NEWS: Why "X-Files," "Lost" Killed Sci-Fi

I am in total agreement. They greenlit shows after the sucessful first season of Lost because they stupidly thought people wanted sci-fi and they wanted Lost like ratings. People don't watch a show because of its genre, they watch because its good.

Also Fox really did fuck Firefly over all kinds of bad. They've done the same thing to many a great show (see Wonderfalls).

I'm in total agreement, dude. B5 was a great show, especially in terms of the science in it's science fiction. Take for instance their starfighters, which didn't behave as atmospheric type aircraft the way so many other sci-fi shows have theirs do.

Speaking of good sci-fi shows that Fox canned, they had a short-lived series which I can't remember the name of... It was about a starfighter squadron on a space carrier that flew these fighters called 'Hammerheads'. I know that's a pretty vague description of the show, but does anyone remember the series I'm talking about?

HEAR HEAR!! Really now, Winchester rifles and Colt pistols go BANG, not zap. That really soured me on the show, along with the sappy plots...

You know, I loved Farscape...but how was it groundbreaking? It seemed like reasonably standard, if well done space opera to me.

I tend to agree that a) part of the reason SF doesn't tend to do well on network TV is that network TV audiences are not generally looking to watch SF. X-Files and Lost are not obviously SF (to the point that I originally ignored Lost because I thought it was just another, oh, reality show, or something on that level), and thus get in via the back door.

And b) the random whim of the networks has been responsible for killing many attempts at SF TV, including Firefly.

I have to say that I'm of mixed feelings about the X-Files. On the one hand, I did like it for a while..though mostly for the "creature of the week" episodes. On the other hand, it massively outstayed its welcome with me. The exit of David Duchovny really *should* have spelled its deathknell (though I'd already gotten bored with it and quit watching), but no, it continued for entire SEASONS afterwards. No thank you.

Lost first season was great. I loved all the mystery and character interaction and background flashes. Unfortunately, I can't imagine them managing to sustain the things that work about the show forever, and sooner or later they're going to have to reveal all of what's going on, and I guarantee it will be a massive disappointment, because with that kind of build-up, it HAS to be. But I'm watching it on DVD, so it will be a while before I find out.

Lexx had a brilliant introductory miniseries, third season, and I kinda sorta liked some of the fourth season. The first and second seasons were basically collections of really sophomoric bodily humor.

I also love Firefly, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica, and I'd throw on some of the later seasons of Deep Space Nine to boot (although less so). I think B5 probably wins out, in my book, so far. I haven't seen enough BSG to be sure whether it measures up, and as great and funny and original as Firefly was, it also got chopped off at the ankles, so we'll likely never know what kind of overall plot was in store. B5 had excellent, funny writing, meticulous plotting that carried into increasingly complex and interesting story arcs, complex characters (well...some of them), and broke all kinds of new ground, including the concept of a planned length TV show with a single overarching storyline. Something which had never been done before and will quite possibly never be done again. (Certainly, Whedon's shows have, according to him, always been set up on a season-to-season basis. If he got to do another season, great, he could tie it together with what had come so far, if he didn't...go out with a bang..)

Ah, don't forget the short-lived The Lone Gunmen (pretty damn funny show).

I really loved Millenium. I think there were a couple of problems with why Millenium wasn't accepted. One of which was the storyline/writing issues. The fact that the direction of the show changed so drastically from Season 1 to Season 2 and then trying to salvage it in Season 3 I think played a major role.

I just watched the Millenium series for the first time. I have to say, while there were the major writing issues I just described, I am only now really seeing cinematography in a television series that can stand up to Millenium. They were above and beyond their day with the cinematography they were doing. I thought the camera work was just beautiful. (sorry, I'm completely digressing).

Going onto the whole Firefly thing. I really liked Firefly but again, I think the main points against the show were all of Fox. Scheduling being the main issue (both time slot and episode airing). Fox has killed not just a number of good sci-fi shows, but a good deal of just plain old great shows.

There's no accounting for the role that time slots play in the acceptance of a television series. As there is also no accounting for the numbers of die-hard fans of a series that know a good thing when they see it. Take a look at Family Guy. How many times has that been pulled and then brought back? Or, as someone else mentioned, Arrested Development.

So, I guess my point is that I don't feel like any one particular television show has killed other shows/genres. I think it has more to do with the scheduling of shows and the audience they are targeting.

I completely forgot about Babylon 5. Another great sci-fi show.

Also the fact that there's hardly any reason to watch broadcast television, with all the scheduling idiocy and commercials every five minutes and waits of weeks between new episodes and so on and so forth when almost any show on TV is being bundled into season DVD sets now, often within a few months of the season completing. Yes, they're more expensive, but there's always Netflix, or your local library. Or your local video store. Or if you don't mind tiny, iTunes (for some shows).

Heck, much the same thing can be said of most cable/satellite these days. I've never had HBO in my life, but I watch almost all their original series. I'm waiting for the day when they figure out direct-to-DVD series.

Wow, I vaguely remember that.

I've put off watching Farscape for too long. Too bad the box sets are so expensive, though.

They're $220 AU for the lot at Ezydvd.

Yeah, I think the show I mentioned came out shortly after Starship Troopers and Wing Commander, and was kind of a rip-off of those two worlds. The things that really stuck in my mind were their starfighters and one of the main characters was this smokin' hot actress, that kinda looked a bit like Angelina Jolie.

Anyways, as far as Farscape, yeah I've been meaning to watch that too, along with Star Trek: Enterprise, 'cuz I worked evenings when those two series were originally on, and so missed them

lol told.

Space: Above and Beyond....maybe? I don't really remember that one very well, just that it was on Fox and might have been kind of like what's being described.

Yes! That's it exactly!!!
I owe you a beer

That's fine, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. The show had a lot going for it but those of you who think it was a great science fiction show don't know what science fiction is.

Er....and who exactly made you arbiter of what SF is?

Orson Scott Card said that Serenity was the greatest SF movie ever made. Susannah Clark, winner of the Hugo Award for Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, listed Joss Whedon as one of her inspirations (the rest of the list was, I think, Jane Austen, Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore, with one more that escapes me, but it may have been Mervyn Peake).

SF is a pretty wide-open genre. You can define it in a lot of different ways. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, for example, was fantasy, though many would argue that the difference between science fiction and fantasy is the art on the cover of the book. I guess my question is, how do you personally define it? What is SF? Ender's Game? The Dying Earth? The Left Hand of Darkness? The Book of the New Sun? Perdido Street Station? Hyperion? Stranger in a Strange Land? A Scanner Darkly? Dune? Harry Potter? American Gods? Fahrenheit 451? Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science+fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

Fireflywas no more science fiction than Star Wars. They were both very entertaining space fantasy, just not science fiction.

So hate me...

...from the dictionary.com link YOU posted...

There's nothing in this definition that says Star Wars and Firefly aren't SciFi. You say they're Space Fantasy, Dictionary.com says SciFi itself is Space Fantasy. You should probably make sure that your support doesn't totally contradict you.

Okay, maybe we should distinguish between hard and soft sci fi.

Keep hating me.

I'd say we're pretty close to that now...


Hate me.