The Cassutt Files
Too Much Sci-Fi

All right, so the outlook for challenging sci-fi TV on the networks this season is a little grim [see previous column]. The major networks have never done sci-fi successfully; the good shows (The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) have always come from the "weblets," where huge audiences are not expected or required or, in the case of UPN, even possible.

The true home of sci-fi television is in syndication and cable, where programs can be "narrowcast" to just the right viewers. It was the inability of sci-fi shows, including classic Star Trek, to reach that broad network audience that kept sci-fi largely off the air. Of course, this was before the explosion of independent stations and cable suppliers. (Saying it was "last century" makes it seem even more remote, doesn't it?)

But now, in our braver, newer world, we have the syndicators like Tribune and MCA, plus outlets like Nickelodeon (children's programming has always skewed heavily toward sci-fi and fantasy) as well as the odd or occasional supplier (TNT). Of course, there's our very own SCI FI Channel.

Searching for sci-fi

Showtime also has its "Sci Friday," anchored by Stargate SG-1, already in production for its fourth season. The Outer Limits has run its course, and Total Recall 2070 vanished some time back; no word yet on replacements, but you can be sure Showtime is searching for them.

SCI FI's Farscape seems to be finding an audience; certainly the critical response to the series has been increasingly positive. (In the interests of full disclosure, I have written scripts for both Farscape and Stargate this season, so will refrain from praising the series themselves, limiting myself to enthusiastic comments about the intelligence, wit and physical beauty of their producers.)

Lovely Xena: Warrior Princess continues to battle her way through her own fantasy world. Other series which could be classed as heroic fantasies, or Indiana Jones-style adventures, include The Lost World, Peter Benchley's Amazon, and BeastMaster.

Then there are the shows that deal with secret or not-so-secret wars against aliens and demons in worlds that often resemble ours--Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict and good vs. evil. We've even got one outright and fairly charming comedy series, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, as well as the sci-fi world's answer to V.I.P., Cleopatra 2525. Not to mention Lexx. (The only thing that stuns me about Cleo is the fact that it took some executives this long to attempt a series about large-breasted women in small dresses.)

And there's more to come. Tribune is about to commence production on Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, which, based on title length alone, should be an improvement over its predecessor. Andromeda has been developed by the capable Robert Hewitt Wolfe, formerly of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. There's also The Immortal, another idea that will be tried over and over again until it works (it was originally a series on ABC almost 30 years ago). Plus Witchblade, about which I know very little. And, finally, a series of classic (which is to say, public domain) H. G. Wells stories from the new Odyssey network.

Remember, too, that every new show is competing with every old sci-fi series ever produced. Lost in Space, Hercules, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, all the various Twilight Zones and Star Treks, Sliders. Five years of Babylon 5. God knows how many episodes of Doctor Who. Maybe this is all good. Maybe there are millions--tens of millions--of viewers out there who are happy to devote one or two hours per day to viewing these shows.

Or, is there too much sci-fi on television?

Not enough of you to go around

I've always believed it takes a certain kind of person to appreciate science fiction and fantasy. Someone who has the ability to suspend disbelief, who enjoys characters and stories set in worlds that don't exist, who wants to be shaken and/or stirred in ways that aren't available to the viewers of Frasier or E.R. I've never had reason to believe that these special types made up more than 10 percent of the population. I mean, of the TV-watching population. I would bet that 10 percent is a generous estimate.

Which means there aren't enough of you to go around, to pay the cable subscriber fees or buy the products in the ads. Not for two dozen sci-fi series.

Not for half as many. A third as many.

So how are all these shows staying alive? Why are new ones being born?

Well, for one thing, syndicated and cable shows, for the most part, are produced for far less money than your typical network show. Having far less money--certainly less than $1 million per hour--means you make compromises. You're not likely to be basing your series on some classic by, say, Robert A. Heinlein or Greg Bear or William Gibson, because the rights and royalties would cost too much. (Recall my cheap shot about "free" H. G. Wells stories.)

You can't film in the U.S. because production costs are too high, so you wind up in Canada and, more recently, Australia or New Zealand, where, for example, $500,000 U.S. buys 50 percent more production (crew members, sets, time) than it does here. Series like Xena, BeastMaster, Lost World or Relic Hunter do benefit from the exotic locations. (You aren't going to find great jungles within 30 miles of the Hollywood sign.)

But other series are hurt when it comes to basic production skills, special effects, writing, directing and casting. (How many actors are there in Wellington, New Zealand, compared to New York or Los Angeles?) It's rare that any syndicated or cable series reaches its full potential. And some of them have moments that are embarrassing. (Since you asked, I will only point to the Taelons in Earth: Final Conflict.)

A good glut

Well, I have always believed that success in television is not directly related to production values. A good story, an intriguing setting, or Jeri Ryan's costume can still get people tuning in week after week. It's even sort of churlish for a writer like me to complain about the overabundance of sci-fi TV, since many of these shows are potential markets for me. (Though after a few more columns like this, maybe not.) Nevertheless, I page through my TV Guide, noting the dozens of hours of sci-fi, new, old, and yet-to-come, and ask myself how long this can go on. When does the sci-fi TV world come in for a "correction"? Wouldn't it be nicer if there were half as many programs and they were produced with more money?

But then I look back on shows I like and shows I worked on, and have to admit that many of them wouldn't have survived had more money been at risk and had the stakes been higher. The X-Files would never have been filmed at CBS in 1994; it barely made it on the air at Fox. Babylon 5's first-season ratings were too low to justify renewal anywhere but on P-Ten. God, not NBC, knows how Eerie, Indiana managed to survive long enough to film 18 episodes.

The glut of sci-fi TV is a good thing.

Hand me that remote, will you?