Can Sci-Fi Fans Face the Future? 394
khendron writes "The Toronto Star has an article about sci-fi fans and their ongoing habit of protesting the cancellation of their beloved TV shows. From mailing bras to starting malicious Internet rumours, devoted viewers try all sorts of things to protect what they love. That's not always good news."
how is it not always good? (Score:2, Interesting)
#!
Another thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
So ... what's replacing Sci-Fi? (Please, please, please, not reality TV, please, please...)
Final show appalling? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an awkward silence when the subject of the final episode is broached. "I don't know where to begin with that one," she finally stammers. "The final episode is ... appalling."
It's human nature... (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad as it would probably work better.
Executive types hate reversing decisions, somehow thinking it implies they don't know what they are doing, but deciding not to can a series...thats just another choice that can be made without loosing face.
Fandom makes for lazy writers (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately for them, this time the fanbase isn't big enough to sustain a series, even on the low ratings friendly UPN. The article also states how they hope to be picked up by the Sci Fi channel, which requires even lower ratings of its fare.
The problem is, Enterprise really isn't a very good show. It needs to be cancelled. Maybe it will mean the death of the Trek franchise, but I seriously doubt it. More likely, it will result in someone down the road coming up with another Trek series and actually putting some effort into writing a quality show.
Re:Another thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
The internet.
Best Quote Ever (Score:3, Interesting)
So what is the gender split for enterprise fans (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a tendancy to follow some of the same themes and styles, like the morally ambiguous choices of heros, and the sort of adventure feeling.
Of course, it's been quite a while since I've watched TV, so I could be on the wrong track.
Re:Another thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is socio-economic. Somehow, you have something like an inverse elasticity - if you decrease the quality of the product without altering the price, you get more sales.
I wonder how this works for Microsoft. I know ME was a failed experiment in the same thing, but the price-to-value ratio for their products has gone down even with XP because, although the value has gone up, the price seems to have gone up more. (Compare XP Home to 98.)
Can you think of any other markets where a decrease in quality with no corresponding decrease in price will result in higher sales? Women's shoes and purses don't count, because women are not rational actors.
Re:Final show appalling? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) She said "The final episode is," then paused dramatically, and finished up with, "appalling."
2) She said something like "The final episode is an endearing tribute to both the failed show and the Star Trek universe, and I find the fact that it will be seen by so few to be appalling."
Either way, I think the way she was quoted was
Nobody really loves everything about a TV series (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now, the fanbase is making a promise it can't keep - "Here's money! Give us Trek, and none of these thousands of investors will nit-pick about where that money went afterwards!".
Professionals in Hollywood know that, if you add more and more investors in a project, there will inevitably be more who complain later. With tens of thousands involved, this adds greatly to the uncertainty of the project. Anyone acting in it, or writng the scripts or even just doing the special effects becomes worried that they will get extra helpings of blame if it doesn't work out. At this point, the fanbase is asking a lot of people to take exceptional risks with their careers for little or no upside. Maybe Rick Berman deserves that, but do all the others involved? Again, maybe a few of the executives have already taken a negative impact on their future in Hollywood, and should, in 'fairness' have to seize on a chance to prove they could do better, even if the odds are against them, but Hollywood doesn't seem to be saying "You'll never work in this town again." to those execs, and it has a nasty tendency to say that to other people. Those other people are probably responsible for the parts of Enterprise somebody actually loves.
'moribund Star Trek movie franchise' (Score:3, Interesting)
It's somewhat dismaying to read one of the comments from Jolene Blalock in the article, apparently regarding the final episode of Enterprise...
Without any hint of humour whatsoever I can say - What do you expect? The other episodes were appalling too.
I'm far more concerned about the following attempt to defibrillate the trek movies:
The idea being, one can fairly safely deduce, to re-purpose expensive existing props and sets while hiring an all-new cast of unknowns, rather than pay the inflated fees routinely demanded by established series actors.
Am I alone in thinking that this sounds like it could be really really shit and completely kill off trek for a decade?
SciFi is supposed to be about the future - to look forward. Prequels while still supposedly about our future are still the plain old past in respect to the Trek (and the viewers') timeline and will instantly loose something because of it. It's like hobbling yourself and admitting that you have no vision to share right from the outset. Once you loose your audience's trust, trust that you know where you're going (B5) and that both the journey and the destination will be of interest, you simply loose the audience. Trek writers have often slipped up on this one. The wretched Holodeck had all the interest and drama of a dream sequence and, while I personally always enjoy time travel stories, I can understand that if your brain files time travel and 'Holodeck' together that you would want to gnaw one of your own legs off* listening to them all the time.
1) Lazy plot devices bore audiences to death.
2) No surprises, no vision of the future, no trust.
3) No Audience.
*(Really happened to the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council)
Re:Dont kid yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes we can (Score:1, Interesting)
Which one is the idiot again?
Injustice, lies and statistics! (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember when Futurama changed timeslot every week for a few months, then settled in a spot where it was pre-empted by football overtime week after week after week?
Remeber how Fox claimed they aired Firefly on fridays at 8, but would instead put baseball on? And when they did air firefly, it was at 12:03am, or 12:17am, with the episodes out of order?
We have a conundrum here: Is it superhuman incompetance +1, or is it a deliberate act by an exec to kill another exec's project? Hard to tell really, but one thing is for sure: If these shows got bad rating, it wasn't the shows themselves that caused it.
And ratings... how many organisations determine ratings? One? And the ONLY thing that matters is ratings? Then... that company can make or break a show, on any network, by fudging it's numbers... That seem right to you?
Re:how is it not always good? (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it pretty pathetic that people would put so much effort into fighting for something so trivial. It's a TV SHOW!
Why not put your "fighting spirit" towards something that actually matters?
Maybe it just gives them the illusion of being "rebels" or fighting for a cause. It's protest role-playing. Fighting for a cause that might have some real significance is just too risky.
There are plenty of valid causes that geeks can support without risk of bodily harm, lawsuit, inprisonment, etc. Put your effort behind one of those, it might actually make a difference. Even if it doesn't at least you tried.
What would you rather tell your grandkids?
I fought hard and got Spaceshit3000 extended for another 3 seasons.
or...
I joined the fight and helped to bring about the end of software patents (just an example).
Re:It's very simple (Score:2, Interesting)
They didn't do the same for Enterprise, even though its first two seasons were arguably no worse than TNG's, and its current season is excellent. Why?
Could be the more fragmented viewership today, could be Star Trek fatigue after a total of 21 TNG, DSN, and VOY seasons, could be that Enterprise's 3rd season was an improvement, but not enough of an improvement to bring the viewers back. I'd say it all plays a role.
You might have miserable taste (Score:2, Interesting)
Complacency on the part of fans of anything will always encourage crap. Look at the Laws and Orders. Look at all the lame repetition on TV: crass, untrustworthy 60 Minutes clones, weak home improvement shows, boring (ugly!) chopper/hotrod shows, depressing "reality" shows, uninformative WWII documentaries, numbing "real sex" shows on HBO, and all the dull anime on Adult Swim.
"Fight for what you enjoy, regardless" encourages this crap.
You have to take the risk of being disappointed by something new until you can discover something better. Accepting the same thing you enjoyed last week runs exactly counter to the principle of "infinite diversity in infinite combination".
Now, I know that sci-fi fans are nervous whenever a show gets cancelled. You can never be sure when the next good one's going to come up. However, as a fan myself, I can guarantee I've got better things to do on a given weekday night than waste another hour on Enterprise.
Re:Crime shows (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of which condition the public into accepting trampling of their rights by real law enforcement...show DNA tests in seconds and cases solved in hours...all which make the public think that law enforcement is on a roll throwing an endless stream of serial killers and terrorists into jail, or outrage the public when their "rights" let the bad guy get off or a judge won't sign that search warrant our dashing detective needs to find who's been kidnapping little girls with
Actually, I've heard that prosecutors are complaining now that forensics shows like the CSIs and related are making their job harder. It seems that juries want to see DNA and fingerprints now where they used to settle for marginal witnesses and circumstance.
Re:how is it not always good? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe my tinfoil hat's on too tight, but the people with the power don't want the masses to do this.
Don't you realize that TV is the opiate/soma of the masses? It does a great job of keeping most people sedated and uninterested in the "real world". Without it, they'd be unhappy enough with their pathetic and boring lives that they just might restless and be more active in things that "actually matter".
That means changing the status quo, and expecting accountability from leaders. I guarantee you that George Bush is much happier having thousands of people squandering their energy and lives writing to studio execs to keep a show on the air, rather than writing their congresspeople to call for an end to the Iraq war or stopping his reform/overhaul/decimation of social security.
Keep the people happy and dumb, and you don't have to answer to them because they'll be too involved in trivial bullshit.
Wow that's elitist (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to cherry pick Philip K Dick as being representative of sci-fi books, you have to let me cherry pick Firefly as representative of sci-fi television. And frankly, I'll take Firefly anytime.