Could a space sci fi show have become mainstream in the 2010s?

[CmdrShep2154]

It seemed like space adventure outside of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" had a really hard time in the 2010s. The Expanse had to fight for it's life. J Michael Straczynski was working on an adaption of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy" but the studio he was working with was shuttered.

https://twitter.com/straczynski/stat...12320427220993



I would love to see an adaption of Iain M. Banks Culture series


but that went belly up as well.
https://www.tor.com/2020/08/24/amazo...omment-page-1/

Could a space sci fi show have become mainstream in the 2010s if it was of Game of Thrones or even "The Walking Dead" quality and on a mainstream network or would superheroes, zombies, and Game of Thrones be too strong for it to become successful? Has society in the 2010s stopped dreaming of a better future? Did space lose it's sense of wonder?

Could a space adventure be exciting without aliens and laser guns?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

It seemed like space adventure outside of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek"

Could a space sci fi show have become mainstream in the 2010s if it was of Game of Thrones or even "The Walking Dead" quality and on a mainstream network or would superheroes, zombies, and Game of Thrones be too strong for it to become successful?

You're aiming for the stars there and the window of opportunity has long since passed.

The massive, explosive popularity of Star Wars, Star Trek, and Harry Potter was facilitated by the normie corporate media. Harry Potter was the last gasp of an era in which there was a monolithic corporate infrastructure that could direct everybody's attention to this one thing and continue delivering to meet demand. We probably won't see an explosion in popularity like Star Wars or Harry Potter again, all pervading cultural phenomena known to everyone. Not even the MCU or Game of Thrones managed to achieve that level of popularity, as now people's options are too diversified to catch everybody's attention.

The other problem is that you want "hard sci fi" to become mainstream. It can't. "hard sci fi" appeals to a niche demographic of people who know what fusion drives and Hohmann transfer orbits are and are interested in theorycrafting and such. If you look at mega popular fiction, like Harry Potter, Twilight, or Hunger Games, or Star Wars, you'll notice that they are written in a lower language level and don't have a lot of technical jargon. Younger readers can read it and understand it, and it appeals to older readers who want a light and easy read, particularly people who don't read a lot of books. If it's an easy book to read, then it is fun for them to read. For obvious reasons, a hard sci-fi novel that is pretty much a technical manual with a loose plot isn't going to have broad, mainstream appeal.

[aviger]

I mean we had one from the 90's to 2007, stargate sg-1. Still the longest running sci-fi show ever i think..
I'm still crying that the banks estate didn't go through with it, if i ever win a billion dollars ill probably spend 900 million of it on making that show :P

[Logwyn]

I mean we had one from the 90's to 2007, stargate sg-1. Still the longest running sci-fi show ever i think..
I'm still crying that the banks estate didn't go through with it, if i ever win a billion dollars ill probably spend 900 million of it on making that show :P

"Dr. Who" @ 43 years and 723 episodes.

Sci-Fi as others have said is a Niche Market. Also that was said so many different places out there to meet your almost individual taste that there is no "mainstream".

[Calfredd]

It seemed like space adventure outside of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" had a really hard time in the 2010s. The Expanse had to fight for it's life. J Michael Straczynski was working on an adaption of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy" but the studio he was working with was shuttered.

There's an entire megathread dedicated to the remastered Mass Effect games. Why haven't you been participating in it?

[Kokolums]

I hate the reimagined Battlestar Galactica / Expanse style of dark, gritty sci-fi, where everyone is constipated and gloomy.

I especially hate that they did it to Galactica, as the original series was a shining beacon in the opposite direction. The entire appeal of the 70s show was that despite humanity being on the brink, everyone was positive, happy, making jokes, having fun, wearing bright shiny uniforms and a total ray of sunshine. I LOVED that. And they went and destroyed it in the reimagined Galactica. Just disgusting.

[Biomega]

I mean we had one from the 90's to 2007, stargate sg-1. Still the longest running sci-fi show ever i think..

"Dr. Who" @ 43 years and 723 episodes.

I believe SG-1 is the longest CONTINUOUSLY running show, since Doctor Who had a long break in between.

Anyway, the problem is that SF is a tough sell. The whole Harry Potter MCU Star Wars thing isn't REALLY science fiction, it's more like fantasy with SF elements (or not). It doesn't compare to more traditional SF, which is and always has been quite niche.

Even successful shows like Babylon 5 weren't really mainstream, and it goes downhill from there pretty quick.

It's gotten a little better in recent years, but only a little - and part of that I think has to do with a shift in content delivery, as globally marketed on-demand video rather than localized network programming make it much easier to cater to niche audiences and streamline the income generated. And despite that, pretty much every SF show ever is fighting for survival from the get-go, and most remain niche start to finish.

To be honest I was actually surprised that Game of Thrones did as well as it did, too. I'd been reading the books since they came out and it was never a huge cultural phenomenon, but somehow the show hit the right stride, I guess. It's not impossible that some kind of SF show could do the same, but I would never expect it.

There's nothing on the horizon, either, that seems like it could take off. The biggest name of the upcoming projects is probably Foundation, and the teaser/trailer so far has not exactly inspired confidence among SF critics...

[Egomaniac]

Sci-Fi is more expensive to make than another procedural cop show.

[Biomega]

Sci-Fi is more expensive to make than another procedural cop show.

Maybe advances like Mandalorian-style filming using screens might change that, who knows. As technology improves and good CGI becomes cheaper and cheaper, it could well allow for a lot more variety of genres. It's not like random cop shows don't crash cars or blow up buildings on the regular, either

The biggest problem I see, personally, is that good SF is less straightforward in its storytelling than more 'realist' genres, or at least has that appearance. Plots can be difficult to follow sometimes when they get too technical or too involved in their own narrative devices; it's definitely the #1 complaint I've heard from people about what they don't like about SF (I deal with SF professionally as an academic). It's precisely what makes SF so powerful, too - but it sabotages efforts of getting into the mainstream.

[Hellobolis]

honestly, if marvel couldn't manage in the 2010s nobody could.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe advances like Mandalorian-style filming using screens might change that, who knows. As technology improves and good CGI becomes cheaper and cheaper, it could well allow for a lot more variety of genres. It's not like random cop shows don't crash cars or blow up buildings on the regular, either

The biggest problem I see, personally, is that good SF is less straightforward in its storytelling than more 'realist' genres, or at least has that appearance. Plots can be difficult to follow sometimes when they get too technical or too involved in their own narrative devices; it's definitely the #1 complaint I've heard from people about what they don't like about SF (I deal with SF professionally as an academic). It's precisely what makes SF so powerful, too - but it sabotages efforts of getting into the mainstream.

kinda feel like that is a thing of the past. there have been lots of shows in all genres with complicated plots the last ~5 years i feel. to the point that the "first season is just to set up the story and introduce everything" has become a thing that annoys me.

[Endus]

The other problem is that you want "hard sci fi" to become mainstream. It can't. "hard sci fi" appeals to a niche demographic of people who know what fusion drives and Hohmann transfer orbits are and are interested in theorycrafting and such.

Pretty much. Hard science fiction's incredibly difficult to film, and most of the examples that we do have don't actually end up very popular; hey have high critical reviews, but they're not blockbusters.

I guarantee what most people would pull out as a "hard sci fi blockbuster" is absolutely not "hard" in any way whatsoever.

Anyway, the problem is that SF is a tough sell. The whole Harry Potter MCU Star Wars thing isn't REALLY science fiction, it's more like fantasy with SF elements (or not). It doesn't compare to more traditional SF, which is and always has been quite niche.

That's not a distinction that exists, genre-wise. Fantasy and sci-fi are both speculative fiction. There is no hard distinction between the two, and there's a lot of major works that tread the line between the two pretty directly. Star Wars is sci-fi. That there's fantastical elements does not matter, what matters is the framing; the space-travel focus and laser pistols and that sort of stuff. Star Wars is as much sci-fi as, say, E.E. Smith's Skylark and Lensman series', arguably the first major space operas.

The lack of "hard" science components is completely irrelevant to the genre classification; those are only expected in hard science fiction, and the reason for the subgenre's identity as a "thing".

If you're gonna claim that pseudo-religious mysticism makes something "not science fiction", then you're excluding Dune and it's sequels from the genre.

If you're gonna claim that the science needs to be "hard", then you're excluding things like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or any number of Wells' works like War of the Worlds or The Time Machine, iconic works which in many cases created entire sub-subgenres that are still explored today.

If you're gonna claim that there even needs to be a focus on science, you're gonna exclude works like Asimov's Foundation, Star Trek, 1984, Brave New World, hell, most of science fiction.

Star Wars and Star Trek, particularly, are both made out of the same cloth. They're both space operas that skate over the science to tell stories. Star Wars focuses on heroic adventure where Star Trek focuses on moral philosophizing, usually in incredibly shallow ways. Gene Roddenberry should be held up right next to George Lucas for "guys who need a metric fuckton of editing before their ideas are worth a damn".

[Super Kami Dende]

I'm sure if Stargate SG-1 had continued on, it would have been fine into the 2010's.

Hell SG-1 is one of the best TV shows ever created and the absolute beauty of it is it would still work today since it was EXTREMELY diverse in its Cast and Story range. Which is what idiots tend to complain about most with TV shows these days.

[Ygg]

a hard sci-fi novel that is pretty much a technical manual with a loose plot

I like this description. When I read hard sci-fi it sometimes felt like having Sheldon reading over my shoulder and interrupting the plot to explain at length some technical detail. I think it's hard to keep the hard part in mainstream adaptations.

[exochaft]

Technically anything could be made, you'd just need the script to be good enough that investors/production companies/etc. think they could get some returns off of it. However, a lot of the mainstream content is pretty low effort at this point, as either the content makers either are afraid to take risks or are entrenched in their social/political echo chambers to where there's a 'correct' way to do things (although one leads to the other, I suppose). Regardless, it doesn't help when people praise and throw money at mediocrity, especially from the larger companies and producers; it only encourages the sustaining of pumping out low effort content because it's profitable (or profitable enough).

How does this tie into space sci-fi? The sci-fi shows and franchises of the last decade tend to start out as or devolve into condescending, preachy, and melodramatic crap, as creators were worried more about having a platform than a cohesive product that appealed to its masses. That's pretty much what has happened to Dr. Who and various Star Trek series, just to name a few. Worst of all, there was a tendency to also mess with or completely destroy established canon and characters... so the die-hard fans tended to leave in droves (if you follow viewership numbers, you can see massive drop-offs in viewers as the shows progress). These companies took existing franchises with established bases, created content for a difference audience (sometimes even attacking their established fan base), and they don't get viewers from their target audience while hemorrhaging the franchise's established base. It's basically a lose-lose, and it kills any chance of establishing new sci-fi content because the establish franchise failures are deemed as "Well, people just don't like sci-fi!"... when the reality is they were spitting in the faces of their existing fan base while making terrible content that appealed to almost no one.

If we expand sci-fi to cover more fantasy-oriented content (which I think it should), you run into similar issues: the writing tends to be terrible, targeting an audience that is an extreme minority or doesn't exist. It's not universal, of course, but I've been noticing more and more that TV shows just cannot measure up to the leviathans that came before it. The shows tend to be overrun with current-day politics and social messaging, more often that not completely clashing with the established universe and/or ruining the story. But there's a bigger problem: most people want to watch these shows to escape their everyday crap and be entertained, and constantly throwing current-day social/political crap into your shows is just going to turn off and/or alienate your viewers.

So yeah, it's a self-defeating cycle: show runners are putting out crap sci-fi that not only tries to target a demographic that doesn't care about sci-fi, but also alienates the demographic that does like sci-fi, all while treating shows as platforms instead of trying to make entertaining content that appeals to the masses while providing the escapism people are looking for. If your sci-fi shows make the viewers feel like they're watching a current-day 24-hr news network, there's no way in hell you're going to expand the audience for sci-fi.

I'm sure if Stargate SG-1 had continued on, it would have been fine into the 2010's.

Hell SG-1 is one of the best TV shows ever created and the absolute beauty of it is it would still work today since it was EXTREMELY diverse in its Cast and Story range. Which is what idiots tend to complain about most with TV shows these days.

I'd be worried SG-1 would devolve into what we get today, I'd rather it stay a good memory at this point.

However, I will contest your point about the cast diversity: the complaints aren't about having a diverse cast... it's about putting diversity way above making a good show in terms of a priority. In SG-1, I didn't feel like the cast was picked as diversity hires, it felt like the best people for the roles were chosen. Besides, we've had tons of diverse casts (strong female leads, non-white protagonists, etc.) for decades in shows and movies that have praise from across the spectrum, and no one complained.

The current-day difference is that the quality of the shows are suffering because they're being used as political/social platforms to promote narratives (such as diversity) instead of focusing on making good scripts and good decisions when it comes to productions. The truth is that no one would care about the skin color of the actors, what genitalia they had, or who they like to have sex with, etc. if, a.) the content was actually good and well-crafted, b.) if the cast/crew was picked by ability instead of by their skin/gender/etc., and c.) if disliking their terrible content didn't get you berated as racist/sexist/etc.

Now this shouldn't be conflated with shows not being able to demonstrate social/political views in their content. Of course shows have done this successfully in the past, however the big difference is that the script and entertainment was placed well above the messaging aspect. The best way to win over people to your side or even simply getting people to think about social/political topics is to have a good script and an entertaining show... otherwise you're going to drive people away, even if your messaging is logical/rational.

[JDL49]

In the 70's and 80's because of the space race there was belief that some day we would reach space at a commercial level. As time marched on that has proven a non starter. At present it's not worth the cost and I haven't seen anything even hinting that will improve in the next century. No faith, no hope, no joy, no interest. Comic Book Movies are as close as you're going to get with a few exceptions.

[Super Kami Dende]

However, I will contest your point about the cast diversity: the complaints aren't about having a diverse cast... it's about putting diversity way above making a good show in terms of a priority. In SG-1, I didn't feel like the cast was picked as diversity hires, it felt like the best people for the roles were chosen. Besides, we've had tons of diverse casts (strong female leads, non-white protagonists, etc.) for decades in shows and movies that have praise from across the spectrum, and no one complained.

Oh I know that far too well myself, it's why in the last decade whenever People have had a cry about "diversity". I've always brought up my 3 Favourite TV series. Smallville, Angel and SG:SG-1. Which were all amazingly popular mainstream shows that had main casts and themes in the show which were very diverse without just being Token characters/narrative vessels. Teal'c and Sam Carter in SG:1 were Badass, Gunn, Fred, Buffy, Willow and Cordelia (and many others in the Buffyverse) were badass and all had actual emotional depth.

- - - Updated - - -

In the 70's and 80's because of the space race there was belief that some day we would reach space at a commercial level. As time marched on that has proven a non starter. At present it's not worth the cost and I haven't seen anything even hinting that will improve in the next century. No faith, no hope, no joy, no interest. Comic Book Movies are as close as you're going to get with a few exceptions.

That's kind of stupid thinking, considering we didn't need to believe in Magic and Dragons for GoT to be Popular.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

That's kind of stupid thinking, considering we didn't need to believe in Magic and Dragons for GoT to be Popular.

The "magic" of GoT isn't wonderous. It's mundane. The dragons also don't have the mystique of classical dragons; they're just alien beasts.

[Super Kami Dende]

The "magic" of GoT isn't wonderous. It's mundane. The dragons also don't have the mystique of classical dragons; they're just alien beasts.

and? that doesn't change my point in the slightest.

[cubby]

It seemed like space adventure outside of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" had a really hard time in the 2010s. The Expanse had to fight for it's life. J Michael Straczynski was working on an adaption of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy" but the studio he was working with was shuttered.

https://twitter.com/straczynski/stat...12320427220993

Could a space sci fi show have become mainstream in the 2010s if it was of Game of Thrones or even "The Walking Dead" quality and on a mainstream network or would superheroes, zombies, and Game of Thrones be too strong for it to become successful? Has society in the 2010s stopped dreaming of a better future? Did space lose it's sense of wonder?

Could a space adventure be exciting without aliens and laser guns?

Maybe - I think the answer is always "it depends" on the mood of the sci-fi crowd, the quality of the show (I mean, ffs, they canceled FireFly), and a number of almost intangible elements.

Damn - that would have been a nice series, the Robinson Mars trilogy.

[Koriani]

Considering we're all of 2 years out of the '2010' decade; I really don't think there was anything different about THEN vs. NOW as to why we didn't have a huge sci-fi hit. One wasn't written and supported well enough - for the myriad of reasons that exists as to 'why not?'

But it wasn't some cultural anti-sci-fi thing. No grand societal movement for or against. You gotta have a few more years away from a decade (like another decade or two lol) for one to really start to look at big picture stuff like that. We're 2 years out from the decade - tv shows haven't changed that much, in either direction.

Society didn't give up on science, or space 'dreams'. You just have stupid idiots as tv execs and the right scripts not getting to the right backing. That doesn't change, no matter the decade. Fantasy being popular doesn't exclude scifi from being popular, or visa versa. You can have all those tv shows you mentioned together - and none of them - and it doesn't mean anything as far as whether a 'scifi show will hit it big' (i.e. "mainstream").

And one example of 'what could have been popular scifi' of the top of my head - Almost Human. Awesome show. Weekly SCIFI 'cop procedural'. Fox screwed the pooch again and tanked its own show. Nothing to do with curtural norms or the "rise of magic and fantasy" in tv land. Just the idiots that are tv execs.