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...

Is There a Market For Thought-Provoking Content?

"Television is the first truly democratic culture - the first culture available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want. The most terrifying thing is what people do want."
-Clive Barnes, British-born drama critic.

With the overwhelming popularity of "reality TV," I think Mr. Barnes sentiment is heard loud an clear by many. But, does that mean people don't want to watch thought-provoking television or movies anymore?

A friend and I were talking about this subject in reference to science fiction and fantasy as those two genres are perfect for exploring the human condition. We were commiserating about the dwindling number of sci fi shows and films. Sci fi somewhere along the line was infiltrated by other genres and took over. Sci fi is now mostly an element of some other major genre like horror or drama. Horror/Slasher with sci fi elements like Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. A over-sexed political drama with sci fi elements like Battlestar Galactica. Or a lame attempt at Flash Gordon which is more like a contemporary cop show than it is sci fi. These shows and films do not put their sci fi roots first, they only use elements. Gone are Firefly, Farscape and Enterprise prematurely. Gone is Masters of Science Fiction. We have to look to the Brits with Doctor Who and Torchwood to get new sci fi. Stargate: Atlantis has had some really smashing shows and I look forward to more, but how many years do they have left? Bionic Woman will undoubtedly be another cop show. And in the theater, what's coming? There are a few interesting children's fantasies coming, but I don't know of anything sci fi save Star Trek 11. So, is there a reason for this?

I think there is certainly a market for (real) sci fi and fantasy. I just don't know if networks are willing to fund them because they don't usually get very high ratings. They get millions of people watching, but it seems they can't get the viewership of Survivor or Dancing With the Stars. It's the same deal with any thought provoking show that's not a cop show. It's the same at the theater, too. Studios want shapely teen butts in seats at the mall googaplex because that's where the big money is (they think.) They want Wedding Crashers and remakes and cheap horror flicks because they make a bigger percentage than most all thought provoking films. They consider Star Wars and Lord of the Rings as aberrations and similar projects far too risky. Of course, they're right. They are risky and it's likely that some of the Hollywood fodder will make a larger percentage than it cost to make, but they forget that there is a good chance that well written and executed sci fi will make at least some profit and have video sales from now until doomsday. Wedding Crashers will fade into obscurity, while some fans will have a SelectaVision, VHS, DVD and BluRay of Blade Runner. (They may also have the 2nd release --or is it 3rd-- DVD set coming out in December... oh and the HD DVD.) Oh, and yes I said SelectaVision which was indeed the coolest thing.

It's very possible for a thoughtful show or film to be successful, but networks and studios really have to be reminded of that over and over. For networks, sci fi is expensive to make. Reality TV is super cheap. And reality TV has been getting a massive viewership way beyond many thoughtful shows. That short term history is what they see. And the viewership has a large contingent of impressionable McDonald's eating people and advertisers like that. So, it's a really hard sell on TV because other reality-based shows are selling very well, too. Cop shows, lawyer shows and special agents are huge. It's a tough nut to crack. Of course, sci fi is sometimes too hard for marketers to grasp anyhow. And marketers rule the roost. And who knows if we'll still have an ally with Scifi Channel. They aren't producing very many new original shows and the ones they are creating are mostly cheap crap. Of course, the original movies also have not improved-- rather those crews are probably the ones who are making the shows now. Atlantis is the only good show being made except for Doctor Who, which is bought in syndication. They picked up Enterprise and Jake 2.0 which originally aired on failed UPN, but their running out of old shows to buy. NBC has already put at least one WWE show on Scifi and uses the space for repeats of their main network shows. I'm afraid NBC is just going to transition it into something other than Scifi because they think advertisers will like it more if it didn't say sci fi anymore. I'm not sure.

For film, it's a little less bleak. Wedding Crashers made 400% more money than it took to shoot and promote. Holy wow what a bargain, right? Well, Star Wars Episode III made over 500%. Return of the King, 660%. When it's good and appeals to a wide audience, the film puts butts in seats. (Heh, the LotR trilogy grossed $2,923,933,388. Yeah, that's billion with a "B." And last I knew New Line still hadn't paid the cast and crew for the reshoots.) Marketers still rule the roost, but maybe they can be more easily convinced than on TV.

I guess the bottom line is we have to figure out how to remind those in power (marketers) that thoughtful content makes money, too. And then we have to make sure they stay out of making creative decisions! The level of trust given to creators by studios and networks may be at an all-time low. Or, maybe creators are just capitulating or simply aren't getting hired because they're... too creative? Too interested in making good content? Or is it that they're just not getting enough funding? I don't know, but something has to inform the powers that we're all in this together and new, progressive content is the only thing that will ensure a long future for filmed entertainment. Wouldn't that be a kicker if video games overtake TV and film because they're stories are deeper and more entertaining...

So what do you guys think? Are there movies or shows coming up that I don't know about? Is there hope on the horizon that I can't see? I want to know! As always, thanks much for reading.

Star Trek to be 'Re-Imagined' for More Curb Appeal

I recently saw the IFC show "Dinner for Five" (normally hosted by Jon Favearu, this one by Kevin Smith) and J.J. Abrams was one of the great guests. Seeing him in this casual round table multi-interview, I really got to like him. He described how his connections and writing skills ended up creating a cascade effect for his career he would never had anticipated. This doesn't mean I take back my open questions from my earlier Star Trek XI post, but I was glad to see that Mr. Abrams seems like a nice, humble guy. Unfortunately, the questions I had about Trek XI are becoming more apparent at the least, dire at the most. According to recent interviews, it's apparent that this production is not doing what I prescribed (not that they would, I don't think they read my wee blog) and they are doing as I feared. For the creative team behind this film, they're gathering together a who's-worked-with-who-before line up of folks that have worked on previous Abrams projects. I'm not saying these people aren't talented or capable, but what do they know about Trek? Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were writers on two campy favorites of mine, "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and "Jack of All Trades," but no Trek, no sci fi. They did however write my favorite film in the world, The Island (please note my sarcasm). Scott Chambliss, production designer, no Trek, no sci fi. Jennifer Garner is now rumored to be Spock's love interest. Double huh?? I'm not saying that you have to fill the crew with Trek alums, but the closest they've come is a conversation with the venerable Marc Zicree. There is such a wealth of amazing people who have contributed to Trek and to science fiction over the years, I just think it's simply nearsighted to hire all your buds. I totally understand that it's best to know who you're working with personally, but this Hollywood form of "cronyism" is probably the reason we have so few great studio films these days. Even with my relatively deep familiarity with Star Trek, I would at least consult the people who know more than I. Not doing so would be like making a Spider-man movie without ever talking to Stan Lee-- simply unthinkable! I've never met Stan (although I'd love to), but that doesn't mean I'd be afraid to include him. And now the Orci/Kurtzman team have commented that ST:XI will not be a prequel to the Original Series, but a 're-imaging' of the mythos. They've been watching and reading Trek all their lives, they said. It makes perfect sense then that the first thing they want to do is change it.

It seems to be the new buzz word in Hollywood--"re-imaging." This is what they did to James Bond in Casino Royal. Casino Royal is a gritty updated-pre-sequel (I'm coining that one) where it's set now-a-days, but Bond is as young and green as… okay, so in the film he's only young. The first film to do this in recent memory is The Sum of All Fears in which Ben Affleck plays a young-again Jack Ryan and the Tom Clancey Cold War story is brought to present day. The next was probably Batman Begins which tells a slightly more realistic and detailed story of Bruce Wayne's evolution into The Batman. That film also brought Bats, with an amazing cast lead by Christian Bale, up to the present day although there was still a timelessness of Gotham as a nior forward-backward Metropolis. The problem with Casino is that they took out everything that comprises a Bond flick (the mystique, the swagger, the ladies, the super-spy gadgets and the humor) which made the film generic. Truly, the only real resemblance to Bond was the name which makes me wish they had just started a new franchise and called the characters something else. This is what I don't want to happen to Trek. The writers talk about how they want to be "100 percent true to the fanbase," yet make the films more "accessible." That frightens me. They're talking about actively attempting to write the film to so it appeals to a wider audience. How narrow is the appeal? I personally don't know anyone who won't watch Trek, but watches other sci fi content. Usually, people either like sci fi or they don't. Trek or no Trek. Unlike space operas like Star Wars, these films are specifically intended to be explorations into the human condition through science fiction. Star Wars may appeal to a wider audience because it's not intended to be science fiction, but a fun and exciting serial with roots in myth and legend, just like early opera. To make Trek 'more appealing' would be like making Battlestar Galactica into a sex-driven soap opera about "who's baby is it?" Huh? They already did that? Okay, it would be like making The Doctor in "Doctor Who" twenty years old, giving him a hot blonde companion and a libido… What's that? They have? Oh dear lord, is nothing sacred?! I think you get the picture folks. There is no way to force Star Trek to appeal to everyone and it still be Trek. All you can do is spend some time and money and write a truly stellar script that speaks to the human (or Vulcan) in all of us. Then, have a strong advertising campaign that gets the word out that no matter who you are, this is a movie to see. Then, maybe they won't mind that it's not Armageddon. Like I've said before, a deep, dramatic, star blazing adventure about Kirk getting his wings with Spock by his side will appeal to a lot of non-Trekkies/ers regardless. Buddy films put butts in seats, too (Shawshank Redemption). But, if getting more Trek on the big screen means dumbing it down, adding soapy love interests and visceral violence, you can just count me out.

If you'll allow me to digress, I have to wonder if this is the trend to succeed remake mania. Not only remake films and adapt old TV shows, but rewrite the essence of whole franchises so maybe they will appeal to more people or another, larger segment of the population. Do they think by changing it all around will make it seem more like an original film and somehow have more credibility? "Sure it's another remake, but we changed it all around this time, see?" It feels like they're buying the license to a character or franchise just so they can make a knock-off and not get sued.

Of course, studios questioning the size of the sci fi viewership is nothing new. It's probably the reason we haven't seen many sci fi or space films/shows in a while. It's the same old rhetoric that potential audience is too small to make sci fi. Just like there supposedly isn't enough money in the school budget for music or art. At least internationally, history shows that most all sci fi makes it's money back and some even make gobs of cash. But that's not really the point, what I really mean is, so what? Should we ONLY make films to sell tickets on opening weekend? And since when did they think it would be smart to alienate the locked-in fanbase? If you make an excellent Trek film (and by "Trek film" I mean one that fits the established mythos, characterizations and vision), you may not make number one on the first weekend, but if it's released at a fitting time and it really IS good, it will rise to it's true value. Even if that didn't happen, it would quickly reach "cult status" and become a blockbuster video release (Donnie Darko). It's just that in my opinion, no film should be made simply to appeal to the most people possible. That's just pissing on the creator's grave (i.e. It's disrespectful). Comedies are very successful and most have a very wide potential audience. Should we make "CSI" or "24" into comedies in an effort to expand their appeal? Should we remake Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind, but as comedies? ‘Will Ferrell is Charles Foster Kane! In this re-imagined epic laugh fest you won't know what to do with your rosebud or where to put your Xanadu! Citizen Kane, coming this Christmas.' What do you hold sacred? Would you like it bastardized? Reprocessed to sell, sell, sell? Would you like it if William Petersen(Grissom), Marg Helgenberger(Catherine), Gary Dourdan(Warrick) and the rest of the cast of CSI were suddenly replaced with more widely known faces? ‘Yeah, they may not fit the parts, but we've gone seven seasons so, I think our fans will give Tom Delay, Paris Hilton and La Toya Jackson a chance.' That's what it feels like to me when people mess with Trek.

Okay, that's all from me… for now! Thank YOU for reading and PLEASE share your thoughts. And be ready because next month I'm going to rewrite this post, but with more sex, more explosions, gory accounts of torture, shorter words and I'll name it the same dang thing. Oh heck yeah, stay glued!

Pre-Original Trek on the Big Screen?

There have been some murmurs and now some hype about a 2008 Star Trek film possibly featuring a young Kirk and Spock as cadets back in the good old days of Star Trek. Here's a great article that collects the various tid-bits and clues floating around the world.

Personally, I don't know if JJ Abrams can do a Trek film justice. I feel it must be pointed out that in addition to shows like Alias and Lost, Abrams also created Felicity. Although I liked some of Alias, I find many of the storylines in Abram's shows to be simply preposterous; much like the film Armageddon (which he also wrote). When talking The Original Series (TOS) Trek we're talking about pulpy sci fi hits hard-science science fiction-- that's a difficult balance. Kirk has to get the ladies, but that can't be the whole show. The film has to make a profound point about society and the human condition; which to me is the guiding light of science fiction and is something the original series did well on many occasions. With Abrams at the con, this could quickly descend into NCC-90201. I like Abrams more than Michael Bay, but the two seem to have certain similar sensibilities about (not) developing realistic and compelling characters and storylines. I don't want to apply guilt by association, but other people who have worked along side Abrams also helped create Bay's horrible The Island and will soon crush the hopes of millions of Transformers fans when that disaster of a film is finally released (in which the similarities of the film to the original franchise pretty much end at the Autobot symbol). Is this really the guy we want? Should it matter that he's associated with (potential) franchise-killers? Well, I have to say that there are so many better creators out there who are being ignored. Wouldn't it be better to dig a little deeper and build a creative team of people who have been dreaming of creating Trek for a little longer or a little more? Abrams may call himself an Uber-Trekkie, but I can't see someone creating Felicity when he really wants to make Trek. Overall, Paramount has done a lot to lose the trust of Trek fans. Now that they own the franchise, CBS has only continued the erosion by announcing that in their forthcoming HD re-release of Star Trek: TOS they will be replacing many of the original special effects with new CG effects. Not only does that sound, well, really dumb and an extreme waste of time, to some, it's even sacrilegious. (Heck, as a visual effects artist, I think it's at the least dishonoring our visual effects heritage. One can only hope that, like the DVD releases of Doctor Who, you can turn off the replacement effects. And those original effects were REALLY... underfunded). If they're going to win back the trust of Trek fans, they have to show reverence for what has come before and make up for the poor choices they've made since The Next Generation. Not bringing Berman and Braga back might be a step in the right direction, but it won't heal the wounds.

Is the future-past story concept is a good one? Well, it may provide some fun situations and give the creators a chance to explore the characters and the Trek Universe in a different way. It may also free them from trying to continually stretch the TNG storyline as Berman/Braga did, which may be a boon. It may also be a chance to make up for the TNG mold they forced Enterprise into. The thing that this storyline would definitely have going for it is something that none of the later series had: the strong bond between Kirk, Spock and Bones (well, Data and Geordi, Paris and Kim were probably closest). I'm not saying that the others should have had that, but if you're going to use these characters, you have to include the genesis of that close friendship. As far as the look and feel of a film like this, clearly, CBS/Paramount et al are indicating that the old gold and blue colors will make a comeback, but I don't think you can make a feature film today that simply uses the same exact designs as the 60's show. Doing so would imply a certain tongue-in-cheek attitude that might not work if you want the audience to judge the film on its laurels and not as just some homage or parody. You need more detail in the designs or they'd end up looking cartoonish. Perhaps you have to start at the beginning, look through the prism of TOS and say "Okay, if the original series had money and things like laptops and cell phones had already existed, what might the series have looked like?" I think some of the costume and production designs for the TOS-crew films were brilliant, but much of it didn't really reflect The Original Series. The inspiration has to be there if fans are to enjoy it. And lastly, cast people who fit the roles, not just pretty faces. Say what you will about Shatner's acting, I think it takes a solid actor with the right attitude and even the right voice to pull off a character in sci fi. And that goes for crew as well. Don't hire someone to direct your film simply because he has some hit series and is a hot commodity in Hollywood. For both actors and crew, I think Hollywood is trapping itself inside ever-contracting bubble sort of like Washington D.C. Instead of actually looking for the right people to fill roles, Hollywood is limited by its rolodex. If so-and-so isn't in the rolodex, they don't exist. And we wonder why box office numbers are falling? Every community needs fresh blood in its gene pool or it will corrupt and die out. And fresh blood pumps in the veins as much in older individuals as younger. New people mean more risk, but the lack of risk-taking is probably the other biggest thing killing Hollywood. (Heck, if you wanted to choose a proven commodity, why not ask Joss Whedon, creator of the Buffy the Vampire and Firefly series? Now that could be cool!)

In the end, a good Star Trek story is much larger, much deeper and much more fun than any soap opera drama or action show set in contemporary times. Because of that, this film may be beyond JJ Abrams and many, many others, but if he can look beyond the immediate and finds the right people, young and old, Hollywood and not, he can make a truly amazing film. And, he can use his clout and popularity for good and make that big corporate conglomerate care about what they're making. Unfortunately, to do any less will mean the end of the franchise. (At least we'll still have New Voyages!)

That's only my jaw flappin' though. What do you think?


This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog. Here are the comments as posted:

Posted by Tantra on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I can appreciate your sentiments on this subject. Do you work with New Voyages? If so, I look forward to meeting you sometime. I'm with Farragut.

Holly

Posted by Ben'jamin on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Thanks Holly! I guess you could say I'm a little passionate about Trek and other great sci fi. I do work with New Voyages and I don't think I could forget who you are, Lt. Commander. Fair wind and calm seas to the cast and crew of Starship Farragut!