We noted on Wednesday that none of Fox's seven recently-announced pilots were the kind of sci-fi fare that we've come to expect (and worry about) from the network, and now that news of ABC and NBC's latest pilots has been released (more here), it may be time to wonder if sci-fi's lure has faded in light of recent ratings flops.

Of course, NBC's sci-fi phobia isn't entirely unfounded; in the last couple of years, Journeyman, Bionic Woman and My Own Worst Enemy have proven to be high-profile SF launches that flopped for the network, and with falling ratings for Heroes and rumors of the possible cancellation of both Knight Rider and Chuck circling, NBC could be forgiven for thinking that science fiction isn't really something they can succeed with long term (They'd much rather stick with er clones; two of the network's few announced pilots are medical dramas: Mercy and Trauma). In fact, you could make the argument that science fiction as a genre doesn't have a great track record for broadcast networks in general, especially considering the ratings worries of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and content concerns leading to reworkings of both Dollhouse and Virtuality over at Fox. Maybe the success of Fringe and Lost has more to do with JJ Abrams' name and the personal dynamics of the shows over the science portion (Remember, too, that Lost's producers have talked about having to introduce the sci-fi elements of the show secretly, over time)...?

(This is where you can insert your own argument about the failure of shows like Knight Rider or Bionic Woman being more closely attributed to their quality than their nature, and I think that definitely should be taken into consideration. But, at the same time, was Bionic Woman really that much worse that, say, NCIS? Or Law & Order? Do mainstream audiences hold sci-fi series to higher standards than other genres, or do the majority of them just stay away, and there's a discerning, curious crossover audience that'll give a show a try before bailing if it's not up to their standards?)

Instead, it's beginning to look as if television networks are beginning to look at more fantastical escapism for their audiences; Fox have a new pilot about reincarnation, and ABC have given the go-ahead to a television version of The Witches of Eastwick. Even Flash Forward, ABC's new high-profile series from David Goyer and Brannon Braga, could end up being played as a more spiritual/fantasy-based drama, depending on whether the series stays with the original novel's reason for the worldwide flash-forward (by-product of the Large Hadron Collider being activated), which - considering they've said that each season will end with another flash-forward, may not be the case.

(Interestingly enough, ABC may be the network to pay attention to next fall; in addition to Flash Forward and Eastwick, they've also greenlit Happy Town, a mystery pilot from the makers of Life on Mars that's described as being the next Twin Peaks.)

If we are about to see television networks shift away from hard sci-fi towards a particular urban brand of fantasy, there are some good reasons why, outside of the (relative) failure of sci-fi shows; the sleight-of-hand of urban fantasy allows for cheaper shows that require less world-building or technobabbled explanations that may confuse audiences, for example, and in the ongoing journey for television to grab as many youthful eyes as possible, exploiting the genre of Twilight and Harry Potter would seem like a no-brainer. Most importantly, of course, the term "science fiction" scares mass mainstream television audiences for some reason, despite the success of Fringe and Lost and Heroes, and the networks are just following the advertising dollars... which, of course, are following the mass mainstream audience.

It's not permanent, of course; all it'll take is another "surprise" hit SF show and we'll see science fiction stage another takeover bid, just as Heroes begat Journeyman, Chuck, Bionic Woman et al, and Lost's success brought us Surface, Threshold and Invasion. Jesse Alexander, we're pinning all our hopes on you.

(Of course, Stargate Atlantis already won, but I'm excluding it because that would be cheating.)

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Chuck vs. The Terminator

The smackdown we promised almost a year ago has finally come to pass. Chuck, the NBC show about a dorky retail nerd with a spy-database in his brain, is airing at the same time as Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Monday nights at 8. Will you prefer comedy or drama? Which Firefly alum would you rather watch every week: Chuck's Adam Baldwin or Sarah Connor's Summer Glau? Which whiny boy wins your heart, Chuck or John Connor? Robots or spy gadgets? You decide.
Our prediction: It may be a tie. The shows are different enough that they may score different audiences. But Chuck also has to face Big Bang Theory, another funny-nerd show, and that may put Bartowski in a corner.

Fringe vs. Eleventh Hour

They're not appearing at the same time, but these two new shows have some striking similarities. They're both about abuses of science, and they both have scientist main characters who help to uncover the truth, with a cute blonde woman at their sides. Not only that, but both shows make a big point of featuring scientific oddities that are believeable, according to today's science. Fringe is all about "fringe science," and creators J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have said they're focusing on stuff that's happening now. The writers of Eleventh Hour have said similar things about its storylines featuring clones and genetically modified foods. In Fringe, an blonde FBI agent (Anna Torv) teams up with a mad scientist and his son to investigate science crimes. In Eleventh Hour, a scientist (Rufus Sewell) teams up with a blonde bodyguard (Marley Shelton) to stop abuses of science at the "eleventh hour" before they turn into disasters. Do we have room for two evil-science shows?
Our prediction: Fringe has mega-buzz, Eleventh Hour has almost none. This fight is Fringe's to lose.

Eleventh Hour vs. Life On Mars:

Meanwhile, Eleventh Hour actually does have a scheduling rival: it's on at the same time as Life On Mars. Both shows are remakes of cult British shows that never achieved much recognition in the U.S. (In other words, neither show is like The Office or anything.) The Eleventh Hour remake is from producer Jerry Bruckheimer and looks pretty sensationalistic. Life On Mars, meanwhile, is a remake of a show about a cop who gets in a car accident and finds himself back in 1973. The Mars remake had an awful pilot from David "Ally McBeal" Kelley, but it's been totally reshot with a new cast, including Harvey Keitel, Michael Imperioli (Sopranos) and Gretchen "Bettie Page" Mol. Plus we've gone from 1973 L.A. to 1973 New York, and it looks grittier. It's automatically going to be a million times better, but will it be enough?
Our prediction: Mars wins, at least at first, because everybody's going to want to see Harvey Keitel play another bad lieutenant. (Okay, not really.) Both shows are on at the same time as E.R., but that show has half the ratings it used to.

Heroes season three vs. Heroes season two:

If I had a superpower for every time a star of mutant soap-opera Heroes has said this season will be less boring than season two, I'd be omnipotent. And based on the action-packed first episode that was shown at Comic-Con, we're convinced. The show will be better than its sophomore slump. But season three doesn't just have to be a little better than season two: it has to pummel season two ruthlessly, into a bloody pulp. And that may be a tall order, especially since a lot of the hints we're hearing about the new season take the "soap opera" theme to new heights. (Spoiler alert: Everybody's related to everyone else.)
Our prediction: Heroes will relaunch with millions of extra viewers, curious to see if it's really bounced back. And then it'll lose some of them. The only question is, how many?

Knight Rider vs. Bones:

The more I learn about NBC's Knight Rider remake, the dumber it feels. I've read large chunks of several scripts at this point, and the show's main pleasure seems to be laughing at the idiotic dialog and bad science. Plus, it's trying way too hard to jump onto every other pop-culture bandwagon. (KITT the super car is a "Transformer". KITT has a KITT-Cave.) And the revamped Knight is going head-to-head with Bones, one of Fox's biggest non-reality hits since 24. Bones is sometimes schlocky, but does feature real science instead of science-babble, and the characters feel like grown-ups. (Also on Wednesdays at 8: America's Next Top Model, some sitcoms and Pushing Daisies.)
Our prediction: Rider may just be dumb enough to win over people who want to switch off their brains for an hour. Plus people who want to laugh at its utter inanity. And take a drink everytime someone says "KITT-cave."

The Sci Fi Channel vs. you having a life:

Once again, the Sci Fi Channel is putting its only worthwhile content on Friday nights. (Eureka is going on a break soon.) But instead of a bloc featuring Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who, we're getting the last batch of Stargate Atlantis episodes. And the first batch of episodes of Amanda Tapping's new show Sanctuary, which started out as a web series. (Spoiler alert: Amanda Tapping is 150 years old and she tries to help mutants and monsters, but the show seems to be mostly about her crazy ex-boyfriend and their psycho daughter.) Is anybody going to stay in on a Friday night for Stargate and Sanctuary? Anyone? (Sure, you can TiVo it, but it appears that Stargate's ratings are based on "live plus same day" viewings. Meaning next-day viewings don't count. How far into Saturday morning counts as same-day? Not sure.)
Our prediction: Stargate's ratings are actually up from season five, and doing better than Battlestar's last few episodes.