Decline of the space opera genre

[Sarevok]

When I was young in late 90s and early 2000s there used to be a lot of scifi tv shows dedicated to space. Shows like DS9, Farscape or Andromeda were in their prime. Ever since then I noticed a great decline in number of such TV shows. After Firefly and nBSG I cant recall a single great TV show in the vein of the classics. Other than the rather medicore SG:U there is absolutely nothing space operafic to watch on TV. From my googling it seems unless the new SW live action gets made there is nothing in the horizon either.

Whats going on here ? Have we come to the end of the era of laserguns, space fighters and interstellar politics ?

[Rye]

When I was young in late 90s and early 2000s there used to be a lot of scifi tv shows dedicated to space. Shows like DS9, Farscape or Andromeda were in their prime. Ever since then I noticed a great decline in number of such TV shows. After Firefly and nBSG I cant recall a single great TV show in the vein of the classics. Other than the rather medicore SG:U there is absolutely nothing space operafic to watch on TV. From my googling it seems unless the new SW live action gets made there is nothing in the horizon either.

Whats going on here ? Have we come to the end of the era of laserguns, space fighters and interstellar politics ?

For the time being, maybe. Trends come and go, meaning it will be back sooner or later, it's a staple. Sci-fi is expensive and niche, we have a recession on, media's changing towards on-demand stuff, and people still like reality TV.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Pretty much. Welcome to the future where reality TV dominates due to its cost and popularity with the mindless masses. Why bother with SFX when you can merely throw people in a house thats been wired with cameras? Your other option is crime drama, which has the nasty habit of giving people a false impression of how the real world works*. Long live the new TV!



*You know its bad if when sitting on a jury earlier this year as an alternate, the prosecution made a specific point to explain to us that it's not like on CSI.

Edit: Grammar Fixed

[Broomstick]

I remember three "waves" of TV SciFi: mid-1960's to mid 70's (very roughly), with Star Trek, of course, but also Animated Star Trek, Sealab 2020, Lost in Space, Land of the Lost, Space 1999, UFO, and a bunch of others.

Then the early 1980's with the original Battlestar Galactica and some Saturday morning stuff, the Buck Rogers remake, Star Trek the Next Generation, and some others I don't remember well because I wasn't watching as much TV

Then our most recent spurt, with more Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, the new Battlestar Galactica, etc.

There will be another wave in the future. The genre comes and goes.

[Srelex]

I remember three "waves" of TV SciFi: mid-1960's to mid 70's (very roughly), with Star Trek, of course, but also Animated Star Trek, Sealab 2020, Lost in Space, Land of the Lost, Space 1999, UFO, and a bunch of others.

Then the early 1980's with the original Battlestar Galactica and some Saturday morning stuff, the Buck Rogers remake, Star Trek the Next Generation, and some others I don't remember well because I wasn't watching as much TV

Then our most recent spurt, with more Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, the new Battlestar Galactica, etc.

There will be another wave in the future. The genre comes and goes.

Agreed. Studios need to keep watch on their numbers in times like these; I'm sure in a few years, when the economy is in a better shape, we'll get some new stuff.

[adam_grif]

At least for me I can still discover older shows that I was too young to catch the first time around. I didn't watch Babylon 5 until last year, for instance. Space Opera is pretty specific, and if you don't mind broadening your nets to more general SciFi, there's still plenty that should catch your interest.

Whats going on here ? Have we come to the end of the era of laserguns, space fighters and interstellar politics ?

The ray gun quite possibly, bullets are in fashion. Space fighters? Man, I wish. I mean sure, there aren't any shows I can think of that really focus on them, but it's not like there's a backlash against them or something, there just isn't anything on the horizon right now that makes use of the concept extensively.

Personally, I wouldn't care if conventional Space Opera died for a few years to make room for other kinds of SF. Give it a few years off, let people come up with ideas for new shows that are actually fresh (i.e. not another Trek or Gate spinoff), and experiment with things that haven't had a lot of attention from the television medium.

I'd love to see a live action show in the vein of Ghost In The Shell, but Dark Angel was the most successful cyberpunk show that I'm aware of, and it died after 2 seasons and was never that great to begin with.

[Srelex]

Well, personally, I'd hope that we'd see a comeback of good old high-flying scifi with an emphasis on excitement and characters we can like, rather than the turgid GRIMDARK crap we keep getting these days where everyone is an asshole. Not saying I'm against grey or anything, but too much of it just ends up being unappealing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well, personally, I'd hope that we'd see a comeback of good old high-flying scifi with an emphasis on excitement and characters we can like, rather than the turgid GRIMDARK crap we keep getting these days where everyone is an asshole. Not saying I'm against grey or anything, but too much of it just ends up being unappealing.

Well, there aren't actually that many scifi TV shows with GRIMDARK written all over them. In fact nBSG is about the only one, but even that is debatable. They say that SGU is darker than the earlier SG shows (we don't get it here legally and I won't shell out money for it), but I haven't heard anyone describing it as GRIMDARK. There are, you know, degrees between lighthearted adventure and GRIMDARK.

Like Broomstick wrote, these things come and go. I would like to correct her a little by reminding that there wasn't much space opera on TV between the end of Buck Rogers in 1981 and start of TNG in 1987. From there on Star Trek dominated until 1994 when B5 started, which was also hardly an ideal situation, either. From 1987 until 1993 when DS9 started TNG was the only space opera show.

[neoolong]

Battlestar Galactica only ended last year. And as already mentioned in the OP, SGU is on, whether or not you think it's good. And that's not even mentioning the announcement from a couple of months ago about SyFy developing Sherwood and Orion, both of which are space operas.

It's not like the space opera genre has disappeared completely or anything.

[Uraniun235]

I wouldn't say the issue is with a lack of space opera so much as it is with a lack of quality space opera.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I wouldn't say the issue is with a lack of space opera so much as it is with a lack of quality space opera.

It's a good think most of the people here are too young to remember the 1980s. The shows in the beginning of that decade were Galactica 1980 and Buck Rogers, neither hardly a quality show and intended for kids for the matter. Then you wait for six years and what have you got? TNG season 1, which frankly was so bad that without the existing ST fanbase there's no chance that it would have reached season 2...

[Swindle1984]

Good sci-fi has a tendency to get canceled, or have executives try to kill it repeatedly.

Babylon 5 had repeated attempts to kill it, almost didn't get a fifth season, and jumped networks to stay on the air.

Farscape has a similar story.

Earth 2 got killed halfway through its first season and didn't even get to air every episode that had been filmed. That story had a lot of potential (and a lot of WTF.).

Firefly? They were dead set on killing it before it even aired. Why?

The original Star Trek? Got canceled. Enterprise? Kept airing as long as it sucked, then when they finally started cranking out decent material and its upcoming fifth season seemed promising, they kill it.

It seems like, despite huge fanbases, sci-fi shows are always first on the chopping block when it comes to canceling shows. Even the one network supposedly dedicated exclusively to sci-fi (now with a dumb name), all they want to air now is absolute crap.

[Uraniun235]

Syfy hasn't been dedicated to sci-fi for a long time, especially not since the executive who hates sci-fi took over (dunno if they've been replaced or not). I'm not being flippant, they seriously hired someone to run the network who didn't like sci-fi and openly admitted as much. I strongly suspect that there was/is a plan to transform Syfy into yet another generic man-channel.

I wouldn't say the issue is with a lack of space opera so much as it is with a lack of quality space opera.

It's a good think most of the people here are too young to remember the 1980s. The shows in the beginning of that decade were Galactica 1980 and Buck Rogers, neither hardly a quality show and intended for kids for the matter. Then you wait for six years and what have you got? TNG season 1, which frankly was so bad that without the existing ST fanbase there's no chance that it would have reached season 2...

Eh, there might have been a dearth of good television, but there were more good sci-fi films in that decade.

[Broomstick]

It seems like, despite huge fanbases, sci-fi shows are always first on the chopping block when it comes to canceling shows. Even the one network supposedly dedicated exclusively to sci-fi (now with a dumb name), all they want to air now is absolute crap.

I suspect the reasons for all that include:

1) need for high budgets - Star Trek, Babylon 5, etc. all require significant outlays for make-up, sets, props, costumes, etc. The frequency of time travel and "parallel Earth" shows in ST:TOS was due in part to reduced costs when they could use stock settings and costumes instead of having to manufacture "futuristic" props. Special effects - even the "a funny nose makes an alien" types - cost money and are not required by more mundane shows. Dr. Who labored under a low budget most of its history (the now iconic telephone box form of the TARDIS was a way to conserve funds so they didn't have to keep changing it), and Red Dwarf made cheesy crappy effects and props part of the comedy, thereby demonstrating that this is in no way a problem restricted to US made television.

2) good science fiction makes you think - this is a scary prospect for some, and ensures the really stupid slice of the audience just won't "get" it. Traditionally science fiction is about ideas as well as people. Because it requires some thought I don't believe SF will ever achieve quite the popularity or audience of, say, romance novels or porn. Between that and media executives who don't want to think, they just want the biggest audience for the least buck, good SF will always be at a disadvantage.

3) science fiction scares the shit out of some people - like my mom, who was afraid of Star Trek and, if asked, would probably have dumped it into the "horror" category. Maybe it's because SF deviates from reality, makes you question your assumptions about the world, or just has funny-looking "deformed" people in it. It's not a mindset I, personally, understand (I started watching Star Trek at 5 or 6, and reading Arthur C. Clarke at 7 - once I discovered SF I couldn't get enough) but it's one I've encountered in people who say they hate SF. Poor mom - all of us four kids went through an SF period and a couple of us never "outgrew" it. Seriously, she'd get up an leave the room when Star Trek or Battlestar or Buck Rogers or Lost in Space was on, or whatever. Then I went and married someone so geeky he has actual props from the "Trouble with Tribbles" episode. (Me, when I see the episode and spot which bits of the bar we actually own I go squee!, but I think it's common knowledge I was a geek before it was fashionable)

[IvanTih]

Well, personally, I'd hope that we'd see a comeback of good old high-flying scifi with an emphasis on excitement and characters we can like, rather than the turgid GRIMDARK crap we keep getting these days where everyone is an asshole. Not saying I'm against grey or anything, but too much of it just ends up being unappealing.

And that's why we love 40k(I'd wish that we orky emoticon which shakes it's head like on DakkaDakka of which I am also a member).
It would be great to have a 40k show,something like Eisenhorn.

[Srelex]

Well, personally, I'd hope that we'd see a comeback of good old high-flying scifi with an emphasis on excitement and characters we can like, rather than the turgid GRIMDARK crap we keep getting these days where everyone is an asshole. Not saying I'm against grey or anything, but too much of it just ends up being unappealing.

And that's why we love 40k(I'd wish that we orky emoticon which shakes it's head like on DakkaDakka of which I am also a member).
It would be great to have a 40k show,something like Eisenhorn.

40k at least doesn't take itself completely seriously. As for a 40k show...well, are you really willing to let network execs meddle with that?

[IvanTih]

Well, personally, I'd hope that we'd see a comeback of good old high-flying scifi with an emphasis on excitement and characters we can like, rather than the turgid GRIMDARK crap we keep getting these days where everyone is an asshole. Not saying I'm against grey or anything, but too much of it just ends up being unappealing.

And that's why we love 40k(I'd wish that we orky emoticon which shakes it's head like on DakkaDakka of which I am also a member).
It would be great to have a 40k show,something like Eisenhorn.

40k at least doesn't take itself completely seriously. As for a 40k show...well, are you really willing to let network execs meddle with that?

Not really,but what if they had help from GW(like BL writer writting a script),but would hate if they messed with the background or some elements.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Syfy hasn't been dedicated to sci-fi for a long time, especially not since the executive who hates sci-fi took over (dunno if they've been replaced or not). I'm not being flippant, they seriously hired someone to run the network who didn't like sci-fi and openly admitted as much. I strongly suspect that there was/is a plan to transform Syfy into yet another generic man-channel.

Wouldn't be surprising, although it would appear that it is a pretty well covered demographic group already. For now SyFy seems to be following a middle-of-the-road strategy with some science fiction but also other types of shows in order to appeal to the non-geek audience.

Eh, there might have been a dearth of good television, but there were more good sci-fi films in that decade.

True, but the strange thing is that the many good movies in that decade, some of which were even box office hits, did not translate to more space opera scifi for the TV. Star Wars begot oBSG and Buck Rogers, which did not even run for that long, and that was about it. Probably the main reason was that making space opera before the widespread use of CGI was very expensive. For example Babylon 5 would not have been possible in they way it exists now if it had been forced to use miniature models, in fact it probably would not have been made at all.

[Junghalli]

Personally, I wouldn't care if conventional Space Opera died for a few years to make room for other kinds of SF. Give it a few years off, let people come up with ideas for new shows that are actually fresh (i.e. not another Trek or Gate spinoff), and experiment with things that haven't had a lot of attention from the television medium.

Yeah, honestly one of the problems I have with sci fi as a genre is that a lot of pop SF feels somewhat samey to me, with the same themes and tropes being repeated over and over. Personally I'd kind of like it if we saw a decline in popularity of the usual formula with fresher and more experimental and original stuff picking up the slack.

Of course that's probably just my personal wish-fulfillment fantasy and unlikely to actually happen.

@ Broomstick: I think you forget to mention another major factor, which I suspect may be the most important one along with the higher budgets. Science fiction suffers from the notion that it's something that can only appeal to geeks, i.e. a relatively small niche demographic. If you're a businessman and have a choice between pushing a product that you think will only appeal to a niche demographic and one you think will have broader appeal ... well, I don't think it takes a business major to figure out which option sounds more attractive.

[Srelex]

That may change, with the billions Avatar raked in, and the success of the nuTrek film and whatnot.

[Stark]

Do people want the Avatar TV show? No. They want 'space opera'. Avatar isn't what they want, even if it is more marketable.

And ironically I think the nerd demographic was noisily unhappy with nTrek.

[Batman]

I think a lot of the anger with nuTrek was because it well, WAS nuTrek. It told a TOS story without the familiar depiction of the TOS setting, the familiar depiction of the TOS ships, the familiar depiction of the CHARACTERS...
For a fanbase that for damn near forty years has grown used to Shatner Kirk, Nimoy Spock, Kelly Bones and so on it's going to take a while for them to warm up to the NEW TOS even if the intro film had been brilliant (which it was anything but).

[Marcus Aurelius]

Do people want the Avatar TV show? No. They want 'space opera'. Avatar isn't what they want, even if it is more marketable.

And ironically I think the nerd demographic was noisily unhappy with nTrek.

I don't know what people want, but I would gladly watch Avatar TV show if it actually had decent scripts. A TV show would not be able to ride the wave of 'ZOMG 3D and motion capture CGI' like the movie did.

As for nuTrek: TNG era Trek is pretty much dead, a prequel didn't work, so a reboot was a reasonably safe way to breath some new life into an old franchise. I would rather watch something completely unrelated to Star Trek, but because Hollywood wants to play it safe, I suppose nuTrek is better than nothing at all. The movie was entertaining but completely forgettable.

[Broomstick]

I thought in many ways the movie did capture ST:TOS quite well... which in a sense is a problem. I've been watching Star Trek for forty years. I love Star Trek but it's old. I still watch it, I watch the Old Series avidly at times, I'll never give it up completely, but sometimes it feels like I have all the scripts memorized. I want to see something new occasionally. That was, after all, part of the appeal of Star Wars, of old Battlestar, of Babylon 5, of Farscape. They were new. New worlds, new characters, new relationships, new ideas. Like everyone else SF fans can take some comfort in the old and familiar but unlike many who aren't SF fans, SF fans also like the new. They not only embrace new stories, they want to make fiction reality (and in some cases have!).

(It warms my geeky little heart that so much shit that looked way far in the future is now commonplace. I have a few disappointments, too, of course, but really, I am living in a SciFi world from the perspective of my 10 year old self.)

[Batman]

That is, I think, a large part of the problem. Because nuTrek ISN'T new. It's NOT a new franchise, it's not even a new TAKE on the franchise, it's a redo of what STARTED the franchise, and a lot of long-time fans aren't going to like it. As I said, 40 years of Trek with the familiar actors/characters is hard to overcome and nuTrek sucking didn't exactly help matters.