io9 - We are in a golden age of awful television

[EvilSpaceAlien]

I found this to be an interesting read.

http://io9.com/5735228/we-are-in-a-golden-age-of-awful-television

There's an argument that we are in a new golden age of television, with the rise of serialized storytelling and original cable programming. But these exact same forces have also created some spectacularly awful TV, particularly in science fiction.

Here's a quick version of that argument. Fifteen to twenty years ago, quality original programming was pretty much exclusively the domain of the broadcast networks: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. Starting in the late nineties, when HBO debuted Oz and The Sopranos, the premium cable channels (HBO, Showtime, and recently Starz) have also started making their own original shows, free of the same FCC restrictions on nudity, violence, and profanity that constrain the broadcast networks. More recently, basic cable channels - most notably FX, AMC, and, at least around these parts, Syfy - have gotten into the act as well.

And this effect has come full-circle, giving broadcast networks the incentive to try out more daring shows. This has created a place on network TV for a show as fundamentally weird and challenging as Lost, which was able to run for six relatively highly-rated seasons on ABC. It isn't so much that the percentage of quality shows has actually increased - indeed, with the proliferation of reality shows, there are almost certainly more crap shows than ever before - but there are now far more places available for great television than there was even a decade ago.

Obviously, it's more complex than that, but it's good enough for our purposes. The thing is, people spend so much time talking about how this new television paradigm has created amazing shows like Mad Men, The Wire, Battlestar Galactica, and Breaking Bad that they ignore the other side of this brave new world - namely, that we are in a golden age of awful television unlike anything we've ever seen, particularly in the realm of science fiction.

Continues at link posted above.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

I don't live in the states so I don't really know anything about the networks and the cable companies and whatever. But I have a feeling the writer of this article makes a very good point. I can remember when I was just a little kid that there were only 2 channels on Dutch television. There wasn't a lot to watch and it wasn't that good but I could watch it. 2 Channels became 3. Then later on commercial networks came into play. First one, then quickly more and now there's I think 7 or 8 of them (I don't know because I don't watch) and that's not even counting the music channels and children's channels and such. Right now however I can't think of a single tv program that I ever saw made by any of the channels that I think is really somewhat good. I quit watching years ago. Now I only watch stuff I download which is never from my country. I imagine with a TV market that's many times the size of the one in Holland the USA has a multitude of the crap shows we have here.

 

[dragomike]

Oh god, the article was right on the money. When I watched the first episode of the second season to "V," and there is this scene where the black dude who's a rebel visitor tells Moraccin that his offspring was the product of something she'll never understand; Love." Love? SERIOUSLY? Who the hell writes this shit?

 

[zzbeach]

If You Don't remember the 70's, You're Lucky!

What a load of crap! I hate it when guys who are still dealing with pimples on their faces tell me how sci fi tv sucks today. I come from a day when we had three channels and we had to get up off the couch to change the channel! Sci Fi tv in the 70's truly sucked. When the best sci fi on tv was Star Trek reruns, you've got problems. There were a few shows that tried to appeal to the Trek fan base but they lacked funding and commitment from studios. Back then I would have killed for one of those crappy SyFy saturday monster movies.

 

[Rac80]

What a load of crap! I hate it when guys who are still dealing with pimples on their faces tell me how sci fi tv sucks today. I come from a day when we had three channels and we had to get up off the couch to change the channel! Sci Fi tv in the 70's truly sucked. When the best sci fi on tv was Star Trek reruns, you've got problems. There were a few shows that tried to appeal to the Trek fan base but they lacked funding and commitment from studios. Back then I would have killed for one of those crappy SyFy saturday monster movies.

LMAO, I must agree with you- the 70's were three channels and pbs- terrible attempts at scifi (who can forget the planet of the apes tv series? ) and yes...no remotes.

 

[Tropicana]

Young people these days eh? Such ungrateful bunch!


I'm just playing buddy, lol. In acknowledgement and respect to your wisdom - I got to say, growing up I got to watch some really cool sci-fi shows that were made in the "olden days" like, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Star Trek: TOS, Space: 1999, the original Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars.

And more modern ones like: Sea Quest: DSV, Babylon 5, Quantum Leap, Sliders, Farscape, etc.

Sci-fi is very much alive and kicking IMO, it's shows like SGU that tries to pass itself off as "sci-fi" when it is just a poor imitation.

 

[Inara]

Growing up, I loved some of these cheesy sci fi shows in the 70s, but it's not like I had any choice. Most 70s TV shows in general were very high in cheese content. There some shows I loved then that I wouldn't dare watch now because what I loved then would probably make my eye twitch.

I remember being so desperate for anything sci fi that I would anything vaguely sci fi looking. It's only been in about the last decade or so that I've stopped having that compulsion. I think it's a mix of having more variety to choose from, along with DVDs to watch shows if they do get through an entire season without being canceled. I've been watching a lot of shows on DVD I missed the first time around, due to various reasons, such as not being born, thanks to Netflix.

There were remote controls in the 70s. They were called children.

Inara, former remote control

 

[ginogoneforever]

I09 is totaly trash. ...just a mouthpiece for Syfy re-imaginings like GINO and SG-U.

 

[SG-Rocks]

I guess not enough people saw SGoo for him to mention it in the article.

SGU - always to be remembered as a depressing show in a depression.

 

[Inara]

SGU - always to be remembered as a depressing show in a depression.

I found it interesting that TPTB cited the poor economy and declining DVD sales as reasons not to do a movie, yet were hell-bent on making a "dark" show. While there's always an audience for darker material (and not just due to bad lighting), the majority of people seem to seek out shows that are more entertaining in general than "Oh, we're so darkity dark edgy!" when the economy is bad.

If you want higher ratings, there needs to be some sense of humor, even if it's not a comedy. Just a glimmer of it can make a difference. It can even be dark humor, but that's fine line to tread because it can turn out to be very unfunny if not well written.

 

[zzbeach]

Speaking of the 70's

I found it interesting that TPTB cited the poor economy and declining DVD sales as reasons not to do a movie, yet were hell-bent on making a "dark" show. While there's always an audience for darker material (and not just due to bad lighting), the majority of people seem to seek out shows that are more entertaining in general than "Oh, we're so darkity dark edgy!" when the economy is bad.

If you want higher ratings, there needs to be some sense of humor, even if it's not a comedy. Just a glimmer of it can make a difference. It can even be dark humor, but that's fine line to tread because it can turn out to be very unfunny if not well written.

You have hit on something most people don't know about 70's tv and movies. They were dark! Lots of dark humor and intense drama for drama sake. People seem to remember the cheesy stuff but much of the stories revolved around cheesy melodrama.
In the 70's we had Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, Soylent Green, Space 1999, The Omega Man, Logan's Run and even the Starlost. Many are classics but still dark dramas. Nothing about any of these were uplifting commentaries on mankind. Then came Star Wars and Battlestar Galatica. These showed the good in human beings. A true breath of fresh air.
I guess that's why I am not impressed with the sci-fi soaps and their dark storylines and heavy drama. I had seen it all back in the 70's. It's the reason why I thought the new Battlestar Galactica wasn't all that fresh and imaginative to me. It reminded me of the void between the original Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. Something somebody under 45 would never understand.

 

[Inara]

I view "sci fi" as three main subgenres under one umbrella, though there are other variants underneath these:

1. Science Fiction. AKA the "hard" sci fi, which attempted to pose questions about man and technology, or just general commentary on mankind. Often had at least a soupcon of science in the science fiction. Generally the most rare variety, because (a) it's harder to write for a general audience, and (b) it's harder to write, period, just due to more demanding technical work.
2. Science Fantasy. I've often heard the original Star Wars trilogy described as Science Fantasy. At heart it's a fantasy story (a boy, a girl, in a land, er, galaxy, far, far away, fighting an evil empire is not totally new in the fantasy genre), but with a sci fi veneer of varying levels.
3. Sci Fi. Lighter stuff from the more cheesy end of the aisle. Not necessarily bad, but can include stuff from all of the Stargate series (yes, all of them) as well as the B-movies. Pretty much the "If it doesn't easily fit into Science Fiction or Science Fantasy genres, stick them here. The name "Sci Fi Channel" was considered controversial when first proposed because many literary authors felt it represented the worst of the genre and wasn't "real" science fiction.

 

[ginogoneforever]

You have hit on something most people don't know about 70's tv and movies. They were dark! Lots of dark humor and intense drama for drama sake. People seem to remember the cheesy stuff but much of the stories revolved around cheesy melodrama.
In the 70's we had Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, Soylent Green, Space 1999, The Omega Man, Logan's Run and even the Starlost. Many are classics but still dark dramas. Nothing about any of these were uplifting commentaries on mankind. Then came Star Wars and Battlestar Galatica. These showed the good in human beings. A true breath of fresh air.
I guess that's why I am not impressed with the sci-fi soaps and their dark storylines and heavy drama. I had seen it all back in the 70's. It's the reason why I thought the new Battlestar Galactica wasn't all that fresh and imaginative to me. It reminded me of the void between the original Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. Something somebody under 45 would never understand.

Lest us not forget that really dark, gritty and realistic science fiction was done 30+ years ago much better and in a more entertaining manner than Moore's reworking of Larson's BSG creation, SG-POO and CRAPICA via ALIEN (1979) and a bit afterward with OUTLAND (1981). Moore & co are late to the party.

 

[Rac80]

You have hit on something most people don't know about 70's tv and movies. They were dark! Lots of dark humor and intense drama for drama sake. People seem to remember the cheesy stuff but much of the stories revolved around cheesy melodrama.
In the 70's we had Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, Soylent Green, Space 1999, The Omega Man, Logan's Run and even the Starlost. Many are classics but still dark dramas. Nothing about any of these were uplifting commentaries on mankind. Then came Star Wars and Battlestar Galatica. These showed the good in human beings. A true breath of fresh air.
I guess that's why I am not impressed with the sci-fi soaps and their dark storylines and heavy drama. I had seen it all back in the 70's. It's the reason why I thought the new Battlestar Galactica wasn't all that fresh and imaginative to me. It reminded me of the void between the original Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. Something somebody under 45 would never understand.

Who can forget the gloomy vision of those old scifi movie/series? We (mankind) were going to destroy the world, ourselves, etc...with our machines and pollutions. Roddenberry's star trek was considered to be an overly optimistic view of the future (so he wrote WWIII into it's "history" via space seed.) and everyone "knew" mankind would destroy everything it touched. you are 100% correct in saying that RDM was merely a copycat of the older style.