Talk:Science fiction on television
|Science fiction on television is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
|WikiProject Science Fiction||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Popular Culture||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
The history of US TV sci-fi here really does need expanding, in comparison to the British TV sci-fi section which I fleshed out a while back... I couldn't do the same with the US section because I don't know anything near as much about it. Is there anyone out there who can beef it up? Angmering 15:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as nobody else had, I did some research and wrote a US TV sci-fi section myself. It doesn't have as much context and background at the UK one, but I think I've had a fair stab at it. The downside is the page is now 38kb long as opposed to the recommended 32, but there isn't really much more that could really be added to it, so I don't see it growing to any more than this.Angmering 15:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've added a fairly substantial history of British TV sci-fi and re-written most of the rest of the entry. However, US TV sci-fi isn't really my area so the coverage of that is a bit sparse at the moment! Angmering.
I have used "UFO Television Series" as a wiki name as I don't really want it to link to UFO page. What are people's thoughts?
That's interesting... I'm almost positive it wasn't like that a few hours ago. Has someone moved it, or am I just going mad? Angmering.
Very long (but informative) article, but I was a little surprised there's no mention of Rodenberry's later work (mainly organised by his wife), such as Earth: Final Conflict or Andromeda, both of which are (to my ken) attempts at handling issues he didn't deal with in the way he'd've liked in ST. — OwenBlacker 11:08, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Doing research and writing a lot but an end looks very far out. Okay, I know, what I wrote is a very rough draft with many mistakes. But I think, somehow, US and UK section need to be better organized instead of just a single long text for each country. I hacked the part I'm writing into 3 parts by the diffrence between real acting, anime, and other and I think it serves the purpose right now. Revth 16:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I first saw Angmering's request to expand the section on US television science fiction, so I just started to work. I assumed he wanted conclusions with examples, as opposed to just a bunch of facts about each show. When I finally got something worth putting into Wikipedia, it was 12 paragraphs long, I found out the whole page was 57 KB long, and the picture of Dr. Who wasn't loading (I still use a 56 KB dial-up modem). Since 32 KB is the suggested max, I moved the US television science fiction section to a new page. Now we're down to 35 KB on the original page. Dr. Who's picture still doesn't want to load, though. Then I read the Talk section. I hope I haven't messed up Revth's re-organization. I just wanted to put in something now. Rmeier 01:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Science fiction film
X-Files > Quantum Leap + Sliders?
From the article: The '90s also brought Earth-bound, non-space opera shows. There were time-travel and dimension-hopping series in the vein of Quantum Leap (1989–93) and Sliders (1995–2000), and mysterious conspiracy thrillers such as The X-Files (1993–2002), the latter series achieve cult status and embedding itself within popular culture. I am confused by your use of "latter" here. Does it refer to all series before the comma or just The X-Files? Either way I can't get the verbs to agree with the subject. Furthermore, if you did mean to use the word as it should be used, to refer to the last subject of your list, then I must argue that the former shows are of equal merit. As a cult is a small but loyal following and Quantum Leap and Sliders have a smaller loyal following than X-Files, could it be said that they have greater cult status? --OGRastamon 19:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- It should be 'achieved'. And yes, you are right about cult statues - feel free to fix the sentence. Be bold. You may want to register before doing it, if you are planning on doing more edits from various IPs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I am registered I just forgot to sign. FYI, I do not lack boldness, I've got that in spades, I just wished to know the original intent of the sentence. --OGRastamon 19:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Many of the sci-fi programs cited as US are actually Canadian productions sold to US networks. Sliders, Stargate, X-Files, Firefly, the new Battlestar Galactica and many other American-marketed sci-fi series were either Canadian productions or featured Canadian production, writers, locations and talent. So where we're talking about US sci-fi, it might be more appropriate to refer to it as North American sci-fi.
I think it's where the money comes from that defines the nationality of a series. All these series were commissioned and paid for by US companies, so even though most of the talent behind the camera was Canadian, the US gets the credit!
- By that logic, Doctor Who should be considered a British/Canadian show, since the CBC in Canada provides partial funding and is credited as co-producer. Of course, this is silly. The show is made in the UK, and is a UK show. By the same logic, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, and so on, are Canadian shows, made in Canada by Canadian production companies. The source of the money doesn't change who actually made the shows. - Guspaz 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously, I concur. Shows produced in Canada by Canadian actors, writers, directors, production and other technical staff are widely considered to be Canadian, regardless of where the money comes from. Canada has produced a significant amount of all science fiction on television since the mid-1990s. I intend to separate this into its own section. Avt tor 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is far too long, strangely organized, and puts too much emphasis on some areas and too little on others. (Surely the section on British SF TV should be a separate article.) I'm not sure that organizing by country is the best way to do this, but insofar as it is, surely American shows should be listed first, as by far the most widely produced and distributed globally. I'm putting this article on my list of articles that need to be rewritten and summarized. Avt tor 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Section on British science fiction television removed to a separate article and summarized here. US, Japan, and Canada sections (desperately) require similar treatment. Working on it. Avt tor 06:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- US, Japan, and Canada sections removed to separate pages and summarized here. This page is much more focused and readable now. Lead could still use cleanup. Avt tor 08:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have shortened the lead. The US section looks long to me, but at about 620 words it's probably okay-ish. The page as a whole is shorter than it could be, actually; it could definitely benefit from some sections not related to history and culture. Must think about this. Also, while the material does not seem controversial to me, it could definitely use sources to support and/or clarify the points made. Not done yet, I guess. While I think this needs to be done, I don't WP:OWN this; happy to have other people jump in. Avt tor 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, done. Now this article describes science fiction on television.Avt tor 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who and Life on Mars
There is sufficient ambiguity about Doctor Who's status as a science-fiction show that it is inappropriate for it to be used as a definitional programme in the lead, much less have its logo as the article's main picture. Many class it as science fantasy or simply action-adventure. Its record on injecting "science" into its fiction is spotty at best, downright dismissive at worst. I'm not saying the article shouldn't contain a reference to Doctor Who, or even a whole section, but holding it up as representative science fiction without proviso is highly contentious.
Furthermore, classing Life on Mars as science fiction is incredibly misleading, given the ending details of that show. CzechOut 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Charlie Jade & Firefly
Dissapointed not to see Charlie Jade and Firefly not appear anywhere in the list of productions (firefly does appear in the links at the bottom). Both certainly deserve a place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wondered why Charlie Jade and Firefly were not included....only to find someone else had the exact same thought! Both shows were groundbreaking. Because Charlie Jade was Australian, I believe it is particularly deserving of mention. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)n0w8st8s
Watch the biased statements, fellas...
I just made a couple of minor edits to fix what struck me as biased statements. First, Babylon 5 was described as having "unprecedented" support within science fiction fandom; given that many extremely popular sci-fi shows preceded B5, I softened this to "strong" support.
Also, I was amused to read a description of Doctor Who as "riddled with cancellations," as opposed to Star Trek. By my count, both franchises have only two cancellations under their belt over a period of several decades. The original Doctor Who was cancelled in 1989, and plans for the first revival fell through in 1996; Star Trek, meanwhile, was cancelled during its original run and again during the run of "Enterprise." Anyway, my point is that Doctor Who is no more "riddled with cancellations" than the human body is "riddled with nostrils." Indeed, I sense the hand of a vengeful Trekkie in the sentence I changed... :-)
In short, I know sci-fi fans are a proud bunch ... but please, try to stay neutral, fellas! This is an encyclopedia, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpd1979 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep fantasy out
More needs to be done to separate fantasy genre from science fiction. This article needs to be cleaned up. I have deleted several blocks incorrectly referencing fantasy series. The second opening passage rightly pointed out that there is some blurring (supernatural when backed up with scientific explanations) and abstract similarities (the special powers depicted in fantasy and the powers they give are depicted similarly to those imparted by technology) between fantasy films and science fiction films but crosses a line by declaring fantasy as science fiction.
The removed passage could be reintroduced if rewritten and given its own section.
Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of science-fiction-films. It might be useful to look at  for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)