Why is all sc-fi TV like Star Trek??

D

Dracula's Guest

Twisted firestarter
Registered Senior Member
I have nothin against Star Trek or Star Wars as such, but a lot of the sci-fi series and films that have come along in recent years have all seem to be made from a similar template. They're usually set in earths distant future, usually involve alliances and federations with alien species, usually involve super-fast starships with stories based around the bridge crew, usually involve big space battles, a bit of technobabble, some philosophy thrown in, some TV special effects and bam, another sci-fi series off the production line.

Is it me, or does 2001: A Space Odyssey seem even more original then it did before because it doesn't involve warp drive and gung-ho space captains. I mean sci-fi can be set within our solar system, or on earth itself. JG Ballard wrote sci-fi stories set on our own little rock, sci-fi can be set in the present day,why cant TV writers try somethin different???
 
First of all, you've got to remember that if you're going to have science fiction set on more than one planet, you've got to have some sort of hyperspace travel; if you don't, then you won't have the same characters more than once.

2001 was a great film, but to base a series around it would most likely yield nothing more than a futuristic soap opera.

The best SF on TV at the moment is Farscape, followed by Stargate SG-1. Neither is totally trek-like, but there are similarities in both cases. This is inevitable.

But I certainly wouldn't say that most TV sci-fi is trekonoic. Amongst the many, many many, many series that aren't: Dr. Who, Star Cops, Invisible Man, First Wave, Nowhere Man, X-Files... the list goes ever on.

Wow, got through that without sneerign at Americans' attention span. Didn't think that was going to happen.
 
I see your point, I understand the need for a faster-than-light drive if you plan on seeing alien planets, and I guess every series has its own style when it comes to the genre,but it all seems a bit samey at times.
The Discovery in 2001 was a crawling hulk, but the design and situation just seems so unique, even today.
Besides, even some of the current sci-fi series could be seen as soap operas. Either that or flash gordon knock-offs.

But I certainly wouldn't say that most TV sci-fi is trekonoic. Amongst the many, many many, many series that aren't: Dr. Who, Star Cops, Invisible Man, First Wave, Nowhere Man, X-Files... the list goes ever on.

I agree with you there, there have been some very notable sci-fi which doesnt involve warp speed, The X-files was one of the most popular, and the best. I guess I'm just tired of aliens with ridges on their foreheads
 
The only point I want to raise is that Star Trek isn't really proper SciFi.
Proper scifi should focus on the technology and not on the people.
Now I'm not complaining, the way it's done makes for much better TV.
Having said that, Farscape and SG-1 both work in the same sort of way and so arn't properscifi either.
It's a funny old world.
 
Folks, remember you are talking TV and Movies here. The reason we don't have series based on technologies is because the producers are out to make money along with the movie backers. Guessing and designing special effects for what they think is to be represented is an offshoot that costs a lot of money for the results and usually are not a main support of the theme or show. The reason you have soap operas focused on human concerns and not on tech's is that it is easy to set up a movie script revolving around human enteraction. That pulls people in and keeps them there. After all there is only so many themes you can have. You know, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy tries to find girl, boy rescues girl, boy gets girl, type thing.

The best thing about SF is that someone thinks how could this be possible in order to make the film sound reasonable. Every once in a while they get it right and go to someone who has the knowledge and theory behind them to actually get it done properly. Most often they don't take the time and the results show it.

Star Trek and Star Wars set the standards for the genre in movies. They were successful smashes at the movies and are still wildly popular today. So the message is "If you want to have this type of setting, do it this way".
 
quoth esp:
Proper scifi should focus on the technology and not on the people.
Now I'm not complaining, the way it's done makes for much better TV.
Click to expand...
'Proper' scifi should - sometimes - contain technology, but it absolutely should not be about that technology. 2001 was a movie about many things, but all of them revolved around Dave Bowman. It's he who had to deal with HAL, and he who went through the wacky ending. Without a human perspective, it'd have been nothing.

Same with every piece of good science fiction you've seen. It's about characters. Technology can play a part in examining how people deal with different aspects of the unknown, but ultimately it's all about people.

Go on: Name one good series or film what was 'about' technology.

Oh, and the current format makes for TV that's easier to make; not better.

wet1 said:
After all there is only so many themes you can have. You know, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy tries to find girl, boy rescues girl, boy gets girl, type thing.
Click to expand...
It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon. Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back again. It's a classic tale.
'Boy meets girl' is an example of that 'easier to write' thing I mentioned above; the best SF doesn't bother with that; in most cases it can be completely covered in other genres. Merely adding outer space or gadgets does not quality science fiction make (remember Outland?)
 
2001 was a movie about many things, but all of them revolved around Dave Bowman

I wouldnt say 2001 revolved around Dave Bowman, a portion of the film was from his perspective, and yes it would have been terrible without a human balance, but 2001 has a broader scope.
The first portion focuses on primitive ape-men when the first monolith appears, then after man has been "inspired" there is the cut to the space station, then we witness a crew landing on the moon encountering another monolith etc. before we actually get to Dave, and even then, there isnt much to relate to, as he hardly speaks or shows any warmth.
I suppose you could criticise 2001 for not having much human warmth, in parts of the film you can almost feel the coldness of space, but then it has a massive epic quality.

The problem I have with SF TV is that it doesn't often seem to voyage very far into the unknown, and I'm not talking about distances between stars. I mean if you took sci-fi as what was being broadcast on TV, you would be given a bit of a narrow view. There has been some very good stuff, but a lot of slop too.
I'm not against action or the odd bit of galactic derring-do, but with all the SF novels and stories that have been written over the years by different authors, we're still stuck with flash gordon clones and been lumped with soap opera sci-fi
 
'Proper' scifi should - sometimes - contain technology, but it absolutely should not be about that technology.
(rde)

But doesn't the name of the genre define what good scifi should be? A fiction about the science.
Dont get me wrong, the majority of stuff out there that's labelled scifi perhaps isn't.
I'm not saying that this affects how good it is.
And I'm not saying that 'scifi' programmes like Star Trek and such don't benefit from the inclusion of some theoretical technologies.

Technology can play a part in examining how people deal with different aspects of the unknown, but ultimately it's all about people.
(rde)

This is a good way of expressing what I first said. But with this format, what you get is science soap, not science fiction.


The most notable pure scifi work I can think of is Clarke's 'Rendezvous with Rama', but a lot of his stuff is pure scifi.
 
Originally posted by esp

But doesn't the name of the genre define what good scifi should be? A fiction about the science.
Click to expand...
No. It's fiction with science. Rendezvous with Rama was about a bunch of explorers. Would it be the same book if a robot was wandering around the ship?

I'm not saying that this affects how good it is. And I'm not saying that 'scifi' programmes like Star Trek and such don't benefit from the inclusion of some theoretical technologies.
Click to expand...
Which goes back to what I was saying earlier about Outland; it's High Noon repainted, and adds nothing. Rendezvous with Rama wouldn't be the same book if it was set in Dodge City instead of a giant ship, so it's good SF. As opposed to well-written SF (which it also is).

Technology can play a part in examining how people deal with different aspects of the unknown, but ultimately it's all about people.
(rde)
This is a good way of expressing what I first said. But with this format, what you get is science soap, not science fiction.
Click to expand...
There's that danger (V or Earth:Final Conflict, for example). But this is true of any genre. Good SF has science and people, and deals with their interaction. Soap deals with interaction between people.
 
Rendezvous with Rama was about a bunch of explorers
(rde)

True it did feature a bunch of explorers, but what it focused on was the theoretical science of how to get to rama, how to land on it, the gravity ramp descent, the interior of rama, it's machinations etc. It was so much more about the science of the place than the human element. The explorers were there almost as an asside, a vehicle to give us reason for being able to see the inside of rama.

In relation to the soap aspect, look at ds9. Technology is very rarely refered to, even for the ST universe. The technology is in the back ground, and even included in plots but rarely to the point where I would say that it's more scifi than soap.
 
Sticky subject here. Sci-fi was originally termed "Scientifiction" and was supposed to involve consequences with new technology that had been created. For instance, if a rocket ship was invented, where could it take you, what hazards will there be etc.

The problem is that science and technology are a common part of peoples lives. For instance, rockets and space shuttles have been around for years, so there may not be as much fascination with what a rocket or space shuttle is capable of.
Some authors are more interested in writing human stories that happen to have a sci-fi backdrop, then examining the latest method of propulsion available, so there doesn't seem much point in writing a sci-fi story unless it involves a connection with human lives. But then its supposed to be sci-fi (fictionalised science), so I guess there needs to be a balance between the technical readouts of a Lunar module and the emotions of an astronaut being seperated from his loved ones, but then that all depends on personal preference.
 
What's wrong with the 'human' element, without it the shows would be nothing. Take Star Trek for example, its a show about how these characters are faced with problems and what they do in order to solve them. There's the theme right there... If it were just a bunch of Starships blazing around blowing Jem'Hadar out of the sky I'm sure Paramount would lose tons of cash.

My point is, people want to see the human element. Thats what makes it good. Like esp (or some one) said - The Technology is the backdrop for the characters.
 
Most mainstream sci-fi is either Star Trek with a twist or Star Wars with a twist. This is probably just because the networks and studios know that the formula works.

That's why I don't watch tv. :)

But there are good shows, like Red Dwarf (which is never on) and Lexx (which is being cancelled).

I see the same thing with scifi books too. It's getting harder and harder to find good, cutting edge scifi books. Partly because some of our best authors are dead, partly because a good concept (Anne Mcaffry's dragon series) is turned into a series and the concept gets old.

Then again, I just finished one of Octavia Butler's books, which are very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top