It is very frustrating how networks and streaming services handle science fiction. The fans are devout and often create canon from the stories they love. Canon describes the rules of what happened in the original story and how the new adventure springs forth. The idea that storylines (or studios) would ignore the canon is cause for much consternation. Don’t the studios care how they treat their latest movies or series? Don’t they want to make the fans happy and, therefore, go see or watch them? Don’t they like to make money?
These are valid points, but as with all things, there is politics. Usually, that word applies to governments and politicians, but politics is a significant part of social interaction. It involves maneuvering people and events to get power and/or money. The concept of power can even involve who likes you and who doesn’t and is a significant part of the evolution of life.
I want to discuss how some series originated, was managed, given the green light, and cancelled.
First, what are the reasons given for their cancellation? A funny example is the story of The Adventures of Superboy 1988-1992. It’s funny because I hadn’t heard of it, and reading about it showed how crazy they all get in this business. The storyline was young Clark Kent as a young adult getting started in Metropolis. The first weird thing was changing the name from Superboy to Adventures of Superboy during the third season. John Haymes Newton played our hero in the first season and then was replaced by Gerard Christopher, possibly because of a contract violation of public drunkenness. Ratings were high in Christopher’s run, but Warner Bros. reportedly cancelled the show in 1992 because they wanted to focus on Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman on a prime spot on ABC. Now the lawsuits were filed. Warner Brothers filed a lien on the series, longtime Superhero producer Ilya Salkind sued, and Superboy was benched, with no home media until 2006. I call this a case of INSIDE POLITICS and not a case of “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”1
The two reasons I can understand are RATINGS and COST. Ratings are how the money flows in because that indicates interest, and the advertisers pay for those eyeballs. We should all look out for the cost, but, as we know, sometimes, especially in the beginning, we have to invest (always more than we think) money and time to get a reward later on. “You’ve got to spend money to make money.”
The next example is Firefly 2002, often called the poster child of cancellations. The general thought was that the cancellation was because the studio suits didn’t understand what it was. The terminology is complicated here. I thought it was the networks or streaming services, but it can come from all three sources. The first weird thing they did was fight with Josh Whedon, the creator and Executive Producer. Fox Studios refused to pick up the show unless the ensign Zoe and the Pilot Wash weren’t married. It turns out that the execs wanted Captain Reynolds and Zoe to get together. But Whedon refused to change the script. Fox picked up the show anyway, but the studio’s interference kept up. Not only did they dictate which episodes to run in what order, but they marketed the series as a wild-and-wacky sci-fi comedy, not a space Western. There is humor in it, but that gave the wrong impression of what the story was about and how serious it was. Fox canceled after four episodes, much before the audience had straightened out the storyline enough to make it successful. Later, fans raised money and, in 2005, got a movie that bridged the whole storyline. That bombed. I call this SUPER INSIDE POLITICS, which shows how executives shouldn’t mess with the art of their shows; they stick to their stated purpose- choosing, nurturing, and promoting .1
Another example of a weird reason for cancellation happened with Clone High 2002-2003. It was a series about the clones of historical figures reimagined as teens. There was JFK, Abe Lincoln, Cleopatra, St. Joan of Arc, and Gandhi, aka G-Man. G-Man was a fast-talking, junk food-eating, horny sidekick, and he was the trouble. The other characters were not respectful, but G-Man got the attention. India didn’t have this series, but there were rumors about the show online. “A large gathering, including 150 politicians and Gandhi’s grandson, held a hunger strike in front of MTV’s India offices, trapping Tom Freston, the then-CEO of MTV’s parent company Viacom, inside the building.” 2 This is a case of INSIDE POLITICS. I don’t know if I blame them for backing away from production, but it is weird. Fans of Clone High got some good news: Clone High will return to HBO Max. That was written in March of 2023, even though that streaming service is now MAX. That name change happened in May 2023.
Science Fiction has a tough road in the media, but why is it so fast out the door? Well, generally, Big Budgets + Low Ratings = Cancellation. If they know this, Why do studios, networks, and streaming services take on SciFi? For one thing, SciFi is popular in the movies- big hits.
A common thing today is “dropping” episodes simultaneously for bingeing. This is good for Science Fiction because it takes time to grow on you. You have to ingest, think about, and finally come out loving it (hopefully). It is supposed to be complicated; there is science in the name, but studios have long felt that the public is not that bright. Hence, we get simple-minded shows that are immensely popular. We also get complicated, nuanced, generally well-done, and top-rated shows. The problem is there is no formula for that., but simple-minded shows can and usually are much cheaper. It combines a good script, good actors, sound settings, and something the public can relate to and enjoy. Sometimes, it’s two or three of those things. On top of that, as the worry of cost rears its head, choosing police procedurals can be preferred. They are more manageable and much cheaper to produce overall.1
The final reason is the audience MUST HAVE TIME to ingest a scifi show, like a book, and develop a deep understanding and enjoyment. Studios, networks, and streaming services want and need to make money NOW! That’s capitalism, and it is good, like evolution. The fittest survive, but there can be significant rewards when you use patience. It is easier with books; there is enough time to find these gems that rise to the top. In the movie and TV industry, there isn’t so much. As a society, we tend to look forward only a short way; hence, this causes problems, too, even in terms of profit. China knows this well and laughs at the short foresight of the West.
Illustration 5 City on the Edge of Forever Star Trek S 1 E 28
A classic example is the series Star Trek 1966-1969. The ratings were low and built into a massive fan base that continues today, both in the original series and all the inspired ones.
How Can This Be Improved?
First, we had movies. The competition was between the films, and we got some good variety, but they can leave the audience behind when the industry goes off on a tangent. They are left standing on the Oscar stage with nobody watching. Throw in an epidemic, and the audience no longer goes to the movie theater. Next, we got streaming services. The giant services of Netflix, HBO Max, and Amazon brought in more variety. This introduction diluted some of the influence of the studios, networks, and producers through competition. Censors had less power, and you could hear cussing now (aren’t we lucky?).
The product had more humanity in it. As I have shown, there is still the influence of executives attempting to steer the art in the direction they think will bring in what they want: money and power. The problem here is that not only is it rude to tell me what I like, but it is also often wrong. The executives are not experts in storytelling art but think they use successful shows as a guide. The problem is that they pick superficial aspects, not understanding the whole reason for the success. These power elites chase after themes they think are creating massive hits and simplifying them so much that they end up more like pablum than art. In 1998, then-Disney chairman Joe] Roth said: “There’s no reason to think that the economics of movie business won’t turn out to be the same as Coca-Cola. It’s a product that’s uniformly imported.”People will go see the ninth version of ‘The Bad News Bears.’ And I make them because people are going to see them.”6 elite often sabotages inside their companies, each manager vying for their choice. There ends up being one type that is promoted. Even though the audience tires of this one-size-fits-all, it takes a while for them to notice. In the end, though, money should make the choice, or lack thereof. It’s a constant tug of war, though.
We will be better off when there are more choices of streaming services and the movies and series they offer. Like books, there will be more variety, and the niche of your interest can peak out.
Unfortunately, as I discussed in How’s Your Entertainment Today? in Blog #19, the growth of streaming services has slowed. More subscribers are needed to get into the game; that seems weird. More is involved in this. A growing wariness of the whole shebang.
©JM Strasser June 2024 All rights reserved
Sources
1 https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Choose-Wisely-e1492311838345.jpg
3. https://i.etsystatic.com/18190008/r/il/54cf2d/4459396576/il_1080xN.4459396576_t7nt.jpg
4. https://simkl.net/fanart/69/69971437f40a49c4_0.jpg
5. https://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/poster-mustdie.jpg
6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/mia/part2.htm
Illustrations
1 https://www.pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Choose-Wisely-e1492311838345.jpg
3. https://i.etsystatic.com/18190008/r/il/54cf2d/4459396576/il_1080xN.4459396576_t7nt.jpg
4. https://simkl.net/fanart/69/69971437f40a49c4_0.jpg
5. https://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/poster-mustdie.jpg