Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: He's right, though
Above all, SF poses questions and makes you think, while sci-fi is mostly good for digesting popcorn and marketing action figures.
Well, I think there's a more fundamental problem there. It seems like there are hardly any people who are in the business of making SciFi for movies and TV that actually "get" (or should I say, "grok") the genre.
Take the so-called SciFi Channel. I say "so called" because their programmers haven't the vaguest idea what SciFi is about. They seem to think it's monster movies and supernatural "reality" shows. And for some bizarre reason they think there's sufficient overlap between SciFi fans and pro-wrestling fans to warrant an hour of wrestling programming each week. Completely clueless.
And whenever good SciFi makes it to the air (say, Babylon 5, or Firefly, they can't seem to find an audience for it.
Science Fiction fans are curious about things--which means we'll watch just about anything no matter how crappy it first appears. I think this might diminish with age--as I get older and have less time to waste, I find I'm more selective about what I watch.
Don't count on it. I'm closer to fifty than forty, and I still abuse myself with Flash Gordon each week, as awful as it is.
RSS
RE: He's right, though
Yeah, I definitely think Sawyer's got a point. I think there's a difference between SF literature and pulp sci-fi. Above all, SF poses questions and makes you think, while sci-fi is mostly good for digesting popcorn and marketing action figures.
That said, I know what you mean--Science Fiction fans are curious about things--which means we'll watch just about anything no matter how crappy it first appears. I think this might diminish with age--as I get older and have less time to waste, I find I'm more selective about what I watch.
View Full Discussion