PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars killed Science Fiction


Gilpesh
08-19-2008, 02:09 PM
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Shoulda-Been-Bigger-How-Star-Wars-Killed-Babylon-5-9880.html

The 90s were a boon for science fiction. Star Trek was still in its heyday and more Star Wars was on the way. On television, you could turn the dial anywhere at almost any time of the day and run into someone racing through outer space or warping back in time. Syndication brought science fiction into homes and onto millions of screens, some shows like Quantum Leap critically acclaimed, others like Time Traxx were simply guilty pleasures. The 70s and 80s made Star Trek and Star Wars into mega-franchises, the next big thing in sci-fi was there somewhere ready and waiting in the 90s.

By any measure, the top contender to be the next geek attention getter should have been Babylon 5. On television, it was one of the most groundbreaking, critically acclaimed science fiction series of all time. All that linear storytelling you love on shows like Lost and Battlestar Galactica? B5 was doing it back in 1993. Computerized special effects? Babylon 5 took them off the big screen and brought them to television on a scale never before seen. Compelling characters, gripping, continuous storylines with complex plots; Babylon 5 was ahead of its time and perhaps, poised for a leap into history and the big screen.

In January of 1999, Babylon 5 left the airwaves. Not cancelled, simply completed. The show had done what its creator J. Michael Straczynski set out to do. The future seemed bright for further endeavors, but Babylon 5 inexplicably went nowhere. The spin-off show Crusade was quickly cancelled before it had a chance to catch on. Talk of a movie lingered for years, but never seemed to go anywhere. Eventually, people somehow seemed to forget. Since then the best its brilliant creator, JMS, has been able to manage are a few bonus direct to DVD episodes, done more out of love than profit making potential. Babylon 5 shoulda been bigger. Maybe it would have been bigger, if not for a little something called Star Wars.

In 1999 George Lucas brought Star Wars back into the lives of science fiction geeks everywhere. As Babylon 5 was completing what should have been its triumphant run on television, its primary audience was focused almost entirely on lightsabers. In 1999 geeks stopped looking towards the future, stopped hoping for the next big thing, and started looking back as George Lucas viciously mined his own franchise’s past for fat nerd cash. Let’s face it, even the most hardcore sci-fi lover only has so much attention to spare. In 1999 the outer space nerd’s attention became firmly fixed on a galaxy far far away… and stayed there.

Over the next few years, more brilliant ideas would arrive… and fail in the Star Wars’ shadow. Farscape blew the minds of the few who bothered to see it, before being quietly cancelled and forgotten by all but the most hardcore fans. Firefly and then its subsequent movie Serenity arrived, wowed critics, and then ultimately failed to become the epic franchise it probably should have been. But Star Wars, despite all the disappointment, despite all the irritation George Lucas caused his fans, continued on. Your attention, my attention, our collective sci-fi attention was fixed there.

This morning, on the eve of Star Wars: The Clone Wars’s epic critical and financial flop, I think a lot of Star Wars geeks are waking up and wondering what the hell they’ve been doing for the past 9 or 10 years. Some are responding to Clone Wars with anger, some are taking it as a sort of personal affront. Others are simply giving up. Instead, maybe we should all look around and consider the things we’ve missed out on, by giving so much of our time to a franchise, an idea, that was going absolutely nowhere. Being a science fiction fan is supposed to be about looking towards the future. For the past decade or so, science fiction has been mired in an unrewarding past.

We’ve been living on Star Wars nostalgia, a contact high leftover from great movies we saw as kids, movies which no matter how much CGI George Lucas uses, will never be as good again. I’m speaking as a fellow geek here, I’m just as guilty as everyone else. Did I really need two Yoda action figures? Sitting here now in a post-Clone Wars world I have to admit, probably not. The prequels had their moments, but take a second to consider that maybe, just maybe we gave them too much of our attention. Think of all the things we’ve missed, by dressing up as Jedi and swinging around our plastic lightsabers. Maybe we should have dressed up as G’Kar or Londo instead. Babylon 5 shoulda been bigger, but we went with Jar Jar.Saw this on Digg and thought it was interesting. Cause you would think the opposite, Star Wars helping sci-fi.

Peyton Westlake
08-24-2008, 12:49 PM
That quote is pretty dead on.

Pandamar141
08-24-2008, 01:10 PM
Agreed.

Babylon 5 and Farscape were fantastic. I feel guilty because even though I liked the shows, I quit watching because I was transfixed on Star Wars as well.

Gilpesh
08-24-2008, 01:54 PM
Actually... I agree with the article but to be completely fair, the quote should have been 'George Lucas killed Science Fiction to make a buck'.

Cause the only Star Wars trilogy was good and helped it out... only when Lucas wanted more money to cover his money with, did 'Star Wars' kill Science Fiction.

Nightmare
08-25-2008, 05:39 PM
Woah

Eggyman
08-25-2008, 05:48 PM
Truly epic. That's bang on the money :up:

Gilpesh
08-25-2008, 05:55 PM
Yeah, if only it wasn't so true.

BloodyWolverine
08-25-2008, 05:59 PM
Well to be honest Stargate SG1, Farscape and Babylon 5 could have done well on the Big Screen with the help of Star Wars. I still believe these show could be made too movies on the big screen. If Serenity was made why not a bigger budget of these shows.

Peyton Westlake
08-25-2008, 07:00 PM
I always thought Babylon 5 was big screen material myself. Not sure why it never made it.

Red Mask
09-08-2008, 05:46 AM
I only recently gotten to love Babylon 5 because of the movie specials. But when it first came out I wasn't watching television then. I just rented movies.

November Rain
09-08-2008, 06:19 AM
doesn't the recent battlestar galactica series kinda show people are still interested in science fiction.

not to mention the sarah conner chronicles?

sure, star wars does manage to suck the attention of most fans but most fans are quite capable of co-existing in two separate universes, I've done quantum leap, next generation, star wars and farscape all at the same time.


the thing about some new series of science fiction is that they miss out the important fan base, the children and go towards the hardcore fans.

In honesty, nothing can survive truly in science fiction if you miss out the kids and capture there imagination.

the other problem with star wars is that it isn't really science fiction, it's science fantasy or space fantasy and the fantasy elements have always been its focal point. Jedi, sith, force, chosen one. These elements have nothing to do with science fiction. THe same thing was used to make the matrix a sucess with the fantasy of the 'chosen one' being the draw just as much of the simulation world.

To the average draw, simply fantasy is easier to sell than a structured futuristic world with adult themes and motivations.

Red Mask
09-08-2008, 06:35 AM
I think Battlestar Galactica is the better sci-fi series, compared to Sarah Connor. But they've got their fans and that's still a good thing for sci-fi.

Gilpesh
09-08-2008, 07:58 AM
In honesty, nothing can survive truly in science fiction if you miss out the kids and capture there imagination.

But that's the thing... why kiddie up things so that they will be interested in them?

If anything that was the biggest problem with the Prequels was getting rid of the other fans just to make kids jump on board and go crazy with toys.

November Rain
09-08-2008, 08:55 AM
kiddies fuel sucess and fuel monetary investment.

instead of just making a buck with films, you make a buck with games, toys, website subscription, magazines, costumes, the whole nine yards.

that's what science fiction is now to the big boys and if they can't milk it completely for what it is, then they won't go there.

I know it's real bad but it is what it is and alot of science fiction shows are bound to last a maximum of five series and live out the rest of their lives as fan based box sets on our shelves.

they need big screen draw which either means they require a gimmick or some poor studio has to bash the general viewer over the head with it till mainstream catches on so there is no compromise in quality.

Gilpesh
09-08-2008, 08:59 AM
that's what science fiction is now to the big boys and if they can't milk it completely for what it is, then they won't go there.

Exactly. Star Wars killed Science Fiction.

November Rain
09-08-2008, 09:55 AM
but it's not science fiction to start with...the reason it milked it was because of fantasy...

star wars apparently killed a genre it's not part of because that's what fans of the genre want to think. Science fiction films just aren't that marketable...

at best, they work like blade runner where they are more popular in hindsight than when they were released

kez1984
09-08-2008, 10:16 AM
The last 3 seasons of Deep Space 9's dominion war much better than any of those crappy episode 1/2/3 films.

Red Mask
09-08-2008, 11:15 AM
But that's the thing... why kiddie up things so that they will be interested in them?

If anything that was the biggest problem with the Prequels was getting rid of the other fans just to make kids jump on board and go crazy with toys.

Are you kidding? How many engineers, scientists, and artists today never had at least one Star Wars toy? And now we'll have a new generation of those guys who can enjoy cooler Star Wars toys than the first fans.

Franklin Richards
09-08-2008, 11:20 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/comicguy.gif

Worst.


Blog.


Ever.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

November Rain
09-08-2008, 11:23 AM
Are you kidding? How many engineers, scientists, and artists today never had at least one Star Wars toy? And now we'll have a new generation of those guys who can enjoy cooler Star Wars toys than the first fans.
i don't think i had one star wars toy although i had the star wars game on the super nintendo.

tha was because it was a pretty decent platform game with the use of a light sabre...

Red Mask
09-10-2008, 10:46 AM
I've just read about a film entitled The Man from Earth by the late Jerome Bixby. It's gotten lots of praise as an intelligent science fiction film. Has anybody seen it?

Zephyr Alexian
09-26-2008, 08:34 AM
I don't think that Star Wars killed Sci-fi; it just monopolized the genre. It's similar to the way Wal-mart sent many a small business to the financial gallows. There are other good sci-fi mediums out there that are very well done. I'm not sure public interest is lost on these solely because of SW. I can think of many innovative shows that the majority of people overlook inside and outside of this respective genre.

Star Wars is so popular because Lucas used a wide variety of cultural influences in an amalgamative way to create his own world. Most people love westerns, spirituality, philosophy, the orient, adventure, the long shot, the hero's journey, rite of passage, the classic love story, etc. . . SW was one of the first entities to combine these elements on a mainstream level.

When the sequels happened, fans thought that Lucas would launch a Sci-Fi renaissance; instead, they had to deal with a man who was uniformly intent on trying to cover all the bases and advance ILM and LucasArts, as opposed to creating a spectacular narrative. (He used Episode 1 to parallel the state of the US gov't on a certain level; should a galaxy far, far, away be concerned with this?) The prequels fail on a certain level because they're not about new ideas and exciting revelations. They're about guiding you in a direction that you're already familiar with. If you're like me, you came into the prequels with dark side expectations of seeing a Young Skywalker in his prime.:woot: All I got were failed light side aspirations followed by a redemption that I had already seen.:csad: Still, backlash from that didn't really correlate with the termination of other properties. Viewers are fickle. They will hate one cop drama and love another for the exact same reason.(Law and Order vs. SVU or Criminal Intent / CSI versus its spin-offs.)

I agree with the statement that Babylon 5 was an infusion of new life for the fans, but I didn't care whether one person or one billion people liked it. I did, and that was good enough for me. Would I like to see a Babylon 5 make a comeback or get a silver screen date? Sure, it's certainly better than Earth: Final Conflict (which was decent) and Andromeda. Did Wayne Gretzky's retirement ruin hockey, or did Michael Jordan's departure destroy the NBA? Of course not. Star Wars didn't ruin Sci-fi so much as it classified it and became the quintessential example of it. It's the Tiger Woods of Sci-fi right now, but in time something else will come along that evolves the genre.

Gilpesh
09-26-2008, 11:14 AM
Actually, I liked you calling Star War the Wal-mart of Science Fiction. Maybe the Tiger Woods of sci-fi is a little too far... unless Tiger comes back from his surgery and just sucks at golf. Then it would work.

Red Mask
09-26-2008, 08:18 PM
Yeah, leave Tiger alone. He does work hard for the money.

Zephyr Alexian
09-27-2008, 09:28 AM
^Duly noted, but I don't think a guy who made 128 million last year cares about whether or not he's compared to . . . well, anything or anyone. . . except for Jack.:yay:

Actually, I liked you calling Star Wars the Wal-mart of Science Fiction. Maybe the Tiger Woods of sci-fi is a little too far... unless Tiger comes back from his surgery and just sucks at golf. Then it would work.

Ewh. . .:csad: good point. That pesky knee could send him down a path of wooden dialogue and confused Matthew rantings. Could we just settle for calling it Marlon Brando?

Moviefan2k4
09-29-2008, 01:02 PM
I may have caught one or two "Babylon 5" episodes (at most), but I didn't even find out about "Farscape" until after it was over. Instead, I spent most of the 1990s immersed in video games like "Mega Man X", "Zelda - Ocarina of Time", and "Resident Evil 3".

When "The Phantom Menace" came out, I was ecstatic to see the new entry...and while it's not as grand or epic as the others, I still get a kick out of it...Jar Jar included. I remember being disappointed that Lucas caved to fan opinion over the character, instead of holding true to his own vision (like he had with the classic trilogy). The scene where Qui-Gon saves Jar Jar's life always makes me smile.

As for sci-fi in general, I was a big fan of "Quantum Leap" (I have all the DVDs), and nowadays I've been watching "Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles". But mostly, my film & TV attention in the last 7 years or so has mostly been towards "Smallville" and the recent "comics on film" trends (although I've skipped a few of them, for various reasons).

Gilpesh
09-29-2008, 01:52 PM
I may have caught one or two "Babylon 5" episodes (at most), but I didn't even find out about "Farscape" until after it was over. Instead, I spent most of the 1990s immersed in video games like "Mega Man X", "Zelda - Ocarina of Time", and "Resident Evil 3".

Yeah. Those dvds for Farscape are way expensive (the last time I looked).

When "The Phantom Menace" came out, I was ecstatic to see the new entry...and while it's not as grand or epic as the others, I still get a kick out of it...Jar Jar included. I remember being disappointed that Lucas caved to fan opinion over the character, instead of holding true to his own vision (like he had with the classic trilogy). The scene where Qui-Gon saves Jar Jar's life always makes me smile.

Blasphemer.

As for sci-fi in general, I was a big fan of "Quantum Leap" (I have all the DVDs), and nowadays I've been watching "Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles". But mostly, my film & TV attention in the last 7 years or so has mostly been towards "Smallville" and the recent "comics on film" trends (although I've skipped a few of them, for various reasons).

Meh, I think Chris Gore said it best... "It makes me just want to watch the better movies, Terminator and T2."

Red Mask
09-30-2008, 10:24 PM
I watched this TV movie named "The Looker" last Monday. It was directed by Michael Crichton back in the 80's. Despite the low production value I'm surprised how well and valid film is to today's standards. What sci-fi production today can reveal the plot after 15 minutes of eye candy and still keep the viewer watching? Michael Bay couldn't do that in "The Island".