Science fiction? Us? Surely not.
Mar. 19th, 2009 12:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kingandyScience fiction gets a raw deal.
It goes back to the roots of the genre, I think, and those purists who still insist that proper science fiction investigates a specific scientific premise, and illustrates the potential impact of the innovation on a sociological and anthropological level. These people argue that Star Wars is not science fiction, because there's no hard science being explored - it's Space Opera, light fluff not worthy of the great and enlightened banner of SF. To many this would appear to be a very dry and heavy-minded affair.
And the movie industry is happy with this arrangement, because due to the general nerdy stigma attached to SF they are keen to explain why each new motion picture is not SF; sometimes by assigning it to a new genre ("Equilibrium" is not science fiction, it's political speculation), sometimes by flat denial ("Children of Men" is not science fiction, it's fantasy) and sometimes by displaying a total lack of rational thought ("I, Robot" is not science fiction because there are no spaceships in it)[1].
But in recent years SF has become a somewhat more acceptable label. (One could still argue whether or not the genre as used today matches the original definition, but at least people aren't afraid of the words any more.) As people younger than Star Trek: The Next Generation began to fill roles in the entertainment industry, SF became something to revel in. The conventions and shorthands are being integrated into advertising and everyday programming. Adverts for Dixons crib from Minority Report. And so on.
Which is odd, because apparently the Sci Fi Channel wants no more to do with it.
The SyFy press release emphasises the need for a unique and trademarkable word, as well as their dedication to "the
traditional roots of the genre," but also mentions that it will be "opening the brand aperture to accommodate a broader range of imagination-based entertainment."
So they're not actually abandoning SF, they just want to show other things as well. Not in itself a bad thing. But I can't help but feel they're going about it ass-about-face. Fair enough rebranding to widen your remit (after all, the second UK Cartoon Network channel looked a bit daft showing a big block of live-action TV while it was still called "Toonami"), but is Sci-Fi really a remit that needs widening?
I suppose in a way rebranding - instead of just showing other things while retaining the "Sci Fi" name, as they may have done in the past - demonstrates more respect to the genre's roots. Certainly I have come across unexpected things on Sci Fi and wondered how far they were going to stretch the definition. But still, this feels a little like abandoning the cause, like moving away from "Just For Me Programming" towards a more (ironically?) generic flavour of entertainment. Hopefully they'll stay on track; I'm sure there are enough hardcore geek employees who joined Sci Fi specifically because it was Sci Fi that the programming won't veer too far away into the banal. Somehow the frequent, almost cloying references to "imagination" in the press release reassure one that they have not, in fact, lost sign of the point.
Still. Fingers crossed, eh?
EDITED TO ADD: related
[1] These examples are taken partly from online reviews and partly from my own ham-fisted memory.
It goes back to the roots of the genre, I think, and those purists who still insist that proper science fiction investigates a specific scientific premise, and illustrates the potential impact of the innovation on a sociological and anthropological level. These people argue that Star Wars is not science fiction, because there's no hard science being explored - it's Space Opera, light fluff not worthy of the great and enlightened banner of SF. To many this would appear to be a very dry and heavy-minded affair.
And the movie industry is happy with this arrangement, because due to the general nerdy stigma attached to SF they are keen to explain why each new motion picture is not SF; sometimes by assigning it to a new genre ("Equilibrium" is not science fiction, it's political speculation), sometimes by flat denial ("Children of Men" is not science fiction, it's fantasy) and sometimes by displaying a total lack of rational thought ("I, Robot" is not science fiction because there are no spaceships in it)[1].
But in recent years SF has become a somewhat more acceptable label. (One could still argue whether or not the genre as used today matches the original definition, but at least people aren't afraid of the words any more.) As people younger than Star Trek: The Next Generation began to fill roles in the entertainment industry, SF became something to revel in. The conventions and shorthands are being integrated into advertising and everyday programming. Adverts for Dixons crib from Minority Report. And so on.
Which is odd, because apparently the Sci Fi Channel wants no more to do with it.
“We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi,” Mr. Brooks said. “It’s somewhat cooler and better than the name ‘Science Fiction.’ But even the name Sci Fi is limiting.”
The SyFy press release emphasises the need for a unique and trademarkable word, as well as their dedication to "the
traditional roots of the genre," but also mentions that it will be "opening the brand aperture to accommodate a broader range of imagination-based entertainment."
So they're not actually abandoning SF, they just want to show other things as well. Not in itself a bad thing. But I can't help but feel they're going about it ass-about-face. Fair enough rebranding to widen your remit (after all, the second UK Cartoon Network channel looked a bit daft showing a big block of live-action TV while it was still called "Toonami"), but is Sci-Fi really a remit that needs widening?
I suppose in a way rebranding - instead of just showing other things while retaining the "Sci Fi" name, as they may have done in the past - demonstrates more respect to the genre's roots. Certainly I have come across unexpected things on Sci Fi and wondered how far they were going to stretch the definition. But still, this feels a little like abandoning the cause, like moving away from "Just For Me Programming" towards a more (ironically?) generic flavour of entertainment. Hopefully they'll stay on track; I'm sure there are enough hardcore geek employees who joined Sci Fi specifically because it was Sci Fi that the programming won't veer too far away into the banal. Somehow the frequent, almost cloying references to "imagination" in the press release reassure one that they have not, in fact, lost sign of the point.
Still. Fingers crossed, eh?
EDITED TO ADD: related
[1] These examples are taken partly from online reviews and partly from my own ham-fisted memory.
