Finding realistic sci-fi disappointing

POSTED BY: MerryK
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 07:02
VIEWED: 10003
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 3, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
the first REAL primetime show to have a heavy, serialized nature to it's storytelling was obviously TWIN PEAKS.

*taps RR on the shoulder*
We are obviously forgetting DALLAS here.

Don't make me go nuc-u-ler Chrisisall

REGINAROADIE

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:10 AM

Right. Sorry about that. Having never seen DALLAS, I thought there was a stand-alone nature to it with the exception of the whole "Who shot J.R." bit.

But TWIN PEAKS was for all intents and purposes something that never should have seen the light of day, let alone be as huge a hit as it was. And I doubt stuff like X-FILES, BUFFY, 24 and LOST would have made a pop culture indent without Laura Palmer and Dale Cooper to show the way. It's not likely J.R and the Ewings ripple effect would have included Mulder and Scully, Buffy Summers, Jack Bauer and the Dharma Initiative.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:58 AM

Well, I would say that serialization preceded even Dallas. Daytime serials goes back to the days of radio, and primetime serials weren’t as common, but the first I can remember was Soap. I’m sure there were probably earlier examples. I never watched Soap, but my parents did. In the eighties the primetime serial seems to have really taken off: Dallas, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing, Hill Street Blues, St Elsewhere etc. Never shows I watched, but my parents couldn’t get enough of them. However one thing that seems clear, serials weren’t common in sci-fi until after X-files. It’s also likely, from my vantage point, that people who watched the 80s primetime serials weren’t the type to watch Sci-fi, so it’s entirely possible that Twin Peaks was the spark that set the serial ablaze in popular television for younger audiences.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:06 AM

Dr Who. Started in the sixties, had short run arcs and longer run arcs within each season, that carried on throughout.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Hill Street Blues, St Elsewhere

Oh Finn, those are two you really shouldn't has missed out on...

Dr.Wesfallisall

IMNOTHERE

Saturday, January 5, 2008 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Dr Who. Started in the sixties, had short run arcs and longer run arcs within each season, that carried on throughout.

Well, when Dr Who started there were only 2 TV channels in Britain, and no "syndication" concept (I think its only in the last 5 years that access to large numbers of channels has become the norm) so it was pretty easy to ensure that they'd all be shown in sequence in a regular timeslot. We don't even have multiple timezones to complicate things - it's Saturday, its tea time, its Dr Who!

The other problem with serial shows in the US is the length of the seasons: 20+ weeks is just too fracking long to pad out a single story (I remember losing interest about half way through "Murder One" - and the second season of that dropped the "one case per season" idea). Babylon 5 suffered badly from padding (I thought season 4 was much better for the rush to finish the story - and the whole story done in about 50 episodes would have been perfect). Battlestar Galactica has exactly the same problem - a run of stonking episodes at the start of end of each season surrounding a soggy filling of so-so stand-alone stories.

Although in the UK the major soaps run perpetually (multi- episodes per week, 52 weeks a year -

) other shows tend to have much shorter "seasons" - 6 to 13 episodes is not unusual, which is much more serial friendly format. There's also less of an obsession with quantity - e.g. "Life on Mars" was a major success but was concluded after two 8-episode runs (although there's a spin-off in the works). Unfortunately, UK tv bosses have been allergic to SciFi/Fantasy/Adventure for some years - but that may now be changing thanks to "Who", "Torchwood" and "Life on Mars".

ZZETTA13

Saturday, January 5, 2008 3:15 PM

Merryk I haven't read all the responces to your post. All I can say is the way tv programs are written now (and have been for a while) can be view by some as de-evolution(or maybe evolution if one feels). We can see this same thing with the western subjects of tv and movies in the past. We went from John Wayne and Roy Rogers (good guys) to Clint Eastwood (anti-hero). Still in all Eastwood movies had somewhat happy endings. I think your mom is just reflecting the time period of which she was raised (I think I feel the same as she does). Anyway it may be just a particual preference of her generation, where good still wins in the end. Dad is happy, mom is happy and the kids are safe in their beds. That sounds good to me. Realistic? I don't know, but comforting, yes.If I recall FF/Serenity had happy endings, or at least they were somewhat happy.
Z

IMNOTHERE

Saturday, January 5, 2008 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
I think your mom is just reflecting the time period of which she was raised (I think I feel the same as she does).

There seems to be far less moral certainty in modern TV than was acceptable in the past. Even Doctor Who has been "greyed up" a bit - with more attention paid to the consequences of his (sometimes high-handed) actions, not to mention a number of satirical/political references (and a not-always-subtle hint of gay politics).

I'm all for this - one of the strengths of SciFi is that it can explore sensitive concepts by setting them in an alien/future context - Battlestar Galactica is highly topical, and even Babylon 5 gave me a shiver when I re-watched it in a post-911 world (one of the sub-plots is the gradual descent of Earth into xenophobia and fascism, fueled by an "alien threat").

However - this might be an illusion: the original 60s Star Trek, for instance, seems very "safe" now, but raised issues that were very sensitive at the time.

In 2008 we can watch an old Star Trek and, cynically, say:

"Oh look, the girls mostly bring Kirk his coffee and documents to sign, the black woman basically gets to answer the 'phone and - oh my - they're all wearing skimpy mini skirts. Typical"

its easy to forget that back in 1969 middle America the reaction from some quarters would have been more like:

"Good grief, women are allowed to work on the bridge, and they're not sweeping the floor - the black one is actually an officer with an important job, and none of them look like... you know... tomboys..."

I suspect some of the "moral of the story" issues in Trek were rather more contentious at the time, too - not to mention the subtle hints that the Federation might be just a teensy bit communist.

REGINAROADIE

Saturday, January 5, 2008 7:04 PM

You say communist, I say socialist. Having grown up in the only province in Canada that had a democratically elected socialist government, and is part of a country that has socialized health care, I don't share the fear of socialism that everyone in the states seems to have. What's so threatening about having tons of money and spreading it around so that less fortunate people can be helped out?

Sorry for that soapbox moment.

In terms of types of shows evolving or devolving over the years, I remember hearing a really interesting comment on one of the commentaries for THE OFFICE. It was Mindy Kaling and B.J. Novak talking about how the story structure for a typical episode. How you have 20 minutes of jokes and then you end on a more dramatic and emotional note where there's reflection on the characters end or a big plot development. Now, it may seem revolutionary, but it's actually something that a lot of 80's sitcoms did, particularly family sitcoms. But that went away with SEINFELD and their famous "no hugs, no learning" policy. Now, while it was revolutionary for SEINFELD, it did lead to that whole 90's thing where a lot of the 90's sitcoms were more snarky and cynical. Some would go so far as to say that it's just 22 minutes of people hurling insults at each other. And then THE OFFICE comes along, where you do have the jokes and the satire of office life and the cubicle world, but you have characters and stories that you're emotionally invested in. That takes a more realistic view of the world we live in. And that unintentionally takes the 80's sitcom structure.

But here's the big difference. The majority of those family and 80's sitcoms were mawkish and artificial. You had that stupid "Awwww" sound from the audience to telegraph that this is A VERY...SERIOUS...MOMENT. It's just insanely phony. But with THE OFFICE, those moments are real. They're worked on and built up. The actors are more subtle in their acting choices. Everything isn't telegraphed. The funny bits are still funny, but the dramatic parts are played for real. So that when you see Pam crying in the hallway in the "Back From Vacation" episode, your heart breaks in half for real. And when her and Jim do get together, it's absolute nirvana.

So in regards to sci-fi, I think that it's just a change of times and styles in what audiences want and how the filmmakers tell the story. This decade, it might be serialized sci-fi shows that are deadly serious and that cater to the online audience while unraveling the mysteries of the universe. Next decade, it could be stand-alone shows that are more fun and that are created by the fans themselves, with online polls calling the shots and the direction of the actors. Who knows?

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

SAMEERTIA

Saturday, January 5, 2008 7:14 PM

I don't think it's a "generational" thing or an 'age' thing.

I think it's a personal preference. I love ST TNG, and I loved the first couple seasons of DS9. But once DS9 became that long, conflict ridden, battle-scenario, I lost interest. Same thing with X-Files- loved it up until every episode tied to the the alien conspiracy arc.

Partly it's because I have a busy life and can't always see every episode every week. If I miss one ep of BSG, I'm out of the loop for the entire season until they rerun it.

It's also because as someone who struggles with depression, I NEED a happy ending. I need to know that bad things end, not go on and on and on and on forever.

Actually, I'm seeing it with "Eureka", too. I loved the first season, and am enjoying this season, but I can see that the Artifact arc is going darker places and stretching further and further. So far, I love what's happening, but I can see that it may soon get to the point where every episode is somehow going to tie to the artifact arc. *shrug*
Just my two cents worth.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE