpo.