What happened to this genre?

[Kato]

One thing that worries me is how the demographics are being measured. Back when SG-1 was in its later seasons I saw a Q&A panel at a convention where one of the show producers requested that the viewers NOT watch the show online and NOT DVR it. And when I say "not watch online", I don't mean Torrent it or anything like that - I mean watching it on Hulu, legally.

This was because the purse strings were tied directly to LIVE television. Any other method of watching would not be counted. Given the younger audience of SG-1, this was patently insane - many of the people who watched the shows didn't even have cable.

Yeah, that is an issue that has become quite critical lately... of course there are such things as merchandise sales but those won't fix the problem of lacking viewership due to streams. Of course, then there are people who don't have access to hulu (foreigners) and still want to watch the show, so options are few. Netflix I think has become kind of a way to work against it because it's pretty widely available by now but there will always be more younger people who like a show but don't impact viewing measurements, for one reason or another.

[Derthric]

Yeah, that is an issue that has become quite critical lately... of course there are such things as merchandise sales but those won't fix the problem of lacking viewership due to streams. Of course, then there are people who don't have access to hulu (foreigners) and still want to watch the show, so options are few. Netflix I think has become kind of a way to work against it because it's pretty widely available by now but there will always be more younger people who like a show but don't impact viewing measurements, for one reason or another.

It's an issue, but one that has lessened as a problem since 08 when SG-1 went off the air. Nielson still does their "Nielson families" and ratings but there are other ratings now being factored in, such as C7 ratings which factor in On-Demand viewing over the subsequent 7 days after initial broadcast. It's not perfect and I think separate streaming services all guard their viewing numbers like a buck toothed prospector and his one gold nugget. But TV is going through a change.

But that too is also a problem. Do you gamble big money on an SF show in traditional media when things are changing? Or in a new medium that you don't have full control over and whose impact is not as easily or immediately measurable, and thus harder to monetize?

[Aotrs Commander]

It was at the point I read about one gentleman who was doing Neilsen ratings or something, and foun out that it was basically a book you filled in that I realised that the "ratings" and how many people actually watch something, may have very little in common. Especially when you realise that all things like Neilsen ratings will actually measure... is what people who are being recorded by Neilsen ratings will watch. It's actually a litle dangerous to assume that you have a big enough sample that you've covered everyone, when you actually don't know what the real numbers are... I suspect the actual accuracy - if anyone actually knew what the real numbers were (and that might be something you can only get realisitcally now trhough things like online viewing number or from stuff like Netflicks (which of course will be resisted by major corporations as they always do whenever something comes along that means they might actually have to change the way they try and stuff money out of people...) - would frighten the living crap out of the ratings people.

[BannedInSchool]

But that too is also a problem. Do you gamble big money on an SF show in traditional media when things are changing? Or in a new medium that you don't have full control over and whose impact is not as easily or immediately measurable, and thus harder to monetize?

The television vs online delivery is even more complex for professional sports with team sponsors. The sponsors basically just want eyeballs watching, but prefer television eyeballs to online views. The sport would like to sell the rights to broadcast the event to make money for themselves, but also want even free online eyeballs to make their competitors happy. Whoever buys those broadcast rights wants them to be exclusive, both television and online, to force all eyeballs to them exclusively to make money from selling ads and carrier fees from cable/satellite. There was once a pretty bizarre incident of an auto racing series in the States that ended up with no television contract and signed to be carried on ESPN3.com (which is neither a TV channel nor freely available to everyone online). The series announced they'd have the first race broadcast over the air on a local TV station for local fans, but I can only imagine the ESPN/ABC/Disney lawyers descended like the Hammer of God on them as only a test pattern was ever aired on TV. Oh, and the participants and their sponsors were Not Amused by not being on television at all and with restricted online access that year.

But anyway, for television in general it seems to be expanding or transitioning into also being online rather than being replaced exactly. I hope they find some way to account for the value of views and that TV shows that actually require a budget can continue to be made. Er, be made again? If you can make more money strapping a GoPro to a moose in Alaska than dropping $1M per episode of a Space Opera when even Star Trek fell down and went boom on TV, then it's hard to make up the difference with KickStarter. Maybe just goals of $10M for a half season at a time?

[Bulldog Psion]

Hm ... do you guys suspect this is another spambot that started a thread accidentally that turned into an interesting discussion?

Evidence:

1. Weird name.

2. Just signed up this month.

3. Has only made one post anywhere on the board.

[Douglas]

It was at the point I read about one gentleman who was doing Neilsen ratings or something, and foun out that it was basically a book you filled in that I realised that the "ratings" and how many people actually watch something, may have very little in common. Especially when you realise that all things like Neilsen ratings will actually measure... is what people who are being recorded by Neilsen ratings will watch. It's actually a litle dangerous to assume that you have a big enough sample that you've covered everyone, when you actually don't know what the real numbers are... I suspect the actual accuracy - if anyone actually knew what the real numbers were (and that might be something you can only get realisitcally now trhough things like online viewing number or from stuff like Netflicks (which of course will be resisted by major corporations as they always do whenever something comes along that means they might actually have to change the way they try and stuff money out of people...) - would frighten the living crap out of the ratings people.

This discussion reminds me of an article I read about getting funding for the recent Daredevil show. As I recall, they couldn't convince any conventional producers to give them a chance without changing the show in ways that just would not fit (in particular, making a mostly independent pilot episode). Then they talked with Netflix, and Netflix came back with "our viewer statistics analysis department says our viewers will love this, we'll fund an entire season up front".

Hm ... do you guys suspect this is another spambot that started a thread accidentally that turned into an interesting discussion?

Evidence:

1. Weird name.

2. Just signed up this month.

3. Has only made one post anywhere on the board.

Only if it's this variety of spambot. The spambot you're referring to had a critical spammy detail that this post does not.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

No one makes good solid reggae anymore. I have to go to Congos collaborations if I want my fix. I'm wearing out my copy of "Marcus Garvey" on this nonsense.

[Grinner]

... I suspect the actual accuracy...would frighten the living crap out of the ratings people.

There's an advertising group which, as I understand it, essentially practice psychohistory. They claim to have such a precise targeted marketing that they can guarantee a minimum number of customers per advertising campaign.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/bu...s-new-ad-model

[Lethologica]

There's an advertising group which, as I understand it, essentially practice psychohistory. They claim to have such a precise targeted marketing that they can guarantee a minimum number of customers per advertising campaign.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/bu...s-new-ad-model

It's actually almost the opposite--whereas psychohistory is more successful the broader the trends it describes, these advertisers become more successful by targeting extremely narrowly. This is my area of (extremely limited) expertise. The linked article describes some companies bringing tricks of the digital advertising trade to TV. My WAG is that they probably link TV viewing to online identities via email addresses, track the behavior of known customers, create lookalike profiles based on that behavioral data, advertise to customers who fit those profiles, and attempt to track those customers' downstream engagement with the product. Actually getting the sale is one of the furthest downstream forms of engagement and therefore one of the hardest to 'guarantee'.

And it should be noted that the quality of measurement of downstream engagement varies widely. I work on measuring offline retail sales attributable to digital advertising, and as far as I can tell, much of the business is a fudge job. Aotrs Commander is right to pick on Nielsen ratings in particular--statistically speaking, those metrics have extremely dubious validity. Keep in mind that advertising companies are generally best at advertising their own services.

[Alent]

On the main subject, the writers' guild strike landing at the same time as the financial crisis was instrumental in the death of high budget sci-fi TV series. (Not just space operas) During the strike all of the "original shows" on Sci-fi channel had visible quality drops during it from which most didn't recover. It was just a perfect storm of everything going wrong for the subgenre, all at once.

As I think was already pointed out, Sci-fi channel was really the only home for the demographic that watches space operas at the time, what followed was pretty bad since after that Sci-fi fired the only guy who knew how to use spellcheck, and slowly cancelled all their expensive space operas and adapted them into cheaper forms until eventually you get to the Slipstream subgenre and pro wrestling that drove off most of their base.

That's not to say the subgenre is dead. With advances in Machinima and the relatively high quality of home film and photography equipment, I honestly expect the genre to continue online via indie and fan productions like "Star Trek Continues" until someone comes up with an indie sci-fi show that really nails the genre and gets funded by Netflix or someone. The low barriers to entry in alternative media combined with the relatively low expectations of said alternative media really are just an opportunity waiting to happen.

To say nothing of the shot in the arm that the new Star Wars movie could be for the genre if everything goes right.

[tomandtish]

The stupid part was when they cancelled SG-1... for one other reason than it had been going for ten years, and it was like the idea of a sci-fi show running longer than a non-sci-fi show was some sort of gross sin against the studioes or something.

They cancelled it because the ratings had dropped low enough that COMBINED with the cost (many forget that part) they felt it wasn't profitable to keep it on the air anymore. Season 10 premiered to their lowest viewership ever and it went downhill from there.

Eh, I wasn't sad to see SG-1 die. The series was good through season 7, but had started to go downhill in season 8 and didn't really survive Richard Dean Anderson leaving those last two seasons.

For a show with an ongoing plot, 5-7 seasons is really about as long as you want to take it before things start getting ludicrous. You can only almost-blow-up-the-world so many times.

Agreed that RDA leaving was certainly part of it. Cost is also part. As a show ages, the costs go up.

One thing that worries me is how the demographics are being measured. Back when SG-1 was in its later seasons I saw a Q&A panel at a convention where one of the show producers requested that the viewers NOT watch the show online and NOT DVR it. And when I say "not watch online", I don't mean Torrent it or anything like that - I mean watching it on Hulu, legally.

This was because the purse strings were tied directly to LIVE television. Any other method of watching would not be counted. Given the younger audience of SG-1, this was patently insane - many of the people who watched the shows didn't even have cable.

And they continue to be. While the networks will always use the PR of streaming and DVR viewing to hype how well a show does, the truth is that the only thing that matters are those viewers who watch in a way that matter to advertisers. They are the ones paying the money.

The Cancellation Bear has several good articles on the subject.

Like many genres, this one is just taking a break. Superheroes (or otherwise "powered" beings) are what is "in" right now. Sooner or later they will have their turn back on the shelf.

[CmdrShep2183]

Will this be the show that saves Syfy and the space opera genre?

[Ranxerox]

That looks awesome! However, since it's SyFy so probably best not to get your hopes too high.

Now this is a different subgenre of space opera from exploratory shows like Star Trek, but that is fine with me. Personally, I feel it is time we get off this rock and the first step to that is conquering our own solar system. Entertainment on the subject is oen way to keep people focused on the sorts of challenges that we actually start working on without inventing warp drive or something.

[Rodin]

That looks awesome! However, since it's SyFy so probably best not to get your hopes too high.

Now this is a different subgenre of space opera from exploratory shows like Star Trek, but that is fine with me. Personally, I feel it is time we get off this rock and the first step to that is conquering our own solar system. Entertainment on the subject is oen way to keep people focused on the sorts of challenges that we actually start working on without inventing warp drive or something.

Yeah, one thing I've noticed about all the new SyFy shows is that there are no aliens in sight. It continues the trend of less and less alien societies in Sci-Fi shows (from Star Trek/Babylon 5 with dozens, to Stargate with a handful, to BSG with one/none).

Are they just unhip now? The reaction in the Mass Effect thread to the news that it's going to be a human player character indicates otherwise...but then, that's polling members of the sub-genre with aliens.

[Kitten Champion]

Yeah, one thing I've noticed about all the new SyFy shows is that there are no aliens in sight. It continues the trend of less and less alien societies in Sci-Fi shows (from Star Trek/Babylon 5 with dozens, to Stargate with a handful, to BSG with one/none).

Are they just unhip now? The reaction in the Mass Effect thread to the news that it's going to be a human player character indicates otherwise...but then, that's polling members of the sub-genre with aliens.

Eh, I wouldn't say unhip. The generally popular Guardians of the Galaxy was filled to the brim with colourful aliens. Evoking the richness of its source material quite pleasantly, especially with the main cast.

I think its more a matter of budget, the thinking being that going with a grittier visual style where your limitations as a television series aren't as evident gives the show more weight than it would otherwise... and because, well, genre television still has a lingering fear of being marginalized because of the paper moon sailing over a cardboard sea, Basically that the inability to realize the fantastical in any believable way becoming this anchor around its neck in getting mainstream recognition - and studio people want to be the next BSG or Firefly more than the current Defiance.

[Eldan]

Guardians of the Galaxy? Apart from Groot and the Raccoon, it had six varieties of painted human. They didn't even have Star Trek forehead bumps. Honestly, the aliens were quite, quite unimaginative there.

[Rodin]

Guardians of the Galaxy? Apart from Groot and the Raccoon, it had six varieties of painted human. They didn't even have Star Trek forehead bumps. Honestly, the aliens were quite, quite unimaginative there.

For TV shows with their limited budget, I'm quite happy to have Rubber Forehead Aliens as long as they do something interesting with that species. For instance, the Drell from Mass Effect would be something I'd really like to see expanded upon. They would be relatively easy to have a make-up version of them (only hard part is the eyes), and both their client relationship with the Hanar and their eidetic memories make for great story telling hooks.

Starfish Aliens would be great, but it's been proven that those are really difficult to film with on a limited budget. There was a bug race in Babylon 5 that really only hung around for the first season or so because the model was fiddly, expensive, and kept breaking.

[Eldan]

Sure, but if anyone has the budget right now, surely it would be Marvel.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Sure, but if anyone has the budget right now, surely it would be Marvel.

Now, here's something I wonder: in the Marvelverse, are there many aliens who aren't "painted up human" aliens? From my cursory familiarity, it doesn't seem like a thing.

I'd love to see some Farscape-brand alien awesomeness.

[Bulldog Psion]

Guardians of the Galaxy? Apart from Groot and the Raccoon, it had six varieties of painted human. They didn't even have Star Trek forehead bumps. Honestly, the aliens were quite, quite unimaginative there.

Agreed. Not knowing the backstory, I just assumed that all the characters shown were from different subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens that somehow evolved in nearby solar systems.

Have very little "Marvel Universe" background, I honestly didn't think there were any true "aliens" in that movie at all with the exception of Groot. More like if you had an ensemble of H. sapiens, H. erectus, H. neaderthalensis, etc. just in a space setting.

[Olinser]

While yes, special effects and whatnot are much better today, those come with an equivalent price tag. Back in the Star Trek heyday, each individual show was VERY expensive (Deep Space 9 had production costs of $2-4 million per episode, increasing towards the end of the shows run). And that was getting away with using stock footage and models rather than CGI.

Such costs would be even higher today, because quality effects are EXPENSIVE today, and fans are no longer willing to accept lower quality effects. And included in the higher costs are a significantly more intense work load necessary to keep up with the release schedule of the show.

You can get away with it in games because you can design a game to use effectively a continuous art style, so realistically proportioned visual models are not necessary. The Citadel battle linked in the OP is acceptable in a game like Mass Effect because the models and effects are consistent with the entire visual style of the game. You could NOT put that same battle sequence in a Star Trek movie - it would be torn apart as cheap effects.

On a live action TV show or movie, people today are unwilling to accept lower-quality or obviously not realistic models/effects.

And that doesn't even getting into the necessity of encountering visually distinct alien races. Star Trek got away with it in the 90s, but Enterprise and even Voyager were getting a decent amount of backlash from essentially including a whole bunch of 'aliens' that were people in a bit of makeup. Half the aliens in Enterprise were effectively humans with a little magic marker and dime store ears.

So why would a network deal with the huge hassle of having a large budget show with an intense workload when they can probably get a similar amount of viewers with releasing a cheap sitcom that basically 4 dudes with cameras and a plywood/furniture set can film in a day?

[Grinner]

And that doesn't even getting into the necessity of encountering visually distinct alien races. Star Trek got away with it in the 90s, but Enterprise and even Voyager were getting a decent amount of backlash from essentially including a whole bunch of 'aliens' that were people in a bit of makeup. Half the aliens in Enterprise were effectively humans with a little magic marker and dime store ears.

I think it's really about how you package it, though. Doctor Who does something very similar in certain episodes, but I don't think anyone faults them for it.

For your front-and-center species of importance to the plot, yes, they're unique and well-costumed (i.e. Daleks). In other episodes, it seems to me that species of secondary and tertiary importance don't get all that much attention. These tend to appear in trading hubs, social gatherings, and the like, but they're still there.

[Giggling Ghast]

Two new sci-fi series just started up here in Canada. I dunno if I would call them space opera, but they are set in space. I watch new episodes on Friday nights.

The first series is Dark Matter, which is about six people who wake up on a mysterious ship missing their memories. The six crew members (plus an android) find out their identities fairly quickly, and it turns out that most of them weren't very nice people. The question driving the plot is who erased their memories, and why? It's a bit low-budget and the setting is a fairly bog standard "space exploration is dominated by mega-corporations" scenario, but I'm quite enjoying it.

The second series is Killjoys, which is the nickname for the bounty hunters the series is based on. So far, it's mostly "bounty of the week," though there are hints of a larger metaplot. Again, another "space exploration dominated by mega corporations," but with more of a Firefly feel. Considerably smaller cast than Dark Matter and a bit too much in love with its own style, but I'm still liking it.

[Lethologica]

While yes, special effects and whatnot are much better today, those come with an equivalent price tag. Back in the Star Trek heyday, each individual show was VERY expensive (Deep Space 9 had production costs of $2-4 million per episode, increasing towards the end of the shows run). And that was getting away with using stock footage and models rather than CGI.

Such costs would be even higher today, because quality effects are EXPENSIVE today, and fans are no longer willing to accept lower quality effects. And included in the higher costs are a significantly more intense work load necessary to keep up with the release schedule of the show.

You can get away with it in games because you can design a game to use effectively a continuous art style, so realistically proportioned visual models are not necessary. The Citadel battle linked in the OP is acceptable in a game like Mass Effect because the models and effects are consistent with the entire visual style of the game. You could NOT put that same battle sequence in a Star Trek movie - it would be torn apart as cheap effects.

On a live action TV show or movie, people today are unwilling to accept lower-quality or obviously not realistic models/effects.

And that doesn't even getting into the necessity of encountering visually distinct alien races. Star Trek got away with it in the 90s, but Enterprise and even Voyager were getting a decent amount of backlash from essentially including a whole bunch of 'aliens' that were people in a bit of makeup. Half the aliens in Enterprise were effectively humans with a little magic marker and dime store ears.

So why would a network deal with the huge hassle of having a large budget show with an intense workload when they can probably get a similar amount of viewers with releasing a cheap sitcom that basically 4 dudes with cameras and a plywood/furniture set can film in a day?

A reality TV show might budget $100k-$500k per episode. The low end of the market is glutted with them. But then you have Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, Deadwood, Rome, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Marco Polo, Mad Men, Orange Is The New Black...all of which are at least a few million per episode, as much as $9 million per episode for Marco Polo. And the average cable show costs $2 million per episode. One of the ongoing narratives of TV is the rise of long-form storytelling, which happens at the high end of the market, over the last 15 years.

So the market for risky, high-budget scripted shows isn't exactly dead in the water. Are we saying that SF budgets are even higher than that? Or that SF was formerly able to happen on a medium-sized budget, and isn't anymore? And if all that is true, what are we to make of the upcoming space opera series mentioned upthread? Is HBO's decision to release Foundation a massive ****up? Is SyFy doomed because they're releasing Expanse instead of upping the ante on pro wrestling? Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, but what I can puzzle out doesn't seem to align with SF being priced out of the market.

[Rodin]

I got the impression that newer effects were considerably cheaper than the old-school models. At least, I seem to recall one of the Star Trek: TNG guys commentating on how much cheaper their effects were than TOS, and one of the Babylon 5 guys commenting on how much better it was to be working in CGI instead of models.

Of course, with modern effects and HD TVs that may be different. Then again, I can't really see space shows being any harder to produce than the likes of Agents of Shield or any of the other new superhero shows.

[russdm]

I had the impression that the lack of good Sci-Fi was caused by changes in our society outlook plus puerile shows like Star Trek Voyager and Enterprise, combined with Buffy and Angel. BSG ended and we don't see much about new shows beyond Game of Thrones (Which is an appalling monster that seems to rely solely on sex and violence to be appealing, da** the characters because they don't matter when Sex sells)

I liked Firefly and Dark Matter resembles it. It is fun though, and what I have seen of The Expense suggests it might be good or worth looking at. But most shows may copy the Sex/blood combination from Game of Thrones (Which DS9 never used to that extant and it worked), which happens to be not that impressive. More TV companies are going to try to copy GoT because how popular it is, which is a major bad sign for the future of good TV in my opinion. Just what TV truly needs, more shows like GoT (this is sarcasm)

Really looking forward to The Expanse. The books are excellent and well worth a read. Definitely my favourite ongoing sci-fi series at the moment.

There are books? What is the first one named?

I would love to see the Captain Worf series. Something that could have quality and be interesting, but Reality TV is still popular and I do look forward when the bottom of Reality TV falls out and it loses nearly all profit from it. Then we can get back to better TV again.

[Derthric]

One thing that hit me when I was trying to watch the first episode of Killjoys. This is also a Genre that does not know what to do with itself anymore. Part of the concept of shows like Farscape and Firefly was to be as un-star trek like as possible, to distance themselves from the then big gorilla in the room. But now, now many show runners look back at the last successful space opera, BSG and try to copy elements from that and repeat. But they miss the soul of the show in some way, I am looking at you Ascension.

And I think that puts potential fans of these shows in an awkward position. Do you get excited for the Expanse (just an example) and then get spurned because you wanted less Pew Pew? Or did you want more Pew Pew. Do you wait to see if it gets good buzz? I think a lot of people, both SF fans and just the general audience wait on getting on something until there is a bigger buzz and interest already there. It's what happened to Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and GoT. Those shows all saw their audience grow season over season, it was the times off their air that saw other fans basically pushing the show for them getting others exciting. I don't know if there is enough of a viewer base to start that critical mass chain reaction to get a SF show to those levels and then see the imitators come out in enough force to give us some quality.

On a personal note SyFy is making it more difficult to watch their shows. I have to sign into Hulu with my cable provider and the password isn't working. Killjoys and Defiance are not good enough for me to get on the phone with Verizon for an hour or so to sort it out. Putting up barriers to seeing the programming isn't helping at all.

[CmdrShep2183]

It's about damn time we had a high quality space opera on TV!

[Psyren]

The last Hollywood Blockbuster to really do the giant universe full of truly weird aliens was probably Men In Black. It's not making a good case for the genre though - so producers see that, get scared, and as a whole we revert to "painted humans."

But I agree with whoever said superheroes are scratching the sci-fi itch for most folks these days. Even Heroes is coming back of all things.

[Kislath]

I like Killjoys and Dark Matter. They're both really good and fun to watch, but yeah, okay...they aren't Star Trek.

If there was a new Space Opera show, what would be good?

Would you prefer a show with a firmly established backdrop of known space, species and politics, or a pioneering type show where our intrepid heroes set out in humanity's first faster-than-light starship with no idea what they'll find?