sf/f TV development news - 2013

[Greg Cox]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Besides, I don't think it's really a fair comparison. Vampires are just one thing, one category of character or trope. Undead, bloodsucking, evil and/or tortured, just a few variations on a pretty repetitive pattern. Shows that are initially about vampires tend to need to broaden their focus in order to generate enough stories; Buffy the Vampire Slayer got to the point where the vampire slaying was a sidebar to battling demons and cyborgs and elder gods and so forth. But space opera is a far broader and more versatile genre. It can encompass just about anything -- including the occasional vampire story. So it's not as easy to get bored with.

But most "vampire shows" also feature ghosts, witches, werewolves, mummies, etcetera . . . like most space operas tend to include aliens, androids, cyborgs, mutants, and so on.

So maybe the more valid comparison is not vampires vs. space operas, but supernatural fiction vs. science fiction.

Not that there's any need to choose sides. That's my whole point.

I was raised on Star Trek and Dark Shadows, Forbidden Planet and The Wolf Man, Isaac Asimov and H. P. Lovecraft.

Genre fiction is large; it contains multitudes.

 

[Kegg]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^
But those multitudes don't see eye to eye. Not all fans of Gene Roddenberry are fans of Joss Whedon (who as far as vampire TV goes seems to have more Trek fans than any other vampire TV show guy).

My point being that I'm not sure why the same fans who seem to think there can't be enough space operas on TV tend to roll their eyes at the prospect of another vampire show.

In my case, it's partly that for the past couple of decades there have been so many of the latter and so few of the former. I suppose if I actually counted them, there wouldn't be that much difference,

I don't know about actual numbers of programs, but say, back in the 1990s TV was definitely a much more friendly place for space opera. But back then I could expect two new episodes of Star Trek a week most weeks (Voyager on Monday and DS9 on Wednesday, as I recall, both on Sky One, which also was privy to lots of TNG reruns).

And were there really so many space opera TV shows before 'the past couple of decades'? Yeah, I know, before then there's the original Star Trek and Lost in Space, Space: 1999, Captain Video, and Battlestar Galactica, etc. but post then there's the other four Star Treks and Babylon 5, Farscape, Red Dwarf, Firefly, three Stargates, the new Battlestar Galactica and so on.

It just seems there was a wave of space opera TV in the wake of TNG, and arguably a lot of the very best examples of the genre came out during that period.

The issue for me really is:

It's more the lack of space opera that's annoying than the vampire glut.

Basically. That wave of TV programming in the wake of TNG has long since dried up. With Caprica and Stargate: Universe petered out what was once a ubiquituous and defining part of my TV diet simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

[stj]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Hmm. While there's no denying that there's often been an erotic element to vampire fiction, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it only appeals to conservative, anti-sex prudes. (I suspect there are plenty of Goth types who would argue strenuously with that proposition.) I think vampires are basically a potent combination of blood, sex, death, immortality, morbidity, and mythology that's proven remarkably versatile for nearly two centuries now.

The equation sex=death is remarkably popular but I'm sure it's not versatile. It is always profoundly conservative. While there may be people who fancy they themselves are being transgressive in identifying with vampires, they are not, because they are buying into that nonsense. There are indeed thieves who agree that stealing is wrong but enjoy the empowerment of doing wrong. Society can always deal with people who are hypocritical, so long as they give lip service to the ruling ideas.

Vampires (like space aliens) are all-purpose metaphors for anything you care to think of: capitalism, tyranny, predatory relationships, addiction, disease, etc. And, as a genre, it embraces everything from traditional Gothic horror (which can be fun if you're into that kind of thing) to pseudo-scientific stuff like I AM LEGEND, psychological character studies like Sturgeon's SOME OF YOUR BLOOD, action flicks like the UNDERWORLD series, and, yes, florid romance stories and kinky erotica. (Which some "awful, no-class people" actually enjoy.)

Vampires are an old superstition and a modern trope, not a genre, to get picky about it. I can't agree that they have been successfully used as metaphors for anything else. A movie with Lili Fini Taylor tried hard, but its obscurity shows how successfully that metaphorical use was.

And the kinky erotica people may enjoy it but one aspect is the displacement of sexual guilt into the trappings and rituals. If you really have no problem with semen you don't need blood=semen. At least that's my best judgment, keeping in mind I'm no expert on erotica, even if I have seen every episode of True Blood.

 

[Christopher]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^
But those multitudes don't see eye to eye. Not all fans of Gene Roddenberry are fans of Joss Whedon (who as far as vampire TV goes seems to have more Trek fans than any other vampire TV show guy).

I liked Buffy and Angel even though I don't generally like horror. I didn't really see them as horror shows, since the characters usually weren't helpless and overwhelmed, but had the power to stand up to the menaces, so they felt more like superhero shows. Still, I did get rather sick of all the vampire stuff toward the end. Generally, other vampire fiction does little for me. I watched the first couple of seasons of the UK Being Human, and the stuff with the werewolf and the ghost was okay, but all the vampire politics stuff was tiresome to me.

And were there really so many space opera TV shows before 'the past couple of decades'?

I didn't mean to imply there were. I've never felt there was enough space-oriented science fiction on TV. I simply meant that vampires seem to have been disproportionately popular for at least a couple of decades, going back at least as far as Anne Rice's books. (There were plenty of vampire stories before then, of course, but it seems to have been an unending glut since then.)

 

[Kegg]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I liked Buffy and Angel even though I don't generally like horror.

They might not be, but I was pegging Buffy as a vampire show rather than a horror show. If the rise of paranormal romance has taught us anything, it's that it's perfectly possible to have vampire fiction/media that isn't in the horror genre.

I'm actually not a Whedon fan, but I like the old school Irish Gothic vampire stories - Carmilla and Dracula, to be exact, and a couple of other assorted things - both Nosferatu films (throw in Shadow of a Vampire and you have a weird semi-demi-trilogy), so on. As with stj, really enjoyed Let the Right One In. Vampires are, to me, a more interesting kind of undead monster than zombies mostly because zombies are usually a monster without an agenda or really any characterisation at all.

I didn't mean to imply there were. I've never felt there was enough space-oriented science fiction on TV.

Fair enough. Whereas I'd put the 1990s as a decade where I'm more than satisfied with the quantity of space-themed TV shows.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^
But those multitudes don't see eye to eye. Not all fans of Gene Roddenberry are fans of Joss Whedon (who as far as vampire TV goes seems to have more Trek fans than any other vampire TV show guy).

True. People have different tastes and not everybody's an omnivore where sf/fantasy/horror is concerned. I was just objecting to the weird sort of hostility some sf-only fans seem to have toward vampires as such . . . as though they think that the supernatural stuff is somehow taking the place of their beloved space operas, and that sf somehow deserves to be on TV more than horror.

I mean, does anybody really think that if VAMPIRIE DIARIES or TRUE BLOOD hadn't been greenlighted, HBO or the CW would be airing space operas instead? Or is it more likely that cop shows and reality shows are taking up more time slots than the occassional tv spook show?

Look, I feel your pain. I wouldn't mind another FARSCAPE or FIREFLY either. But it almost seems like some fans are blaming the poor vamps and werewolves for the lack of "proper" sf, so that every time some new supernatural soap opera gets announced, the response around here always seems to be: "Damnit, creepies don't belong on TV, spaceships do!"

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Distorted Humor]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I am just tired of all the fantasy and science fiction being

Vampires, Zombies, or yet another end of the world show.

Right now the only fantasy or SF show I can think of in production that I know of that is not one of the above is "Game of Thrones"

 

[Christopher]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I am just tired of all the fantasy and science fiction being

Vampires, Zombies, or yet another end of the world show.

Right now the only fantasy or SF show I can think of in production that I know of that is not one of the above is "Game of Thrones"

You're forgetting Fringe, Person of Interest, Warehouse 13, Alphas, Haven, Doctor Who, Lost Girl, Continuum, Grimm, Supernatural, Once Upon a Time, 666 Park Avenue, The Neighbors, Touch, and the upcoming Arrow, Beauty and the Beast, and Primeval: New World. Not all of those are worthwhile, and some are more borderline genre than others, but they greatly outnumber the vampire, zombie, and post-apocalyptic shows.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^^ And, hopefully, RHW's new show. Defender, I think it is.

The equation sex=death is remarkably popular but I'm sure it's not versatile. It is always profoundly conservative.

It's not conservative at all. Poets and writers and philosophers have always made use of that metaphor. La petit mort, and all that. (I don't get it, myself-- seems more like enhanced clarity to me-- but then, I've never been dead.)

If you really have no problem with semen you don't need blood=semen.

Well, by that line of thinking, there would be no need of metaphor at all. "Just say whatcha mean," as my Uncle Joe used to tell me.

 

[stj]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Hey, no fair counting poets from days when there was censorship or exile! But seriously, tristesse is a pointless compound of guilt, shame and obsessive-compulsive self-degradation. Unless maybe chickens are involved.

But as a matter of fact in things like True Blood the blood=semen metaphor is indeed unnecessary, since they are not making TV at the beginning of the 19th century. They've got naked actors who can fake orgasms. A useless metaphor is indeed artless, and a confused metaphor is worse. In the case of True Blood the perceived need for a nonexistent thrill from spurting blood=semen completely wrecks the ongoing fangs=fags metaphor. The result is that the series is an esthetic mess that can only be watched as a lowbrow sex farce with repeated distasteful missteps into bloodlust. I'm pretty sure the makers are so confused they think they are stylish! Stupid metaphors are never stylish.

 

[Distorted Humor]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I am just tired of all the fantasy and science fiction being

Vampires, Zombies, or yet another end of the world show.

Right now the only fantasy or SF show I can think of in production that I know of that is not one of the above is "Game of Thrones"

You're forgetting Fringe, Person of Interest, Warehouse 13, Alphas, Haven, Doctor Who, Lost Girl, Continuum, Grimm, Supernatural, Once Upon a Time, 666 Park Avenue, The Neighbors, Touch, and the upcoming Arrow, Beauty and the Beast, and Primeval: New World. Not all of those are worthwhile, and some are more borderline genre than others, but they greatly outnumber the vampire, zombie, and post-apocalyptic shows.

Fair enough, I had thought that Fringe had finished its run and Person of Interest I think of as a cop show.

But, on the others I will stand corrected.

 

[Christopher]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Fair enough, I had thought that Fringe had finished its run and Person of Interest I think of as a cop show.

Fringe is currently two episodes into its final 13-episode season. Person of Interest is basically a crime/conspiracy drama, but built around a conjectural "twenty minutes into the future" computer technology that's just, as of the start of the current season, been revealed as something significantly more science-fictional than we'd originally been led to believe.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Hey, no fair counting poets from days when there was censorship or exile! But seriously, tristesse is a pointless compound of guilt, shame and obsessive-compulsive self-degradation. Unless maybe chickens are involved.

I think the connection between sex and death runs deeper than an outlet for repressive societies-- after all, reproduction and individual mortality go hand in hand on a biological level. Of course, religious repression of sexuality and denial of oblivion complicates matters on an artistic level, but that's true of many things.

The result is that the series is an esthetic mess that can only be watched as a lowbrow sex farce

No doubt about that, but I always figured that was the point.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

The sexual metaphor exists because audiences are too jaded on literal sex. If that was what they wanted, there's always porn or even having real-life sex.

Variety is sexy, especially variety that transcends what is literally possible in real life. Even repression is sexy. Anything that mixes it up can be sexy to someone.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Someone wanna dis vampires now?

Dan Knauf, creator of the cult HBO series Carnivale, has joined NBC’s upcoming 10-episode series Dracula as showrunner/head writer

Jonathan Rhys-Myers is set to play Drac, I guess they're going for the girly-man approach after all...

 

[JD]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I mean, does anybody really think that if VAMPIRIE DIARIES or TRUE BLOOD hadn't been greenlighted, HBO or the CW would be airing space operas instead? Or is it more likely that cop shows and reality shows are taking up more time slots than the occassional tv spook show?

Look, I feel your pain. I wouldn't mind another FARSCAPE or FIREFLY either. But it almost seems like some fans are blaming the poor vamps and werewolves for the lack of "proper" sf, so that every time some new supernatural soap opera gets announced, the response around here always seems to be: "Damnit, creepies don't belong on TV, spaceships do!"

Can't we all just get along?

Yeah, I don't see what is so horrible about "vampire shows". I'm willing to admit that I have fallen in on the "vampire craze", I'm a huge fan of True Blood, The Vampire Diaries, Lost Girl, and I'm even in the process of writting an urban fantasy story. But for me it's not the Vampires so much as it's just the fact that I have found that I like the kinds of stories that are told in these universes, and the characters (witches, werewolfe, ect. not just vamps) that tend to populate them. It's not about metaphors or sex, it's just about good stories with the types of characters that I like.

 

[xortex]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^
But those multitudes don't see eye to eye. Not all fans of Gene Roddenberry are fans of Joss Whedon (who as far as vampire TV goes seems to have more Trek fans than any other vampire TV show guy).

True. People have different tastes and not everybody's an omnivore where sf/fantasy/horror is concerned. I was just objecting to the weird sort of hostility some sf-only fans seem to have toward vampires as such . . . as though they think that the supernatural stuff is somehow taking the place of their beloved space operas, and that sf somehow deserves to be on TV more than horror.

I mean, does anybody really think that if VAMPIRIE DIARIES or TRUE BLOOD hadn't been greenlighted, HBO or the CW would be airing space operas instead? Or is it more likely that cop shows and reality shows are taking up more time slots than the occassional tv spook show?

Look, I feel your pain. I wouldn't mind another FARSCAPE or FIREFLY either. But it almost seems like some fans are blaming the poor vamps and werewolves for the lack of "proper" sf, so that every time some new supernatural soap opera gets announced, the response around here always seems to be: "Damnit, creepies don't belong on TV, spaceships do!"

Can't we all just get along?

I think horror belongs with fantasy and sci-fi should be seperate at least on tv, just like I don't want to hear jazz or hip hop interspersed with classical music on the radio.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^
But those multitudes don't see eye to eye. Not all fans of Gene Roddenberry are fans of Joss Whedon (who as far as vampire TV goes seems to have more Trek fans than any other vampire TV show guy).

True. People have different tastes and not everybody's an omnivore where sf/fantasy/horror is concerned. I was just objecting to the weird sort of hostility some sf-only fans seem to have toward vampires as such . . . as though they think that the supernatural stuff is somehow taking the place of their beloved space operas, and that sf somehow deserves to be on TV more than horror.

I mean, does anybody really think that if VAMPIRIE DIARIES or TRUE BLOOD hadn't been greenlighted, HBO or the CW would be airing space operas instead? Or is it more likely that cop shows and reality shows are taking up more time slots than the occassional tv spook show?

Look, I feel your pain. I wouldn't mind another FARSCAPE or FIREFLY either. But it almost seems like some fans are blaming the poor vamps and werewolves for the lack of "proper" sf, so that every time some new supernatural soap opera gets announced, the response around here always seems to be: "Damnit, creepies don't belong on TV, spaceships do!"

Can't we all just get along?

I think horror belongs with fantasy and sci-fi should be seperate at least on tv, just like I don't want to hear jazz or hip hop interspersed with classical music on the radio.

Not apt analogies. The lines between Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy have always been blurry. Frankenstein is a seminal work in Science Fiction and Horror. Alien is a Horror film in Science Fiction setting. Vampires, werewolves and other Horror staples are often seen in Fantasy stories.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

True. People have different tastes and not everybody's an omnivore where sf/fantasy/horror is concerned. I was just objecting to the weird sort of hostility some sf-only fans seem to have toward vampires as such . . . as though they think that the supernatural stuff is somehow taking the place of their beloved space operas, and that sf somehow deserves to be on TV more than horror.

I mean, does anybody really think that if VAMPIRIE DIARIES or TRUE BLOOD hadn't been greenlighted, HBO or the CW would be airing space operas instead? Or is it more likely that cop shows and reality shows are taking up more time slots than the occassional tv spook show?

Look, I feel your pain. I wouldn't mind another FARSCAPE or FIREFLY either. But it almost seems like some fans are blaming the poor vamps and werewolves for the lack of "proper" sf, so that every time some new supernatural soap opera gets announced, the response around here always seems to be: "Damnit, creepies don't belong on TV, spaceships do!"

Can't we all just get along?

I think horror belongs with fantasy and sci-fi should be seperate at least on tv, just like I don't want to hear jazz or hip hop interspersed with classical music on the radio.

Not apt analogies. The lines between Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy have always been blurry. Frankenstein is a seminal work in Science Fiction and Horror. Alien is a Horror film in Science Fiction setting. Vampires, werewolves and other Horror staples are often seen in Fantasy stories.

Not to mention the fact that there are hip hop songs that use pieces of classical music...

Since when are genres separate pure specimens anyway? Since when does something have to be one genre and one genre only? Tragicomedy goes back to ancient times and as you pointed out here Frankenstein is horror and sci-fi. There's no reason things have to be one or the other.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Yeah, since when do we worry about maintaining strict standards of genre purity? Me, I like getting chocolate in my peanut butter . . .

Bring on the scifi-horror-Bollywood-westerns!