Contemporary sci-fi shows: The end of the future

[FluffyUnbound]

I think there's been a lot of focus on budgetary issues in this thread and some discussion of mainstream audience preferences, but no discussion of a pretty important point: the changing nature of tastes among the genre audience.

You guys might not have noticed, but the "speculative fiction" audience has shifted and "space" or "future-y" oriented subjects have lost ground.

Even among fans, there is a lot of bitterness over the end of the Space Race and a grudging concession that interstellar space travel is probably not going to happen any time in the next century. We'll be lucky if a man sets foot on Mars in the next century, and all the books published in the late 60's thought we'd have made it there by 1979 - 30 years ago.

Genre fan tastes have shifted over to fantasy and faux-horror because no one really imagines a very exciting future any more. The future, to me, looks pretty much the same as today, only with more cheap strip malls. And smaller computers. So if you make a show where people wear a mix of recycled fashions from the last eight decades, live in buildings that look like a mix of building fashions from the last eight decades, and have really small computers, you probably have summed up the realistic possible futures for the next hundred years or so.

 

[sojourner]

<sarcasm>Yes, this clearly explains why sci-fi movies show the same trend.</sarcasm>

Wait, what was that hit summer movie? Star something?

 

[Mistral]

<sarcasm>Yes, this clearly explains why sci-fi movies show the same trend.</sarcasm>

Wait, what was that hit summer movie? Star something?

Don't think the sarcasm was warranted. Fluffy brought up good points-Where is the dream of Life On Mars(not the tv show) that adults dangled in front of my generation when we were kids? Tentatively scheduled for 2035 or so, somewhere near my 70th birthday. F*** that-i want to go NOW. But the dream is dead or dying on the vine-changing public perception and tastes, as Fluffy pointed out.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

<sarcasm>Yes, this clearly explains why sci-fi movies show the same trend.</sarcasm>

Wait, what was that hit summer movie? Star something?

Trek is different. It gets a free pass because it's an existing property with a very storied history.

Of course, we have to gloss over the fact that we have already outlived a lot of the "historical timeline" that was supposed to lead to TOS.

The TOS timeline got farther into space and farther into a "traditional" view of what the future would be than we have by this date, even though that timeline blew the world up a couple of times.

It's sad, but Trek at this point essentially counts as a "retro-future" like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow - it's cool because it's what people used to think the future would be like, and they imagined that would-be future in a cool way. And the Trek verse remains an awesome place to visit, even though it will never happen...even a little bit.

 

[Harvey]

Yeah a grand total of once, they ran into somebody with the same main tower but only the Replicators had a full copy of the city.

Yes, the Replicator city which they visited multiple times, and the copy of the tower they found in "The Tower." All convenient excuses to re-use their sets and save money.

 

[Kegg]

<sarcasm>Yes, this clearly explains why sci-fi movies show the same trend.</sarcasm>

Wait, what was that hit summer movie? Star something?

Trek is different. It gets a free pass because it's an existing property with a very storied history.

Precisely. Even most the recent space opera TV has been based on existing properties - the spinoffs of Stargate, itself a product of the 1990s glut referred to earlier, and Battlestar Galactica, which admittedly has downplayed its space opera conceits so much I'm doubtful as to whether or not Caprica will strictly qualify (it may be interchangeable with any near-future Gattaca-esque world, from what I've read).

My point about money, however ineptly made, was that isn't the only issue. One can make space opera if you really want to, but nobody really wants to. The end of the space race is definitely a big part of that; today when we look at science fiction futures the internet and cybertechnology are probably far more immediate to us than the Moon, planets or stars.

On the other hand the biggest explosion of space opera TV probably came in the 1990s, and the space program was as much dead-ended then as it is now.

 

[Trent Roman]

I wonder if we could point to the end of the Cold War as one of the factors for the 90s space opera boom; there was a period of optimism following the fall of the Berlin Wall, a sense that the future was wide open, and the far-future tapped into that forward-looking sense of possibility. If we could overcome the division of the world, we should eventually be able to overcome space travel; peace allows us to take on new challenges. As opposed to this decade, where the attitude has needless to say, been rather down on ourselves as a species, and our sci-fi reflects that.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[FluffyUnbound]

But then you get a story like the water on the moon story today and I say to myself, "Hey wait, maybe...."

 

[Star Wolf]

I think there's been a lot of focus on budgetary issues in this thread and some discussion of mainstream audience preferences, but no discussion of a pretty important point: the changing nature of tastes among the genre audience.

You guys might not have noticed, but the speculative fiction audience has shifted and space or future-y oriented subjects have lost ground.

Even among fans, there is a lot of bitterness over the end of the Space Race and a grudging concession that interstellar space travel is probably not going to happen any time in the next century. We'll be lucky if a man sets foot on Mars in the next century, and all the books published in the late 60's thought we'd have made it there by 1979 - 30 years ago.

Genre fan tastes have shifted over to fantasy and faux-horror because no one really imagines a very exciting future any more. The future, to me, looks pretty much the same as today, only with more cheap strip malls. And smaller computers. So if you make a show where people wear a mix of recycled fashions from the last eight decades, live in buildings that look like a mix of building fashions from the last eight decades, and have really small computers, you probably have summed up the realistic possible futures for the next hundred years or so.

I think we have a winner here. As a child I was sure I would be among the first moon colonist as an adult life is different because computers, phones and music players. The sexual revolution had already taken place.

 

[sportzkid]

From a good article on Caprica from Chicago's Tribune Maureen Ryan
Exclusive first look: 'Battlestar' prequel 'Caprica' retools, reduces and readies itself for January debutl

This quote presents an interesting comparison between Battlestar Galactica and Caprica.

Stern said that the decision to reduce the episode order was made in consultation with the show's creative team and was driven purely by financial considerations. Quite simply, "Caprica" turned out to be more expensive than the network thought it would be, he said. The episode reduction was part of an effort to make those 19 hours as good as they could be without sacrificing the quality of the drama, a story of intrigue and family conflict that follows the Adama and Graystone clans in settings that resemble present-day Earth.

"We always knew it would be a challenge to bring it in on budget, and the deeper we got into it, the more we realized that if we [stuck to the budget too closely], it was not going to be satisfying," Stern said. "We were cutting corners and we weren't happy with that and the executive producers weren't happy with that."

It turned out to be "a more elaborate production" than "Battlestar," Stern said. Once the standing sets for "Battlestar" were built, that show was mostly filmed on soundstages and thus budgets were somewhat more containable. Location shoots were rare. But "Caprica" is "set in the real world," Stern said. "They're always outside."

 

[RJDiogenes]

It's all about the mainstreaming of Science Fiction. Anything imaginative is now considered "cheesy" by the current audience.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Battlestar Galactica was rather smart, actually. No aliens (keeps the cost down), a mix of contemporary and retro aesthetics (again the costs are kept down), and a limited number of planets visited (so Planet Vancouver never feels old).

BSG showed that you *can* have a space-based show that is produced with relatively reasonable costs. I don't think that cost alone is the reason why so many shows are set in present day (or the proverbial "15 minutes in the future").

I tend to believe that it has more to do with shows not wanting to go "all in" with sci-fi. The "earthly" grounding of shows like Lost, Fringe, Flash Forward, V, etc. means that they can tell hybrid stories, rather than ones which fully immerse the audience in Science Fiction.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The entertainment industry is cyclical and tends to have a pack mentality. The success of Star Trek: The Next Generation paved the way for the space shows of the 1990s. We're currently in a cycle where Lost has established the sci-fi paradigm that's foremost in the minds of producers and execs. If the live action Star Wars TV series is a big hit (when it eventually airs) it might lead to more space operas being made (and, yes, I know SW is in the past rather than the future, but it's still of a piece with most futuristic TV space opera).

Another thing to consider is that space opera and futuristic sci-fi has always had a tough time on the major broadcast networks, with runs of one, two, or - if very lucky - three seasons being the norm. Cable, first run syndication, and the netlets have been where futuristic sci-fi has found longevity. The netlet part of the equation dropped away when the WB and UPN merged to become the CW with its strategy of targeting the young female demographic, and the market for action-adventure shows in first run syndication dried up in the early part of this decade, so space opera shows had less friendly terrain in the television landscape.

However, with the networks contracting (almost entirely abandoning Saturday nights, the CW abandoning Sunday nights, and two netlets reduced to one) there may be an opening for action-adventure shows to make a comeback in first run syndication. Legend of the Seeker is the first step in that direction. Hopefully it's a trend that'll grow.

 

[Cmndr J Crichton]

Actually, Lucas is financing the Live Action Star Wars Series himself. So budget isn't a problem. He and Rick McCallum are producing it. Step 2, taken care of. All that's left, is finding a network. What network would pass up a Star Wars series that is guaranteed through the roof ratings every week they don't have to pay for? The only thing they would have to worry about is broadcasting rights contracts. Big difference when you have a show like nuV, or Heroes.

 

[Lindley]

Stargate went on for ten seasons? Bloody hell.

It had 5 years on Showtime more or less "under the radar" of many people, then moved to Scifi. The producers figured the move would give them one or two additional years, and each season kept on trying to set up "the end". And it kept on not ending, which got annoying after awhile----they eventually had wrapped up so many stories that they had no choice but to introduce a completely new enemy for the last two years.

Ironically, season 10 was the first time in years when the show actually felt like it *wasn't* trying to end itself.

 

[Kelso]

<sarcasm>Yes, this clearly explains why sci-fi movies show the same trend.</sarcasm>

Wait, what was that hit summer movie? Star something?

Even in Star Trek, there was a clear attempt to make the future less futuristic.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Actually, Lucas is financing the Live Action Star Wars Series himself. So budget isn't a problem. He and Rick McCallum are producing it. Step 2, taken care of. All that's left, is finding a network. What network would pass up a Star Wars series that is guaranteed through the roof ratings every week they don't have to pay for? The only thing they would have to worry about is broadcasting rights contracts. Big difference when you have a show like nuV, or Heroes.

Whatever network airs the show will have to pay Lucas a licensing fee for the broadcast rights, just as they have to pay licensing fees to the studios producing other shows. There will be no difference in the cost structure for a network paying Lucas for the right to air the SW series than, say, Fox paying WB for the right to air Fringe. The studio always pays for the production of a show and then finds a network to buy the show. In this case the studio is Lucasfilm. There's really no difference. When a network owns a piece of a show produced by their sister studio it's easier for them to monetize it through international sales and DVD sales. That's the case with Heroes, but it's by no means the case with every show and won't apply to the SW series.

And my point that if the SW series is a huge hit that it might lead some other space opera shows to get a greenlight still stands.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The future is only allowed these days if everything looks exactly like today, anything beyond that is considered too cheesy.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

The future is only allowed these days if everything looks exactly like today, anything beyond that is considered too cheesy.

In some ways science fiction brought that fate upon itself.

Look at clothes from the 40's and 50's.

Now look at clothes from today.

How much has changed? Not really a lot. Hats went away. That's it. Suits are still basically the same, men's and women's shoes are still basically the same. We wear jeans more now than people did then, but the jeans themselves are still pretty much the same.

Walk down the street in New York City. How many buildings have changed? There are some, sure, but after a burst of modernism in the middle of the century things quieted down. If you cleared the streets of the cars, there are lots of streets that a person from the 40's could walk down and see literally no difference.

Now remember what science fiction creators seemed to think was plausible for clothing and architecture by the first decade of the 21st century, and the sheer magnitude of the changes they claimed would take place. The disconnect is obvious.

If when writers of the past tried to imagine a "future-y" look they were always wrong, and things never changed as much as those writers thought they would, doesn't that imply that the same is true today?

People are just never going to wear silvery leotards. It's not going to happen.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You guys might not have noticed, but the "speculative fiction" audience has shifted and "space" or "future-y" oriented subjects have lost ground.

You're right - I haven't noticed that. And the way to prove that it's a real phenomenon is, are you seeing it in print sci fi? Novels and short stories would not be driven by the same budgetary concerns that are driving TV sci fi into a subset of the police procedural, or the demand for visual spectacle that is driving movie sci fi into the brainless action mode.

<sarcasm>Yes, this clearly explains why sci-fi movies show the same trend.</sarcasm>

Wait, what was that hit summer movie? Star something?

Movies and TV are very different beasts. Visceral, visual extravaganzas do great in movies, but there's no analogue to them on TV. It's probably the different financial model (supported by corporations' ever-shrinking ad budgets = not much money vs supported directly by box office and DVD rentals = big bucks if you can do something with global mass appeal) plus their different strengths (small screen: characters and plot vs. big screen: slam-bang-pow).

The fact that Trek XI was also strong on character and respectable if not strong on plot was a nice bonus, but plenty of summer action flicks do just as well with terrible characters and stupid plots.

I'd love to think that Trek XI's success means that a TV series would also be a smashing success - Trek's basic premise really synchs best with TV, with TV carrying the main narrative and movies as just "special events" along the way - but sadly I don't think it works like that.

And my point that if the SW series is a huge hit that it might lead some other space opera shows to get a greenlight still stands.

But if it flops, it could have a terrible chilling effect - even Star Wars can't make it on TV! What hope does anything else have?

And yes, it can flop on TV. The prequels were a great example of stories that play into the visual/visceral strength of movies. The fact that it had some terrible characters and stupid, inert plotting didn't matter because they were movies. But on TV, it would matter. Maybe we'll luck out and Lucas won't try to write anything. Or cast any of the characters.

The Star Wars brand on a high-profile network will get people to tune into the premiere. And that's all it will get. If it sucks, people will leave. Star Wars is not some kind of sacred totem.