Sci Fi Channel and the Death of Science Fiction TV

Bye bye Sci Fi.

If you haven't heard, Sci Fi Channel has announced that they're changing their name to SyFy Channel in an attempt to broaden their audience. What we have to remember however, is this is about dollars, not geeks.

From TVWeek.com:

“We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.

Looking passed the fact that "sci-fi" and "science fiction" are synonyms in the vernacular (as much as Harlan Ellison hates it), this statement still doesn't quite jive with reality. Sci Fi Channel started in 1992 under an advisory board including Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, author Isaac Asimov and if my memory of the comic book ads is correct, actor Leonard Nimoy. A joint venture of Paramount Pictures, USA Networks, and Universal Pictures, the whole point of the channel was to rerun old science fiction shows and movies of which the studios had many. It was to be a celebration of science fiction although, I personally didn't know if there was enough applicable programming to support an entire channel. These days, you can catch an episode or series online or on DVD, but in those days, if you missed a show, it was possible that you'd never see it again. So at the time, the chance to see Twilight Zone, original Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century was pretty darn cool. Unfortunately, we didn't get the channel at the time and I was relegated to reading about it in Wizard Magazine. Brooks' claim that they were trying to distance themselves doesn't seem to ring true until the 21st Century. Until that time they did run a lot of horror, but I still caught Star Trek, Space Above and Beyond and Babylon 5 through the turn of the century. Prime time on Friday nights (oft called SciFridays) was their most advertised lineup and has contained much of their original programming like Farscape, Stargate SG-1/Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, Andromeda and The Secret Adventures Of Jules Verne plus, Dr Who (BBC). Sounds pretty science fictiony to me. Even some of their largest ventures were two massive Dune mini-series. Still, direct-to-video quality horror movies, paranormal programs like John Edwards and Ghost Hunters and reality shows were creeping in around 2000. And meanwhile, science fiction was disappearing from American networks.

Tension! Tension! Tension!

A conversation on how tension and taking a second look at your writing can give it more HECK YEAH!

In working on an alternative future feature-length screenplay with writing partner Tom Mercer, I recalled something I had been talking to comic book artist Rick Arthur about. Rick, a great writer in my opinion, and I have had long conversations on tension. At the time, I had been working on a different script and in trying to "up the stakes," I wrote a scene that happened to have a similar fight to a later scene. I suppose that other people, looking at the recent crop of lack-luster action adventure films, would have left it as was, but I knew the earlier fight would take away from the later one and worked hard to fix them. Thankfully, I was able come up with a solid solution that achieved all the plot points, but in a different way. This reminded me of one of the talks Rick and I had about Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones and suggestions he had for the gladiator scene (you know, the one with the three beasts who were to eat up Obi-Wan, Anakin and Padmé.) Lately I've been rolling my eyes at films like Pirates of the Caribbean II and III and X-Men III for they're trade-in of story for special effects and because the films failed to utilize their genre roots. Attack was also guilty of this and Rick told me it was because they attempted an homage to gladiator movies, but didn't do the classic arena scene justice. As he and I talked about, it also showed gross negligence in not seizing the possible tension nor the possible plot points. Not to droll on about the Prequels, but I almost wish I could somehow redo that scene to show how it could have worked. Hopefully Rick doesn't mind me mixing in his ideas in the following description of how I might change such a scene...

Why is “Professional” a Dirty Word?

Since when did “professional” become a bad word? Since when did it mean unoriginal, uncreative, overpriced, inflexible and/or elitist? Why are professional methodologies so immediately rejected in today’s marketplaces, businesses and creative endeavors? If you undergo years of training or you have several years of experience-- that’s a bad thing? Being involved with a number of industries, I see it more and more. If a professional mentions industry standards, professional methods or structures or even accepted practices they get immediately rejected or even insulted. It's happened to me many, many times. Let’s say you own Cogswell Cogs. You want to design a new cog so, what’s the first thing you do? Create a computer model? Let’s go 3D, Wooo! Sorry, but when did the first step of problem solving become model a solution? HUFF! That tired, old, dusty, outdated, outmoded and certainly high-horsed ‘5 Steps to Problem Solving” can’t apply to our new, totally different, techno-world! To coin another ancient phrase, balderdash. Since you’ve admitted/found that there is a problem/need for this new cog, why wouldn’t the next thing be to define the problem? Why wouldn’t you talk about the need for this cog and what it should accomplish? Then perhaps you should use a low-cost method to envision the cog... perhaps even use... a... pencil. NOOOOOOO!! Graphite must be bad for the environment or something because no one seems willing to allow sketches anymore. The brain-pencil (or pen) connection is scientifically proven to engage the brain more fully than a keyboard and mouse. I’d wager even a tablet or other pen-like computer input device is still not as good as the real thing, but that’s me. Still, that’s not our focus here.

Let’s look at it a different way. A number of people have said to me that they’re proud of their success without training or experience and with less-than-professional tools. That’s great. I’m glad that anyone can pick up a tool and make something that allows them to express themselves and maybe even gives them a measure of success. That's freedom. I guess my problem is many of these people think their success means they’re suddenly da Vinci, a master at their craft. In many cases, they fail to realize the other factors that added into his or her success. Let’s say one of these folks is named Pat. Pat, who is without training or experience, has gathered a small team and together they’ve built a house using tools and materials afforded on a shoestring budget. A week after completion, the house is still standing and everyone in town loves it. It’s not totally level, but that’s okay. Genius! It doesn’t meet all the codes and standards, but that’s fine. Brilliant! Pat made it on a shoestring so, that sort of thing is understandable. A Marvel! Against these great odds, this house is a towering achievement of the layman who has conquered those terrible professionals! What Pat hasn’t told people, or doesn’t realize, is the team pulled all-nighters and worked for reduced rates without overtime or for free. Pat also doesn’t mention that some of them were actually trained carpenters who showed the team how to fill in the cracks when the pieces weren’t flush. Pat doesn’t admit that the project was a house of cards and at any moment, were it not for the kindness of others, the project would have failed. And, were it not for the vigilance of Pat’s team, someone could have been hurt or killed if the house of cards had fallen. Nope, Pat jumps from rooftop to rooftop yelling that s/he’s a visionary. Pat also doesn’t realize the ramifications his house has on the industry. Other folks in the town also want to make houses on a shoestring and complain when the (evil) professionals quote them prices ten times what Pat’s house cost. How DARE they! Soon, the professionals have to lower their rates to get any work and try to find ways to cut costs. The townspeople are unapologetic. They know you can cut costs because pros are SO overpaid and they saw that all you have to do is get cheap unskilled laborers like Pat did. And of course you don’t need to use quality tools or materials; you’re a pro and can work miracles! Wait, wait, wait. So pros are miracle workers and so they should be paid half and forced to work twice as hard? What is going on here?!

Folks, “professional” is not a bad word. Working your ass off through rigorous training doesn’t automatically mean you can’t think outside the box. Years of experience doesn’t mean you’re old and don’t apply anymore. Would you expect some untrained person to be as consistent as Norm Abrams? Just because Norm has been in the business for decades, does that mean he can no longer function? Have you watched This Old House? Mastery of one’s craft takes a lifetime. It doesn’t mean you have to know everything, but it does mean you know who to ask. And I don’t see why being good at what you do and knowing a solid, proven methodology is such a horrible concept-- to the point of insulting professionals for merely suggesting to Pat that s/he might want to look before leaping. And, being nice people who care about their craft and whose latest project is their calling card, they take it upon themselves to make it work. That my friends is eking by, not a mandate. Yes, it may work out in the end at least to an extent, but the means matter. The means matter because they always have longer lasting ramifications. Ramifications beyond that one project and perhaps even into our everyday lives.

This is not an attack on layman or on independent endeavors. I don’t think you need a huge corporation to do... well, much of anything. I’m actually a firm believer in partnerships and localizing. What I’m saying is there is a standard that should be sought and fought for. The standard is the challenge. If we keep lowering the standards and slapping down anyone who strives to exceed them, we hurt ourselves as a people. These habits bleed into the rest of our culture. This goes for high school math brains to musicians trying to share their music. It also goes for anti-social artist types and mighty athletes. It’s not the accolades that matter; it is the progression of the human race. Striving to be a pornstar college dropout Heroin addict? That’s a goal? Being the person with the most hits on Myspace or most friends on Facebook is a goal? Posting pics of your cleavage and of you and your friends getting drunk is bucking the system? As long as you have the latest cell phone, all is right with the world? What the crap is going on here? Would you want to go under the knife of a surgeon who believes a few mistakes here and there aren’t so bad? This devolution is occurring because people are lowering their standards for everything. This may be because a growing mass of people are becoming evermore lazy and wish to satisfy whimsical and shallow desires ASAP. I want, therefore I am. Is that what we're saying?! Perhaps I should have entitled this “Why is REALITY a Dirty Word?” Face up, anything good takes time and effort and you never do anything totally alone. If you want something really good, open your mind and heart and listen to a professional who might know a thing or two about what you’re trying to do. Even if that pro is a psychologist. And when you’re done, be realistic about what the final product is and strive to do better next time. And PLEASE strive to pay people an acceptable wage or make it worth everyone’s while somehow. All I ask is that you don’t use professionals as mindless tools, keep your promises and don’t ask anyone to sacrifice their integrity to complete your project. We’re all in this together. Making adjustments for safety, courtesy or quality doesn’t make it any less your baby. And lastly, give credit where credit is due. Not only make sure you have everyone’s name spelled correctly, but if someone on your staff was key to the completion of your project, let people know. Acting like you did it all alone will only harm you in the long run. If you can loosen up on the reigns a little, you’ll find you still stay on course and it’s a more rewarding ride.

That’s enough metaphor for one day! Thanks for reading. Please share your opinions and experiences. I mean that! Also, please take some time today to hug a professional. They need hugs, too.

Tom Curley asks "Would you pay for a great production sound crew?"

Tom Curley, a friend and fine production sound mixer in Hollywood recently asked some fellow film folks this question...

"Would you pay for a great production sound crew? Why or why not?"

Because I think this is a important issue and indicative of a larger cultural malaise, I thought I'd post his query here, add my reply and ask for your opinion.

Tom continues...
"This lament is not directed at any one person or company, but more of an observation of a trend...

"I am a professional location sound engineer who has years of experience, on films up to $70Million budget. I make my living doing this, and have spent [a LOT of money] on gear. I find it bewildering that a lot of production companies I run into are hemorrhaging money on the camera crew (A loader for an HD camera?) but offer me insultingly low rates, with equipment rental, and no boom operator. I might be looking at the wrong production companies, so if you know the value of a good sound crew, or the horrors of a poor sound crew, please let me know your experience?"

Here's my reply...
I most certainly would pay for a quality sound crew. I feel for sound guys! I have seen what you describe in practice as well. I've seen sound crews understaffed, run over, pushed around and left completely out of the loop even while shooting. "We'll fix it post" is something often heard by VFX Supervisors. Now, it seems the same is being directed at the Sound Mixer. I suppose when Producers and Directors hear films like Fellowship of the Ring were 98% ADR, they think they can do it as well. They don't consider the time and money involved in doing ADR nor the quality of the actor needed to at least come close to the moment all over again in a voice over. If you're not being forced in some way (like making a trilogy of three-hour films simultaneously) I don't see why this method would be preferable. Like VFX, many practicals can be faster to build, look better and are much cheaper than CG. Why not dab a little makeup on an actor's pimple in a few seconds instead of having a VFX Artist spend hours painting it out? For sound, why spend weeks fixing and re-recording when all the actors were right there on set? I'm a director who loves sound. I also like to get everything I can while in production. It just makes sense for the time and money and it's not difficult to include the sound department in the process. That process is of course the traditional process that I learned, not the contemporary process now taking hold. The rush of and for technology is widely to blame. Most leaders are informed by the hype around tech, but they lack knowledge to implement it properly. Additionally, when they defer such decisions to their "experts" many times those "experts" aren't informed about film practices. For instance, filmmakers who have been brought up on video have a simplified view of the process that does not match the nuance of true, budgeted feature production. To many of them, the sound department is a boom operator who plugs into the camera. This techno-phage of oversimplification is affecting every creative endeavor from advertising to web design. Many people are so worried about getting or keeping a job that they extend themselves beyond their knowledge and over-commit themselves instead of saying they don't know and need to ask someone who does. Worse than that perhaps are the people who simply refuse to believe or listen to more knowledgeable people. This is a serious problem especially when that person is a producer, director, CEO, CTO, manager etc-- the people who make the decisions. And they can get incredulous, mean and insulting about it; probably out of fear of looking they don't know something. That sounds backwards to me; I highly value of experts like yourself because I don't know much, let alone everything! This is a problem facing whole industries and if it's not fixed, I don't know what will happen. This idea that "a monkey could do it" could mean the fall of our economy and our culture entirely.

So, we've done a lot to define the situation and possible causes. What about a solution to this problem? I don't know. If a leader was unwilling to listen, I surmised they wouldn't be a leader for long, but I guess I overestimate the system and underestimate the abilities of these people to talk/convince/cajole/lie. I do hear some older film pros talk about bringing tradition back, but many are not in a position to make that happen (or they film overseas.) I guess we just have to continue whispering into the ears of those who will listen while we try to keep our standards as high as we can and still make enough money to get by. I still consider the sound dept a crucial part of a production. As I'm sure you know, the human ear can pick out audio mistakes far more readily than visual ones. Even with filmmakers like Lucas, Spielberg and Jackson who have proven time and time again how much sound is a part of the movie experience, many people ignore it. And the funny thing is we spend thousands on home surround sound systems! I guess they don't remember their Grandpa always saying "Garbage in, garbage out."

Thanks for asking, Tom! So what about you all out there...?