Does the TV scifi paradigm need to change?

[WizarDru]

I think the whole "it's expensive" argument is rather weak myself. Otherwise there's no way SFC would be able to stay in business.

Well, I agree with your points, but I'd point out that SFC's programming mostly consists of (and used to consist even more of) reruns of older shows from all over the place. I remember when they had a bunch of marketers come to Philcon back in....hmm, late 80s, I think it was. Almost everything that they had planned was based around a large catalog of syndication and reruns, and a handful of original utlra low-budget 'movies'.

Anyone have Scifi channel long enough to remember 'FTL Feed'? Ugh. Man, were those lame. These days, SciFi Channel shows almost as much horror (if not more) than Scifi shows, it seems. I mean, let's not forget, SG1 started on Showtime, originally. Scifi channel, a division of the fine, fine USA network, rarely creates a show that lasts longer than a season, anyhow. I remember our optimism about a SF channel fade faster than a candle in a windstorm after that presentation. It became clear that it was a channel from folks who really didn't get SF to begin with, and weren't really interested in doing so.

Mind you, they deserve praise for when they do the occasional miniseries or special that exceeds those boundaries. But it's fairly rare, these days.

 

[John Crichton]

Speaking of older SFC shows, does anyone remember the talk show that would have a panel of writers/producers/people in the know that included from time to time Harlan Ellison and Harry Knowles? I always liked that show. Nothing else much like it on the air...

 

[Pielorinho]

I was under the impresion that cost was the primary reason why SciFi channel didn't pick up Firefly. Indeed, that show's special effects were a lot better than what I was used to seeing on Star Trek or Andromeda or the like. (I watched a few episodes of Babylon 5 from the first season, hated it, and apparently was turned off of the best SF show of the nineties, unfortunately).

The bulk of SF shows are cheesy crap, in my opinion, but that's not because the genre necessarily encourages it; rather, it's because the genre is itself unpopular right now, and so the big money doesn't go to SF shows. When you're working with second-rate actors and third-rate writers and no-name directors, you're not going to end up with a polished product. These days, the big money is in crime drama and reality television, and you can tell it by the gloss.

If a breakthrough SF show occurs, the television equivalent of Terminator, then the money will start going toward producing more shows in the genre; with the money will come first-string actors, directors, and writers, and we'll have more shows of the caliber of the insanely good Firefly.

Daniel

 

[Ranger REG]

To use another example...does anyone here remember a show several years ago called "Covington Cross"? Anyone? Anyone? It was another in a long line of very short lived series to try and capitalize on the post-90210 teen-craze back in 1992, I think. Listen to this description from TV Tome, and you'll see what I mean:

It was anachronistic, it was pedantic and it was terrible. The main characters all behaved like modern teenagers (with associated catch phrases and modern difficulties), and absolutely no attempt was made to make it even remotely logical. It was made by people who had no idea what life was like on a medieval estate...other than that people must have lived in castles, swung swords a lot and wore armor whose sole purpose was to create jokes about having to go to the bathroom. Everyone was apparently a knight, except for the angsty young daughter who complained constantly about wanting to be one. Oh, and it also wasted Nigel Terry.

Yes, I do remember watching ABC's Covington Cross that starred two leading actors from the fan-cult fantasy film, Excalibur ("Arthur" Nigel Terry and "Guinevere" Terri Lunghi) and previous attempts to put a fantasy series on a major network's programming (can you say CBS' Wizards & Warriors starring B5 and Taxi actor Jeff Conaway, and Disney's "Zorro" star Duncan Regehr).

It could have been good had it taken on a much darker tone rather than a lighthearted swashbuckling romp through the virtual "Sherwood Forest."

OBTW, CC also starred the late Glenn Quinn who plays the womanizing second son destined for the clergy.

Oh, and believe me, I wholeheartedly agree. Did I mention how much I love Dr. Who and Blake's 7, even at their worst moments? I enjoy SF shows that are totally illogical, anachronistic or just plain silly. Brisco County Jr. was a fantastic show, for example, but it made little or no sense from an SF standpoint. Was it an SF show? That's a matter for debate, of course, since it could also just be a western when it wanted to be. But I loved the hell out of that show.

Actually Brisco County Jr is considered action-adventure alongside an old Western TV favorite, Wild, Wild West starring Robert Conrad. They're both considered pulp by the way their villain templates are usually mad geniuses who wants world domination. The same could be said of UPN's short-lived series Legends, starring SG-1 Richard Dean Anderson and SG-1 (but he's well known as "Q" in ST) John DeLancie.

That's really where I was going. I probably didn't make it clear because I was hungry.

I just want to see good stories, told well. I like fantastic elements, be they magical, SF or whatever. What I really want is someone to get HBO to make an SF series.

Why HBO? Not many of us have cable. I prefer syndication. Although others may say that the syndication market is dried up, it is not completely extinct. Rookie networks like UPN and TheWB don't have a full 7-day programming schedule (usually the weekends). Plus there are other local TV stations not affiliated to any major network that may want to fill their timeslots as well.

 

[Ranger REG]

I was under the impresion that cost was the primary reason why SciFi channel didn't pick up Firefly. Indeed, that show's special effects were a lot better than what I was used to seeing on Star Trek or Andromeda or the like. (I watched a few episodes of Babylon 5 from the first season, hated it, and apparently was turned off of the best SF show of the nineties, unfortunately).

Honestly, I wasn't that too impressed with Firefly special effects, including the "robotic camera" view effect (how it pans and then makes a tight magnifying focus). But the story was good enough, especially the arc concerning the psychic girl.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Well, I agree with your points, but I'd point out that SFC's programming mostly consists of (and used to consist even more of) reruns of older shows from all over the place. I remember when they had a bunch of marketers come to Philcon back in....hmm, late 80s, I think it was. Almost everything that they had planned was based around a large catalog of syndication and reruns, and a handful of original utlra low-budget 'movies'.

I've said it before, and I've said it again... if SFC used their cheap stuff wisely, money would not be a problem.

It's highly debatable if money is why Farscape, Firefly, and Crusade were cancelled, but for the sake of arguement, we'll assume it was the primary factor. We'll also assume that TNT, Fox, and SFC would all make the the same decisions.

Take the shows in syndication that were hits - B5 being the prime example. Put them on prior to your evening line-up, not at nine in the morning (or whatever ludicrously early time B5 is on). Use the properties you have rights to to make some money - don't waste them crappy times.

Use the money garnered from older successful properties and the cheaper shows, and use that to drive the development of new shows and the funding of the more expensive ones, such as Farscape, Firefly, Crusade, and the like. If they're failures, cancel them. If not, keep them on, pour some money on advertising (SFC's biggest problem). Grab a night, make it solid. Then work outward.

Like I said though, money doesn't seem to have been the cause of any of the big three shows (in my mind) - Firefly, Farscape, and Crusade - to be cancelled. Farscape was initially renewed for a fifth season, so money didn't seem to be an issue - otherwise they wouldn't have planned for it. Crusade was nixed by TNT before it even aired, in large part I think due to JMS fighting with TNT. Firefly was shown out of order, and Fox didn't seem to have much faith in or dedication to the show anyway, since it was cancelled pretty quickly. Besides which, IIRC Fox isn't doing too hot these days, so they're probably under pressure.

Aside from that, especially for SFC but true for most sci-fi shows, the biggest problem with the failure of sci-fi shows nowadays isn't because they're too expensive, it's because they aren't being advertised consistently. Farscape had almost no advertising for it's third and fourth seasons, and I don't recall seeing any for Firefly. And the networks wonder why ratings are going down?

 

[Umbran]

Grab a night, make it solid. Then work outward.

Which is exactly what SciFi was doing with Farscape paired with teh Invisible Man...

And the networks wonder why ratings are going down?

Well, here's the question - are the networks wondering? There's some reason to think that the networks know exactly what's going on.

With Farscape, for example, there's some indication that internal politics and opinions of higher level management (meaning those who owned SciFi, but were not previously part of day-to-day operations) had drastic consequences for the show.

When the suits get locked into battles of wills, nobody wins.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Crusade was nixed by TNT before it even aired, in large part I think due to JMS fighting with TNT.

Yup - never underestimate the power of politics, personal agendas, and personality clashes.

As an example - potentially highly inaccurate, since the information was third-hand when I heard it several years ago, but still relevant to the point :

Young Hercules was a second spin-off series from Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. Hercules, and subsequently Xena, had both held the number 1 spot for Action/Adventure shows; Young Herc was supposed to do the same for the 10-14 year old demographic (or thereabouts).

Well, Young Herc went to number 1, but it the 5-9 year olds, not the 10-14s. And the network already had a show - Mystic Knights of Tir-Na-Nog - aimed at that demographic.

Young Herc was pulling better numbers. It was cheaper per episode to produce, filmed in New Zealand. And sure, it was cheesy, but it was cheesy in the good Herc/Xena way, not in the bad Sinbad/New Adventures of Robin Hood way.

Mystic Knights was just lousy.

So when they dropped one show to avoid doubling up on their demographics... which one did they pick?

The story we heard back here is that one of the guys who had to make that decision... well, Mystic Knights was his baby. Numbers be damned, quality be damned... his show was going to stay on the air.

Gah.

And then there was the Back-2-Back Action Hour, Jack of All Trades and Cleopatra 2525, two half-hour shows. Two half-hour shows are more expensive to produce than one one-hour show, and when PRP ran into some financial trouble, they decided to axe one and extend the other.

I don't honestly know what the numbers were like. But Jack of All Trades was a great show, and it was wonderful to work on, and it had Bruce Campbell, and Ange Dotchins, and a 2'8" Napoleon...

... Cleo had three female leads with big breasts.

(That was the unofficial production motto for the second season - More Booms, More Breasts.)

Gah.

-Hyp.

 

[John Crichton]

And then there was the Back-2-Back Action Hour, Jack of All Trades and Cleopatra 2525, two half-hour shows. Two half-hour shows are more expensive to produce than one one-hour show, and when PRP ran into some financial trouble, they decided to axe one and extend the other.

I don't honestly know what the numbers were like. But Jack of All Trades was a great show, and it was wonderful to work on, and it had Bruce Campbell, and Ange Dotchins, and a 2'8" Napoleon...

... Cleo had three female leads with big breasts.

(That was the unofficial production motto for the second season - More Booms, More Breasts.)

Gah.

-Hyp.

I really liked Jake of All Trades, mostly for Campbell of course. Cleo was bad but the lead actually didn't have very big breasts, but the character was supposed to be a cryogenically frozen exotic dancer. Natch.

It also had Gina Torres in it, but still sucked. Looking back, I can't believe I actually watched it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Cleo was bad but the lead actually didn't have very big breasts, but the character was supposed to be a cryogenically frozen exotic dancer. Natch.

Well, do you remember why she was cryogenically frozen?

Botched cosmetic breast surgery resulting in a coma. (!?)

So she has an excuse for not having big breasts.

It also had Gina Torres in it, but still sucked. Looking back, I can't believe I actually watched it.

I only ever watched it 'cos I worked on it. I watched Jack of All Trades 'cos I enjoyed it as well

-Hyp.