Science fiction's biggest battle is its image.
"Despite widespread critical acclaim for their psyche insight, series such as "Farscape," "Angel" and its companion series, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," have rarely been recognized with industry awards."
Excellent article on how Sci-fi gets no respect. Mostly about Battlestar Galactica but mentions BtVS, AtS, Wonderfalls, and Firefly as well. And BSG is one of the best shows on TV today so if you get a chance, check it out!
July 11 2005
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.


BAFfler | July 11, 07:17 CET
showgirl | July 11, 07:43 CET
[ edited by charisma on 2005-07-19 06:22 ]
charisma | July 11, 08:49 CET
buffbuff | July 11, 08:51 CET
The emmy nominations are on Thursday. If Lost or David Fury gets a writing nomination is it ok to post a link?
eddy | July 11, 08:58 CET
charisma, good point, I like it too.
To the uninitiated, that might seem as though Buffy, either or both the character and the tv series, developed as a spin-off from Angel, rather than the other way around.
Not trying to start a debate of course - it's just nice (a year ago I would've said 'bittersweet') to hear Angel discussed in a way that appears to me and hopefully others to place AtS on equal or, subtly, higher ground as BTVS. I love them both, for similar and different reasons but I always felt that AtS was looked down upon in the press and among some corners of fandom.
gorramit | July 11, 09:00 CET
Eddy, BSG is one fine show - nothing like the original series which I never got into and thought was really campy. I wouldn't even describe them as being in the same universe. Two shows with a similar premise presented in totally different manners. Not unlike Buffy the movie and Buffy the series.
Firefly Flanatic | July 11, 09:25 CET
nna_funk | July 11, 09:42 CET
One of the primary hallmarks of genre has always been its willingness to address the state of 'otherness', and maybe that's where I can trace my difficulty in grasping the resistance to genre. I think most people with mainstream tastes tend to identify most readily with others like themselves (whom they would tend to characterize as "normal"). People of more individualized tastes, however, tend to cling to their uniqueness, even as they seek solidarity with others of similarly unique tastes through cultural touchstones such as music, TV and film. In other words, if you grew up feeling like you didn't 'fit in' to the culture in which you were born, for whatever reason, chances are you gravitated toward TV shows and movies that depicted 'otherness' in a positive light, which helped to validate your sense of self. Genre was something that explicitly said, "If you're not like everyone else, that's OK."
Because of genre's approach, I think it will continue to create a level of discomfort for the mainstream, precluding a broad level of acceptance for the foreseeable future (though the inroads made by Joss and others in that acceptance have been impressive, just in my lifetime). It's almost as if people who have never experienced that sense of alienation from the culture they live in, can't identify with an examination of that experience in their entertainment. Maybe because genre thrives on the margins of cultural expansion -- where 'otherness' is acknowledged and even celebrated, where ideas are fluid, and unbounded creativity forms the perimeters within which those ideas are explored -- it's too frightening. As people who base their sense of self on commonality rather than individuality, mainstreamers like their ideas constrained by convention and their concepts of "reality" (which they don't want challenged) to remain concrete.
Genre, by its very nature, lives to call into question those basic assumptions about the way the world works, and our place in it. Through it, those of us who once felt outside, can feel connected and embraced in our uniqueness. And thank god for that!
Wiseblood | July 11, 12:33 CET
Ooh. That's quite a statement :) I don't think that Angel would have become that big. But, Buffy might make a chance if it had started with Buffy, Willow and Xander a few years younger.
Koos | July 11, 14:32 CET
The same goes with almost any other genre. If there is depth and the work has something to say, I'm interested no matter whether it is in a court room, boxing ring, space ship, suburban house, inner city apartment, foreign country, other time, someone's dream or somewhere no one has ever thought of before. In that way I'm easy, in expecting something worth watching, I can be tough.
Very good points, Wiseblood, but you left out the capes. ;-)
newcj | July 11, 17:22 CET
Calledon | July 11, 20:14 CET
For me a genre is just a form that an artist chooses to express his/her ideas, statements, messages. If I am moved by the message, if it makes me think or understand something new about myself or the surrounding world, then an artist has succeeded. I do not care what form he/she has chosen to wrap his/her message into.
I have been always annoyed by people who automatically dismiss some really good (in my opinion) pieces of art because they belong to a certain genre or have, for example, ghosts or vampires in it. Well, "Hamlet" has a ghost in it. Should we dismiss it too? :)
Lince | July 11, 20:18 CET
chickenbird | July 11, 22:19 CET