New York Times Article
Phoebe
They even quoted Harlan ! Maybe they ignored B5 because it didn't fit in with
the point being argued ?
Shaz wrote:
> Is it just me, or does this article make you wonder if you dreamed Babylon
> 5? Because from the way they're writing you'd think the show never happened!
>
> ***********************************
>
> February 6, 2000
>
> A Not-So-Brave New World: Sci-Fi TV
> Runs Aground
>
> By J.D. BIERSDORFER
>
Shaz
5? Because from the way they're writing you'd think the show never happened!
Anyway, all copyright for this lies with the New York Times. I'd point you
to their website, but when I went there I had to register to read the thing.
For one article it just wasn't worth it. You'd think they'd have a 'guest'
section for occasional readers
Shaz
***********************************
February 6, 2000
A Not-So-Brave New World: Sci-Fi TV
Runs Aground
By J.D. BIERSDORFER
When television sprouted up in the living rooms of postwar
America it must have seemed like a techno-wonder straight out
of science fiction. In fact, television and science-fiction
appeared to be a match made in the heavens -- an imaginative
literary genre that had already excited the masses on radio
("War of the Worlds," anyone?) could now be melded with
pictures to give audiences something truly new to think about.
But for those expecting new horizons of literate entertainment and
provocative visions of the future, sci-fi television has largely
failed to live up to its promise.
In the 1960s, series like "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits"
effectively mixed social messages with simple special effects.
"Star Trek" combined space opera with memorable scripts and
flourished in syndication. With scripts that didn't pander to
audiences, these shows managed to pull early science-fiction
television away from pulpy stories about invading bug-eyed
monsters. Part of the magic may have been the times: the rocket
launches and moon missions of the era whetted a lot of
appetites for the possibilities of what might be Out There.
These days, however, channel surfers are more likely to
encounter fiction that has swapped "science" for "sex" to attract
viewers. Take "Lexx," a cable series that began its second season
last month on the Sci-Fi Channel. The main character is Xev, a
voluptuous, scantily clad woman with a hyperactive libido who travels
around the galaxy with three male characters on a giant bug that
serves as a spaceship. In one recent episode, the crew lands on a
harmonious all-male world of gay space monks and disrupts the
society so badly that the planet blows up.
Later this month NBC will roll out "The 10th Kingdom," a miniseries
that draws on standard fairy-tale archetypes (think Snow White) in a
sci-fi/fantasy setting. Then there's "Cleopatra 2525," a new syndicated
series about three tightly dressed women battling aliens. Even though the
half-hour show weaves a bit of ironic humor in with exposed midriffs,
there's still far more eye candy than brain benders on screen.
This isn't exactly boldly going where no one has gone before.
It can't be because the pace of scientific discovery has outrun the human
imagination. After all, 7 of the top 10 highest-grossing films have had
science-fiction themes, and new books in the genre like Michael
Crichton's recent "Timeline," about century-hopping Yalies, regularly land
on best-seller lists.
"People talk about a golden age in retrospect, but there's been very little
intelligent science fiction on television, period," said Paul T. Riddell, a
writer and columnist for Sci Fi magazine, pointing to the space-ranger
exploits of Captain Video and Flash Gordon as evidence. "Nobody
takes science fiction seriously," he added, noting that most network
executives believe that sci-fi fans "will watch anything."
"When the budget for special effects or sets became excessive," Riddell
said, "the natural tendency was to push for that teen-age male audience,
or to dumb things down to expand the available audience at any given
time."
Peter Nicholls, in the "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" (St. Martin's,
1993), writes that, "the pressures toward conformity and formula" over
the last 40 years have resulted in programming that has "never
approached the intellectual excitement of the best written s.f., or indeed
the best s.f. in the cinema."
For straightforward action-oriented fare, television has depended for
years on adaptations of sci-fi literature, for series like "The Six Million
Dollar Man" and "Logan's Run." But the literary genre's more cerebral
material doesn't seem to translate well to the budgetary and mental
constraints of the small screen. Think about it: Could Ursula K. LeGuin's
1969 book, "The Left Hand of Darkness," about a society of
hermaphrodites, possibly fly in a medium that makes a big deal about
Ally McBeal's unisex bathroom?
Books and television are different forms of entertainment, of course, and
perhaps it is unfair to compare them too closely. "If a story has too much
conversation or too much explanation in it, it's not going to work for
television," said Bonnie Hammer, the executive vice-president and
general manager of the Sci-Fi Channel. "You have to be able to tell it
through action, through the story line and through characters. If you have
to explain everything in the dialogue, it's going to be a very slow hour."
But Harlan Ellison, an award-winning author who has written much
science-fiction, says sci-fi TV has lagged decades behind what is
happening in the literary world, "because it is being done by the same
people who produce cop shows, doctor shows and game shows."
"And these are people who simply do not understand any of the aspects
or elements that make science fiction what it is," he continued. What
makes for good science fiction? "A big idea that deals with the human
heart in conflict with itself and the effects of science, the future or an
imaginative idea on those people that is rigorously logical within the terms
of its own story," said Ellison.
While the human heart in conflict with itself is often a ploy television
uses
to attract female audiences (and their valued advertising dollars), sci-fi
on
the tube has had some trouble putting down the laser pistols and showing
its sensitive side. There may be comfort in genre cliches, but the
preponderance of women in variations of the little silver space bikini
helps keep science-fiction TV in a state of arrested development.
"Sci-fi vibrates at the key intersections of modernism and
postmodernism, with the macho sci-fi writers often reverting
subconsciously to essentialized gender identities and behaviors," says Dr.
Christine Boese, an assistant professor in English at Clemson University,
who disliked the original "Star Trek" because "it was all about men and
posturing."
Boese, who wrote her doctoral dissertation on the cyber-culture created
by fans of the action-fantasy show "Xena: Warrior Princess," consumes a
wide variety of science fiction and doesn't seem to mind a few guilty
pleasures. "I like sorting through the wacky theories and deciding for
myself which part is utterly wacked and whether a kernel of truth might
be buried in the dung," she said.
The prognosis isn't all bad. There are some ambitious shows on the air
these days, like the Sci Fi Channel's acclaimed "Farscape," and shows
with promise like CBS' "Now and Again." Other programs that mix
supernatural elements with clever dialogue and sharp writing, like "The
X-Files" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," may not be pure science fiction
but are entertaining hybrids.
"If the show is produced and written well, it's all on the page -- whether
it's a book or a script," said Hammer. "If it's not on the page and it's not
smart, it's not going to be there."
Ask questions, give answers and tell other readers what you know.
Join Abuzz, a new knowledge network from The New York Times.
Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives |
Marketplace
Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. |
Business | Technology |
Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts |
Automobiles | Books | Diversions |
Job Market | Real Estate | Travel
Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
--
**********************************************************
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
Help feed the world. Go to:
***********************************************************
Raj Rijhwani
ruthohar...@prodigy.net "Phoebe" writes:
> They even quoted Harlan ! Maybe they ignored B5 because it didn't fit in with
> the point being argued ?
Hmm, I wonder where we've seen that kind of behaviour before.
Oh, I remember - unbiased and professional journalism.
--
Raj Rijhwani (umtsb5/16) | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
r...@rijhwani.org | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
sca...@fido.zetnet.co.uk | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"
http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk/raj/ (demon, and gods, willing...)
G Bell
>It can't be because the pace of scientific discovery has outrun the human
>imagination. After all, 7 of the top 10 highest-grossing films have had
>science-fiction themes, and new books in the genre like Michael
>Crichton's recent "Timeline," about century-hopping Yalies, regularly land
>on best-seller lists.
Never read beyond this point because what it says is utter shite,
everybody knows that what's on the "Best-seller" lists is the crap that people
who don't read regularly buys to put on the coffee table to make their
friends think their with "It". Crichton is hardly an SF master especially
today this is like saying Patricia Cornwell is a great mystery writer
(fancy being lynched say that on rec.arts.mystery!). There are always a
few that sneak through producing quality but popular work. The same goes
for TV/movie SF; Star Wars is popular because it reinforces the cliched
view that the great unwashed have of SF and they lap it up. Anybody with
even a cursory knowledge of SF/Fantasy whould dismiss it as the crap it
is, it's certainly hasn't raised the artistic bar, mildly entertaining
but hardly going to stretch the average crash test dummies intellect.
Graham
Alison Hopkins
Raj Rijhwani wrote in message <952999...@rijhwani.org>...
>In article <38CD8A13...@prodigy.net>
> ruthohar...@prodigy.net "Phoebe" writes:
>
>> They even quoted Harlan ! Maybe they ignored B5 because it didn't fit in
with
>> the point being argued ?
>
>Hmm, I wonder where we've seen that kind of behaviour before.
>
>Oh, I remember - unbiased and professional journalism.
I didn't know Dave Golder's mob wrote for the New York Times?
Ali
Paul Harper
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>I didn't know Dave Golder's mob wrote for the New York Times?
Someone must have given them some more crayons.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Christian Smith
pa...@harper.netNOSPAM wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:05:16 -0000, "Alison Hopkins"
> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >I didn't know Dave Golder's mob wrote for the New York Times?
>
> Someone must have given them some more crayons.
>
:-)
Christian
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Harper
<chri...@jasdigital.com> wrote:
>In article <q1rucssmntdh93ei2...@4ax.com>,
>pa...@harper.netNOSPAM wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:05:16 -0000, "Alison Hopkins"
>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I didn't know Dave Golder's mob wrote for the New York Times?
>>
>> Someone must have given them some more crayons.
>>
>you mean they actually wrote with them rather than just eating them?
No, dear boy. That's what their "impartial journalists" are for... <g>
Christian Smith
wrote
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:09:22 GMT, Christian Smith
><chri...@jasdigital.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <q1rucssmntdh93ei2...@4ax.com>,
>>pa...@harper.netNOSPAM wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:05:16 -0000, "Alison Hopkins"
>>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I didn't know Dave Golder's mob wrote for the New York Times?
>>>
>>> Someone must have given them some more crayons.
>>>
>>you mean they actually wrote with them rather than just eating them?
>
>No, dear boy. That's what their "impartial journalists" are for... <g>
Yeah they must be trying some new ones as well this month. There is an
article there that is not only interesting but well written about
Farscape.
Not bad. 1 worthwhile article in <mumble> issues....
Christian
"Every new beginning is some other beginnings end..."
ICQ 45494039
(E_Mail: Remove "NOSPAM" from e-mail address when replying)