You are viewing [info]prof_brotherton's journal

entries friends calendar user info Previous Previous Next Next
prof_brotherton - One Reason Science Fiction Sucks more on TV and in Movies
prof_brotherton
[info]prof_brotherton
Add to Memories
Share
One Reason Science Fiction Sucks more on TV and in Movies

Mass audiences.

There is a belief, apparently, among producers that to have mass appeal a story has to adhere to some societal message that isn’t offensive.  This is true of more than just science fiction, and applies to more than just the message (remember the white-washed version of LeGuin’s A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA on the Scifi channel?).  This can ruin a great, unique story, and launch it into the realm of the mediocre rather than having the desired effect.

There are exceptions, of course, both among producers and TV shows and movies that have fared well, but I want to point out a few exceptions I came across while teaching my Science and Science Fiction class at the University of Wyoming.

Arthur C. Clark wrote a terrific little short story called “The Star” that I’ve blogged about before in this context, with the 1980s incarnation of the Twilight Zone changing its ending to make it a happy-happy Christmas tale, intentionally diminishing the powerful ending of the original.  The other case is “The Cold Equations” by Tom Godwin, and I’ve also blogged about this story.  Ironically, the 1980s Twilight Zone did this story straight up and it was a pretty good episode, while a padded version from the Scifi channel copped out to do a misdirected but politically correct version (which has some pedagogical value, but misses the author’s intent with the original).

With the stakes lower in some sense in short stories, there’s more risk taken.  You can write the disturbing ending.  With movies and TV, unless you’re dealing with the horror genre, the mega happy ending generally gets tagged even if it wasn’t in the original.  Or, if not the happy ending, the politically correct one that is believed to offend fewer people and not posses forbidden story themes.

Anyway, I guess this is part rant, part call for purity of the orginal vision.  If a story is so compelling as to be made into a tv show or movie, why change the defining elements that made it so good?

Please, don’t do it!

Anyone know any exceptions about this last point?  Battlestar Galactica is one possibility that comes to mind, a darker remake that improves on the original, but I don’t know if the change is fundamental enough or mostly just a matter of style and skill.

And let me just conclude with Han shot first, George Lucas, you story-changing bastard.  We all liked it just fine that way.  He was a scoundral needing redemption, and smart enough to know the score.

Originally published at Mike Brotherton: SF Writer. You can comment here or there.

Tags:

Comments
j_cheney From: [info]j_cheney Date: September 25th, 2008 01:11 am (UTC) (Link)
I have to say that, unfortunately, writers are still pressured to follow forms and tropes in many cases. Stories without the 'expected' endings are...hard to market. ;o)
prof_brotherton From: [info]prof_brotherton Date: September 25th, 2008 07:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yes, but the standard things do usually result in satisfying stories. I am not advocating being different for the sake of being different, but not intentionally sabotaging an interesting, unique story for the sake of satisfying an imaginary lowest common denominator mass audience.
2 comments or Leave a comment
profile
prof_brotherton
Name: prof_brotherton
calendar
Back July 2011
12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31
page summary
tags