• 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!

What happened to spaceship shows?

I question whether "anti-hero" shows are what drove out "spaceship" shows. Not really sure what one has to do with the other. One is an attitude, the other is a setting. And space operas are not necessarily defined by unalloyed heroism and optimism. See BLAKE'S SEVEN, LEXX, KILLJOYS, the GALACTICA reboot, etc.

For most people (Not hardcore scifi fans) a spaceship show implies a classic hero who fights baddies in ways that teach moral messages. The current trend of more artistic TV implies the opposite of that. Nobody has attempted to marry the two because nobody has written a series of novels taking place on a spaceship with murder and betrayal and also likable leads.

Yeah, Dark Matter. If *I* don't like any of the characters, mainstream audiences will HATE them.
 
For most people (Not hardcore scifi fans) a spaceship show implies a classic hero who fights baddies in ways that teach moral messages.

I don't know. You have a cop shows with clear-cut good guys and cop shows rife with moral ambiguity. Ditto legal dramas, medical dramas, spy thrillers, etc. Not sure why that doesn't apply to space operas as well.

And I think most viewers are drawn to space ship shows because of the exotic settings, cool hardware and gadgets, special effects, and aliens, not necessarily because they're looking for something morally uplifting, first and foremost. Indeed, one suspects that the average viewer thinks that space operas are for people who like robots and aliens and ray-guns and that kinda thing. Or, on a more elevated level, for those who enjoy smart, futuristic stories about time-travel, alternate dimensions, artificial intelligence, and other cool, thought-provoking concepts.

As opposed to "Let's watch SPACE VIXENS because it's sure to have good guys, not anti-heroes!"
 
I second the mentions of Dark Matter. It's cheesy, but fun. Or maybe it's fun because it's cheesy.

Kor
 
I don't know. You have a cop shows with clear-cut good guys and cop shows rife with moral ambiguity. Ditto legal dramas, medical dramas, spy thrillers, etc. Not sure why that doesn't apply to space operas as well.

I'm not saying people would only watch space operas for morally uplifting adventure dramas, I'm saying that's their current expectation. So it's harder to get a different kind of space opera green lit and funded.

Popular shows don't necessarily have clear cut good guys and bad guys, but they at the very least have bad guys you enjoy rooting for.

My previous comment about Dark Matter was me getting it mixed up with The Expanse. Dark Matter is more the style of show that could cross over.
 
I'm not saying people would only watch space operas for morally uplifting adventure dramas, I'm saying that's their current expectation. So it's harder to get a different kind of space opera green lit and funded.

"Current?" A decade after Firefly and Battlestar Galactica? No way.

I mean, look at the list of space-based shows we've currently got. Dark Matter, Killjoys, The Expanse, The 100 -- dark and gritty has been the norm for space operas for quite some time now. Galactica, not Star Trek, has become the template. Even Doctor Who is a lot darker than it used to be.
 
Like I said, I'm referring to what would create crossover appeal, not what appeals to the hardcore scifi niche.

I agree Galactica has become the template for shows narrowcasted at the Syfy audience. People not in that audience associate spaceships with the 90s template and are soured on that template.

For a scifi show to have crossover appeal it'd have to be in the Game of Thrones/Walking Dead/Breaking Bad mold and for that to happen we need one very well written show that creates buzz.
 
Last edited:
I agree Galactica has become the template for shows narrowcasted at the Syfy audience. People not in that audience associate spaceships with the 90s template and are soured on that template..

But weren't those 90s shows also narrowcasting that same Sci-Fi audience? It's not like FARSCAPE or BABYLON-5 were mainstream successes back in the day, or airing on ABC or HBO.

So how could the general audience have soured on a 90s template that only we fans were watching anyway? Unless we're arguing that, as far as the average viewer is concerned, "spaceship show" equals STAR TREK.

(Which, to be fair, may well be the case.)
 
Space operas were brought into the mainstream back in the '70'1 with Star Wars. Though I'm not primarily a SW fan, I'll be forever grateful because SW brought Trek back to TV in the form of TNG. But like most genres, the studios wore it out, similar to the way they wore out the western and are in the process of wearing out the super hero genre.

The good thing about today though, is that there is so much demand for product and there are so many networks who are okay with niche audiences, we are getting a fair number of them again.
 
Could it be shows about that one special spaceship (and it's crew) are now seen as too simple or too limited in scope?
I think the scope issue may be a real problem, with space shows promising what they can't deliver. Shows need to be produced somewhere particular, but while no reasonable viewer expects much geographic variety in, say, a Bates Motel or Daredevil, how credible can a planet-hopping show be if they're filming in the same Vancouver forests or Southern California national parks week after week? Sci-fi fans might have put up with that in the '90s, when genre entertainment was rarer, but now we've got all kinds of options, and the old models of spaceship show productions now just seem musty and hokey. (Even a major-network show like Agents of SHIELD initially promised only a globetrotting show, and still sends its characters around the country and world, but scaled back its location shooting variety fairly quickly.)

Maybe the solution is to lean into the matter, and not even pretend that the planet of the week isn't a cheap set or largely greenscreened, with outlandish colors instead of yet another green-plant, blue-sky world. But with the aforementioned genre glut issue, especially for such an unconventional approach, the writing would have to be pretty spectacular and offer something fresh.
 
But weren't those 90s shows also narrowcasting that same Sci-Fi audience? It's not like FARSCAPE or BABYLON-5 were mainstream successes back in the day, or airing on ABC or HBO.

So how could the general audience have soured on a 90s template that only we fans were watching anyway? Unless we're arguing that, as far as the average viewer is concerned, "spaceship show" equals STAR TREK.

(Which, to be fair, may well be the case.)


Maybe I'm sounding more dogmatic than I mean. There are edge cases, exceptions. Babylon 5's premiere episode got a 6.8 rating, The Expanse first episode had 1.19 million viewers and the rest less than a million. Shows in the Galactica template can get good enough ratings for Syfy but not attention from networks that can attract big money, big writers and star power.

Before CSI there weren't a lot of detective shows on TV and they weren't focused on forenzics. CSI was a huge success, so demand was high for shows that looked like CSI, even though some were flops. It's the same with TNG and spaceship shows. Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are big hits with big writers, budget and star power. If there were one spaceship show that was presented like those, and it were a big hit, more would follow.

And of course, if Trek2017 were as big a hit as TNG, tons would follow.
 
Last edited:
how credible can a planet-hopping show be if they're filming in the same Vancouver forests or Southern California national parks week after week? Sci-fi fans might have put up with that in the '90s, when genre entertainment was rarer, but now we've got all kinds of options, and the old models of spaceship show productions now just seem musty and hokey.
Honestly, the problem is solvable simply by taking a different approach. If production is limited to revisiting the same two or three locations to depict alien worlds, than instead of exploring a new world each week, actually have a story reason for why the ship must spend so much time at these particular planets. Also, a peeve I frequently had with TNG in particular, instead of having alien planets where the natives are either identical to humans or are humans with a bump on the head, just say the planet is a human colony or something. There, I just saved a space show a decent percentage of its budget without making it look cheap.
 
I think the scope issue may be a real problem, with space shows promising what they can't deliver. Shows need to be produced somewhere particular, but while no reasonable viewer expects much geographic variety in, say, a Bates Motel or Daredevil, how credible can a planet-hopping show be if they're filming in the same Vancouver forests or Southern California national parks week after week?

Maybe that's why so many space-opera shows today are set in human-only universes with planets terraformed to be like Earth -- such as Stargate (largely), Firefly, or Killjoys -- or humans-only universes set mostly on ships/stations/habitats -- such as Galactica, Dark Matter, or The Expanse. That way you avoid the contrivances of coincidentally Earthlike worlds and coincidentally humanlike aliens. Although it is somewhat limiting.
 
^ I think it's very limiting - if you're not going to have aliens, and truly strange new worlds, why do a planet-hopping show at all? If you're just visiting established human colonies, you're not even really exploring, are you?

The Last Ship, for instance, has done a great job so far of port-hopping around a suddenly underpopulated Earth, and fantasy series like Game of Thrones lets you bring in dragons and stuff. I've seen strong reviews for The Expanse, so kudos to them, and of course great stories can be told with all sorts of production reality limitations; I'm just calling things as I see it.

Planet-hopping shows might have felt epic back in the 90s, when you could mostly film on interior ship soundstages with the odd day of location shooting out in Vasquez Rocks, and audiences would go along with the conceit that you were zipping around the galaxy. Now that series are regularly shot with the complexity and production values reserved for movies, however, and in far more locations than just LA and NYC, the model can't keep up on modest budgets.
 
Are not enough young people into spaceship stuff?
HB1VFOE.gif
 
^ I think it's very limiting - if you're not going to have aliens, and truly strange new worlds, why do a planet-hopping show at all? If you're just visiting established human colonies, you're not even really exploring, are you?

That's hardly fair. There's been a lot of great science fiction over the decades set in human-only universes -- Asimov's Robot/Empire/Foundation universe, Herbert's Dune universe (with alien animals but no alien sophonts), Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space universe (where there used to be aliens but they were wiped out), Dan Simmons's Hyperion Cantos (where any aliens have been driven extinct by humanity), and numerous others. In TV, there's Red Dwarf, set in a far future where the only "aliens" are genetic or AI creations of a now-extinct humanity.

One of the major questions in exobiology is the Fermi Paradox -- if aliens are commonplace, why haven't they already colonized Earth long ago, or contacted us or left some clear sign of their presence? There are scientists who argue that the lack of evidence for other civilizations in the galaxy is evidence that we're the only one that currently exists. And science fiction is about basing stories on the ramifications of scientific hypotheses, so many writers have built SF universes around various explanations for the Fermi Paradox, including the humans-only model. There's as much story potential in a humans-only universe as in an alien-rich universe, because if humans are alone, then the reasons why we're alone -- or the philosophical and sociological ramifications of the realization that we're alone -- could be important and interesting in themselves.
 
I think lack of evidence of alien cultures only proves there is no solution to time dilation and the light barrier. We can probably assume intelligent aliens also have no desire to give up 50,000 years of their civilization to poke around the galaxy on the off chance that one of the Earthlike planets they see in space will have intelligent life 50,000 years later. The only possible motivation I can see for this is if their own planet was dead.

That might be a good lower budget show actually. Generation ships leaving a dead Earth trying to find a new hospitable place. That way they can make aliens rare, CGI and non English speaking. No FTL, near light travel. So by the time they leave a place thousands of years have already passed there. Like the Ender series only with no ansible or weird mind body connection stuff.

To me scifi is like Westerns with a different backdrop. An opportunity to drop exciting people into a lawless frontier, only with a focus on hypothetical settings and conflicts instead of known historical ones. It can work with or without aliens but aliens makes it more fun.

Of course that doesn't apply to hard scifi.
 
Last edited:
The far-flung human colonies thing can work, but it depends on the kinda story you're telling. It doesn't work for exploration-type stories, where your ship is going where no one has gone before (and yet keeps running into human colonies), unless you establish a prior wave of outward expansion generations earlier.
 
I think lack of evidence of alien cultures only proves there is no solution to time dilation and the light barrier. We can probably assume intelligent aliens also have no desire to give up 50,000 years of their civilization to poke around the galaxy on the off chance that one of the Earthlike planets they see in space will have intelligent life 50,000 years later. The only possible motivation I can see for this is if their own planet was dead.

Except even that doesn't account for it, because even sublight generation ships could colonize the galaxy within a few million years, not to mention what self-replicating robotic probes could achieve. A number of more recent SF works have posited that the galaxy has been colonized by such self-replicating AI probes instead of by weak, perishable flesh -- see Revelation Space, Robert Charles Wilson's Spin trilogy, David Brin's Existence, etc.

Personally, I think the lack of evidence only shows that we haven't figured out the right things to look for yet. The assumption has been that aliens would make major changes to the galaxy's structure or broadcast vast amounts of waste energy/signal that we could easily detect. But I think that mature civilizations would learn to be more efficient and subtle in their impact on their environment. The only way we'll survive the next century is by going green, by learning to minimize our ecological footprint and make our technology as efficient and free of waste as possible. So advanced civilizations may have such gentle footprints on the environment of the galaxy that the signs of their presence are just too subtle for us to detect as yet.


That might be a good lower budget show actually. Generation ships leaving a dead Earth trying to find a new hospitable place. That way they can make aliens rare, CGI and non English speaking.

That's sort of what Stargate Universe did. The SG-verse had FTL, but all humanoid life and Earthlike planets were seeded/terraformed by the Ancients, and SGU was set in galaxies that the Ancients hadn't gotten around to settling, although they had sent robot probes ahead to plant Stargates and terraform planets for eventual settlement. So we only saw a couple of indigenous alien species and they were CGI and non-English-speaking. (Although they were still basically bipedal, not as imaginative a departure from the human form as they could've been.)

Ron Moore's Virtuality pilot was set aboard a sublight generation ship. There have been a couple of pilots (made or unmade) in the past few years with generation-ship settings, although in the case of Ascension it wasn't what it seemed. Go back to the '70s and you have the execrable The Starlost set on a generation ship whose inhabitants had forgotten their origins.


To me scifi is like Westerns with a different backdrop. An opportunity to drop exciting people into a lawless frontier, only with a focus on hypothetical settings and conflicts instead of known historical ones. It can work with or without aliens but aliens makes it more fun.

Of course that doesn't apply to hard scifi.

No reason it can't. Hard SF is just defined by how much it integrates or adheres to real scientific theory, not to the subject matter. It's certainly possible to do hard-SF frontier narratives; plenty of authors have done so.



The far-flung human colonies thing can work, but it depends on the kinda story you're telling. It doesn't work for exploration-type stories, where your ship is going where no one has gone before (and yet keeps running into human colonies), unless you establish a prior wave of outward expansion generations earlier.

Or you can deal with the alienness of the colony worlds themselves, the dangers they pose. They could have hazardous indigenous life forms (e.g. Pitch Black, or The Dragonriders of Pern if you count the Thread), or their systems could have astronomical hazards like frequent stellar flares or orbital anomalies or a high rate of asteroid impacts, or the planetary chemistry could prove to pose an unforeseen medical risk to the colonists (e.g. some kind of metallic or chemical poison that could affect brain chemistry or suppress fertility), or they could have ancient alien ruins that present some kind of danger.

And of course humans are often the aliens ourselves. Most SF stories of human-alien interaction are just allegories for human cultural clashes anyway. Colonies often tend to be settled by groups that rebel against the values and culture of their homeland, groups that want to build their own novel, utopian societies on the frontier; and the isolation of colonial living can cause societies to develop in odd ways. This is the angle I took in Only Superhuman, as you'll recall, Greg -- an Asteroid Belt civilization where many of the habitats were populated by radical fringe groups that had either voluntarily left Earth or been exiled due to their violent tendencies, and so you had quite a lot of weird, exotic, often dangerous subcultures to visit just within our Solar System alone.

Even within a single ongoing wave of colonial expansion, if it's a century or two old as it is in TOS/TNG, a lot of those early colonies would be pretty isolated for years or decades at a time and could go off in weird directions by the time civilization catches up with them. If it's in a universe without FTL travel or communication, that's even more of a given. There have been a fair number of SF stories about space travelers revisiting isolated colonies and running afoul of their odd cultural values or extremism. Heck, even outside of frontier narratives, there are a lot of works of fiction about city folk running afoul of the weird customs of isolated rural communities, from Deliverance to Hot Fuzz to countless TV episodes about the heroes getting caught in rural speed traps and impressed as slave labor for the corrupt local lawmen.
 
Regarding comments by Greg Cox, a prior wave of colonization may actually be Transplanted Humans.

(I have been having trouble posting a link for the TV Tropes article).

To summarize, spacefaring aliens had transported humans from Earth to a class M planet. Establishing a human colony on that planet.

These colonies may be remnants of ancient cultures that no longer exist on Earth.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top