XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel
From: o@o.o
Jim Gysin opines:
> *Every* genre has a limited fan base, but the initial numbers for shows
> like LOST and FLASHFORWARD and THE EVENT tells us that the limit
> for the SF genre is still a very impressive one if a show is done well.
Your core, oft-repeated, point. The counter-point, repeated
by loads of people and always shrugged off, a final time
before you're plonked: if the appetite for TV science
fiction was as big as you think, surely some network would
have managed to reliably cater to it in decades of trying.
They haven't, which suggests the appetite isn't there, or
it's a very fickle audience, or doing good SF on TV is quite
hard for networks. It hasn't happened, and it's not likely
to, and all your talk ignoring reality is null.
CAPRICA
> only draws 700,000 because it's crap, not because it's cutting-edge and
> quality SF that's written for an audience base that maxes out at 701,000.
>
> >> A second and current example is the many WALKING DEAD threads here in the
> >> past few weeks. In them, I think that there have been a handful of
> >> references to the makeup effects and the like. Everything else has been
> >> about the story lines, the characters, their motivations, their choices,
> >> etc.
> >
> > ...or mostly the discussion has been about how stupid the characters are,
> > how illogical the plotline is, and how campy the entire comic book result
is
> > on screen.
>
> All of which are considerations that are equally immune to the expense
> of special effects eye candy, and all of which speak to problems related
> to a lack of quality in the writing versus problems related to cheap
> effects or a lack of interest from the potential audience base. Bottom
> line: quality and inexpensive television SF is possible, and there is an
> audience out there for it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
