Why is TV SF so bad? (And a modest proposal to fix it)

[Transwarp]

This may seem like an odd topic in a forum devoted to a TV science fiction show of which all here are presumably fans, so perhaps I should explain myself.

First, what do I mean by 'science fiction'? I define science fiction as a genre that involves an element of science. The science will usually be sufficiently advanced from what we know today to impact the plot or setting. In other words, the characters live and interact with a universe that is different in some way from the real world (and I trust I do not have to define 'real world'..?).

This opens up a huge range of possibilities, which I believe forms the base appeal of science fiction. Time travel, space travel, fantastic inventions, alien civilizations... the sky is (literally) the limit. The fictional science, being an extrapolation of current science, may or may not be correct. There is no known way in current science a human can travel faster than light. Nor is there any known way a human can travel backward in time (forward is a different story). So the science in the story is just an extrapolation of current science, but it need not conform with current knowledge of how the universe *actually* works. BUT (you just knew there was a BUT) while the extrapolated science need not conform with current knowledge of science, that doesn't mean that what is currently known can just be ignored. This leads to the first reason why TV and movie science fiction is often so bad:

1 - BAD SCIENCE
Back in the early twentieth century, you could write a story about the canals on Mars, or the jungles of Venus. Nobody really *knew* what was there. But don't try that today, not if you want to be taken seriously by your readers. TV science fiction does the equivalent of this all the time at an appalling rate. Not specifically the Martian canals--that's just an example I came up with that I thought might be easily grasped--but numerous other oversights that are just as glaringly obvious to anyone with a basic grounding in science: Pea-soup fog nebulas, asteroid fields with huge, careening boulders bashing into each other, torpedoes with antimatter warheads that just blow a whole in the hull (instead of reducing the entire ship to its component atoms), genetic clones that have all the memories of the original (Sim), 'spatial anomalies' that cause Archer's spilled coffee to just hang in the air while the water molecules in Archer's body remain unaffected, or all kinds of mysterious types of radiation with completely absurd properties (theta radiation, anyone? Just stick a greek letter in front of the word 'radiation', and off you go). These are just a few examples I've pulled from Star Trek off the top of my head. There are many, MANY more. To be fair, it is not just Star Trek with this problem, but that's the franchise everyone on this forum has at least a passing familiarity with.

Why does this matter? Because not paying attention to the science in science fiction will risk alienating the target audience for your work. Not smart! 'Ah,' you say, 'but not everyone who watches science fiction is trained or conversant in science.' This is certainly true, but if you are one of those people who doesn't know or care about the accuracy of the science, then it also should not bother you if the show gets it right. So why NOT get it right?

2 - CONTINUITY ERRORS
By my definition, continuity errors are all those times when a show violates its own canon. For example, if a character receives a lethal dose of phi beta kappa radiation (or whatever your favorite fraternity is) and gets cured and released for duty from sickbay in the space of an hour, but four episodes later a character receives a lethal dose of the same radiation and dies a painful death while Doc strives heroically to save him, you've just created a continuity error. If the holodeck works one way one week, it should work that way EVERY week. If a transporter can beam through shields one week, then the next week your hero shouldn't be stranded on the bad guy's ship because they raised their shields. As a viewer, I demand to see consistency in a series from episode to episode. I demand that the show remain faithful to all its facts and internal logic.

When it takes three weeks to get from Earth to Gamma-Dabba-Doo in one episode, and only three days in the next... that's a continuity error. Yes, yes, I know. They're travelling at the 'speed of plot'. Sorry, that's the lazy way out. The plot should be worked so it fits into the framework of your universe, NOT the other way around. Violations of continuity should be especially distasteful to the fanfic community, since they take such great pains to research and understand canon. Is it too much to ask that those who are actually paid to write, produce and film the show do the same?

3 - IMMATURE PLOTS
I struggled over what to name this third bullet point. (I started out with JUVENILE, but it doesn't really fit. In fact, IMMATURE doesn't really fit, either. Really, I'm not talking about the plots so much as I am the character development and relationships. The on-again-off-again, Junior High schoolish, Trip and T'Pol relationship comes to mind (with a few Archer-T'Pol side trips thrown in). Or some of the early, awkward scenes where Trip and Archer are yelling (literally) or threatening violence to the Vulcans to show how much they dislike them. How very subtle! Or the cat-suits T'Pol had to wear instead of a real uniform, especially after she was commissioned in Starfleet. Or the decon chamber. Or Lieutenant Reed and Major Hayes behaving like children (fist fights!) instead of the highly-trained professionals they are supposed to be.

Please, do not insult our intelligence! Do not dumb down the plots or action to the lowest common denominator. Pick your target audience and stick to it. if you're targeting adults, then write and produce something that appeals to ADULTS. If you're targeting adolescents, then give them power rangers, Wesley Crusher, and unicorns. But whatever you do, don't try to please both groups with the same show. I would have liked to see more gritty realism (such as BSG seasons 1 and 2) and fewer episodes like (can't remember the names) the one where Trip and Malcolm act like teenagers on Risa, or Trip gets impregnated by a bowl of rocks.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Spectacular special effects are not now, never have been, and never will be a substitute for a decent plot, crisp dialogue and good acting. Tattoo *that* to your forehead (in reverse letters so you can read it while shaving).

So, now we get to the crux of the matter. Why does so much science fiction on TV suffer from these problems? Is it because the writers and producers are all lazy, ignorant and uncaring buffoons?

There may be some of that involved, but I actually believe most of the people working on a show really want it to be as good as it can be. I think they (mostly) really DO care. However, before I get to what I think the real reason is, and my proposed solution, let me make this disclaimer: I have never, EVER worked in the TV or movie industry. I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what it's really like. Everything that follows should be regarded with that caveat firmly in mind.

I think the problem is deadlines. The time crunch. The pressure of getting scripts written, produced and filmed on a weekly basis. I know if I had a firm deadline for my own writing, the quality would suffer. Yes, I know, I'm working a full time job in addition to writing, but the principle remains the same. I think the overall quality of any show would increase enormously if the creators had more time.

This then, is my grand idea: No more weekly TV series! Everything is a miniseries, filmed all at once, and shown all at once (an episode a day.)

This has many advantages. For one thing, you can do more story arcs without your viewers forgetting what happened in previous weeks. And your writers will be less prone to forgetting, so you'll have fewer continuity errors. (Although I still insist every show have a single resource to prevent such errors. A central book or file cabinet or database or website--like memory alpha--that is a repository of ALL canonical information that anyone can refer to when they need to know something specific about the show or its universe, like how far it is from Earth to Gamma-Dabba-Doo.)

But most of all, you can get a whole season done up front and minimize the time constraints. I envision a series coming out on a non-periodic schedule, rather like fanfiction does. People following a show might subscribe to it, and get 'TIVO-updates', kind of like fanfiction.net sends out email updates on a story you're following.

As for bad science? Simple. Since most writers in Hollywood have probably forgotten most of the science they learned in High School, I would have every script vetted by an actual scientist. And I would mandate that the producers actually follow his advice. If they don't know where to get a scientist, just drive down to the local community college and walk into the science building. I'll bet most of the faculty at a junior college would be tickled pink to review Hollywood scripts. They'd probably work for peanuts, too. Five hundred bucks to do the entire season.

Same thing with any other area of expertise the writers are not familiar with. Such as military life. Go to the local VFW and hire you a couple of retired vets to review that aspect of the scripts. BUT YOU MUST LISTEN WHEN THEY TELL YOU SOMETHING IS WRONG. Even if it messes up your beautiful plot idea.

So that's my idea. Whaddaya think?

[Cogito]

Whaddaya think?

Yeah!

(And regarding your search for the missing word, I'd go with puerile.)

[putaro]

I was thinking about this the other day. You can watch a lot of shows that have beautiful sets, props, costumes, etc. (or movies - Star Wars Episode I-III come to mind) but the scripts suck. I think part of the problem is that script writing isn't something you can divvy up easily. You may have dozens of prop designers sculpting phasers, etc. but just one writer.

One of the recent trends has been towards more "serialized" plot lines. And, while this is more compelling when you're watching the first time, I think it really drops the rewatchability. You can watch any of the TOS episodes at any time and you don't need to worry about where it fits in the continuity and that's pretty much true of all of the older television shows, SF or not. The serialization also means that you can't have writing teams working in parallel, not unless you are very, very careful.

So, I would say that if shows went to smaller, self-contained arcs, it would work out. A three episode arc, ala the Vulcan episodes from ENT season 4 instead of a full season of Xindi, would let them write more scripts in parallel, hence spending more time on them, and make them more rewatchable, hence increasing the market for the DVDs perhaps.

The other thing I would recommend is to bring in real SF authors. TOS had a number of episodes written by major SF authors (e.g. Harlan Ellison and City on the Edge of Forever).

[Cogito]

Yes, having genuinely thought-provoking plots rather than 'alien encounter of the week' would make a big difference.

Regarding character development, I think there is an unwritten law in cartoons that each episode must start afresh from the same basic state, the characters can not develop from episode to episode. (I imagine that predictability and consistency is very important for immature minds so that the show immediately feels familiar and comfortable to them.)

For shows aimed at adults, I suspect the reverse holds true. From my point of view, neat special effects and some attractive young ladies to letch at will keep my attention for a short while but investment in the characters is what will keep me interested. If the characters are cardboard cutouts who don't show any signs of development, it's hard to keep any long term interest.

So, one of my 'fixes' would be that the series as a whole must tell an interesting story about the development of the characters in it, irrespective of the adventures they may be having in each episode or arc. In my mind that has to include forming meaningful relationships, however slowly they might progress.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

I really like shows that have story arcs - big and small - that develops both plot and. Alas, too often the problem will be showrunners/producers that do this with no idea of where it will go. They just make it up as they go (Lost, Alias, nuBSG) and it will eventually disappoint and leave crucial plot points unresolved. It might be a lot to ask to do like JMS and make up Babylon 5 from start to finish (albeit with tweaks during production), but at least figure out the broad strokes in advance.

[panyasan]

Maybe a dangerous thing to say: but please don't avoid the tough questions of science and some conversational subjects. There is a trend of being neutral and talking about the real issues of our time, like SF used to do. Also, in the Trek would it seems that everybody has to agree with subjects like cloning, using someone's brain tissue, denial of medical help. The conflict we see seemed rather glossed over quickly or there isn't any. A pity, because conflicts mostly leads to great story telling and people talking about the episode.

[Alelou]

Good science in science fiction? That would be nice, but I’ll toss it out in a minute if it makes a great story. “Similitude” was extremely stupid scientifically but very interesting in every other way. I’ll suspend my disbelief for a good story, and maybe enjoy nit-picking the bad science too. On the other hand, I won’t stay tuned for good science in an achingly correct story that doesn’t grab my attention.

Writing mini-series instead of series. I think this would help, though I think just running once a week for 13 or 14 weeks makes more sense in terms of finding an audience than running episodes back to back. I like the HBO model of a shorter season with less-insane deadlines, but it’s also a question of what the staff is allowed to do. I don’t think the problem with television writing is not being able to divide up the writing. I think the problem is that they DO divide up the writing among people who may or may not have a background or affinity for the type of story they are telling or even necessarily share the same vision, and then you get some committee groupthink going, which means that individual visions get watered down, and THEN whatever results that is still good can be second-guessed at the corporate level by people in suits who only care about ratings and avoiding lawsuits. I also agree that an adult show needs to show adult character growth – arcs that last more than one episode and have lasting consequences, but that seems to be accepted in most adult shows these days. Perhaps worst of all, the suits don’t give a new show time to find its feet and its audience, which makes the extra investment required to do sci-fi far much riskier.

Putaro, Harlan Ellison was no fan of “City on the Edge of Forever.” I think most prose writers who are used to having individual control over their stories are horrified when they get translated by show-runners. (This even happened to me in a small way with a story idea I sold to Voyager. I didn’t at all care for the way it worked out on the screen -- which, I was told, was primarily because of budget requirements.) Television is a collaborative art and people in the business have to get used to their ideas going through the grinder and coming out barely recognizable. It has always looked like a fairly demoralizing way to make a living to me, although the obscene amounts of money they get paid probably help make up for it.

Continuity errors. This is a function of the time crunch, the staffing, the many, many people involved, and the number of things you can’t take for granted in a science fiction show like you can in others. With a universe like Star Trek’s the job is exponentially complicated by the vast universe of contradictory canon that already exists. Also, I’d still choose a good story over continuity unless it’s a really obvious issue. However, I agree that a good writer and staff should be able to satisfy both.

Dumb/immature/puerile stories. Yes, sometimes it’s a matter of trying to please too many audiences. But writing is also hard. Sometimes shows just suck, or do well for awhile and then suck, or alternate between sucking and not sucking. “True Blood” was a really well-written show out of the gate for HBO, but it’s just awful lately. It’s as if they have started writing their own fanfic and filming it. Then you get something like the X-Files, where it was all Chris Carter, and what started out as a compelling individual vision ran on for years past the point at which it should have been put out of its misery. Carter had the ratings to write his own ticket, but he got burned out or insane or bitter or who knows what. It happens. I think that keeping a really creative show running happily and productively towards a shared vision for a number of years is a skill that must be pretty damned elusive.

The only thing more elusive is getting a new show up and running and past that first half a year without being cancelled.

[Transwarp]

I won’t stay tuned for good science in an achingly correct story that doesn’t grab my attention.

Neither would I. But good science is not the cause of bad stories. Bad WRITING is. It's possible to have both.

Good science in science fiction? That would be nice, but I’ll toss it out in a minute if it makes a great story.

And of course, EVERY story where this judgement is made is a 'great story'. And the science is tossed. And we end up right where we are: Bad science permeating science fiction.

I guess it really is too much to ask.

[WarpGirl]

I'm just too easy I guess. My number 1 requirement is give me characters I care about. If I don't get that I don't give one infintisimal hang about good science, or bad science, issues, wonderful plots, or anything else. It's why I will never watch all of DS9 if I couldn't care about the characters in 2 seasons why would I bother with 5 more? I probably would have a lot fewer issues with ENT if Archer hadn't been in it because I didn't care about him as a fictional person and 99% of ENT is centered around him. Of course once you care about the characters you get a little annoyed with any character assassination, and I've been a little peeved at Bones with what they've been doing to Temperence Brennen lately, but it looks like that is coming to an end.

The bottom line is this, without character stories can't be told. It doesn't matter how good the plot is. So especially in scif-fi that is my priority, even with "good science" for people who are layman there has to be something that connects them emotionally. And we relate best to other people rather than through concepts. Of course I find it rediculous that there should be any continuity mistakes in any tv or movies in this day and age with the technology available to keep tabs on in. We can transmit dadt in seconds the "time" excuse doesn't fly with me. That may be harsh, but that's how I feel.

Personally if I had any deam sci-fi series I wanted I say please oh please let the Wachowski Brothers do it! That said I really liked Falling Skies.

[putaro]

KTR posted this over in Randomness but I think it's relevant here

How to Reboot Star Trek for Modern TV

As far as television SF in general, has there EVER been a TV SF show that took the science seriously? I can't think of one off hand.

[Alelou]

I haven't watched a lot of SF, but I can't think of a single shipboard show that even begins to make sense scientifically, except perhaps Defying Gravity, which stayed in our own solar system. The ship at least looked a bit plausible (minus the inability of the space agency to realize their crew was a seething hotbed of psychological problems and ill-considered romances, but after the jealous NASA astronaut in the diaper episode, maybe that's more plausible than I thought). Considering the vast distances involved, any planet-hopping alien-of-the-week show is ridiculous. The thought that you could even go home again to the same situation you left, or talk to someone on Earth in real time is ridiculous. These shows require the suspension of disbelief for their premises, let alone their plot details.

But the little things can really be irritating. Terra Nova really got me last week with apples. They're trying to grow apples in a tropical climate? Forget the time portal or the messed-up history of the geology of the Earth or their strange inability to construct a fence that works. Don't you guys think it might make more sense to grow mangoes instead?

[justTripn]

I was about to say last that Monday's episode of Terra Nova proves they have a solid story arc in mind. They were building to something that was revealed Monday: What is Terra Nova REALLY about????!!!!!! Is Taylor a good guy or a bad guy???? I really got into the dramas as people assessed where their loyalties lie. And again, the EYE CANDY: that opening shot of the dragonfly's flight home from over the shoulder of the dragonfly. Beautiful!

[Alelou]

Okay, we're both in the wrong thread with this, aren't we?

Meet me in the Terra Nova thread later...

[Rigil Kent]

Coming in pretty late to this (what else is new, right?) but I'd argue that it isn't just sci-fi that is so disappointing. You can apply every single one of the issues Transwarp originally identified to pretty much every show on. Fraked continuity? Check. Horrifyingly bad science? Check. Immature plots? Double check. Heck, I don't even watch NCIS anymore for all three of these reasons (plus what I would call 4 - Rubber Characters, in that they're bent and contorted and twisted to the point that they're barely recognizable, usually to make the before-mentioned immature plots to advance.)

My solution? Tune out of network television and concentrate on the really well done, non-network shows that avoid these pitfalls. Justified, for example, over on FX, or Game of Thrones on HBO. Plus? Lots of football and hockey. Because I don't want to fall into what I would classify as #5 - The Audience (failure to demand higher standards has led to current television standards.)

But that's just me.

[Alelou]

I can't speak to network vs. non-network because I'm only watching two dramas at the moment, but are FX and the other basic cable channels really superior in general? Don't the productions all tend to be based on the same studio system that produces network shows?