Why did space sci fi had such a hard time in the 2010s?

[CmdrShep2183]

It seemed like space adventure outside of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" had a really hard time in the 2010s. The Expanse had to fight for it's life. J Michael Straczynski was working on an adaption of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy" but the studio he was working with was shuttered.

https://twitter.com/straczynski/status/1335012320427220993

https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/kim-stanley-robinson-mars-triology.jpg?w=900

I was excited to see an adaption of Iain M. Banks Culture series
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VPNA3su3aNg/Te4WfrMOtWI/AAAAAAAA5Mo/JdIipvTcTXo/s400/The%2BCulture%2BNovels%2Bby%2BIain%2BM%2BBanks.jpg

but that went belly up as well.
https://www.tor.com/2020/08/24/amazons-culture-tv-series-no-longer-in-the-works/comment-page-1/

Could a space sci fi show have become mainstream in the 2010s if it was of Game of Thrones or even "The Walking Dead" quality and on a mainstream network or would superheroes, zombies, and Game of Thrones be too strong of a cultural force for one to become successful? Has society in the 2010s stopped dreaming of a better future? Did space lose it's sense of wonder?

Could a space adventure be exciting without aliens and laser guns?

[Dire_Flumph]

Gravity, Interstellar and the Martian all came out around the same time and were pretty solid successes if I remember correctly.

The Guardians of the Galaxy movies were of course a massive, and largely unexpected, success.

Admittedly the Orville, Killjoys and Dark Matter are most of what's coming to mind for TV outside of the Expanse, but I feel like I'm forgetting a few.

Video games had a few successes in the 2010's, but with your username, I'm sure you're aware of that :biggrin:

I don't think the 2010's were that much worse than other decades, though I admit a fondness for the 90's due to TNG, DS9 and B5. Projects are optioned and fail all the time unfortunately.

[Ramza00]

Once again I am not sure if CmdrShep2183 is human or a bot, but I still like their threads anyway :smalltongue:

-----

Space has to be "fun" or some other atypical everyday emotion such as "horror." Make it banal, make it ordinary and it loses its fun.

I will argue that these things go in cycles, like the nostalgia cycle but there are also other inputs besides the 20 to 30 year nostalgia cycle. To do a good space show in 2020s you have to figure out some form of idea that has not been done before, or have a really good script for the pilot / first season and land each gymnastic routine you attempt. A successful gymnastic routine earns applause a faltered routine causes glances and grimaces where people have sympathetic cringe at the mistakes.

Since lots of good sci-fi was the 90s and to some extent the 00s it is probably a good "fallow" time to launch a space property but you have to know how to land it for wasting your shot and okaying bad shows will actually delay someone okaying a good show even though we are talking 530+ US Scripted Shows as of 2019 (2020 and 2021 are kind of outliers due to obvious reasons.)

[Starbuck_II]

Still waiting on a Mass Effect world tv series.
Could be set during Krogan war or just normal mercenary series.

Really, I think it is the required special effects and setting pieces need that are an issue (these can cost money)
Star Trek used silly things like small models on strings because they used it from a far away shot you didn't notice. Plus, no one expected as much back then.

[Kitten Champion]

{Scrubbed}

[Mechalich]

The answer to this question is actually very simple: money.

Space-based science fiction, in live action, is expensive. It just is. Animation, print media, video games, take your pick, and space jumps up in popularity. Likewise, science fiction not set in space, such as dystopian or post-apocalyptic science fiction, is quite common on TV, because it's much cheaper to make.

Studios know this, of course, since it's been well established by now that even critically and popularly beloved shows set in space struggle to turn a profit, and so they are less likely to greenlight such productions. There are exceptions, of course, Apple has giant piles of money and they're bringing Foundation to TV while filming in Malta of all places.

The most likely way to see a proliferation of space-based science fiction is some cost-saving invention. The digital screen technology used to make The Mandalorian, once it proliferates across the industry, might do it.

[Cikomyr2]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Hehehhe

That's not entirely false I suppose. What were the big 2000s space sci fi shows and movies, compared to the 2010s?

I suppose Battlestar Galactica had to be on the list. As much as some people disliked how it turned out, it was BIG

[Ramza00]

Hehehhe

That's not entirely false I suppose. What were the big 2000s space sci fi shows and movies, compared to the 2010s?

I suppose Battlestar Galactica had to be on the list. As much as some people disliked how it turned out, it was BIG

Firefly, Farscape, BSG which you mentioned, Enterprise, 1 season of Voyager, 6.5 seasons of Stargate, all 5 seasons of Stargate Atlantis, Andromeda, and probably half a dozen things I forgot or have never seen.

[Fyraltari]

Once again I am not sure if CmdrShep2183 is human or a bot, but I still like their threads anyway :smalltongue:

*distant, ghostly Alan Turing laughter*

[Mechalich]

Firefly, Farscape, BSG which you mentioned, Enterprise, 1 season of Voyager, 6.5 seasons of Stargate, all 5 seasons of Stargate Atlantis, Andromeda, and probably half a dozen things I forgot or have never seen.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2000s_American_science_fiction_television _series) suggests that's actually most of it. The 2010s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2010s_American_science_fiction_television _series) aren't that different by volume, really. I do think there were fewer seasons overall though, because the 2010 shows tended to be less successful (Stargate Universe, for example, failed pretty hard compared to its predecessors, and Stargate hasn't really rallied since).

There was actually significantly more 'sci-fi' in the 2010s compared to the 2000s by Wikipedia's count: 161 to 111 shows, it's just that fewer were live action shows set in space. But that's always been a small portion of the overall sci-fi marketplace. Maybe a dozen space shows get produced each decade in the US, and probably half of them fail after one or two seasons, and even shows people like struggle to keep afloat.

[Eldan]

Firefly, Farscape, BSG which you mentioned, Enterprise, 1 season of Voyager, 6.5 seasons of Stargate, all 5 seasons of Stargate Atlantis, Andromeda, and probably half a dozen things I forgot or have never seen.

Dune, I suppose, if you want to call that a series. I thought that one was actually pretty decent. Star Wars: Clone Wars (and half of Star Wars: THE Clone Wars). The Doctor Who revival.

[Tyndmyr]

Why were some shows canceled/struggled to get funded?

Well, that's the normal state of tv shows and films. Any project so immensely expensive is going to struggle to find funding unless it's following enough of a track record to be nearly a sure thing.

And thus we have endless sequels, prequels, reimaginings and reboots.

[Cikomyr2]

Why were some shows canceled/struggled to get funded?

Well, that's the normal state of tv shows and films. Any project so immensely expensive is going to struggle to find funding unless it's following enough of a track record to be nearly a sure thing.

And thus we have endless sequels, prequels, reimaginings and reboots.

And space/sci fi shows have such a large budget requirement..

[GloatingSwine]

And a lot of that budget cost is upfront as well. Sets are expensive to make, that's why lots of SF shows get first-season-itis, because all the money goes on sets, costuming, and props. But they stick around for future seasons so the rest of the budget goes further.

[Khedrac]

And space/sci fi shows have such a large budget requirement..

It's not just the large budget, but in most cases the audience (especially the non-hard-code fans) are demanding as to the quality of the special effects (which also age really fast) and that means the effects can very easily eat the budget leaving far less money for good writing.

Another problem for SciFi si that taste differ wildly - some like space opera, others like hard scifi (and then real world science can far too easily contain tricks the fans will know but the authors not so what is assumed to be very hard is known to be quite easy).

All is all, making a good "sci-fi" series is very hard as well as expensive - so why risk the money?

[Silent Hunter]

There wasn't exactly a huge amount of public interest in space, was there? The Shuttle was retired and Musk was having difficulty getting his SpaceX first stages to stick the landing. Once we go back to the Moon and then head to Mars, you might be a considerable pick-up in interest.

[sktarq]

A bunch of reasons.

We have a major market niche effect. With lots and lots shows being made but with few really able to attract very large audiences. This limits the amount any one show is LIKELY to earn (sure there will be blockbusters but that can't really be relied on for any given show) and thus the budget that can be allocated.

We also have audience expectations. People's idea of what they expect effects wise currently is rather set by movies and miniseries IMO. And that level of special effects is expensive and time consuming. If the level of special effects that the audience expects is not met then the likelihood the show succeeds is rather low. Which when combined with the above limited upside it makes such a venture highly risky, especially in comparison to other options (many, such as ground based sci-fi with much more limited special effects (ex Black Mirror, Orphan Black, etc) will appeal to much of the same demographics and carry lower risk).

The special effects driven nature of the field can cause issues for storytelling, both from people not developing it well enough (too much of development time is focused on SFX not the writers room), to major changes of what can and can't be done (in budget) messing with scripts late in development, and various other reasons.

The dominance of branding, the mania for expansive universes, etc that can make telling a story more difficult. The success of say StarTrek, Starwars, and Dr Who have set an idea of "success" looks like in Sci-Fi. For the producer honchos green/Redlight-ing projects if the idea can not go toward that kind of success it is a strong mark against (not always fatal but a lean against) so pushing boundaries can be difficult.

Lots of space sci-fi movies in the last decade have come in below expectations. Sure we remember the hits but Tom Cruise collecting water on earth for Saturn moon colonies is largely forgotten for example.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Dire_Flumph
Gravity, Interstellar and the Martian all came out around the same time and were pretty solid successes if I remember correctly.

Also Arrival, which is one of the best SF movies I’ve seen in years. It was in that same pack and gave me a lot of hope for the genre, although feeling less hopeful these days.


Originally Posted by Mechalich
…Apple has giant piles of money and they're bringing Foundation to TV while filming in Malta of all places.

Is that still in production? I saw a trailer a year or two ago, looked promising, but I thought it had already come out and I’d missed it.


Originally Posted by Cikomyr2
And space/sci fi shows have such a large budget requirement.

In general, yes, but there are exceptions. There are a few low-budget entries which are surprisingly good, with Prospect being a recent standout.


Originally Posted by sktarq
Sure we remember the hits but Tom Cruise collecting water on earth for Saturn moon colonies is largely forgotten for example.

Tastes do vary, since this is one of my favorites.

.

[Tyrant]

Lots of space sci-fi movies in the last decade have come in below expectations. Sure we remember the hits but Tom Cruise collecting water on earth for Saturn moon colonies is largely forgotten for example.
While we're at it, don't forget Tom Cruise dying again and again and again and... to fight off an alien invasion.

[Mechalich]

Is that still in production? I saw a trailer a year or two ago, looked promising, but I thought it had already come out and I’d missed it.

It's still in production. There were significant COVID-related delays.


We also have audience expectations. People's idea of what they expect effects wise currently is rather set by movies and miniseries IMO. And that level of special effects is expensive and time consuming. If the level of special effects that the audience expects is not met then the likelihood the show succeeds is rather low. Which when combined with the above limited upside it makes such a venture highly risky, especially in comparison to other options (many, such as ground based sci-fi with much more limited special effects (ex Black Mirror, Orphan Black, etc) will appeal to much of the same demographics and carry lower risk).

The special effects driven nature of the field can cause issues for storytelling, both from people not developing it well enough (too much of development time is focused on SFX not the writers room), to major changes of what can and can't be done (in budget) messing with scripts late in development, and various other reasons.

One of the major effects issues for space-based science fiction in particular is the cost of doing aliens. Time-consuming prosthetics and makeup drive up costs a lot, especially in a TV context with considerably more days of shooting compared to movies. This is something that shows up even in really high-budget projects - the Mandalorian focuses on human characters, has a love affair with full-face helmets, and when they brought in Rosario Dawson as Ahsoka Tano they deliberately reduced the complexity of her appearance compared to the animated model of the character so as to making filming easier.

This is something that has carried over to fantasy series too. More and more fantasy shows that get produced have only humans as major characters, elves, dwarves, and the like have faded away. Not only does this save on makeup and prosthetics, but fantasy humans can mostly use extant historical structures as their fantasy dwellings, which saves on set production. For example, Shadow and Bone filmed all of it's 'Little Palace' scenes, which was like a third of the whole show, in the very real Festetics Palace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festetics_Palace) in Hungary. You can't do that with aliens, in fantasy or sci-fi, you have to actually build a set for the non-human culture.


Lots of space sci-fi movies in the last decade have come in below expectations. Sure we remember the hits but Tom Cruise collecting water on earth for Saturn moon colonies is largely forgotten for example.

That's fair, and it includes a number of high-profile failures in big franchises such as Star Wars (disregarding the merits, the ST as a whole came in below expectations and Solo lost money), Star Trek (the rebooted movies petered out with Star trek Beyond underperforming), Alien (neither Prometheus nor Alien: Covenant were major successes), and even Transformers (which sort of counts as space-based and definitely crashed down by the end of the decade). There were also several intended franchises that failed hard, including Ender's Game, John Carter, Jupiter Ascending, and Alita: Battle Angel.

That said, there are some bright spots. Premiering in 2019, The Wandering Earth made all of the money in China. Appetite for sci-fi in China, fast becoming the world's largest movie market, is high. A space-based franchise that appeals to the Chinese market (Star Wars, for complicated reasons, apparently does not) could become a big success.

[Cikomyr2]

Is [Foundation] still in production? I saw a trailer a year or two ago, looked promising, but I thought it had already come out and I’d missed it.




Do you mean the TEASER with Jarred Harris?

[Anonymouswizard]

The Doctor Who revival.

Which, as I remember, got mocked by meant people for it's special effects quality. While also having an advantage of an existing fanbase who expected bad special effects.

Also, Doctor Who has for decades shown that bad special effects still work if the actors can sell them. Sure, they're important, but if they're not truly terrible good writing and acting can make up for them.

The real question this should be asking is as follows. The Doctor Who revival must have built up a good collection of old and rejected props so where's the Blake's Seven remake?

[Aedilred]

I immediately thought of a number of sci-fi projects during the 2010s, but on reflection realised that pretty much all of them were movies*.

That got me thinking about the converse. We know that fantasy has had any number of TV shows, but how many movies did it get in the last decade? Aside from The Hobbit and Hunger Games I'm struggling to think of any big-ticket fantasy movies.

Is it possible that the 2010s were a decade during which sci-fi was on the big screen and fantasy on television? I have done no research on this question.



*Interstellar, Gravity, Prometheus, Alien Covenant, Valerian, John Carter, Riddick, The Martian, Passengers, Ad Astra, Iron Sky, two Star Treks, multiple Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy (and Infinity War), and probably several others.

[Eldan]

Sounds like it. There were a few attempts at Fantasy movie franchises after Lord of the Rings (Percy Jackson, Golden Compass, Eragon, they mostly seem aimed at teens, actually), but none of them really established themselves.

[Psyren]

Still waiting on a Mass Effect world tv series.
Could be set during Krogan war or just normal mercenary series.

Anything pre-First Contact War is a nonstarter - no humans means nobody outside of already-diehard-fans has a reason to care, plus it drives up your costs when literally the entire cast including all background extras end up needing makeup/prosthetics/CGI. We can visit Rachni War/Krogan Rebellions through flashbacks and the like, but an entire series set around that would be far too risky.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mechalich
It's still in production. There were significant COVID-related delays.

Thanks, for some reason I thought it had wrapped before that took over.


Originally Posted by Mechalich
One of the major effects issues for space-based science fiction in particular is the cost of doing aliens. Time-consuming prosthetics and makeup drive up costs a lot, especially in a TV context with considerably more days of shooting compared to movies.

This was on display in the early seasons of TNG. The first season had some excellent, almost movie-quality alien designs, but they were clearly much too expensive and time-consuming to sustain, which is why they defaulted to little spots and ridged noses to define most of their “alien” species.


Originally Posted by Mechalich
There were also several intended franchises that failed hard, including Ender's Game….

Speaker for the Dead was the first book in that series that I read, and remains my favorite by far. I wouldn’t think it would be too difficult to make a sequel, since you wouldn’t need any of the actors from Ender's Game.

You would need to do some deft world-building to compress the concepts into a film treatment, but not impossible. “The Name of the Rose in space” is how I’d pitch it, since it’s essentially a murder mystery.


Originally Posted by Aedilred
…and Hunger Games I'm struggling to think of any big-ticket fantasy movies.

I thought Hunger Games was near-future science fiction?


Originally posted by Eldan
...Golden Compass....

This was a direct victim of the 2008 financial crisis, since that caused a halt to the plans for a second movie.

[GloatingSwine]

You would need to do some deft world-building to compress the concepts into a film treatment, but not impossible. “The Name of the Rose in space” is how I’d pitch it, since it’s essentially a murder mystery.


If what you got out of "The Name of the Rose" is a murder mystery, you need to read it again....

(The last Iain M. Banks book, The Hydrogen Sonata, really is Name of the Rose in space, because it's ultimately about knowledge and power, who wants it and who wants to hide it, and what they'll do for that end).

[Taevyr]

Thanks, for some reason I thought it had wrapped before that took over.


I thought Hunger Games was near-future science fiction?


Yeah, Hunger Games is definitely near-future Science-Fiction or even teenager-aimed cyberpunk, I don't quite see how one could get the impression it's fantasy.

And while space Sci-Fi TV seemed less succesful in the 10's (I still fondly remember that one season of Terra Nova), games and such were still going pretty strong, I think. As others said, it's an expensive medium to create series in, similar to fantasy, and with limited appeal unless the series already has an embedded audience.

There were quite a few attempts to catch the next "big hit series" in that period, both sci-fi and fantasy. Very few worked out.

[Rodin]

Anything pre-First Contact War is a nonstarter - no humans means nobody outside of already-diehard-fans has a reason to care, plus it drives up your costs when literally the entire cast including all background extras end up needing makeup/prosthetics/CGI. We can visit Rachni War/Krogan Rebellions through flashbacks and the like, but an entire series set around that would be far too risky.

Why not just retcon it for TV?

I know that changing thisngs for an adaptation is a controversial thing. Hell, I'm one of the first to start ranting and raving when they change something big. But that's generally because they changed something and made it worse.

Be up front about it. Say that you want to tell a story set in that era but need humanity to be involved. Say that there isn't a lot of storytelling space that isn't already told by the games.

It's not like the pre-human timeline makes that much sense anwyay. The Krogan expand for 300 years across the galaxy with nobody doing anything. The Rachni Wars take place over 300 years. Aria lives on Omega station for a hundred years before taking it over, then rules the place for a further 200 before Shepard arrives. Etc., Etc.

Write a reboot story based on a "What if the humans were around" for the big galactic events. Have the humans on the early Council where none of the races trust each other. Tell other tales that could have happened in the gaping holes that exist is Mass Effect's history. Be faithful to the setting while writing it in an AU format.

[Psyren]

Why not just retcon it for TV?

I know that changing thisngs for an adaptation is a controversial thing. Hell, I'm one of the first to start ranting and raving when they change something big. But that's generally because they changed something and made it worse.

Be up front about it. Say that you want to tell a story set in that era but need humanity to be involved. Say that there isn't a lot of storytelling space that isn't already told by the games.

It's not like the pre-human timeline makes that much sense anwyay. The Krogan expand for 300 years across the galaxy with nobody doing anything. The Rachni Wars take place over 300 years. Aria lives on Omega station for a hundred years before taking it over, then rules the place for a further 200 before Shepard arrives. Etc., Etc.

Write a reboot story based on a "What if the humans were around" for the big galactic events. Have the humans on the early Council where none of the races trust each other. Tell other tales that could have happened in the gaping holes that exist is Mass Effect's history. Be faithful to the setting while writing it in an AU format.

...But why?

Having the humans around for the Rachni wars is pointless because the Krogan are still the only ones who can take the fight to their toxic planets. Not even the Turians were around for that, which is what made the Salarian decision to uplift the Krogan so necessary (and desperate/shortsighted.) And if you have the humans show up during the Krogan Rebellions, it dilutes the impact of the First Contact War, as now you have Turians fighting a war on two fronts instead of stumbling across us during relative peacetime. This makes their eventual collaboration on making the Normandy less meaningful, if it even still happens. Not to mention humans being around for the Krogan Rebellions means they would pick a side, which undermines humans' neutrality on the Krogan question later and makes Shepard harder for Wrex/Wreav to trust.

I'm not against changing continuity for an adaptation either. But when your changes fray the fabric of the setting and create more inconsistencies and problems than they resolve, you need a really really good reason to have them, and "Rachni Wars/Krogan Rebellions but with humans running around" isn't.

[Rodin]

...But why?

Having the humans around for the Rachni wars is pointless because the Krogan are still the only ones who can take the fight to their toxic planets. Not even the Turians were around for that, which is what made the Salarian decision to uplift the Krogan so necessary (and desperate/shortsighted.) And if you have the humans show up during the Krogan Rebellions, it dilutes the impact of the First Contact War, as now you have Turians fighting a war on two fronts instead of stumbling across us during relative peacetime. This makes their eventual collaboration on making the Normandy less meaningful, if it even still happens. Not to mention humans being around for the Krogan Rebellions means they would pick a side, which undermines humans' neutrality on the Krogan question later and makes Shepard harder for Wrex/Wreav to trust.

I'm not against changing continuity for an adaptation either. But when your changes fray the fabric of the setting and create more inconsistencies and problems than they resolve, you need a really really good reason to have them, and "Rachni Wars/Krogan Rebellions but with humans running around" isn't.

*shrug* As you like.

My overall point stands though - using the existing history is pointless, because there's basically none of it worth telling if you insist on having humans around (and a TV series would for the reasons stated earlier). The First Contact War is more like the First Contact Skirmish, and then not much notable happens until the events of Mass Effect.

A Mass Effect TV series either tells the events of the games (which we all know by heart at this point) or you retcon the hell out of the timeline. That's your two options. Well, I suppose you could create a Mass Effect: Andromeda series instead, but nobody wants that.

As much as I love Mass Effect, I'd much prefer a Sci-Fi Space opera be set in an original universe that's designed with TV in mind. Heck, that goes for the games too. I'd much rather see "Mass Effect, but it's a new IP" over Mass Effect 4.

[Psyren]

*shrug* As you like.

My overall point stands though - using the existing history is pointless, because there's basically none of it worth telling if you insist on having humans around (and a TV series would for the reasons stated earlier). The First Contact War is more like the First Contact Skirmish, and then not much notable happens until the events of Mass Effect.

...Is this a joke? The Skyllian Blitz? The Torfan Raid? Saren and Anderson? The Illusive Man's origin? Even sci-fi horror set on Akuze? All take place before the games, and entire novels and comics have been written about this stuff. They can all be meaty stand-alone sci-fi stories in their own right. You could even do smaller vignettes like Dr. Saleon, Zaeed's betrayal, or one of Kasumi's many capers. There's a lot of story to explore in the galaxy before ME1 takes place, without delving into ancient history.


A Mass Effect TV series either tells the events of the games (which we all know by heart at this point) or you retcon the hell out of the timeline. That's your two options.

Wrong, see above.


As much as I love Mass Effect, I'd much prefer a Sci-Fi Space opera be set in an original universe that's designed with TV in mind. Heck, that goes for the games too. I'd much rather see "Mass Effect, but it's a new IP" over Mass Effect 4.

Prepare to be disappointed I guess (https://www.inverse.com/gaming/mass-effect-4-release-date-trailer-game-awards-2020)

[GloatingSwine]

As much as I love Mass Effect, I'd much prefer a Sci-Fi Space opera be set in an original universe that's designed with TV in mind. Heck, that goes for the games too. I'd much rather see "Mass Effect, but it's a new IP" over Mass Effect 4.

If you want something that's got a little bit of the feel of Mass Effect, and a little bit of the feel of Firefly, read The Long Way to a Small Angry Planet.

[Mechalich]

With regard to Mass Effect, it's perhaps worth recalling that they actually made an animated Mass Effect film - Mass Effect: Paragon Lost - all the way back in 2012. Though not actively terrible, it was an utterly bland and forgettable production. It's a lesson that having a solid IP as support doesn't really do all that much on its own. A good story is essential, and stories designed for games continue to struggle mightily in conversion to TV and Film. The very best video game adaptations still top out at 'okay, that was fun.'

In any case, Mass Effect is a high-action franchise that would have to be extremely heavy on the visual effects, which punches up the costs into the stratosphere. Doubly so when you consider that essentially all of the major non-human species would have to be done using motion capture or full-on CGI construction.

The ideal space-based science fiction adaptation has no aliens, takes place almost entirely indoors and shows space as little as possible, doesn't involve a lot of outlandish tech, and has a minimal number of high-intensity action sequences.

The Three-Body Problem, for example, fits basically all of these criteria (at least for the critical first book which has to come in lower budget) and that's probably why Netflix is currently producing an adaptation helmed by Benioff and Weiss of Game of Thrones fame (and infamy).

[Psyren]

With regard to Mass Effect, it's perhaps worth recalling that they actually made an animated Mass Effect film - Mass Effect: Paragon Lost - all the way back in 2012. Though not actively terrible, it was an utterly bland and forgettable production. It's a lesson that having a solid IP as support doesn't really do all that much on its own. A good story is essential, and stories designed for games continue to struggle mightily in conversion to TV and Film. The very best video game adaptations still top out at 'okay, that was fun.'

You mean the one starring bland jock James Vega that went direct to Blu-Ray and Xbox Live because streaming was still getting off the ground? Eh, I'd say there were other factors besides the story in that one's failure.

As a comparison, consider Castlevania, which topped out considerably above 'okay.' (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/castlevania/s01) The video game curse isn't gone completely, but streaming is clearly the model that works for this kind of cult fandom property.

[Anonymouswizard]

The ideal space-based science fiction adaptation has no aliens, takes place almost entirely indoors and shows space as little as possible, doesn't involve a lot of outlandish tech, and has a minimal number of high-intensity action sequences.

And now you're making me even more annoyed that there isn't a Revelation Space TV series. The book requires only a few scenes set against space, and literally one where seeing the ship is important (although the costs ramp up towards the ending with the suits and exploration of Hades). Although I suppose that the effects of the Melding Plague might increase the budget somewhat.

(I've but actually read The Three Busy Problem, because I read a plot synopsis and it sounded a bit too much like Revelation Space and I've only just finished the main trilogy of that and moved into the prequels, maybe I'll pick it up in a year or two.)