io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 12:10 AM
Wed Nov 11
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04/06/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
Nobody's going to make high-quality stuff out of the goodness of their heart just to make the fans happy. It's economically impossible.
BTW, variety is the only genre that gets much lower ratings than SF. There hasn't been a successful variety show in decades. NOBODY watches that.
04/04/09
Basically putting on a sci-fi show is (or at least it used to be) a pretty expensive affair, and cost analysis showed that once you get to seven seasons, if you have a shot at a daily syndication market, it's best to just dump the new eps and milk the show for the rest of its viable life in syndication, where there is practically no overhead.
This is what I was told a while back, anyway. Dunno if it's actually true.
04/04/09
That, and the standard actor's contract being 7 years, at which point your cast gets big raises.
04/05/09
Tyler's House of Pain churned out episodes just so it could be sold to the syndication market.
Quantity =/= Quality
04/05/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
Also, they spend more time telling young'uns to get off their lawn.
04/04/09
I think it's a combination of dumbing down plots and geek attention spans = nanosecond lengths
04/05/09
SciFi screwed the pooch by not renewing Dresden Files. How very shortsighted.
04/05/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
I also believe that the best sci fi stories have a fixed beginning, middle, end as written/plotted by the author. The tech and space setting are used to get the consumer engaged in a new way of thinking about what life 'may' be like somewhere/when else. Once the consumer is engaged, the story takes on the basic outlines of any 'real-time drama'; character, problem, conflict, resolution (and resolutions don't have to be good or permanent). Once the story reaches the resolution (can take up to 4 yrs (bsg!)), it tends to become repetitive and since the tech and setting were established in the original plot, any new plot renders the series pointless; especially if the characters aren't defined well
04/04/09
Exactly, everyone's been to the doctor -- no one's been to another planet via warp drive.
04/04/09
04/04/09
Not counting the new stuff, which I will be getting via something that rhymes with "borrent" when it airs.
04/04/09
But SF, as a genre, is only beginning to approach something akin to respectability. That's the real reason it hasn't happened; no one's taken it seriously enough. No one's taken the risk.
Typically, that comes with network changes and TV watching shifts. After all, in some ways BSG is the product of people realizing "hey, original material from non-premium cable! That works!"
04/04/09
But SF, as a genre, is only beginning to approach something akin to respectability. That's the real reason it hasn't happened; no one's taken it seriously enough. No one's taken the risk.
That's a good point. A lot of actors are wary of doing a SciFi series. And many of the cast of long-running series get typecast into SciFi roles. Any big SciFi stars who've gone on to other TV roles of note? I can't think of anyone except Shatner...
04/04/09
They tried ER-in-Space once and the ratings were awful.
The establishment just really doesn't care, in their bones, about SF.
04/04/09
Just pointing out that before the Kai Winn era of DS9, that *was* the storyline -- traders from the Hoozever Quadrant coming in, shedding dandruff on the rug, declaring Bajor as their prophesied homeland, making a fuss, leaving,. People lost interest because there was no consistent antagonist. Couldn't have Bajor's independence from Cardassia as the antagonist, because they'd focus too much on conflicts close to home. Besides, familiarity=boring. Once the Dominion came on, then every contact through the Wormhole gained meaning, and with Sisko's and Odo's kwitsatz haderach destiny, the die was cast.
A show based on traders would have to be aimless in a way even FIREFLY wasn't, and the D-boys and girls at networks don't like that. They want people who'd they'd invite into their homes, and mercantilist drifters don't qualify. If they did, the Ferengi would have been something more than a punchline in ST.
04/04/09
04/04/09
The exploration goose is sorta cooked. The business of business is something that people generally understand. When you have people hauling stuff between planets, you have to torture the economics on occasion, but that's it. Relatively civilized space gives you a relatively stable group of sites to go to and back from, providing continuity. Possible hijinxs seem fairly self-evident as things don't go as planned.
The Ferengi were a punchline because they were caricatures. Truth of the matter is, most people are motivated by money. And that's all you need to really work from.
04/04/09
Still, how long was it between Star Trek and Boston Legal? Bill had to hang on a LONG time between iconic roles.
04/04/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
But on a show like Star Trek, you're already being asked to accept a LOT: warp speed, Klingons, photon torpedos, Q, and on and on, that if there were a rotating door of people, you could never get anchored to those you loved.
Doctor Who is, as mentioned, an anomaly as well, but again it's becuase the ability to have a rotating door of actors (if not necessaily characters) is built in, and indeed, seeing what the new Doctor will be like is part of the appeal to tune in.
(Side note: DS9 played with this too. I took note when it started that there was not one but TWO characters that could be plausibly replaced by other actors should the need arise. And indeed this happened with one of them.)
04/04/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
I stopped once we went through our fourth or fifth Presidential administration (even if there's yearly turnover of scum, we've still got at least two full terms served by the 'good' Presidents, so the time anomalies are stronger here than on V'GER) filled with flunkies for the permanent government of corruption. Every plot Bauer has uncovered within an Administration has been foiled, but not prosecuted, save Charles Logan, and even true justice took a crazee wife with a way with a fruit knife. And if Bauer's the only one standing in the way of our destruction, well, with two continental detonations of nuclear weapons under his belt, he's doing a heck of a job, huh?
The show has already reached the point where anyone not in the continuing cast will betray Jack, either naively or willingly, so why invest in their characters? In the early days, Stephen Hopkins thought the general timeline concept could be extended to other stories, but now it's locked into a meaningless cycle of suspense, without payoffs, without consequences other than Jack Crying One More Damn Time.
04/04/09
But the continual overturn gives them the appearance of freshness, and some new sets every year. Plus they get big-name guest stars for arcs, who wouldn't do years after years.
04/04/09
I agree with the original poster, why can't there be sf shows that have characters cycle through. In the real world, ships go through plenty of changes in its senior staff!
oh well, here's hoping
04/04/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
04/04/09
But ER is retarded, and has been for about 10 years. I mean, it's just tiresome and vomitous. Simpsons had maybe 7 really good years, and then bogged itself down...
04/04/09
04/04/09
In fact, few shows run longer than 7 years simply because of this.
The few exceptions are
- shows that the producing studio can take a loss on because of anticipated profits in syndication (such as Law & Order and CSI)
- shows that become flagships for a network, losing money but enhancing ratings for other shows
- shows that are ratings powerhouses that justify their existence despite any cost (House, MD, for example)
This why some shows are canceled despite their popularity. Xena was closed down because of escalating costs. Stargate SG-1 is the same story.
04/04/09
The seven-year contract is standard, so that's why shows only last that long.
I would watch CSI: Mars in a nanosecond! Kristine Kathryn Rusch has the "Retrieval Artist" series of novels, which are a bit CSI, a bit L&O, and a whole lot noir private eye, with some really really fascinating alien/human interactions. And the aliens aren't people with nose and head makeup. They're alien. Of course one novel a year is a lot easier to keep fresh than 22 episodes a year.
Sci-fi depends upon somewhat-less formulaic background than cop shows, medical shows, etc. L&O uses characters who are cogs in the justice machine; ditto ER and the assembly-line process of patching people up. The process is the star of the show.
Theoretically you could do the same with Starfleet, but they've always gone with new crews. Wonder why?
The days of the big-time long-running show are over, thanks to the DVR and the internet.