• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

sf/f TV development news - 2015

Luficer looks absolutely terrible - is there any show on fox that doesn't have to be at least part police prodecural?

It's hardly limited to FOX. See iZombie or Beauty and the Beast on the CW, or Person of Interest on CBS, or Grimm on NBC. Even shows like Constantine on NBC and Agents of SHIELD on ABC started out with procedural, case-of-the-week formats. Even Orphan Black started out looking like a cop show before it veered into something far different.

The thing is, cop shows and procedurals are what quite a lot of viewers want to see. They aren't so popular because the networks are forcing them down the throats of an unwilling audience; commercial TV doesn't work that way. They're what the vast majority of the viewing audience eats up. And network execs are in the business of making money, so if you want to get them to put a show on the air, you have to convince them that it will have appeal to the large, general audience that prefers safe, formulaic procedurals. So even if you want to do something weirder and more innovative, you need to work in that more comfortable, crowd-pleasing procedural angle.

But here's the thing: A lot of shows these days start out looking like safe, comfortable procedurals for the first few weeks, as a soft sell for the general, conventional audience and for the network suits trying to appeal to same. But after those first few weeks, once they've gotten the audience invested in their characters and situations, they begin drawing the viewers in deeper, adding more novel and challenging elements and veering the story away from that procedural format. So we can't assume that a show that pitches itself as a conventional procedural intends to stay that way indefinitely. That may just be protective camouflage to draw in the general audience before springing the really clever stuff on them. Person of Interest is a prime example. Even to this day, there are people who assume it's just an ordinary crime drama with a twist, because its procedural camouflage is so strong. But it's really a compelling work of hard science fiction about the technological Singularity and the emergence of superintelligent AI.

To be fair, though, I've heard an interesting theory from fellow TrekBBSer David Mack about why procedurals are so popular. As I recall it, the idea is that viewers tend to be more invested in stories about people who solve other people's problems than in ones about people who are just dealing with their own personal soap opera all the time. They like to see people helping other people, and that means cops, federal agents, private detectives, doctors, lawyers, superheroes, and the like. And a case-of-the-week format means that the heroes actually get to accomplish something every week, to build up a score in the wins column, whereas otherwise they'd just be wrestling with their own ever-worsening personal problems and never really gaining anything. So there are good reasons for including a procedural element in a show.

The thing to remember, though, is that the procedural format is just a framework for a show, not a limitation. It's just the basic structure of the work, like choosing to write sonnets rather than free verse, or to paint landscapes rather than still lifes. There's still endless room for individuality and innovation depending on what you build on that foundation.
 
Nightwing, Raven, and Starfire, okay, but also Batgirl, Hawk, and Dove? Have any of those three ever been on the Titans? Not that I mind having Dick and Barbara share a series; that has a lot of potential. But it's a bit surprising. And what little I've seen of Hawk and Dove in TV adaptations hasn't made them seem very interesting.

Also a bit bothersome that, except for Starfire, all these characters are white in the comics. Hopefully they'll cast more diversely than that.
 
So far I've really liked all of the SF/F trailers that have been released. The only one I haven't bothered with is Limitless, just because the premise bugs me so much.
 
The only one I haven't bothered with is Limitless, just because the premise bugs me so much.

I never bothered to see the movie and know little about it, but I admit the series trailer has gotten me mildly curious about both, if only because Bradley Cooper gives the impression of being the villain.
 
Out of all the "using your brain's full capacity will give you superpowers" movies, Limitless is by far the best one I've seen. The trailer for the show looks good, although I fear it's going to be too much of a crime procedural for my taste.
 
Out of all the "using your brain's full capacity will give you superpowers" movies, Limitless is by far the best one I've seen.

Oh, dear. It's one of those, eh?

Okay, doing some research, I see it claims we use 20 percent of our brains rather than the usual 10 percent BS, but it's still a nonsensical myth.

Still, it sounds like the movie was interpreting it to mean "We can only remember 20 percent of what we know." It's not saying that we have untapped psychic powers or any of that insanely over-the-top godlike stuff in Lucy, just that we have a lot of information stored in our brains that we normally have trouble accessing, and this drug basically gives its users totally eidetic memory. Is that fairly accurate? If so, it's still unfortunate that they invoke the cliche, but it seems like a less idiotic interpretation of it than the usual.
 
Out of all the "using your brain's full capacity will give you superpowers" movies, Limitless is by far the best one I've seen.

Oh, dear. It's one of those, eh?

Okay, doing some research, I see it claims we use 20 percent of our brains rather than the usual 10 percent BS, but it's still a nonsensical myth.

Still, it sounds like the movie was interpreting it to mean "We can only remember 20 percent of what we know." It's not saying that we have untapped psychic powers or any of that insanely over-the-top godlike stuff in Lucy, just that we have a lot of information stored in our brains that we normally have trouble accessing, and this drug basically gives its users totally eidetic memory. Is that fairly accurate? If so, it's still unfortunate that they invoke the cliche, but it seems like a less idiotic interpretation of it than the usual.

The 20% thing is a passing line and the film works perfectly well if you just think of it about a film that has a superserum in it that works on the brain the same way that Captain America's superserum works on the body...
 
Still, it sounds like the movie was interpreting it to mean "We can only remember 20 percent of what we know." It's not saying that we have untapped psychic powers or any of that insanely over-the-top godlike stuff in Lucy, just that we have a lot of information stored in our brains that we normally have trouble accessing, and this drug basically gives its users totally eidetic memory. Is that fairly accurate?

Yup, that's pretty much it. Nothing as egregious as Lucy.
 
I can understand the desire for sci-fi stories about augmenting human physical and mental potential. I just wish pop culture had latched onto a different basis for it than the egregiously wrong 10-percent myth. I mean, why not cast it in terms of using more than 100 percent of the brain's normal activity level? Overdriving the brain, as it were? Despite some people's lazy pedantry about percentages, there are plenty of circumstances where it is indeed possible for something to operate at above 100 percent -- because that generally refers to the standard or safe maximum performance of a thing, rather than its absolute upper limit. So, for instance, an elevator may be rated to a maximum of, say, 10 tons, but it'll still function if you load it with 11 or 12 tons, i.e. 110 to 120 percent of maximum; but that puts it at greater risk of failure, so it's normally limited to a maximum that doesn't put as much strain on it.

By the same token, it's certainly possible for the human body to perform at above 100 percent its normal capacity. When we exert ourselves physically, our bodies limit us from pushing ourselves too far and risking injury, so there's a normal maximum performance level. But there are plenty of instances where people on drugs, or people in extreme danger, are able to push their bodies beyond 100 percent and perform feats of exceptional strength or endurance, because they're no longer paying attention to their bodies' danger warnings and are thus pushing themselves over the normal limit.

So it stands to reason that the brain could also be pushed to operate beyond 100 percent of normal capacity, overdriven to perform superhuman feats, albeit with an increased risk of health consequences if you keep it up too long. Just define 100 percent as the normal peak activity level and recognize that any system can be pushed beyond its normal limits, to 110 or 120 or 150 percent. That would be a much smarter way of talking about percentages of brain activity and still be able to do stories about enhanced human powers. (Although it still wouldn't come close to making sense of Lucy.)
 
How did this 10 percent myth start anyways?

That's unclear. I once heard that it was because of a journalistic misinterpretation of a study of brain activity. The study was testing specifically for sensory and motor nerve activity in the brain, since those were the only kinds they had the means to detect yet, and they picked up that activity in 10 percent of the brain and reported that the rest was "quiet" or "inactive" or something. Which only meant that they didn't register the specific types of activity they were looking for -- that the other 90 percent was used for other types of neural activity like memory and cognition and the like, just not for sensation and motion -- but the news media were their usual clueless selves about science and took it to mean that scientists were saying that 90 percent of the brain did nothing at all.

But I'm not sure if that's true, since I haven't seen verification of it elsewhere. Wikipedia offers several other possible origins. It may even have predated those studies I mentioned, since apparently the "self-help" movement had latched onto it as a factoid to try to sell people on the idea that they could increase their potential by buying self-help books and snake oil and whatever. (So, yeah, kinda like Scientology, but much earlier.)
 
^Not sure how interested I am in another dystopian future, but I like it that we're getting shows protesting the dominance of megacorporations and the growing wealth inequality (USA's Mr. Robot being another). And Georgina Haig is an actress I'd love to see more of.
 
It always kind of amuses me when we get these stories about how bad the corporations and super rich are coming from big corporations and super rich people.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top