Battlestar Galactica commentary on Farscape

The only problem I have with Moore's comment is that, while true, Farscape was still one of SFC's highest rated shows. So I really don't think the "nine fans" comment is entirely appropriate at all. It was a very rich show, and that was what made it so good. While some part of blame does lie with the producers of the show, a big part lies with SFC themselves, for reasons which people have already gone over numerous times. SFC could have done a lot to make the show more accessible to new viewers. The marketing was terrible, and whoever made the DVD point is dead on. I don't see why they couldn't have had a summary episode like ABC has done for Lost... and really, one episode would have been enough to explain one season.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

LightPhoenix said:
The only problem I have with Moore's comment is that, while true, Farscape was still one of SFC's highest rated shows. So I really don't think the "nine fans" comment is entirely appropriate at all. It was a very rich show, and that was what made it so good. While some part of blame does lie with the producers of the show, a big part lies with SFC themselves, for reasons which people have already gone over numerous times. SFC could have done a lot to make the show more accessible to new viewers. The marketing was terrible, and whoever made the DVD point is dead on. I don't see why they couldn't have had a summary episode like ABC has done for Lost... and really, one episode would have been enough to explain one season.
That's not a bad idea at all. My case all along has been the lack of repeats during dead times. Early on, when the show had support you couldn't get away from a weekend of a few eps of the show. But in seasons 3 & 4 when you really needed to expose the show some more they would hardly run any repeats.
 

Farscape and the new Battlestar Galactica are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to fantastic sci-fi vs. more realistic sci-fi. Though I'd consider both them to be the best series of their respective sides of the sci-fi spectrum.
 

I loved Farscape the way a fat kid loves cake. It was a pretty dense little space fantasy though and I did have to seriously work to explain things to get people into watching it. But honestly I don't think it was any more involved then Babylon 5 that's for certain. I think that comment was pretty seriously uncharitable and unwarranted. SciFi's reputation for cancelling good shows is starting to reach near Fox like heights and I think Farscape is one example of this very alarming trend.
 

There's nothing wrong with an evolving internal mythology in a show, if you balance it will more accessible faire. The X-Files, which had an extremely elaborate mythology, balanced that by having about half the episodes almost completely unrelated to the continuing plot, but still using the show's overall themes (mystery, paranormal, etc).

BSG slides by, despite having no "unrelated" episodes, by repitition. The characters are relatively simple in concept, and their basic traits are repeatedly asserted in every episode. There's always a little bit of exposition reminding you what happened last time, and the main characters practically slap you in the face with the main plot points. BSG, though excellent, is not subtle.

On the other end of the spectrum, Star Trek: TNG was wildly popular in its day beyond the core fan group because it so rarely had a continuing arc. Although the characters grew and changed slightly throughout the show, you almost never had to know what had happened last time to make what happened this time make sense. Even if you did, there was a convenient montage that reminded you of all the key points.

Star Trek: DS9 took a step away from TNG's casual approach, and has thus won itself a number of diehard fans, because it rewarded the loyal more clearly. Thus, it's generally considered part of the Babylon 5 crowd. It's certainly frequently compared in places like this. Its internal mythology was hardly as elaborate, but it was a Trek that took a step in that direction.

Farscape is deeply intricate, character changed a lot, there were almost no "casual" elements of the show, which made it extraordinarily different to attract new viewers. In fact, the show's format encouraged viewer attrition, since you were punished for failing to follow along. Once you missed an episode or two, there was little point in coming back. To travel toward the main stream, Lost is the same way - very intricate, with little point in tuning in unless you've been there since the beginning.

Now, if this is all the case, why is a relatively intricate show like Battlestar Galactica considered so successful? I'd say that the rise of TiVO/DVR has made intricate shows more potentially succcessful. It's easier to stay current on a show, since it's easier to record.

Anyway - YMMV. That's my idea.
 

DreadPirateMurphy said:
I have a hard time seeing it as a fatal flaw, however, since other shows are equally as guilty. Buffy and the X-Files come to mind, and both of those lasted much longer than Farscape.
Both of those shows mixed in a large percentage of standalone episodes, and even continuity elements in the episodes were almost always in digestable pieces. X-Files also wasn't meant to be totally understandable, much like Lost.

Buffy also essentially ended everything every year, and the next season was always new-viewer-friendly.

As for soap operas, the characters all spend a great deal of time spouting exposition so that every episode is new-viewer-friendly.

And of course a network executive is worried about this, and rightly so. Insisting everyone see the first few episodes of a series instead of being able to jump in later on is a recipe for low ratings.
 

The_Universe said:
Now, if this is all the case, why is a relatively intricate show like Battlestar Galactica considered so successful? I'd say that the rise of TiVO/DVR has made intricate shows more potentially succcessful. It's easier to stay current on a show, since it's easier to record.

Anyway - YMMV. That's my idea.

That isn't a bad observation. I would think the rise of DVD sets as well, as I know a few people who bought the whole Lost set just so they could get up to speed before S1 E1 (for example). I think that is going to become the rule rather then the exception.
 

Another big difference between shows like X-Files and Buffy compared to Farscape is that in the former if you know what modern daily life is like, you've got 95% of the show concepts each episode. Life in an entirely alien universe with amazingly weird powers and motivations is not the stuff people deal with every day, so it was much more difficult to apply a filter to a story and only have to ask about the 5% (which you can even show in a "last time on Buffy"). With Farscape, at least 50% of what you saw each episode was foreign to normal modern life.
 

Battelstar is really the better show. Probably one of the best on TV right now. I just wish it was on HBO...and I think you all know why! ;) ;)
 


Remove ads

Top