Would You Watch A New TV Space Opera With Bad CGI?

[Mr Light]

We're all bemoaning the dearth of space opera TV at the moment. We all know they're too expensive to make for too small a demographic.

What if there was a huge epic space opera tv series... but with cheap production values? Poor, shoddy CGI? Would you still be interested in it? Could you forgive the poor look if it had a really good story with good characters?

I even wonder if something like that could survive as an internet only series. Now that most people have high speed internet and watching television online, is an internet exclusive tv series so far away?

 

[Bob Morton]

I like Space Opera, I'd try it. B5 had pretty shoddy effect to start with and it was fantastic.

 

[AvBaur]

Since even a low-bugdet-show would probably have better CGI these days than Babylon 5, which I absolutely love, I would definitely give pretty much any space opera a try, regardless of the quality of its CG effects. The stories and characters would have to be very good to keep me watching, of course.

 

[Mr Light]

I don't know why people knock B5's CGI so much. The first year was rough but after that it was gorgeous! The space battles were so much more amazing than DS9's were.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I could handle less than perfect CG if it was just really plain. But if it was actually bad to the point where I would cringe every time they show a space scene, then I couldn't watch it. There's a big difference between talented people working on a small budget, and people who just plain suck at 3D graphics.
I'm not fussy about bad CG stopping me watching a show, but if it's bad to the point where I am completely taken out of the show by crappy effects, then it's a serious detriment to the show.

 

[Dac]

I thought the whole reason CG was so widespread was because it was more cost effective than models and traditional fx.

I'm not sure if its because of some kind of union rules that this doesnt happen, but there is literally a tonne of talented CG animators (myself included) who would give an arm and a leg to work on a TV show for pennies. When it comes to Space Opera on TV, I feel like its the sets which boost the start up costs of a show which might be too much of a pill to swallow nowadays. Pretty much every non sci fi show can be stocked with bits and pieces from everywhere as is, but to make space sci fi believable you need to modify those off the shelf parts or make stuff from scratch. Same with costumes and props.

Shows like Caprica, V and now Blood and Chrome seem to have bypassed this by creating virtual sets, which didnt help the show as a whole in Caprica's case, but i'm positive it allowed them to stretch the budget in allowing them to show such diverse locations without the need for huge sets.

When you consider shows like 24, Ugly Betty, Trauma and others have extensive lifelike CG to the point where you don't notice its an effect, I dont think its the cost of it that is an issue. It's the worth of a sci fi show, which has proven to be not much thanks to recent shows like Caprica, Stargate Universe, Outcasts, V and others. All of these shows had good elements, but the general viewership was tiny because they were either on a niche network to begin with, where spin offs of existing shows which alienated their fanbase or were just not that interesting to begin with.

And then there is the whole "point" of science fiction to look at. At least Caprica was staying true to the sci fi ethos, which is telling stories about us as a society just through the safety of science fiction. SGU, Outcasts and V have little else except the fact that its about a bunch of generally horrible characters against insurmountable odds for the sake of having horrible characters against insurmountable odds.

When you look at it like that, CG doesnt really matter. Take a look at Firefly, quite possibly the most endearing sci fi show in recent memory and the effects, while good, certainly aren't anything to write home about. It's such a well liked show because it had great characters and story. Sure, it's the most canceled show of all time, but the fact that people can sit here and talk about it 8 years after it was canned just proves how good it was on a relatively small budget.

 

[Sindatur]

Heh, I'm watching Blake's 7 and loving it, and I adore Classic Dr Who. So, yea, Bad Special Effects aren't a big deal as long as the show is engaging with characters and plot

 

[The Wormhole]

Hell, I'd watch a new space opera if it went back to using models for its spaceships, as long as the show was good I could care less about how fancy the effects looked.

 

[Count Zero]

Blake's 7 is my second favourite show ever and I doubt any show produced today could reach that level of crappy SFX. I also love what I've seen of classic Doctor Who, so I'd definetely try such a series and stick with it if it was good.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If the writing and acting are reasonably good, I would at least check it out. V's silly looking greenscreen mothership interiors are a good example - that doesn't bother me nearly as much as the inane writing does.

 

[Mr Light]

People keep mentioning that but the V spaceship scenes don't bother me at all.

 

[RandyS]

I don't know why people knock B5's CGI so much. The first year was rough but after that it was gorgeous! The space battles were so much more amazing than DS9's were.

Agreed. There was nothing wrong with it. Even in the first year. It still looks good.

 

[Cutter John]

I don't know why people knock B5's CGI so much. The first year was rough but after that it was gorgeous! The space battles were so much more amazing than DS9's were.

Agreed. There was nothing wrong with it. Even in the first year. It still looks good.

This. I thought it was great. A few of the actor/FX composits may have been dodgy, but I thought the space scenes were great overall. Certainly better than Trek aty the time, which I think was still using models.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I don't know why people knock B5's CGI so much. The first year was rough but after that it was gorgeous! The space battles were so much more amazing than DS9's were.

Agreed. There was nothing wrong with it. Even in the first year. It still looks good.

This. I thought it was great. A few of the actor/FX composits may have been dodgy, but I thought the space scenes were great overall. Certainly better than Trek aty the time, which I think was still using models.

Take off the rose-coloured glasses, and, at least for season 1, the cgi was WAY behind the visuals of the contemporary Treks. They could do way more, sure, but the textures and lighting (and even the space backgrounds) were pretty bad. At that time, models were still much more realistic (you can't ever say lighting was bad on a model, because it was real).

It was servicable at best, but luckily, got much better. Let's not kid ourselves, we can still enjoy something and point out the flaws of what we love.

 

[Aragorn]

People keep mentioning that but the V spaceship scenes don't bother me at all.

How about all those bad V earth scenes?

 

[Mr Light]

I'll definitely agree that the very early S1 B5 CGI was shoddy. I still remember the shot of the Starfury light going through a "haze" of ship wreckage just looking really bad. But I also remember that by "Voice in Wilderness" they were doing some pretty damn sweet space battles.

 

[RandyS]

Agreed. There was nothing wrong with it. Even in the first year. It still looks good.

This. I thought it was great. A few of the actor/FX composits may have been dodgy, but I thought the space scenes were great overall. Certainly better than Trek at the time, which I think was still using models.

Take off the rose-coloured glasses, and, at least for season 1, the cgi was WAY behind the visuals of the contemporary Treks. They could do way more, sure, but the textures and lighting (and even the space backgrounds) were pretty bad. At that time, models were still much more realistic (you can't ever say lighting was bad on a model, because it was real).

It was servicable at best, but luckily, got much better. Let's not kid ourselves, we can still enjoy something and point out the flaws of what we love.

True, but nowdays people like to bitch more than they like to praise.

 

[RandyS]

It occurs to me that I never answered the OP's question. Yes, I'd look at it once or twice, but if the writing was garbage, I'd quit, no matter what the effects look like.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I can forgive the look if I enjoy the content. CG is not the thing pushing TV sf out of budget bounds, though - quite the opposite.

 

[C_Miller]

I feel like Make up and sets are the most expensive aspect, which are a problem. If you want aliens, they have to be semi-believable and if the make up is shoddy, then it will be hard to take them seriously and if the show has the same room re-dressed a dozen different ways to imply different rooms of the ship and have planets be the same backlot redone different ways and use the stock matte paintings to show that you're on a different planet, people are going to be turned off to it. And have aliens be foreheads of the week. All that may have worked in the early 90s, but television has progressed and so has the television audience.

Yes, the stories and characters are the most important part, but I'd be willing to wait a little longer to see another space opera (I actually really hate that term, but I digress) and see a truly modern one.