Problem with modern sci-fi (FIREFLY involved)

POSTED BY: reginaroadie
UPDATED: Sunday, August 20, 2006 07:06
VIEWED: 3912
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

KRAD

Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:25 AM

A minor point: for all the great press it's gotten, more people actually watched Firefly than watch Battlestar Galactica. The difference is that a) Firefly was on a network and b) was far more expensive to produce, so its standards for success on a network were considerably higher than BSG's are on a third-tier cable channel.

For that matter, for all the press BSG gets, it's getting the exact same ratings numbers as the two Stargate shows, including Atlantis, which has been on just as long and gets a fraction of the publicity. And Stargate is a much more traditional SF franchise.

Keith R.A. DeCandido
keith@decandido.net
www.DeCandido.net
kradical.livejournal.com

STAKETHELURK

Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by KRAD:
A minor point: for all the great press it's gotten, more people actually watched Firefly than watch Battlestar Galactica.
…
For that matter, for all the press BSG gets, it's getting the exact same ratings numbers as the two Stargate shows, including Atlantis, which has been on just as long and gets a fraction of the publicity. And Stargate is a much more traditional SF franchise.

Interesting and important point, Krad. I think that says a lot about how the press helps shape our popular culture. I’ve never seen an episode of “The Sopranos” or “Deadwood,” but I’ve heard so much about them that they’ve seeped into my own pop culture awareness. Their word-of-mouth and their cultural influence far exceeds their actual audience base because they’re receiving such fanfare and applause. I don’t necessarily begrudge them that, especially if they’re quality shows, but they aren’t receiving attention just because they’re good (assuming they are good--again, haven’t watched them). There are many other fine programs (“Veronica Mars” springs to mind) that really don’t receive this level of attention and don’t become powerful forces in the greater pop culture (despite often having larger audiences as network shows).

I think BSG is an interesting example though, especially as you pair it with Stargate: Atlantis. I’ve only gotten into Battlestar on DVD (due to the widely-favorable word-of-mouth) and I haven’t seen much of Atlantis, so it’s a bit more difficult for me to compare the two. As you say, both shows are on more or less the same economic footing, bringing in the same amount of viewers. But BSG’s massive coverage in the press gives it a tremendous cultural leverage that Atlantis lacks. Battlestar’s getting this attention, of course, by being much less traditional—it offers something new while Atlantis offers something more standard; both appeal the same number of people, but BSG gets the coverage. Makes sense, since “new” is, well, “news.”

And that attention gives BSG cultural weight much greater than its level of success and viewership would normally allow. I think, or at least I hope, that this influence will produce a shift in the way sci-fi in general is done; a broadening of scope and possibilities. I don’t want a bunch of Battlestar clones (unless one of them’s called “Battleclone Galacticopy”

), but I would like sci-fi producers to recognize why BSG is getting this level of coverage and use that understanding when crafting their own original ideas. This doesn’t necessarily mean scrapping traditional sci-fi, but updating it and it expanding it with the complexities people have come to expect in modern television.

PREV PAGE 1 2