What will it take for a space sci fi show to become mainstream?

[CmdrShep2183]

Sadly The Expanse has not turned out to be sci fi's Game of Thrones.

What will it take for a space opera show to become as big as Game of Thrones?

These are dark times. Is the average TV viewer as well as American too cynical to imagine humanity becoming a interstellar civilization?

If we showed the average Joe Mass Effect would they laugh? Would they find the idea of such a future ridiculous?

Would it need to be as Graphic as Game of Thrones? Is there a perception that sci fi is more about technology than character development?

[Darth Ultron]

Well, note Game of Thrones is not ''mainstream''. It's popular...with geeks and fantasy fans and people that like adult stuff. But that does not make it ''mainstream''.

After all Star Trek is close to ''mainstream'', but is still seen as ''that silly space show...for kidz''.

The average TV viewer is not ''cynical'', but they are of a mindset. And the mindset is: simple. The reason why cop and hospital shows are all over mainstream is that they are simple: good and bad and all about things the average viewer knows about already.

The perception that sci fi is more 1)For the Kidz and 2) All and Only about ''wow special effects'' at the expense of everything else.

The Adult Graphic does help the Game of Thrones, as well as Westworld. It helps get rid of the ''sci fi is for kidz''. And the vast majority of all adults like to watch that Graphic stuff.

[Eldan]

Oh hey, this thread again.

[Khedrac]

I think this also needs a culture shift.

Look at books - SciFi and Fantasy etc. are still seen by many people as "not proper literature". I think some of this is part elitism and part jealousy (generally they are genres where the readers don't have to think so hard to follow the story, they are also genres where authors can set up the conditions for looking at a serious topic simply by tweaking the setting, something one cannot do with traditional fiction where one has to contrive the setting.
I suspect one thing needed to change this attitude is more SF&F fans becoming teachers of literature at university - then they will be able to work more SF&F into courses so that the following generation of critics don't just dismiss it. I know these changes are happening, but I don't know how fast (back in 1985/86 one of what was then called 'O-levels' - exams at 16 - one of the English set works was The War of the Worlds).

One example of why I think is needed comes from a newspaper review of the reboot of Dr Who by Russell T Davis. The reviewer (I think it wass in the Times) basically said that Russell had done a good job but now needed to get back to serious work. Now the BBC is not allowed to make money so it doesn't keep the proceeds of selling shows abroad (they go into a charity) but I believe that Dr Who is the BBC's single most profitable export (even ahead of Top Gear). If the BBC was a conventional finance-driven organistion then I think they would have regarded Russell's work with Dr Who as more serious than his other writing; in short the reviewer was being a prejudiced idiot.

[Rynjin]

Is this a bot?

[Kitten Champion]

Is this a bot?

At this point does it really matter?

[Darth Ultron]

I think this also needs a culture shift.
One example of why I think is needed comes from a newspaper review of the reboot of Dr Who by Russell T Davis. The reviewer (I think it wass in the Times) basically said that Russell had done a good job but now needed to get back to serious work.

This is a good example of the basic problem.

The Culture thinking, is still set somewhere in the 50's when sci fi flicks were deemed light entertainment and B movies. The feeling among the entertainment culture is that a movie is worthy if it is long ( at least around 3 hours along), has a whole lot of heavy sounding dialogue( essentially pop pyschology) and is set on a grand scale. And yes if the movie deals with Holocaust, race relations, it is a certain shoo in. The old stereotypes are that science fiction and action flicks are popcorn movies for teenagers, which make a lot of money but have no artisitic merit. The idea that science fiction can be the basis for truly in depth and complex storytelling hasn't really soaked in for them yet. Maybe in few more decades.

[The Glyphstone]

Is this a bot?

Probably. But he's harmless, like that XKCD comic I cant link because Im on my phone.

[warty goblin]

If we showed the average Joe Mass Effect would they laugh? Would they find the idea of such a future ridiculous?


Maybe - just maybe - when said future involves an entire species of psychic blue space lesbian stripper assassins, laughter is an entirely appropriate response.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Given that pretty much all big movies since roughly The Matrix were either science fiction (Avatar, Star trek, Star Wars, Jurassic World, Hunger Games, Transformer), fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, Disney, Pixar) or superhero (Marvel, more Marvel, still more Marvel) I'd say it's all pretty mainstream already.

No seriously, check the list out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films). The big exceptions are James Bond and the Fast and the Furious franchise, that's what's left of "normal" action movies. And those Fast movies are basically superhero flicks with a good amount of technobabble thrown in. So they barely count.

So the problem is not with nerdy television not being possible. Nerdy is the default now, as the fact that Game of Thrones is the go to example already kind of indicates. There were both an official and an unofficial Star Trek series in the last year, and there are big expensive shows ongoing about everything from pirates to nuclear winter survivors.

The Expanse is not just nerdy and not just sci-fi though, it's almost arthouse. It deals in stuff like realism. It has a pretty slow pacing. It's a space western, but it's a gritty space western, removed from the space opera of Star Wars and the more idealistic world of Star Trek. It also has quite a lot of important characters, many different sets and zero G effects, which for what they ultimately accomplish are often deceptively expensive. The fact that a niche product like that got made in the way it did was in itself already fantastic. That would never have been greenlit before this massive popcultural revolution we've been having the last few decades. This used to be barely profitable terrain even if Sean Connery was selling it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outland_(film)). But yeah, I'm not surprised that it wasn't the most popular show in town, yet...

I'm saying yet because in 2002 there was another space western show. It was if anything more Star Wars-like than The Expanse, and despite it having become an icon of nerd culture, Firefly lasted only one season plus a movie to tie things off. The Expanse has already gone further outside the normal comfort zone of big budget television and has already had more succes than it did. So no matter what happens now, the trend in the mean time is definitely towards a show like that becoming more viable.

[Darth Ultron]

So no matter what happens now, the trend in the mean time is definitely towards a show like that becoming more viable.

Maybe. But it will take at least another generation for the older folks in power right now to move on. Slowly, they are moving on. The mass of ''born before 1970 folks'' that hate sci fi and think it's kidz stuff. And that puts the ''after 1970 or so" folks in power. And for most folks born in the '70's, Sci Fi is not only ''normal'', but it is ''awesome''. Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and other such shows and Sci Fi movies have been a part of the people born after 1970 or so lives. And, of course, by 1990, we had the rise of the geek too.

The generations after 1970 have been filled with sci fi, fantasy and horror. So slowy the old, old people who vote for things like ''a move about a newspaper'' or ''a gripping ******* of age drama" move on....they will be replaced by more of people that will vote for "A man stranded on Mars'' or ''Mad Max" or ''Star Wars 13:The New Generation Strikes Back".

[Kitten Champion]

Given that pretty much all big movies since roughly The Matrix were either science fiction (Avatar, Star trek, Star Wars, Jurassic World, Hunger Games, Transformer), fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, Disney, Pixar) or superhero (Marvel, more Marvel, still more Marvel) I'd say it's all pretty mainstream already.


Those aren't real Science Fiction though. Science Fiction is something that's unjustly overlooked by the majority and totally justifies the narrative of nerd as persecuted minority, anything not evoking that particular perception by being extremely popular and financially successful are to be looked at derisively as lesser products for the unwashed masses.

So no, Science Fiction will never have mainstream popularity, it can't by definition.

[Some Android]

Peter Dinklage?

[An Enemy Spy]

Those aren't real Science Fiction though. Science Fiction is something that's unjustly overlooked by the majority and totally justifies the narrative of nerd as persecuted minority, anything not evoking that particular perception by being extremely popular and financially successful are to be looked at derisively as lesser products for the unwashed masses.

So no, Science Fiction will never have mainstream popularity, it can't by definition.

What's sad is how many people unironically agree with this.

[Kitten Champion]

What's sad is how many people unironically agree with this.

It's what I dislike about all these bot threads, it's a common element of painting yourself as the victim.

You having specific tastes in media which aren't - at least in your mind - being catered to by the most broadest concept of popular culture isn't some tragedy I feel sympathy for, especially when you narrow those tastes down to high-production gritty space operas produced in North America.

Nor does a show being cancelled off of network television imply some deeper Truth about the cultural zeitgeist. Shows get cancelled all the time - it's a reality of the industry - and the greater the cost the higher the risk involved and the likelier it won't continue if it doesn't meet whatever metric they expect for it.

Basically what the bot's saying is, "others don't like what I like, therefore there must be something flawed with the world" and it annoys the crap out of me.

[An Enemy Spy]

It's what I dislike about all these bot threads, it's a common element of painting yourself as the victim.

You having specific tastes in media which aren't - at least in your mind - being catered to by the most broadest concept of popular culture isn't some tragedy I feel sympathy for, especially when you narrow those tastes down to high-production gritty space operas produced in North America.

Nor does a show being cancelled off of network television imply some deeper Truth about the cultural zeitgeist. Shows get cancelled all the time - it's a reality of the industry - and the greater the cost the higher the risk involved and the likelier it won't continue if it doesn't meet whatever metric they expect for it.

Basically what the bot's saying is, "others don't like what I like, therefore there must be something flawed with the world" and it annoys the crap out of me.

And it's a bot, it doesn't have any feelings on the matter. It's just analyzed the behavior of geek culture online and copied what it sees as the way we talk. And done a very convincing job of it I might add.

[Cheesegear]

Nor does a show being cancelled off of network television imply some deeper Truth about the cultural zeitgeist. Shows get cancelled all the time - it's a reality of the industry - and the greater the cost the higher the risk involved and the likelier it won't continue if it doesn't meet whatever metric they expect for it.

Just...This.

The is thing most wrong with Science Fiction, and why it continues to fail; Return on Investment. Special effects are expensive. It's why Game of Thrones only ever really has Dragons in the first and last episodes of each Season (don't even get me started on the stupid zombie bear). It's why White Walkers took so long to show up. It's why the Dire Wolves were essentially written out of the story from the word 'Go', despite their not-insignificant roles in the novels. In a Sci-Fi show, you're going to run SFX almost every episode. You might even have to do some hefty wire-work to get zero-G right. Sci-Fi shows are expensive. Then you get to casting. The more actors you have, the more the cost blows out out of proportion. Especially if your show hits in big, and the actors start getting movie deals which allows them greater bargaining power when it comes time to renew a Season or renegotiate contracts for whatever reason (e.g; "I know this show makes a ****-ton of money, and I want a raise.", basically Supernatural).

That's why say, Killjoys has three cast members and a voice actor. The entire rest of the budget can be spent on SFX without having it spiral out of control. Even if Killjoys doesn't enjoy 'mainstream popularity', it is still just cost-proportionate enough to justify its own existence. Meanwhile, Shannara Chronicles is busy shooting itself directly in the foot. Meanwhile, The 100 is being constantly renewed because the only thing that actually costs any money - post-Season 1 - is the costumes. Getting 'mainstream popularity' can be a death sentence to any show, if the cast starts asking for more money - hence the ideal cutoff being six years for a sci-fi or fantasy show.

But that all circles back to the original Return on Investment.

The studio will bankroll anything that makes money, proportional to amount invested in the product. That makes sense. Business gotta business.
But why don't Sci-Fi shows make money? Because the audience doesn't watch it. Why not?

(Also, after gaining 'mainstream popularity', there is a significant argument to be made for Game of Thrones getting 'dumber' per Season, as its popularity grows.)

One other massive thing keeping Game of Thrones afloat, is merchandising. Don't forget that - never forget merchandising.

[Kitten Champion]

And it's a bot, it doesn't have any feelings on the matter. It's just analyzed the behavior of geek culture online and copied what it sees as the way we talk. And done a very convincing job of it I might add.

I believe what's happening with cmdrshep is that while it's using a bot to distribute these across the Internet, there's a human individual making the content behind it for it to distribute. Rather than the random hodgepodge of randomly generated text as per usual.

... but yeah, it's sinking its little but sharp proboscis to get under the skin and spread its irritant by aiming at the oversensitive bit of us that feels self-conscious about our tastes in media.

[Some Android]

Rick and Morty is getting pretty mainstream. Maybe just imitate some aspects of their show.

[2D8HP]

No need to bother myself with something new.


Oh hey, this thread again.


Is this a bot?


At this point does it really matter?


Probably. But he's harmless, like that XKCD comic I cant link because Im on my phone.


And it's a bot, it doesn't have any feelings on the matter. It's just analyzed the behavior of geek culture online and copied what it sees as the way we talk. And done a very convincing job of it I might add.


I believe what's happening with cmdrshep is that while it's using a bot to distribute these across the Internet, there's a human individual making the content behind it for it to distribute. Rather than the random hodgepodge of randomly generated text as per usual.

... but yeah, it's sinking its little but sharp proboscis to get under the skin and spread its irritant by aiming at the oversensitive bit of us that feels self-conscious about our tastes in media.


But someone has to say it:

I for one welcome our new Space Opera loving robot overlord!


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/alien-poster-4_6533.jpg
(1979)

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/outlandcover.jpg
(1981)

Also, someone has to say it:

I for one welcome our new Space Opera loving robot overlord!



.
Someone has to say it:

I for one welcome our new Space Opera loving robot overlord!


:eek:

Déjà vu!!!


:eek:

Déjà vu!!!

[Cheesegear]

Rick and Morty is getting pretty mainstream. Maybe just imitate some aspects of their show.

Have no more than 5 regular voice actors to do all the work - whose pay scales are infamously low.
Make the show animated, so that nothing costs anything.
Force a poop-ton of memes so millennials will talk about you on social media and generate hype for whatever the next forced meme is.
Merchandise the **** out of your show! THEN MORE MERCHANDISING.

Any money that you've saved on a) not paying voice actors anything, b) not paying animators anything and c) using social media for free marketing; You can spend on MORE MERCHANDISING.


...Somehow, I don't think that's going to make it to a Sci-Fi show that's intended to be taken seriously. :smallsigh:

[BeerMug Paladin]

Oh man, if only something like Futurama existed. Or Dr. Who, not that I really care about that one.

It's been a while since this bot has posted something. I think Kitten Champion's "human behind the bot" theory might have something to it. That certainly would explain the periodic lulls in activity when the person is feeling happy with the currently available media.

[2D8HP]

..been a while since this bot has posted something. I think Kitten Champion's "human behind the bot" theory might have something to it. That certainly would explain the periodic lulls in activity when the person is feeling happy with the currently available media.


Doing a Google search of the words in thr OP shows the exact same post on a few different Forums starting May 11th.

Other CmdrShep2183 posts form different threads also show up on different Forums as well, with a post on Reddit usually being firsf.

Still for a Spambot thr posts seem sincere.

The common topics are Space Opera and video games.

Anyone hsve ideas on why?

[Darth Ultron]

The is thing most wrong with Science Fiction, and why it continues to fail; Return on Investment. Special effects are expensive.

This right here is the huge part of the problem: The focus on special effects. For fantasy, horror and sci fi the first thing that comes to peoples minds is the show MUST have special effects. This is not true of other shows, they can concentrate on other things.

So why can't you have a sci fi show with little or no special effects? Why can't a sci fi show focus on other things? Is there some reason the sci fi show must have huge special effects?

If a show just had characters interacting and doing something, but no special effects...would it still be called Sci Fi?





Sci-Fi shows are expensive.

All TV shows have expenses....but why must Sci Fi be expensive?



But that all circles back to the original Return on Investment.

The studio will bankroll anything that makes money, proportional to amount invested in the product. That makes sense. Business gotta business.
But why don't Sci-Fi shows make money? Because the audience doesn't watch it. Why not?


This does go around a bit in the circle: the show costs money, the show must be promoted, it needs to have dedicated fans, the show has to make money and so forth.

[Cheesegear]

Oh man, if only something like Futurama existed.

I'm not going to put Futurama and The Expanse in the same category.


So why can't you have a sci fi show with little or no special effects?

You can. Look at the massive difference between pre-Discovery, and Discovery, series of Star Trek. Battlestar Galactica did very little SFX-wise. Mostly just stock shots of ships, and a few times a Season, a Cylon would show up.


If a show just had characters interacting and doing something, but no special effects...would it still be called Sci Fi?

Pfft. How's that working out for Lucifer? :smallsigh:
Then you've got something like Altered Carbon, Electric Dreams and the occasional episode of Black Mirror.

Sci-Fi stuff is very popular.

However, the sticking point, seems to be that hard Sci-Fi, doesn't sell. As above, compare pre-DIS Star Trek and DIS.
Compare the camera focusing on Patrick Stewart's face as he screams that there are four lights in a clear reference to 1984, vs. ...anything, really, that happens in STD.

It's undeniable that STD is more popular in the mainstream. Why? Again with the Star Trek, the most-recent trilogy looking more like Star Wars than ever before. And it came out reasonably successful, and certainly more successful than any other Star Trek before it.

Is it lasers? It certainly seems that way, especially to executives. And it's hard to tell them that they're wrong.

[dps]

compare pre-DIS Star Trek and DIS.
Compare the camera focusing on Patrick Stewart's face as he screams that there are four lights in a clear reference to 1984, vs. ...anything, really, that happens in STD.

It's undeniable that STD is more popular in the mainstream. Why? Again with the Star Trek, the most-recent trilogy looking more like Star Wars than ever before. And it came out reasonably successful, and certainly more successful than any other Star Trek before it.


Are you seriously claiming that Star Trek: Discovery has more mainstream popularity than Star Trek: The Next Generation?

[Cheesegear]

Are you seriously claiming that Star Trek: Discovery has more mainstream popularity than Star Trek: The Next Generation?

Yes.
Do I think that Discovery is more popular with Star Trek fans? Hell no.

[An Enemy Spy]

Yes.
Do I think that Discovery is more popular with Star Trek fans? Hell no.

Star Trek TNG is one of the most easily recognizable shows of all time. People who have never watched an episode of Star Trek in their lives know who Captain Picard is and what the Enterprise is. Discovery has only one season and can only be viewed on a streaming service you have to pay for. You are living in another dimension if you think Discovery has eclipsed TNG in popularity.

[Legato Endless]

Well, note Game of Thrones is not ''mainstream''. It's popular...with geeks and fantasy fans and people that like adult stuff. But that does not make it ''mainstream''.


This admittedly semantic but: The 2017 finale of Game of Thrones reached 12.1 million people according to Nielsen ratings. Including HBO's other streaming services, the finale had 16.5 millions viewers. HBO touts the total views of each episode average now around 30 million. That is not counting the truly prodigious amount of pirating that can be reasonably assumed to occur for the show. Season 6 had 23 million views averaging an episode in the US. That is not counting the 179 other countries the show airs in. Game has been on the cover of Time Magazine, and probably every other major media outlet. Amazon green lit the biggest television deal in history to get in on this action.

It's literally the world's most popular show currently, and has been for several years. If Thrones isn't mainstream, nothing since the diversification of entertainment with the rise of the internet qualifies. American Idol and Sunday Night Football wouldn't be mainstream then. Nothing would be. The fact that the people running the Academy awards aren't handing out Best Pictures like candy to speculative fiction is not evidence that Nerd's aren't huge definers of pop culture going forward. Nerd stuff has been iconically mainstream for a long time now.

The real irony of Shep's claim is that a sci-fi show would need to be half that popular to qualify for breaking into the mainstream. That's the logic of tv executive, not a normal person. (OP's existence as a bot notwithstanding)

[Cheesegear]

Star Trek TNG is one of the most easily recognizable shows of all time.

Recognisability isn't the same as popularity. And it certainly doesn't convert into profitability.


People who have never watched an episode of Star Trek in their lives know who Captain Picard is and what the Enterprise is.

If they've never watched an episode of Star Trek... Why not? :smallwink:

[Darth Ultron]

Pfft. How's that working out for Lucifer? :smallsigh:

The character of Lucifer is great....but sadly they had to make it yet another, sigh, cop show. Every episode just has to be like almost all ''oh no a crime, lets find the criminal and save the day..again''. And sure the 'manstream' folks love that, as they love the idea that law and order ''works''. And does it hurt or help that it's basically a Castle Copy?



Then you've got something like Altered Carbon, Electric Dreams and the occasional episode of Black Mirror.

Sci-Fi stuff is very popular.

Very popular with the geeks, not the mainstream.



However, the sticking point, seems to be that hard Sci-Fi, doesn't sell. As above, compare pre-DIS Star Trek and DIS.
Compare the camera focusing on Patrick Stewart's face as he screams that there are four lights in a clear reference to 1984, vs. ...anything, really, that happens in STD.

I agree that 'hard' sci fi does not sell, but then all 'hard' fiction does not sell.

But are you trying to say STD(lol) is 'hard' sci fi? Yea...because a universe sized teleporting mushroom is 'hard' sci fi?



It's undeniable that STD is more popular in the mainstream. Why? Again with the Star Trek, the most-recent trilogy looking more like Star Wars than ever before. And it came out reasonably successful, and certainly more successful than any other Star Trek before it.

Is it lasers? It certainly seems that way, especially to executives. And it's hard to tell them that they're wrong.

Is it? Odd, as far as I knew, only the geeks have seen it. The mainstream hardly even know it exists...and even if they do they just think ''oh, another silly trek show for me to never watch".

Sure STD looks a lot like Star Wars, so they can grab those fans. All they needed to do was make a generic Sci fi show kinda like Star Wars, and then cover it with random Star Trek names. So instead of 'evil Wokkies" you make them ''klingons'' and you say ''phaser'' instead of ''blaster''.

[Cheesegear]

The character of Lucifer is great....but sadly they had to make it yet another, sigh, cop show. [...] And does it hurt or help that it's basically a Castle Copy?

And that makes it cheap to make. :smallwink:


But are you trying to say STD(lol) is 'hard' sci fi?

Actually I was saying the exact opposite, compared to the 'Treks that came before it, it's softer than ever before.


Sure STD looks a lot like Star Wars, so they can grab those fans. All they needed to do was make a generic Sci fi show kinda like Star Wars, and then cover it with random Star Trek names. So instead of 'evil Wokkies" you make them ''klingons'' and you say ''phaser'' instead of ''blaster''.

This guy gets it.

[Giggling Ghast]

Well, I don't know about space sci-fi, but Westworld seems to be the mainstream du jour. The Season 2 premiere had more viewers than the Battlestar Galactica series finale.

[Lethologica]

Someday DU is gonna actually cite some kind of actual source or figure regarding the preferences of the mythical mainstream and we'll all be very proud of him.

[Eldan]

Well, I don't know about space sci-fi, but Westworld seems to be the mainstream du jour. The Season 2 premiere had more viewers than the Battlestar Galactica series finale.

Ooh, good point. I mean, with Westworld, Black Mirror, Altered Carbon and The Expanse, there's been quite a few Sci Fi series that are more on the heavy, high-concept side in the last few years.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Recognisability isn't the same as popularity. And it certainly doesn't convert into profitability.

It did in the case of Star Trek TNG though. It ran for 7 seasons and spawned two spinoffs that each ran for 7 seasons as well. And the series' cast got to take over and revitalize the cult film series that was somehow still running. (Although granted, that didn't last as long as it could have.) By comparison: the original show ran for 3 seasons, and Enterprise for 4. So there must have been something profitable about it.

That doesn't mean you should just try to do the exact same thing now, TV has certainly changed, but the sheer amount of stuff it spawned says that that show was CSI level popular.

I haven't followed how popular Discovery was very well. I think the reactions were pretty positive. I think it found its footing incredibly well for a first season. So who knows, it might indeed become more popular than TNG ever was. But that's not a very low bar.

[Kitten Champion]

Someday DU is gonna actually cite some kind of actual source or figure regarding the preferences of the mythical mainstream and we'll all be very proud of him.

Or sources in general.


It did in the case of Star Trek TNG though. It ran for 7 seasons and spawned two spinoffs that each ran for 7 seasons as well. And the series' cast got to take over and revitalize the cult film series that was somehow still running. (Although granted, that didn't last as long as it could have.) By comparison: the original show ran for 3 seasons, and Enterprise for 4. So there must have been something profitable about it.

That doesn't mean you should just try to do the exact same thing now, TV has certainly changed, but the sheer amount of stuff it spawned says that that show was CSI level popular.

I haven't followed how popular Discovery was very well. I think the reactions were pretty positive. I think it found its footing incredibly well for a first season. So who knows, it might indeed become more popular than TNG ever was. But that's not a very low bar.

I can't speak for the success or lack thereof, but CBS was confident in the Star Trek name enough to use it as the back-bone for their streaming service.

Though, all this talk of Trek does remind me that it was pretty important for series to last long enough specifically for syndication from the 80's to the early 00's at least. Like, early TNG was several degrees of awful and there are numerous other examples of genre shows with fairly weak first and second seasons, but getting to the episode floor for mass distribution was enough of a reason to push forward in and of itself.

I don't know how true that is anymore though. Networks are all about clamouring for content for streaming now. Like, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Agents of SHIELD remains because Disney wants beefier content for its own Hulu/Netflix that's coming in the not-too-distant future, especially stuff aimed at guys specifically.

On another note, I don't mind the present state of genre television, there's a wide range for various interests spread across various productions rather than having a singular entity like Star Trek filter SF through its own generic lens and defining geekdom through itself. I like that there are Black Mirrors, Electric Dreams, West Worlds, and Altered Carbons in the world and I don't see the need for any of them to overshadow the cultural landscape.

[Cheesegear]

I haven't followed how popular Discovery was very well. I think the reactions were pretty positive.

The other, other important thing, is to note when products have a subtle - or not subtle - 'Made for China' stamp on it. Western audience reactions don't matter, if the thing can make it big overseas. Michelle Yeoh as the main actress, and the ship being called the USS Shenzhou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_(spacecraft)), are certainly flags, in the opening episodes. Not necessarily red flags, as I like Michelle Yeoh, and the name of a ship absolutely does not matter. But they are flags, nonetheless.

"It if it makes money, it doesn't matter if it isn't good." - Mark Hamill, referring to The Last Jedi.
Corollary;
If it doesn't make money, it doesn't matter if it is good.

[dps]

The other, other important thing, is to note when products have a subtle - or not subtle - 'Made for China' stamp on it. Western audience reactions don't matter, if the thing can make it big overseas. Michelle Yeoh as the main actress, and the ship being called the USS Shenzhou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_(spacecraft)), are certainly flags, in the opening episodes. Not necessarily red flags, as I like Michelle Yeoh, and the name of a ship absolutely does not matter. But they are flags, nonetheless.

"It if it makes money, it doesn't matter if it isn't good." - Mark Hamill, referring to The Last Jedi.
Corollary;
If it doesn't make money, it doesn't matter if it is good.

That has little to do with whether or not something is mainstream, though. You can make money with a niche product if you know what you're doing, and plenty of mainstream movies and TV shows are flops and don't make money.

[Cheesegear]

That has little to do with whether or not something is mainstream, though.

That's...Kind of my point. You can look up reviews on anything. Rotten Tomatoes says Transformers 5 was awful. Therefore, it must not be popular. Nope. A whole bunch of people saw, it made three times its budget back, and now Transformers 6 is definitely happening. Reviews for The Last Jedi weren't as bad as Transformers 5, but, Disney bux will always win out.


You can make money with a niche product if you know what you're doing

Yes. You can. I've mentioned some already. 'Making money' is extremely easy if your budget is nothing.
Hunt for the Wilderpeople (a great movie) made $23m. That's...Nothing. Except it's actually 10 times its budget, and Taika Waititi got to direct Thor: Ragnarok off of it. Don't even get me started on the massive success of Get Out.

...Then, any Blumhouse movie that turns into a franchise.

The primary way to 'make money', is make sure that your production costs are as low as possible. If you fail, it doesn't matter, 'cause you didn't really spend that much money to begin with. If it's a runaway success, you win the game.
A studio can churn out six pilots for 'cop shows' per Season for basically no cost.
Single/Two-Set Sitcom pilots are a dime a dozen.

It is possible to make a low-budget, hard sci-fi show, specifically set in space (e.g; The Expanse)... That people will actually watch?


and plenty of mainstream movies and TV shows are flops and don't make money.

Cite a few, please. Making it to the mainstream, and flopping, is basically an oxymoron. I don't know what you mean.

EDIT: However, there are a few shows that have been very popular with millenials...Who just pirated it. But I don't think you're referencing those shows.

[Aotrs Commander]

Slight rebuttal to the whole special effects issues - CSI? Murdoch Mysteries? One was notorious for the special effects and lasted a ridiculously long time by TV standards, the other is still going strong and is a period-piece. I can't imagine that being really all that cheap.

Be an interesting comparison to know what sort of budget Murdoch has, verses Agents of SHIELD or Supergirl or Orville.

(And at that, in one sentence, I have pretty much named all the TV shows I watch bar on in their entirity outside of animation...)

[GloatingSwine]

Actually I was saying the exact opposite, compared to the 'Treks that came before it, it's softer than ever before.


You say that, but Star Trek has never been anything but squishy when it comes to science.

I mean this is the series where surgically removing someone's brain was merely an episode long inconvenience.

[Darth Ultron]

The other, other important thing, is to note when products have a subtle - or not subtle - 'Made for China' stamp on it. Western audience reactions don't matter, if the thing can make it big overseas.

Well, the Show Makers are no doubt obsessed with this wacky idea, but then they don't even try. Star Trek has always at least tried to 'show everyone', so it's not like it's new or anything. And it's not like it's the first 'Asian' starship name. They do, oddly, sprinkle a bit of 'Asian' stuff in and then think all such people will be zombies and just watch it because of that tiny sprinkle. But it makes no sense.

First of, the whole world will watch American movies and Tv shows because they like them....it has been true for decades. They don't care ''who'' or ''what'' is in them.

Second, the sprinkle is not enough. Like if say Country Z was to make a show Space Trek, with all Country Z people, places, things and such...and it's in Z language...and they added Captain Smith of the XXS Texas as like secondary background things would people in America 'suddenly' just watch the show?

Third, if it is true, well what about the whole world? Why the focus on just one place? This is where it really falls apart as they don't want to make it ''too un-American''.



Cite a few, please. Making it to the mainstream, and flopping, is basically an oxymoron. I don't know what you mean.


Mainstream does not mean popular. Every year dozens of TV shows come out, and most get cancelled right away. And a few struggle for a season or two and are gone.

The same is true of movies, plenty of movies just bomb. They are mainstream, but still beyond bad. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a recent example.

[dps]

Mainstream does not mean popular. Every year dozens of TV shows come out, and most get cancelled right away. And a few struggle for a season or two and are gone.


Exactly. A standard TV sitcom is completely mainstream. Yet, there are tons of such shows that fail, while a few become hits. And there is no real correlation between the popularity of a particular show and its perceived quality, either.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that every TV sitcom is mainstream, though the vast majority are.

[Mechalich]

'Mainstream' is a benchmark that has changed with the expansion of the media universe. As recently as the 1990s you had 4 major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX), a handful of secondary networks and/or local stations (such as UPN and the WB) and cable - which mostly showed lower tier material or reruns of shows in syndication. None of that is true anymore.

The major broadcast networks still exist, and they still routinely dominate the traditional ratings metrics (ex. NCIS), but they now compete with a vast array of material produced directly of bundled cable channels (ex. The Walking Dead), extensive content produced on premium cable (ex. Game of Thrones), a vast quantity of content produced on streaming services (ex. House of Cards), and even content produced on internet-only platforms (ex. Cobra Kai). Beyond this, the international market has also become vastly more accessible in recent years, with official streaming of huge niche markets like anime or BBC productions available in a way they never were even a decade ago.

As a result the kind of market share that a 'hit show' possesses today is almost universally vastly below what a hit show would have possessed twenty years ago. For example, there was brief buzz about how everyone watched the Rosanne Reboot, but the reality is even that sudden curiosity-boosted event had a lower market presence than a given random episode of Rosanne back when the original show aired. The impact of media landscape fragmentation is inescapable.

This fragmentation has a particular impact on science fiction shows because they are comparatively expensive to produce. Reality TV, for instance, is cheap, which is why cable is flooded with it - witness the endless array of cooking contests that power the Food Network. Sci-fi requires investment in makeup, sets, and VFX with major budgetary costs (fantasy also has this problem). Genre fans tend to tolerate science fiction that looks cheap in a way that unfamiliar audiences - which inevitable compare them to big-budget movie production values - do not. That means if you want to have a science fiction show with a broad audience, you have to be willing to throw in a giant pile of money up-front. The studious that can do that tend to be subscription services: HBO with Westworld, Netflix with Sense8, the forthcoming live-action Star Wars on Disney-flix and so on, which puts an inherent barrier in front of attaining the widest possible appeal.

[Kitten Champion]

Exactly. A standard TV sitcom is completely mainstream. Yet, there are tons of such shows that fail, while a few become hits. And there is no real correlation between the popularity of a particular show and its perceived quality, either.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that every TV sitcom is mainstream, though the vast majority are.

That's the thing though, you can make a dozen sitcoms and see which stick with audiences. Shows like Seinfeld only began to cost much of anything once they became phenomenally successful and the cast could demand millions for every show. Otherwise, conceptually, it was like three-to-four generic sets and a main cast of four actors doing most of the heavy lifting screen time-wise.


Slight rebuttal to the whole special effects issues - CSI? Murdoch Mysteries? One was notorious for the special effects and lasted a ridiculously long time by TV standards, the other is still going strong and is a period-piece. I can't imagine that being really all that cheap.

Be an interesting comparison to know what sort of budget Murdoch has, verses Agents of SHIELD or Supergirl or Orville.

(And at that, in one sentence, I have pretty much named all the TV shows I watch bar on in their entirity outside of animation...)

CSI was incredibly successful though, to the point that they could hire some pretty expensive-for-television actors as main cast members and create several spin-offs on the brand. My sister has a CSI board game that she never plays. CSI could have afforded space ship battles, probably.

As to Murdoch, period pieces don't cost much. That's why they're popular for stations like CBC and BBC with limited budgets, or a lot of Eastern not-Hollywood movies. Why? Because they can shoot them locally with tax credits, usually using extant buildings from that period or fairly cheap sets, and buying the anachronistic costumes and props from the dozens of other period pieces done before. Though, for Murdoch, the quality of the production notably waned when the CBC picked it up. Used to be Rogers Media, and they clearly had more money.

There's a Japanese live-action comedy series called Yuusha Yoshihiko which is a Dragon Quest parody done in a Monty Python kind of way. It constantly makes fun of its own cheapness (even adding a "low-budget comedy show" subtitle to its title card) by cutting out some of the illusion other productions put up, one ongoing bit they have is they use the same village set for every village they travel to, they just change the sign in front of it or shoot the characters coming in from a slightly different angle. You can plainly tell that it's some holdover set from Japanese period dramas - as well as all the costumes the villagers wear - despite the fact that the four main characters are all dressed in a Dragon Quest-esque Western Fantasy motif.

[dps]

As to Murdoch, period pieces don't cost much. That's why they're popular for stations like CBC and BBC with limited budgets, or a lot of Eastern not-Hollywood movies. Why? Because they can shoot them locally with tax credits, usually using extant buildings from that period or fairly cheap sets, and buying the anachronistic costumes and props from the dozens of other period pieces done before. Though, for Murdoch, the quality of the production notably waned when the CBC picked it up. Used to be Rogers Media, and they clearly had more money.


It's my understanding (which could be incorrect--if someone knows for sure, feel free to post correct information) that the BBC has possibly the largest collection of period clothing in the world in their wardrobe department--for the most part they don't have to buy or reproduce period clothing to do their period dramas.

[Cheesegear]

That's the thing though, you can make a dozen sitcoms and see which stick with audiences. Shows like Seinfeld only began to cost much of anything once they became phenomenally successful and the cast could demand millions for every show. Otherwise, conceptually, it was like three-to-four generic sets and a main cast of four actors doing most of the heavy lifting screen time-wise.

Did you know that Big Bang Theory costs ~$9m per episode to make as of 2017 (S9/10)? That's basically the budget of an entire Season of Game of Thrones, per episode.

The sets were bought/made in Season 1. Alright. What else do we buy? ...Nothing. The studio keeps giving them money per Season, but they have nothing to spend it on...Except the casts' salaries, and hiring massive guest stars that no other sitcom could ever possibly get.

[Mechalich]

Did you know that Big Bang Theory costs ~$9m per episode to make as of 2017 (S9/10)? That's basically the budget of an entire Season of Game of Thrones, per episode.

Um...no. Game of Thrones cost roughly $6 million per episode when it premiered (and budget limitations were very visible in that they held whole battles off-screen) and now costs over ten million per episode with the most recent season and the in-production final season costing close to 15 million per episode.

Big Bang Theory, because it has run well beyond the initial contract bid period, has a huge amount of money invested per episode in the actors. For instance Jim Parsons earned only 200k per episode in season 4 and now earns over 1 million per episode.

[Wardog]

The Culture thinking, is still set somewhere in the 50's when sci fi flicks were deemed light entertainment and B movies. The feeling among the entertainment culture is that a movie is worthy if it is long ( at least around 3 hours along), has a whole lot of heavy sounding dialogue( essentially pop pyschology) and is set on a grand scale. And yes if the movie deals with Holocaust, race relations, it is a certain shoo in. The old stereotypes are that science fiction and action flicks are popcorn movies for teenagers, which make a lot of money but have no artisitic merit. The idea that science fiction can be the basis for truly in depth and complex storytelling hasn't really soaked in for them yet. Maybe in few more decades.

That statment seems a bit mixed up to me.

I would agree that certain "Culture" people favour "worthy" three-hour+ movies about social issues. But I'm far from convinced that "worthy 3-hour+ social issue movies" are "mainstream". Whereas "popcorn movies for teenagers which make a lot of money but have no artisitic merit" seem to be pretty much the definition of "mainstream".

[Darth Ultron]

That statment seems a bit mixed up to me.

I would agree that certain "Culture" people favour "worthy" three-hour+ movies about social issues. But I'm far from convinced that "worthy 3-hour+ social issue movies" are "mainstream". Whereas "popcorn movies for teenagers which make a lot of money but have no artisitic merit" seem to be pretty much the definition of "mainstream".

The popcorn movies for teens are not exactly ''mainstreem'', they fall under the category of ''silly kidz movies''.

[Lethologica]

The popcorn movies for teens are not exactly ''mainstreem'', they fall under the category of ''silly kidz movies''.
Star Wars is literally the movie that defined the past 40 years of mainstream cinema as 'popcorn movies for teens'. You're going to have to provide your definition of 'mainstream' before making an assertion like this.

[Cheesegear]

Be an interesting comparison to know what sort of budget Murdoch has, verses Agents of SHIELD or Supergirl or Orville.

Through a bit of research...

Murdoch Mysteries started off with a budget of about $1m per episode - in addition to using three different tax credits - and has steadily declined over the years.

Agents of SHIELD allegedly drop anywhere between $3-12m per episode. Depending on CG requirements. Apparently they work off a 'per Season' budget, where some episodes look like total garbage with only a few actors on-screen. Because they don't spend any money, they can save it for the next episode. Or something. In any case, Agents of SHIELD has massive 'swings' in quality per episode, and it shows. Kind of like Dragons and White Walkers only ever showing up in the first and last episodes of Game of Thrones per Season.

Supergirl costs around $1-1.5m per episode - using tax credits.

[Darth Ultron]

Star Wars is literally the movie that defined the past 40 years of mainstream cinema as 'popcorn movies for teens'. You're going to have to provide your definition of 'mainstream' before making an assertion like this.

Star Wars IS a 'popcorn movies for teens and kidz' and is not Mainstream.

[Eldan]

Star Wars IS a 'popcorn movies for teens and kidz' and is not Mainstream.

What exactly is "Mainstream" if not "Popcorn Movie"? That is exactly what everyone goes to watch.