It's nearly impossible to sell science-fiction to advertisers that want their products seen when (said) businesses believe science-fiction fans are the lowest minority. The ratings (which are just unbalanced and unfair) do more than count the numbers of viewers to a show - It shows the demographic of television viewers using a Neilsen Rating are attracted to comedies, drama, news and variety entertainment. Whereas a SciFi fan is a demographic of people that DVR their favorite shows so they can fastforward through the commercials. For example; If we get rid of the Neilsen Ratings and go to online polls - I'd bet dollars to donuts that the demographic would completely reverse from the 1950's era television viewing habits.
I'm pretty sure it has to do with seven seasons of 22-26 episodes each becomes the 'magic number' to send the series into syndication where it can reasonably run through the entire series in a year (one episode per weekday) without overlap... i.e., oh it's July and they're showing season one again? Didn't we just see that in February?
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.
The answer is middle aged and older women. Absolutely no offence intended: But a lot of these women will watch a drama no matter how repetitive and trite the story lines get (see: every soap opera ever). These women, though loyal, are not Sci-Fi's most typical audience (although they certainly exist).
@GarjaWhchi: You've underestimated the crochetiness and close-mindedness of older men. They're MUCH less likely to take a risk on a new show, and to prefer familiarity over all. Men get into a rut a lot more easily.
Also, they spend more time telling young'uns to get off their lawn.
I'm a big fan of the "Dresden Files" series of books (of which there are currently 10) and Sci-Fi had a show about them and it died an ignominious death. The books are popular and contain material for ton's of episodes. Harry Dresden is a magician/private eye, and you can't get stories out of that?
I think it's a combination of dumbing down plots and geek attention spans = nanosecond lengths
@Kevin Jones: Yeah, it was quite entertaining, and they could have gotten a lot of stories out of it. They never gave even a half-ass explanation as to why they canceled it. Harry was charming and Bob was a hoot.
well i believe it has a lot to do with the fact that most sci fi tv shows have a long running plot thread that, like you said, is partly linked to the main characters. This is the case in: DS9, Babylon 5, Fringe, Lost, Sarah Connor, BSG, Voyager, Buffy, The X-Files and Smallville. In these cases, Fringe being the one most likely to abandon this format, all of these series were completely based on the exploits of very specific characters, usually with some type of mystery or "growth" reliant on their presence. So, there. That's why.
@Byronotron: Which helps explain why the X-Files went to crap when Mulder left. That last season was inexcusable, even for those FOX bastards. It might have been better if Scully had left as well, instead of hanging on as an appendage to Doggett and whatshername.
I think that SyFy doesn't last as long as other series because it takes more energy and imagination to suspend ones disbelief when watching shows dealing with unknown tech and/or worlds than it does for a show that takes place in the 'known'world. And a majority of people don't have the patience to commit all of the time & energy (and some don't have the knowledge or intelligence either) to keep a syfy show on for an extended period of time.
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
@korbermeister: "And a majority of people don't have the patience to commit all of the time & energy (and some don't have the knowledge or intelligence either)"
Exactly, everyone's been to the doctor -- no one's been to another planet via warp drive.
@Slatz_Grobnik: With six episodes a go, that brings the total to a little over a year's worth of a US TV show. Or did they get more in later years? Still adds up to two years' worth, tops, over 8 years.
Not counting the new stuff, which I will be getting via something that rhymes with "borrent" when it airs.
It would not be hard to make. A blend of TOS and Firefly is pretty well the perfect template for it. It's about the ship like ER's about the hospital. A bunch of traders, who land somewhere, and something happens. Practically writes itself, and as long as you get in an "anyone can die" early enough in the series, fairly fluid in terms of cast.
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!"
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...
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.
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.
@Slatz_Grobnik: I'm not watching a show about well-regulated economics, even if it is in space. The economic stuff in Firefly was a backdrop for the characters, adventuring and all the aimin' to misbehave in tight pants and pretty dresses.
SOUTHPARK! Most of the time Southpark makes me think or laugh; sometimes both! How many shows would outline the double standard of the reactions of men and women to farting and queefing?
I think it's got something to do TV shows in GENERAL that shows don't last more than about seven years. Actors get tired of the same roles, day in day out. ER is a bit of an anomaly in that the nature of the show is that actors can come and go and though you miss certain characters, it can go on. How many of ER's original cast members were there at the end? Yep. None.
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.)
@GreenishBlue: That's true. Everyone knows basically how hospitals and cops work. They're all humans, it's on Earth, nothing different about the atmosphere or gravity or the means of transport.
@SG-THX: 24 changes its scenario and a lot of the actors every year -- that keeps it fresher. All you know is that the shit is going to hit the fan for 24 hours, and Jack Bauer's gonna save us somehow.
@Evil Tortie's Mom: ETM, I dispute the importance of 24's cast changes, because we know that aside from Jack, Buchanan and Chloe everyone else in the country is an all-day sucker, a dupe for terrorists or flat-out traitors. Who needs them, when you have Jack?
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.
@pink_clerical_collar: True, knowing everyone is a bastard (except a Palmer brother, and we're out of them) is the other constant. And now we're down to just Chloe. But don't forget Aaron!
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.
CSI, the Las Vegas version, has gone through a series of character changes in the last season or two. Only 5 of the original eight main characters are still there. Two of those were recurring until season 3.
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!
@TheWaywardOne: And yet it remains the best of the lot, after all that overturn. Something to do with the writing quality, I think, and they bring the funny with the mordant.
@Evil Tortie's Mom: Give me a SF/F series that employs talent like Jerry Stahl (and not copout on a salacious cheez level like LEXX) and we'll know the genre's stepped up a notch.
No show really lasts longer than 7 years in terms of quality though, does it? Doctor Who lasted because it kept getting re-vamped and re-made, and it became a sort of staple show. It's like wonderbread.
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...
@Pope John Peeps II: I think I made it 8 years of ER, maybe 7. It was really amazing the first 4-5 years. I only tuned back in a couple of weeks ago to see The Clooney.
The practical answer... is that each renewed year of a television series creates additional economic stressors including the salaries of the actors and other key participants.
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.
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.
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.