Is it just me...?

[LightPhoenix]

First off, I'm going to recommend again Stargate - it's worth the second try, IMO.

Second, I'm definitely going to recommend Jeremiah, even though lots of folks don't get Showtime. I'll agree that it's better than any of the B5 spinoffs, and Luke Perry and Malcolm Jamal-Warner are both incredible. I can't gush enough about it. turdy kurdy... hehe

As for why there's been such a drought... the biggest reason in my mind is that fantasy/sci-fi shows are incredibly expensive to produce, relatively speaking. You really need an instant hit like Farscape to be making money back on it. Even then, how can you compare the profits of a show like Farscape to something like American Idol or Survivor - shows that are rediculously cheap to produce and draw in a lot more viewers. It's a no-win situation for sci-fi.

So you're not going to get the major networks to take a chance on shows like these, so you're left with the smaller networks. Not all of them can afford to produce a show that's expensive, and since they get less viewers that's less revenue from advertisement. Hence, less of a profit margin.

In the case of the US, the Sci-Fi channel fell under poor management. As evidenced by the abundance of cheaply produced shows now on the network. As evidenced by the cancellation of one of their highest rated shows under ambiguous circumstance. As evidenced by higher-ups saying that they didn't like sci-fi.

Not that I'm bitter at all...

 

[John Crichton]

Re: Put our money where our mouths are...

I, too, think that the next season will be critical for Enterprise. But, with it still scheduled to air opposite Smallville, it's probably doomed. Someone at UPN is either a bonehead, arrogant, or actively seeking to kill Enterprise...

Yeah, I don't know what they were thinking.

Hm. From what I heard, that's not quite what happened. Production costs on Farscape went up. The network no loger felt it would be earning enough profit, and the ratings information seems to bear that out.

I was just giving the short of it. There is much more to that situation than either of us mentioned. I didn't want to get too into it so I just gave one of the reasons.

 

[John Crichton]

Sadly, I think it all comes down to age...most of us have all grown up, but the genre has(mostly) stayed the same. Its very obvious that Star Wars is suffering this the most. Most of the older fans just hate what's been done, while nearly all of the younger fans see them as great movies.

Okay, not looking to start a Star Wars specific debate here at all. I need to say that while there are many folks who hate or simply don't like the new Star Wars films, there are still many people who love them. I don't think films like Star Wars should be considered because they are such a different animal. When I see another film trilogy followed by another film trilogy then I'll be ready for that conversation.

So, in short, I believe that there are an equal if not more amount of older Star Wars fans that like the new trilogy compared to those that don't. The folks who don't like it are typically more vocal...

Back to TV: I really worry about TV. I don't really blame reality TV or the viewers. Sure, the studios have found a low-cost money maker but it won't last forever. We already see the trend of shows that have to keep doing more and more immoral and stupid things to get ratings. Another problem is something many of us have been talking about for months: the crummy ratings system. There has been a fairly convincing amount of evidence that has been compiled that shows the holes in the current ratings system. Not that this will solve all the problems but if a more accurate system was in place these networks could get a better idea of who their viewship is for their genre shows.

* sigh *

 

[Darrin Drader]

I actually like the idea of the subscription based production. If only someone could pull it off. Think of it, I'm sure there are enough B5 fans to have made Crusade fly under this arrangment. Same thing with one more season of Farscape. This would be an interesting new approach to the way the business of TV is handled. I suppose it wouldn't be so different from channels like HBO or Showtime except that the programming is given to the networks to run rather than showing them on premium channels only.

And to think that 2 million people at about $10 a month could finance 5 seasons of scifi per year. I would love to see someone organize this. I'm guessing that they could find more than just 2 million in the US that would be willing to contribute.

 

[Darrin Drader]

So, in short, I believe that there are an equal if not more amount of older Star Wars fans that like the new trilogy compared to those that don't. The folks who don't like it are typically more vocal...

You probably are right. Like I said, my main beef with the Star Wars prequels is having the "fun" of working with it on a day-to-day basis.

 

[Gizzard]

So, in short, I believe that there are an equal if not more amount of older Star Wars fans that like the new trilogy compared to those that don't.

Not around these parts, pardner. ;-)

It's really hard to quantify this sort of thing empirically without a poll, but here's a "hard" statistic - neither of the two new movies were nominated for the Hugo in their year. That's 1500 sci-fi fans of all ages and preferences saying, "I don't think that was the best movie Sci-Fi movie of the year. When it comes right down to it, I don't think it was one of the best 5 movies of the year, so I don't have room to nominate it." That's a pretty brutal rejection.

Putting aside my personal disappointment in the two new films, I don't think even the fans of Phantom Menace are claiming it will have the same impact on the genre that the original Star Wars did. I mean Star Wars is #15 on the AFI list of Top 100 movies. Will Phantom Menace even be on that list in 10 years? Lol, absolutely positively not.

To bring this back to a discussion of "Is it just me...", I think that lots of older fans felt that sense of wonder again when watching Lord of the Rings. So, it's not that we're getting old and crotchety and don't like anything at all.

 

[John Crichton]

Not around these parts, pardner. ;-)

I hold firm that there is a more vocal majority of people who don't like the new trilogy so far.

It's really hard to quantify this sort of thing empirically without a poll, but here's a "hard" statistic - neither of the two new movies were nominated for the Hugo in their year. That's 1500 sci-fi fans of all ages and preferences saying, "I don't think that was the best movie Sci-Fi movie of the year. When it comes right down to it, I don't think it was one of the best 5 movies of the year, so I don't have room to nominate it." That's a pretty brutal rejection.

I don't put a ton of stock in the Hugo awards and they are hardly ever brought up when judging how good or bad a movie is. I don't say this to refute your point, only to say that a cross-section of 1500 fans doesn't do a whole lot for me.

Putting aside my personal disappointment in the two new films, I don't think even the fans of Phantom Menace are claiming it will have the same impact on the genre that the original Star Wars did. I mean Star Wars is #15 on the AFI list of Top 100 movies. Will Phantom Menace even be on that list in 10 years? Lol, absolutely positively not.

Oh, no one is saying that. There is no way Phantom Menace could have had the same impact, no movie has or probably ever will again. Unfair comparison, IMO. Doesn't matter if it will be on a top 100 list 10 years from now. It will still be talked about 50 years from now while a good amount of the movies that came out about the same time will be almost forgotten. No, it wasn't the best Star Wars film or even in the top 3 of 5 at this point. It had an impossible task of following up the most successful movie trilogy of all time, something that will probably never happen again. I do believe the newer films will stand the test of time better than most think. It's too close to their release to really tell, anyway.

To bring this back to a discussion of "Is it just me...", I think that lots of older fans felt that sense of wonder again when watching Lord of the Rings. So, it's not that we're getting old and crotchety and don't like anything at all.

There are also a healthy amount of folks who didn't like LotR at all. It had one of the best writers in history so it should have been at the very least good. However, I do agree with you about the sense of wonder. Fellowship was a great movie in that sense. Not so much with TTT, but still a solid film. I don't like to compare Star Wars and LotR because while there are similarities they are 2 different beasts. If we want to compare trilogies of like importance and quality we'll have to wait until RotK and then we can compare it to the original Star Wars trilogy.

There I go again, talking about movies when movies aren't really my problem these days. It's television, dang it! There look to be a ton of really good feature films on the way. Nolan's Batman, last LotR, other comic book properties. I guess that the comic-book film is really the salvation for the hard core sci-fi fan at this point since there seems to be a generally high amount of quality there.

 

[WayneLigon]

I've tried watching Mutant X, and it's just.. eh. Maybe I haven't caught the 'good episodes', yet. With Beastmaster, the Jules Verne thing, or The Lost World, I've just seen a couple episodes each and didn't feel compelled to watch more. I tried more Beastmaster but found myself fastforwarding a lot. Not a good sign. Never have seen an episode of Andromeda, or Dead Like Me.

I miss G vs. E (renamed Good vs Evil apparently because people are stupid). It was pretty witty at times. I only caught about five or six episodes of Special Unit Two but thought it would be a perfect vehicle for Urban Arcana. Loved, loved that show. Very unique.

 

[Umbran]

That's a pretty brutal rejection.

Depends. The competition was pretty darned stiff. It isn't brutal to not be called one of the top 5 when the top 5 are really, really good....

In 1999, the Best Dramatic Presentation category had The Truman Show (which won), Dark City, Star Trek: Insurrection, B5 "Sleeping with Light" and Pleasantville.

(It's no shame losing to a Star Trek movie. Those fans are rabid.)

In 2002, the category included Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (which won), Monsters, Inc., Buffy the Vampire Slayer "Once More, With Feeling", and Shrek.

And the number of ballots cast in the category seems to be generally around 500 or 600, not 1500.

 

[Gizzard]

I don't say this to refute your point, only to say that a cross-section of 1500 fans doesn't do a whole lot for me.

Well, it's the best I've got. ;-)

Since its statistically insignficant to say - "Well, me and my friends liked it OK." "No way dude, me and all of my friends hated it." - I'm shooting for some empirical evidence. And it is that; it's 1500 sci-fi fans who, as a group, pooped on TMP and AotC. It's a good sample size; probably as accurate as any national news media poll.

-edit to add-

The competition was pretty darned stiff.

So you suspect that TMP was the 6th best sci-fi movie of that year? ;-) I suspect it was even lower, perhaps I will try and dig up the nominating results for that year. In any case though, I think that not being nominated is still a great failure - Star Wars starts with a franchise fanbase, just like Star Trek. How can you not collect enough rabid fans together to outvote a Buffy episode?

BTW, good catch on the overall number. I believe the final voting (the second phase) will be about 1500 fans, but I did just check the website and 529 nominated the 5 (the first phase in the process) this year. I was blurring the two phases together in my mind.