Ouch, MNK. Thanks for the heads up. 
I think these things go in cycles. Youāll see one show of a particular genre get popular then all the other networks will create their own copies, so youāll see, say, a bunch of space shows competing then a few years later there will be a bunch of zombie/vampire/superhero shows competing.
BSG was such a dominant force in the early 2000s that it sort of sucked the wind out of the space opera genre. I had watched the 1970s version as a kid and loved the basic concept. The 2000s version was really well made ā¦ but had too much āoperaā. Still, I have the complete DVD set and have watched almost all the episodes with RDMās commentary turned on (theyāre really good at explaining why certain decisions were made in production of the show). D18 loved to play āKaraās Themeā on the piano.
One last technoweenie note. BSGās producers missed one thing towards the end of the series that would have put it over the top in my mind technically. As G was jumping towards the Earth over several episodes at the end, they had several wide star field shots before zooming in on the ship. One astrophysics guy on a BSG forum tried to ātriangulateā the actual location in real space from those star field shots to see where they were going with the series (e.g. one star field shot had Orionās Belt). Unfortunately, the producers didnāt think that far ahead and simply used canned āspaceā backgrounds. It would have been really cool if they had the ship jumping between real locations in the arms of the Milky Way galaxy.
Recently Iāve enjoyed The Expanse as far as space SF. Westworld is also enjoyable. While not space opera, there are a number of interesting AI-themed SF series recently. Humans is another interesting AI-themed series.
Alternate history is another common SF theme, and Man in the High Castle and Handmaidās Tale are excellent examplesāthough sometimes difficult to watch because of the content.
I havenāt subscribed to the CBS feed for the new Star Trek. Maybe after there are several episodes and if people say itās improved, Iāll do the 7-day free trial and binge what they have at that point. Honestly, I think Roddenberry might roll over in his grave if the answer when meeting another species is to attack first.
I enjoyed BSG up until the end which was a terrible disappointment. The online prequel, showing the ābirthā of the Cylons was intriguing but again ended terribly.
As far as a Star Trek Discovery goes, would I watch it on commercial TV, probably just because Iām a sci-fy junkie and it could be fun. But pay TV, nah, just isnāt worth it. And the galling thing is that itās pay TV with commercials unless you pay even more. That just takes a lot of gall, particularly from a pay TV network that has nothing else worthwhile to offer. Why bother when thereās Netflix and Amazon that offer top shelf original programming.
I love Firefly and Serenity. I blame the network for its failure. Sci Fi takes effort. A budget and writers.
Children of Men, Ex Machina and Moon by Duncan Bowie were good sci fi movies IMO if you need something to watch this weekend. And the Blade Runner 2049 could be good.
And donāt mean to spam but Amazon has a sci fi Pilot called Oasis that did very well. Hopefully they green light. It is a bit like the Firefly series for feel. Gritty not western.
And there is always Doctor Who but I only really liked Tom Baker and Chris Eccleston really.
Iāve watched Doctor Who off and on - mostly in the David Tennant era - but it feels like fantasy to me, not sci fi.
@mathmom Well, that is how they categorize Dr. Who as a sci fi. Plenty of space aliens and space travel. It is a childrenās show though which is why it feels like a fantasy.
Now Oasis is for grown ups. Colonizing a new planet. The guy who played Robb Stark from GOT is the lead. Hopefully Amazon picks it up. High ratings for the pilot.
No it feels like fantasy, because there is no science in it.
@mathmom Oh come on it has timey whimey physics. But it is supposed to be a kids show. Does Star Trek have actually science in it? Especially the original. Battlestar Galactica the same.
Early TV space sci fi (such as the original Star Trek) was utopian and demonstrated faith in human nature and an improving future through technology. Later sci fi became dystopian (Firefly) as it became clear that technology wasnāt going to change human nature and might actually make it worse. People arenāt optimistic about space exploration etc. any more because theyāre not optimistic about humanity. The film The Martian was a feel-good exception to that rule.
TV sci fi now seems more interested in the theme of artificial intelligence and the definition of the human (Westworld) than in space travel.
@NJSue Excellent points. And it is strange in a way that even the youth are so attracted to dystopian themes when they (in many cases?) have so much more than we did or our parents and grandparents. I was really surprised by the darkness of assigned middle school reading when we first got to that point. Life As We Knew It. Stands out .
@gearmom. Star Trek, not so much, but Star Trek TNG did incorporate solid scientific principles, which is why it is still a sci-fi fi favorite.
I agree with above points that sci-fi has turned dystopian. I think it mirrors society in that people used to be more focused on helping their community and propelling humanity. Kennedyās āWe Choose to go to the Moonā speech was a big driver of this movement. Now, people are more self absorbed, which is why we see the rise of the selfie. Most people are only interested in space exploration if it means we can extract resources, or find a new planet to inhabit after weāve destroyed our own planet.
Also, science education has taken a big hit in this country for the past two decades. Young people donāt care for thoughtful science fiction since they donāt have the knowledge base to understand it.
Dr. Who may have started as a kids show, (more accurately I think a family show, but Iād say thereās way too much scary and pseudo erotic stuff now to make that claim.)
There are kidās sci fi shows/movies that feel like science fiction. Lost in Space. ET.
I donāt need to understand the science, but I want it to feel like itās in the real world. And yes I know that Arthur C. Clark said āAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.ā Sure Star Trek has science: Scotty āYe Cannae Change The Laws Of Physics.ā Warp drives and teleporters may never exist, but a lot of the stuff they invented does exist now. I liked BG until it got un-sciency. Angels? Really?
I read some sci-fi that combines it with definite fantasy elements, but I think itās really hard to pull off.
Perhaps it is not just what you have that matters, but what you think the future will bring. If a kid constantly hears about parentsā money struggles and job uncertainty, the high cost of college and weak job prospects afterward, racism, war and terrorism, crime and police misconduct, etc., does that lead to optimism for the future? (The same for teachers, parents, and other adults who may see more downward mobility than upward mobility.)
^^ Those issues arenāt new. In the 60s and 70s when much of the best sci fi was birthed - Star Trek, Star Wars, 2001ā¦ everyone also lived in fear of imminent nuclear annihilation.
@ucbalumnus IDK Our grandparents had two world wars. Not just some racism but segregation. Heck my dad had to go down south during segregation for training. And he had the Viet Nam war. And then the grandparents had the great depression. And ours had large families. One of which in the tiniest house. Started college but had to put away all those dreams to work for family. Stuck with no educational prospects. The cold war with Russia. And somehow they remained optimistic for the future.
@stardustmom Yeah. More to it.
@mathmom Lost in Space. That is a blast from the past. Somehow reminds me of Red Dwarf and Dune.
^^ But this is the calm before the storm, apparently.