Realism. Space ships should operate like spacecraft and not like cars or boats.
What happened to spaceship shows?
- Thread starter CmdrShep2183
- Start date
Realism. Space ships should operate like spacecraft and not like cars or boats.
That gets pretty boring pretty quick. Especially if the show is more fantasy than realism, like every incarnation of Star Trek ever.
But yes, it would be nice if they'd stop treating space like it was two-dimensional. Not only with the banking and whatnot, but also with their "blockades" and other sillyness.
Depends on the show. If you're aiming for hard SF, sure. If you're going for swashbuckling comic-book space fantasy, realism is not really the point.
I mean, I'm not sure anyone would be expecting a realistic depiction of space travel in, say, GALAXY QUEST: THE TV SERIES.
Greg Cox brings up an interesting point
In terms of financial success, would a new show more likely emphasize hard science fiction, or more the fantasy/swashbuckler thing? Should a show be quasi-soft? Quasi-hard.? Science fantasy?
In terms of financial success, would a new show more likely emphasize hard science fiction, or more the fantasy/swashbuckler thing? Should a show be quasi-soft? Quasi-hard.? Science fantasy?
One could argue that swashbuckling space operas have always been more popular than more "realistic" SF. See Edgar Rice Burroughs, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc.
And weren't they talking about a new "Barbarella" TV series awhile back?
Considering that both exist and have been made in the last decade, I'll give you three chances to guess which has fared better (like... making it to a second season). Oh, and the first two guesses don't count.
But then why does anybody watch The Expanse, or why did anybody watch nuBSG, two SyFy shows that depicted exactly the type of spaceflight I'm talking about?
I wasn't talking about Trek..This thread is about "Spaceship shows", not just Trek.
Yeah, Battlestar Galactica was totally super realistic, what with their jump drive and all. As for the Expanse: Because people fond of the genre didn't have anything else to watch. And it wasn't really a "spaceship show" at all. Just a show taking place in space.
You weren't watching closely enough. All the ships in nuBSG operated in three dimensions and followed Newtonian laws of motion. The jump drive was the only handwavium involved.
With ships that operated the way I just described.
My point was shows that follow actual laws of motion won't automatically be boring.
I never said they would either.
I said fantasy sci-fi is going to be more popular than hard sci-fi. Of which Battlestar Galactica most assuredly is not. It was, at best, naturalistic.
As for the Expanse, which is fairly close, it's ratings were pretty shitty compared to, say, Dark Matter and Killjoys.
The question asked what should be considered for the next space show. I said realism. You disagree.
Potential producers ain't reading these threads anyway.
And then your point is... what? That you disagree with me disagreeing with you? Am I supposed to put any more stock into that than what you're putting into me (despite actually having a reason other than personal opinion on the subject)?The question asked what should be considered for the next space show. I said realism. You disagree.
On the other hand, The Expanse is pretty realistic (except in its handling of shipboard gravity, but that's kind of unavoidable until we build a TV studio in orbit), but it has a level of action that could be considered "swashbuckling." I don't accept the implication that plausibility and adventurousness are contrasting goals.
Really, I don't know if it's fair to say that realistic SF is less popular in the mass media, because it's so rarely ever been tried. It's kind of like saying that female-led superhero movies are unpopular. How can you honestly say they're less successful when Hollywood has given them so few opportunities to begin with? Although these days we're seeing a lot more good science in the movies -- Gravity, Europa Report, Interstellar, The Martian -- and it's proving pretty successful, now that it's finally being given an actual chance to compete.
No, you're not. I answered a question, you disagreed. I acknowledge same and choose to concede and move on rather than continue yet one more meaningless argument on this board.
I'm trying to imagine doing Guardians of the Galaxy or Star Wars on a television budget.
It's called Firefly.
Firefly is the ultimate example of a Space Western.
And artificial gravity, which clearly existed but was never mentioned.
"Shitty ratings?" I don't even care for The Expanse that much (though I do like it better than Dark Matter and Killjoys) but the ratings certainly are not shitty. Shitty ratings would not have gotten the show renewed for a second season before the first was even done airing. IIRC, both Dark Matter and Killjoys had to wait until their seasons were done airing before they got renewed.
I remember it being said that in order to do what George Lucas wanted for that live-action Star Wars TV show that's been talked about for years, it would need a budget equal to what the Prequel Trilogy had.
Of course, the difference is that Dark Matter and Killjoys are native to Canada's Space channel and are just rebroadcast by Syfy (although it's a production partner on the latter), while The Expanse is Syfy's own.
Yeah, but I always felt that's because Lucas was too used to getting everything his way and had forgotten how to compromise and cut costs. The original Star Wars was made on a pretty tight budget, and if Lucas hadn't let success spoil him and had remembered that sense of budgetary self-discipline, I'm sure he could've made the TV series work. It wouldn't have looked as perfect as it did in his head, but that's what compromise is all about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Rogers
Note that there were efforts to save money in the early movie serial.
Note that there were efforts to save money in the early movie serial.
Similar threads
