Im really missing futuristic scifi action/adventure shows.

[Overmind One]

What happened? How come there are no more really great futuristic science fiction ACTION/ADVENTURE shows anymore? All we seem to be getting is science opera, soap fi, action/romance or soap/adventure. Although there have been great ones coming out of the BBC. I have thoroughly enjoyed the Primeval series up to the end if season 5 (probably it's last). Where are the series which are strong enough to last 6, 8 or 10 years? Stargate SG-1 was the last out, including the two movies. Star Trek ended out with Voyager and Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise never really was that strong. Another great series was Surface, but it got nipped in the bud as did V and others.

I wanna know what is happening...is there no material worthy, or are the production companies only interested in certain genres? Whatever the case it seems sorta bleak out there. But at least there are some good scifi movies being released along the way.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Sigh.

Scifi fans are going towards the net to find thier fix, blithely ignorant that while it allows them to "pick and choose" what they want, it in NO WAY supports the companies that shell out massive chunks of cash to make these things happen. Scifi on the level we fans have come to expect is EXPENSIVE, and no studio will be willing to commit to such a risky proposition without research, and the research says it simply isn't worth a networks time to support "new Scifi". A fickle fanbase, people willing to do thier damnest to avoid "TV and Advertising" and people STILL expect these companies to shell out the bucks to support these shows?? Are you Kidding me??.

Scifi works on the "Big screen" because people do still "enjoy" the genre, we WANT to see scifi, but when it comes to TV, we don't want to commit to it's "viable parameters", we want to impose our own, and sorry, but that won't cut it. Seriously, look at the absolute swathe of ignorat twits commenting on SYFY and GW. "Syfy cancelled my show so I am gonna boycott it", "Syfy has wrestling on it so it's crap" Even here, with ALL the information that has been given, peeps still want to blame a COMPANY for doing EXACTLY what a company exists for, to make money.

Ahhh
Stuff it, do what you guys want, you know the system, I'm tired of arguing this.

 

[Overmind One]

Sigh.

Scifi fans are going towards the net to find thier fix, blithely ignorant that while it allows them to "pick and choose" what they want, it in NO WAY supports the companies that shell out massive chunks of cash to make these things happen. Scifi on the level we fans have come to expect is EXPENSIVE, and no studio will be willing to commit to such a risky proposition without research, and the research says it simply isn't worth a networks time to support "new Scifi". A fickle fanbase, people willing to do thier damnest to avoid "TV and Advertising" and people STILL expect these companies to shell out the bucks to support these shows?? Are you Kidding me??.

Scifi works on the "Big screen" because people do still "enjoy" the genre, we WANT to see scifi, but when it comes to TV, we don't want to commit to it's "viable parameters", we want to impose our own, and sorry, but that won't cut it. Seriously, look at the absolute swathe of ignorat twits commenting on SYFY and GW. "Syfy cancelled my show so I am gonna boycott it", "Syfy has wrestling on it so it's crap" Even here, with ALL the information that has been given, peeps still want to blame a COMPANY for doing EXACTLY what a company exists for, to make money.

Ahhh
Stuff it, do what you guys want, you know the system, I'm tired of arguing this.

I can see the point you are making. But I also know that it is pointless to blame the same companies that one might be boycotting for the lack of pandering to such a demanding audience. Im not understanding how the BBC which is state-run (I dont know how its set up, really), but it comes out with some kickass stuff. Are there scads of commercials every 5 minutes on BBC? Something else, many fans will create long-format science fiction and when it reaches the level that a channel takes notice, it can be funded upscale. Sanctuary anyone?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Sanctuary will be LUCKY to get it's S5, I WANT it sure, I really enjoy Sanctuary, but the reality is is that unless it "beefs up" in core audience, it's gonna die. It's the same as Eureka, solid core audience, rabid fans (I'm one!!), but the REALITY is, "X million" is good to start with, but if that is an unchanging number or an ever decreasing number in the face or rising costs from the "other direction", shows get the "can", and it is as simple as that.

I'm sorry but I cannot argue this point with ANY feeling anymore, it's been beaten out of me, not just from GW but here as well, I can only see it from a business perspective, and that viewpoint says "TV based scifi is a waste of time", and with that in mind, there is NO REASON for any company to go "out on a limb" for scifi. Fans bitch about WHEN a show is on, they bitch about the CONTENT, they bitch about ADVERTISING, they bitch about damn near EVERYTHING. Is it ANY suprise that TV companies are withdrawing thier support from the genre when they can get better results for a cheaper investment, and less generic "stick" as well??

 

[Overmind One]

Sanctuary will be LUCKY to get it's S5, I WANT it sure, I really enjoy Sanctuary, but the reality is is that unless it "beefs up" in core audience, it's gonna die. It's the same as Eureka, solid core audience, rabid fans (I'm one!!), but the REALITY is, "X million" is good to start with, but if that is an unchanging number or an ever decreasing number in the face or rising costs from the "other direction", shows get the "can", and it is as simple as that.

I'm sorry but I cannot argue this point with ANY feeling anymore, it's been beaten out of me, not just from GW but here as well, I can only see it from a business perspective, and that viewpoint says "TV based scifi is a waste of time", and with that in mind, there is NO REASON for any company to go "out on a limb" for scifi. Fans bitch about WHEN a show is on, they bitch about the CONTENT, they bitch about ADVERTISING, they bitch about damn near EVERYTHING. Is it ANY suprise that TV companies are withdrawing thier support from the genre when they can get better results for a cheaper investment, and less generic "stick" as well??

Not a surprise to me at all. But the best trends start out as non-monetized fads which are later capitalized. Every new music genre, every new hair trend, every new slang term or "person du jour" starts out as a pure entity without any monetization. EVERY remake is a stab at doing a "double down", and the decision for those remakes is based in dollars and cents. Who is going to do a remake of a failed film? Its the NEW content that holds the promise. The best of science fiction has already stopped coming from TV channels and big fat studios. It took the Blair Witch Project to change the way much drama is done these days. Now its mainstream. I think its possible for the writing/production relationship to move out of the walled garden of TV/Studios/Advertisers and into the internet where so much creative talent exists.

 

[Backstep]

Sigh.

Scifi fans are going towards the net to find thier fix, blithely ignorant that while it allows them to "pick and choose" what they want, it in NO WAY supports the companies that shell out massive chunks of cash to make these things happen. Scifi on the level we fans have come to expect is EXPENSIVE, and no studio will be willing to commit to such a risky proposition without research, and the research says it simply isn't worth a networks time to support "new Scifi". A fickle fanbase, people willing to do thier damnest to avoid "TV and Advertising" and people STILL expect these companies to shell out the bucks to support these shows?? Are you Kidding me??.

Scifi works on the "Big screen" because people do still "enjoy" the genre, we WANT to see scifi, but when it comes to TV, we don't want to commit to it's "viable parameters", we want to impose our own, and sorry, but that won't cut it. Seriously, look at the absolute swathe of ignorat twits commenting on SYFY and GW. "Syfy cancelled my show so I am gonna boycott it", "Syfy has wrestling on it so it's crap" Even here, with ALL the information that has been given, peeps still want to blame a COMPANY for doing EXACTLY what a company exists for, to make money.

Ahhh
Stuff it, do what you guys want, you know the system, I'm tired of arguing this.

I hear ya bro, IMO it's more of a generational thing going on, i'm not into the whole boycotting of a network, production company, studio, etc... Since the switch from Sci-Fi to Syfy in name and format the network has in a sense lost me as a viewer, not because of I am boycotting, or because the network is airing Wrestling, paranormal and cooking shows, simply because the network not airing shows that hold my interest.

I prefer 'hardcore' Sci-Fi over drama-fi, soap-fi and such. While the new generation does like that kind of programing, SGU and their Vampires that sparkle, it's not my cuppa.

 

[shavedape]

Constant change is here to stay.

 

[Joelist]

The irony is that SyFy renewed Alphas which is getting around 1.5 -1.75 per episode while sunsetting Eureka which is drawing 500,000+ more. So it isn't pure ratings at work.

 

[shavedape]

The irony is that SyFy renewed Alphas which is getting around 1.5 -1.75 per episode while sunsetting Eureka which is drawing 500,000+ more. So it isn't pure ratings at work.

Might have something to do with production costs. I know the formula for a series used to be that they would have large budgets for the first season or two but then cut back in later seasons. With an established audience who are attached to the characters there's less reason to give a "wow" factor every week in later seasons. With Eureka though it looks like they have been spending plenty on each season as it has a huge cast and tons of location shots and plenty of CGI. So even if Eureka is getting higher ratings than Alphas it's probably a wash in terms of what they spend to produce the show.

 

[Illiterati]

I'm thinking that the Eureka actors are making more money, because their show is established, while with maybe one or two exceptions, Alphas (which I do NOT and will not watch) has cheap to hire unknowns.

SyFy is one of those networks where I just don't take the chance of getting involved with a series anymore, as I don't know whether or not it's going to stay around. It's bad enough that their parent company, NBC-Universal owns USA (with their wildly popular "characters welcome" approach) ended up cancelling "In Plain Sight" while things were still going really well for the series.

A new slogan:

"SyFy: Where science fiction goes to die."

 

[Bluce Ree]

Constant change is here to stay.

Oh, the irony of that statement.

 

[Bluce Ree]

The irony is that SyFy renewed Alphas which is getting around 1.5 -1.75 per episode while sunsetting Eureka which is drawing 500,000+ more. So it isn't pure ratings at work.

Poor Wesley Crusher. Can't catch a break.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Not a surprise to me at all. But the best trends start out as non-monetized fads which are later capitalized. Every new music genre, every new hair trend, every new slang term or "person du jour" starts out as a pure entity without any monetization. EVERY remake is a stab at doing a "double down", and the decision for those remakes is based in dollars and cents. Who is going to do a remake of a failed film? Its the NEW content that holds the promise. The best of science fiction has already stopped coming from TV channels and big fat studios. It took the Blair Witch Project to change the way much drama is done these days. Now its mainstream. I think its possible for the writing/production relationship to move out of the walled garden of TV/Studios/Advertisers and into the internet where so much creative talent exists.

I suppose it depends on what you consider to be the *best* of Scifi bro, I've always found the best scifi in books, not TV/Movies Books have the advantage of not having to deal with the "real world" concerns of sets, actors, studio's etc.

As to moving it into the net, I would lay money that while YES there is a ton of talent "out there", most people are using the net to advertise thier skills and HOPE that those very same TV/Studio's/Advertisers you want to escape take notice. Just ask OMNI for example. The guy has "Mad Skillz" and he uses this forum, the 3D foundation and Deviant art to show them off. I would bet at least some of the motivation to do it comes from the hope that someone will ofter him a paying job in the field.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Might have something to do with production costs. I know the formula for a series used to be that they would have large budgets for the first season or two but then cut back in later seasons. With an established audience who are attached to the characters there's less reason to give a "wow" factor every week in later seasons. With Eureka though it looks like they have been spending plenty on each season as it has a huge cast and tons of location shots and plenty of CGI. So even if Eureka is getting higher ratings than Alphas it's probably a wash in terms of what they spend to produce the show.

That, my dear ape, is exactly what it is. Not only that, you have the fact that the Canadian dollar is much stronger now against the greenback so there is no "discount" in producing the shows in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government has or is considering cutting out the tax breaks offered to shows made in Canada as well.

 

[Rac80]

My theory is in trends...right now the trend is for csi/crime procedurals and "reality" programming. In the 80's we had the death of the sitcom then it's rebirth with the Cosby show...suddenly there were family sitcoms everywhere! who can forget the night time soap trend of the late 70's & early 80's- Dallas and Dynasty spawned many forgettables such as "Bare Essence"( starring a young and unbearded Jonathan Frakes) and Emerald Point N.A.S. (with a pre macgyver RDA). I live with the hope it will turn around again and we will get good science fiction on tv again.....but then i am an optimist!

 

[mzzz]

What happened? How come there are no more really great futuristic science fiction ACTION/ADVENTURE shows anymore? All we seem to be getting is science opera, soap fi, action/romance or soap/adventure. Although there have been great ones coming out of the BBC. I have thoroughly enjoyed the Primeval series up to the end if season 5 (probably it's last). Where are the series which are strong enough to last 6, 8 or 10 years? Stargate SG-1 was the last out, including the two movies. Star Trek ended out with Voyager and Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise never really was that strong. Another great series was Surface, but it got nipped in the bud as did V and others.

I wanna know what is happening...is there no material worthy, or are the production companies only interested in certain genres? Whatever the case it seems sorta bleak out there. But at least there are some good scifi movies being released along the way.

Yeah! There's like no imagination anymore, no more venturing out into the unknown, everything's becoming grounded in reality and crap.

Constant change is here to stay.

Constant change is constant, a paradox! lol, awesome.

 

[YoshiKart64]

If somebody put money into creating a high budget Sci-fi show centered on adventure, people would watch it. Looking at Doctor Who - people DO enjoy that kind of stuff. It's a shame the show can't have a bigger budget as it uses what it has spectacularly.

Kind of begs the question - why does a show about traveling in space and time work while other similarly 'out there' ideas can't get off the ground?

Ultimately I think it's because sci-fi moved away from what the general public found appealing. Doctor Who targets that childhood excitement of being taken away to a place where anything and everything is possible, using the companion as a relatable concept to the audience. It never looses that connection either, avoiding the worst kind of sci-fi where the audience doesn't even feel whats happening on screen is relevant because they are so disconnected.

Star Trek tapped into the excitement people had about journeying into space. What could developments at NASA mean in the future, could this really happen? Then you look at the shows we are getting now - Warehouse 13 and Eureka aren't really doing well because they're sci-fi, they are capitalizing on the demand for fun procedural style shows. Fringe, while great, is focused more on a crazy Lost style mystery rather than engaging the audience with science and how the audience feels/relates to sci-fi.

What sci-fi needs is a show that re-engages the audience with the concepts, ideas and possibilities that made the genre exciting to us in the first place. Even the coldest person has to have a small part of them that is excited by what's out there; just look at how popular the Tatooine planet was, people thought that was cool. They just need a sci-fi show that makes them care about science fiction itself and not just a clever plot.

 

[Overmind One]

If somebody put money into creating a high budget Sci-fi show centered on adventure, people would watch it. Looking at Doctor Who - people DO enjoy that kind of stuff. It's a shame the show can't have a bigger budget as it uses what it has spectacularly.

1000% agree. Dr Who does a great job, and so does Torchwood. Sanctuary has veered from its original formula a bit. But I agree, if people were WANTING to see adventure, the shows with more adventure in them would be outrunning the more realitu-based shows in ratings. But alas, that is not happening. Is this a reflection of the "new" viewing audience? Do these people REALLY relate more to a bunch of dysfunctional people put together on an island or camp somewhere, and then be voted off one by one, whilst exposing often disturbing character flaws and nefarious behavior publicly? What happens to the "contentants" after the show is over? Who cares? Evidently millions do, and that bothers me.

Kind of begs the question - why does a show about traveling in space and time work while other similarly 'out there' ideas can't get off the ground?

Good question indeed. I think that it has something to do with all the odd pairings of elements like having too much drama and not enough science fiction, ot making the characters TOO young and pretty instead of concentrating on good storytelling. These new shows seem devoid of intellect but have plenty of eye candy. And even that is lame sometimes.

Ultimately I think it's because sci-fi moved away from what the general public found appealing. Doctor Who targets that childhood excitement of being taken away to a place where anything and everything is possible, using the companion as a relatable concept to the audience. It never looses that connection either, avoiding the worst kind of sci-fi where the audience doesn't even feel whats happening on screen is relevant because they are so disconnected.

True. Good observation.

Star Trek tapped into the excitement people had about journeying into space. What could developments at NASA mean in the future, could this really happen? Then you look at the shows we are getting now - Warehouse 13 and Eureka aren't really doing well because they're sci-fi, they are capitalizing on the demand for fun procedural style shows. Fringe, while great, is focused more on a crazy Lost style mystery rather than engaging the audience with science and how the audience feels/relates to sci-fi.

True again. Its like the science is not important anymore. No more space program, no more cold war tensions, no clear "enemy" to battle. The feeling of vicarious heroism doesnt have a cause to conquer anymore.

What sci-fi needs is a show that re-engages the audience with the concepts, ideas and possibilities that made the genre exciting to us in the first place. Even the coldest person has to have a small part of them that is excited by what's out there; just look at how popular the Tatooine planet was, people thought that was cool. They just need a sci-fi show that makes them care about science fiction itself and not just a clever plot.

You might be interested in a series called The Masters of Science Fiction narrated by the electronic voice of Prof Stephen Hawking. Its a study in good science fiction writing in short form .