Two weeks ago, Fox aired what was probably the final episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, a pretty solid sci-fi show which nevertheless suffered from guttery ratings. Two weeks from now, Terminator Salvation will premiere in theaters — where it will likely make somewhere in the vicinity of $90 million in its first weekend, regardless of how "good" it is. Two separate extentions of the same franchise: one will be labeled a failure, the other a ginormous hit. Why?
Why don’t we want science fiction on television anymore?
Think about it. In years past viewers had plenty of sci-fi TV options: The X-Files, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, Quantum Leap, The Twilight Zone, Knight Rider, hell, even SeaQuest went more than one season. Today, Dollhouse is on life-support (following the Firefly pattern), Terminator and Chuck are all but canceled, Pushing Daisies and Life on Mars were shot down; heck, even Battlestar Galacticaended its run barely holding on to its eroding viewership. And most ofthe sci-fi that is still on the air barely looks like it: Lost became a hit because ABC sold it as a desert-island mystery thriller, not as science fiction; Fringe gets by as either a police procedural or an X-Files homage.
Even the Sci Fi Channel doesn’t want to be called sci-fi anymore, despite being home to Eureka, the Stargate franchise, and next year’s Caprica.
What is it about science fiction that home viewers are turned offby? It can’t be the genre itself: If you look at the top 10 grossingmovies of all time, six of them aresci-fi (and the others have pirates, hobbits, and ogres…and, yes, aboat). Clearly, the American public loves their science fiction…whydon’t they want it on a regular basis, piped into their living rooms,for free?
I don’t have an answer to this. I wish I did, because then I couldbuy my own tropical island and stock it with nubile castaways and smokemonsters. But I’ll bet Hollywood wishes it did, too. Do you have anyclue, any insight as to why the literature of ideas can no longer finda foothold on the air? Have we, as a society, just become too — gulp– stupid for science fiction?
Comments (1-30) of 207 Add your comment
I love SciFi on TV, and never gave up on BSG. I gave Sarah Connor several episodes, and it was lame, so my family gave up on it. Heroes is idiotic. The Stargate shows turned into space soap opera. Stargate Atlantis was awful its last two seasons. Most American science fiction is juvenile at best. Written for teens it seems. Where the heck are new episodes of Doctor Who and Torchwood? Are the Brits the only ones capable of intelligent science fiction anymore???
Sci-fi movies tend to be self-contained. If a movie is based on a piece of made-up technology, it runs with it for an hour and a half to make its point and that’s that. In sci-fi you are required to remember from week to week the logic of the science fiction universes and sometimes entire made-up political structures. Science fiction films tend to exist for the purpose of creating spectacle and creating allegories for the real world – sci-fi on tv is often a form of escapism. The experience is very different. I suspect that BSG suffered in ratings because it was a sci fi show for non-fans of sci fi. Everyone I showed it to who hated science fiction liked it a lot, but it was an uphill struggle just to get them to sit down and watch it. I also think sci-fi television has the stigma of being something that people get engrossed in in their own company – going to the cinema is a social activity so you aren’t labelled a ‘geek’ for watching it.
No, TV stories always fall short. They do not offer a full story like a film can. Of course there are exceptions, but in general, TV series neglect THE ENDINGS of their stories. They drag on and on until it loses it’s relevance. Plus movies take RISKS, TV is much too safe because of sponsors and what not.
I believe it could be that the quality of sci-fi on television is not as good as it is in films. mainly that has to do with costs. so since tv sci-fi doesn’t have a huge budget, it better have good writing. that is the problem – for example, the heroes season finale was horrible.
I have no Idea. I enjoy the genre but I think a lot of people don’t want to stay involved with a linear show that relies on the last episode to continue the story. They want independent stories with the same cast.
You’re looking at it the wrong way. Sci Fi fans are more likely to watch at their own convenience through things like HULU or some other online venue. Networks are slow catching up to understanding how popular shows actually are with new mediums to watch them. Sci fi is leading the way to what all TV will be like soon enough.
I really don’t know why this is. We can first start with the Nielsen syetem, which is pure crap. Then we can go ahead and factor in how a big chunk of the sci-fi audience likes to watch their episdoes online, via hulu, torrent them, etc.
Also these sci-fi series on tv lack an abundance of great action scenes, mainly keep the budget as low as possible, when sci-fi usually should excell in highly attractive visiuals and a good dosage of action.
I think you have to look at the profile of a typical sci-fi watcher and then consider the impact of new distribution forms. Ratings are based on people watching the program live on television. I loathe having my television (particularly atmospheric sci-fi like BSG) interrupted by ads, so I always DVRd the episodes or bought them from iTunes. I imagine many other fans did the same. I would guess that viewership for sci-fi hasn’t changed that much, but that those viewers (who tend to be pretty tech-savvy) just do not watch these programs in a way that can be measured by Nielson. To our detriment, of course, if it means that they are producing fewer of these shows…
I think Astro Boy has a point. Sci-fi shows can often have intriguing premises but once the novelty of that has worn off the show can be hampered by the fact that it is about the mythology as opposed to the people and how they deal with their situation. Even BSG had a huge amount of filler in the second and third seasons – there were too many episodes to sustain it. Doctor Who works because it can literally go ANYWHERE each episode and there is no stock formula that it is required to follow each week. In that sense the basic premise expands, rather than limits, the possibilities of the story. The concept of the immortal traveller is simply a device that each writer can use to tell the story they want to, and when it starts getting stale or the actors get tired, they can change it all up. How many US sci fi shows are that flexible? Lost is the only one I can think of.
I think it all about costs. If the production values of a show are weak we are not willing to suspend our disbelief (i.e. fake looking aliens, spaceships, etc).
As a show goes on it is bound to lose viewers, and then the budget gets cut and the effects become wore and worse….losing more viewers or looking cheap.
Besides that it is all about story.
BSG worked cause it was a great drama that happened to be set in space.
Something like LOST works cause they were willing to take risks and kill off characters.
Heroes stinks cause of poor production values, not willing to take chances (why didn’t Sylar stay dead after the first season?), and having the characters not stay true to themselves. If there is no way someone will die when fighting people in space, or with killer powers…then there is no drama.
Sci-fi on tv often looks janky, or campy. I tried to watch Sarah Conner Chronicles, and it felt like a low budget rehash. It lacked “oomph” and that T2 feeling, it felt detached from the Terminator world. Even worse, some other shows use effects as a crutch, and give your poor dialogue and worse stories. This may happen in movies too but they give you over-the-top eye candy usually, and how many times do you hear Bad-movie-apologists say ” I just watch a movie for escapism” (Transformers for example). Unless TV sci-fi gets the same talent, fx, and writing as the more popular shows, it ll always be relegated to second tier status. And it’s for nerds. That stigma is hard to shake.
What is with “Sarah Connor Chronicles”? That show is nothing more than 90210 meets sexy robots. “Life on Mars”, which I didn’t consider science fiction at all, was a waste of an hour. “Firefly” was terrific but Fox showed it out of order and cancelled it when it didn’t find an audience. . DUH. “Pushing Daisies” disappeared forever and was then put up against “Bones”. Another DUH moment. Is “Eureka” still on? I love that show and would watch it. .if I knew when it was on! I enjoy “Fringe” but even that show gets dumb, as in last night when the killer was simply put in the back seat of a car to be transported. Uh, yeah, right, someone who broke half a dozen necks is just put in a car, cause we all know she is going to attack our heroes. DUH. Come on producers, quit thinking your science fiction audience is made up of hormonal teenagers, and give us something to sink our brain cells into, and give these shows a chance to succeed on the schedule.
Well, there’s always Doctor Who (even if we get it months/years later on this continent).
I think plenty of people want and love sci-fi on TV. Once again, it comes down to: does it grab your imagination–do you want to follow these char from week to week? Is the show well written with reasonable production values?
A lot of the shows you mentioned have failed because they were merely okay, or too twee.
I think it’s the network suits. They’re too literal to get sci-fi. I hope Chuck, Eureka, Reaper get renewed. Certainly programs with smaller audiences and worse quality get renewed every season. It’s a lack of network imagination that keeps great sci-fi off the air.
Yes, we have become too stupid for sci fi. I think sci fi movies succeed because we sell those as “action” movies – Terminator has robots and stuff that blows up! But when you turn it into a tv show, you create characters and a mythology that needs to be followed over a long period of time in order to have a payoff. It requires more investment than your average show, which can be discouraging for people who are either too lazy to pay serious attention to tv OR who miss the boat early on and then don’t want to take the time catching up. It’s tricky…I think the networks need to do a better job promoting these shows, I think people need to realize that these shows are worth their time, I think there needs to be more opportunities (like, reruns) to catch up.
awww… i miss ROSWELL! I loved that show…then it went on and got AXED!
I have them on DVD…
I honestly don’t mind about low-ish production values. I mean, in Supernatural the boys stay in exactly the same motel room every week with the walls repainted and the furniture moved around – but fundamentally the drama is good enough that that doesn’t matter. It seems to me that the Sci Fi shows that survive are those that resonate on a personal level with audiences and have strong, detailed characterisations, as well as good pacing, editing etc. Essentially they have to live up to the best non-science fiction drama. They cannot rely on the sci-fi elements to make up for dull human stories and uninspiring performances (I’m thinking Stargate). Good sci-fi should ask us questions about the limits of our humanity, not fetishise made-up technology, because that is what it has to offer mainstream audiences that more straightforward fair like Grey’s Anatomy cannot do.
It’s all about scheduling and marketing. I have no doubt i my mind that Dollhouse would of flourished if it wasn’t on Friday nights. Here’s an idea, how about Fringe and Dollhouse on Tuesdays? (Before Idol in January).
http://tvdonewright.com/2009/04/29/nbc-rehires-the-celebrity-apprentice-for-next-season/
Because most TV viewers are morons who would rather watch mindless TV like DWTS and other reality shows. It really sad. Terminator was one of the best shows on TV IMO!
“Sara” I must sadly agree. I think for these high concept shows that the networks need to do a better job of making these shows readily available to the masses, no matter when some one gets interested in the show. that is why I think hulu is a God send. That way I can cath up on the shows I have missed during the week when ratings are still valid(they should also extend the ratings period).
If the question is, why aren’t people watching? Like the answers below, it’s probably a mix of things, including the fact that people don’t want to start a show in the “middle” if it has a mythology (I’ve never seen Lost, and, at this point, I’m waiting for it to end so I can rent it and watch it all at once), the fact that a lot of people DVR sci-fi (I agree, the too long ad breaks in an action show are painful), and the fact that, as absurd as it is, sci-fi recently has been really dark and convoluted (Chuck excluded). People like their procedurals more than anything else, and the more successful sci-fi shows are always more procedural-esque. Most people don’t want to think too hard when they watch TV, they just want to sit and watch brainlessly. Perhaps shorter seasons are the key for shows like BSG, while more procedural shows, like the X-Files, can last longer. I just hope sci-fi comes back again, because I adore it.
I think it’s partly because scifi fans are not only tech savvy but also feel very entitled. They don’t believe they should have to do anything in return, not even watch commercials. Unfortunately this kind of attitude ends up dooming their favorite shows. The fans need to realize that skipping commercials (through DVR or torrents) is hurting the show’s commercial revenues, which makes networks less interested in paying for future seasons.
I tend to agree that TV has dumbed its audience down to the level of either oversexed teen drama’s or reality trash. Maybe SCIFI should restrict itself to a mini-series format…look how well “The Stand” did on TV though it was a few years ago.
I think it’s indicative in a larger trend in television, the “serialized” hour long drama. Those past sci-fi shows, while having overarching themes, didn’t have one particular central storyline you had to keep up with. Each episode could stand on its own, and you didn’t need to know what came before (like a mini-movie).
That’s not true of all the sci-fi shows today, which seem intent on telling massive, multi-episode stories. I think people are hesitant to become involved with a show when they know the payoff won’t come for five years, or never, if the show is canceled before it wraps up its big storyline.
I know I enjoyed the first few episodes of Fringe, but when it became apparent there was going to be another “dark government conspiracy” it was going to take 3 seasons to unravel, I stopped watching.
I don’t know how you can look at the chatter about shows like The Sarah Connor Chronicles online and then say “why don’t people watch SciFi anymore” – well the same people that watched scifi in the past are still watching it but they’re watching on DVR, HULU, through streaming video, iTunes downloads (and less-legal downloads). The audience is there but the Nielsen system is broken beyond repair thanks to DVR. A full third of TSCC’s audience watches on DVR – which don’t get counted in “the ratings” – and DVR penetration in the US is only about 30 per cent of tv-owning households (compared to 80 per cent for VCRs, whcih means TSCC’s real audience is potentially not 30 per cent greater than the ratings overnights but almost double the Nielsen’s figure).
SciFi doesn’t play well on television because viewers (at least American viewers) tend to have very short attention spans, they require a quick payoff and even those who don’t require instant gratification aren’t always able to see every single episode of any particular show making it difficult to follow arc-oriented shows, which is why networks constantly push for arc-oriented shows such as The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Dollhouse to be more episodic. The problem is that ultimately episodic SciFi rarely work. A Terminator of the Week series would soon become repetitive and boring. Most people see The X-Files as a successful SciFi show, personally I don’t see it that way. It was primarily a mystery show about the paranormal that had an underlying arc about a government conspiracy to suppress the truth about alien visitations. And the science underlying the show was either weak or wrong. Even when Scully, the supposedly rational scientist would refer to some scientific “facts”, s
Television is not really about show content. It is about the advertisers and their commercials. The advertisers mostly want shows that will attract the attention of shoppers (ie. your mom). Moms don’t watch science fiction.
My mom watches American Idol and Wheel of Fortune and that’s it. For sure, if scifi was big with the moms, then we would have wall to wall scifi on tv instead of reality game shows.
That being said, movies just want to sell tickets. They don’t have pressure to deliver a particular demo on a weekly basis. Moms are not the driving force behind ticket purchases therefore different sensibilities prevail.
Even when Scully, the supposedly rational scientist would refer to some scientific “facts”, she was typically wrong or greatly exaggerating the truth. The show might be viewed as anti-Science Fiction or at best Science Fantasy. In any case, X-Files was episodic and did well because each episode could be viewed as an independent entity: a mini-movie of sorts. The only way that I see shows like TSCC being successful is for the network to develop a pay per view option that allows those people who do enjoy arc-oriented shows to watch episodes at their convenience so that if they happen to miss an episode, they can pay a reasonable fee to keep up with developments in the series. At the same time, this allows networks to make a profit on those shows that are watched online. (there would have to be additional incentives to entice people to pay to watch a show online but that shouldn’t be difficult; pay per view shows could be put online early; they could be extended etc).
It’s a bunch of different answers.
First I think T-TSCC was at heart a drama, then a science fiction show and finally an action/adventure. You also couldn’t miss an eop without getting LOST (pun intended)
I think the Terminator movies (and most Sci-Fi movies) are action first, then sci-fi, then drama. Make sense? Also the genre suffers from a lot of negative stereotyping fanbase wise (fat loser nerd living in parents basement, obsessed with show or movie and can’t get laid) and I think that might have something to do with it too. Finally a lot of the more recent offerings really really suck production wise. (Flash Gordon I’m looking at you)
Maybe the right kind of show is needed. Look at the phenomenal success of the relaunched Doctor Who series in the UK. No sign of eroding viewership there. I loved Galactica and enjoyed Terminator, but these are hard shows for casual viewers to dip into.
do Pushing Daisies and Life on Mars count as science-fiction? 0_o