Battlestar Galactica’s Brief Journey: How Long Should Sci-Fi Shows Last?
By stephanie - Thursday, June 14th, 2007
With the recent news about the impending end of Battlestar Galactica after only four seasons, I have to ask the following question:
How many seasons is the right amount of seasons for a good, serialized science fiction show?
The new Star Treks were supposed to last around seven seasons (many did not make it that far). Farscape was pulled after four seasons, although the arc was planned for five. Babylon 5 made it to a full five seasons, but it lasted two seasons too long, in my opinion. Meanwhile, Stargate (and its spin-offs) is quickly becoming the Bonanza of the sci-fi world.
So it is with some hesitancy that I proclaim my disappointment at BSG ending so soon. (Although, it is not one of my all-time favorite shows, and I have yet to get caught up with season three.) Maybe it’s a good idea to plan for serialized science fiction shows to have a short shelf life. I know I’m not the only person who wishes Lost were simply going to be wrapped up sooner than later…not because we dislike it, but because the suspense is killing us.
The great thing about the planned axing of BSG (and a few years from now, Lost) is that writers and producers can plan out the show so it can maintain a strong integrity and focus throughout its run. One only needs to look at how Babylon 5 wore out its welcome once the main battle was done and over with. The X-Files stupidly continued on without Mulder – WHY?
When we think about the science fiction worlds we love the most, many of them are short-lived and compact in nature. Movies, for example, run only a few hours. The Matrix would have been better as a standalone. The original Star Wars captured our hearts with the first three installments; there was no need to go back and add the backstory.
There’s a tendency to want to milk a franchise for all its worth, the way Paramount did with Star Trek. Did that make Star Trek better, however? When I think about Star Trek, I still think about Captain Kirk. That’s the Trek I love the most, to this day. If Captain Janeway had never existed, I would not have missed her one bit.
That’s not to say that shows can’t be good if they continue for a long time. But I prefer those to be mindless candy throwaway shows. Remember Friday the 13th, The Series? Did we need to follow that in order? Did we care? It’s something that, if it’s on, you go, “oh, hey, Friday the 13th, I’ll watch this.” And so it’s nice to have a bunch of episodes hanging around for all those reruns. The one exception to this is Doctor Who, but, well, they’re British so no wonder they manage to do it smartly. But otherwise, do the good shows need to last longer? I say no.
Maybe I’m wrong. What do you think?
June 15th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I think it depends on the show quite honestly. With Battlestar, they have a mystery and an objective. The objective is getting to earth, the mystery…well, we still aren’t sure. That being said you can only be true to the overall story before people start saying “get on with it” (as I’m doing with lost).
If it’s a serialized show like Star Trek, or Stargate, Dr. Who, or Farscape for that matter, it seems that they have the potential to go on as long as the audience is watching.
Buffy and Angel were shows I could have seen go on (though Angel ended fantastically), but you could tell when the creators and writers were running out of steam. Inevitably that’s what makes viewers fly away.
I think
June 16th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
It is true that the shorter series are sometimes the most loved (BTVS being the exception). I daily mourn the loss of Firefly, and that show did not even make one season. I also agree with you that BSG may be wise in ending before it gets too extended … the show is meant to end somehow, although it really frightens me that Ron Moore blogged about how he thought the Sopranos ending was brilliant and he wishes he would have thought of it first.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I think no show, serial or otherwise, should last longer than 7 years. With that being said, Battlestar Galactica should have lasted at least until season 5 season 6 would be pushing it though.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I knew after the first episode that Battlestar Galactica had already been on the air far far too long. I had been looking forward to the new series up to that point. I didn’t have a problem with them modernizing the series, but to change it so radically that it was no longer the same story was just wrong. It needed to end, and end quickly! At least that would have saved them from all the blunders they made in the scripts.
Firefly needed a few more seasons, just to fully develop all the characters. Unfortunately they killed off two of the main cast members in the movie, so I guess that show is now at a dead end.
Does anyone remember the science fiction show called Time Trax? That show really needed to go a few more years. It was funny, serious, sad, exciting, and at times melancholy. It had some interesting science too, as well as a different form of time travel. This show can and should be brought back, give it at least three more years.
Sadly, recently, the series Enterprise, had its journey cut short. The second season had dragged a bit with weak storylines and too much focus on a single plot, but season three had them back on track with good story plots, more variety and better acting. Enterprise was like Star Wars Episode III in that we all knew where it was going (The Kirk Years), but how was it going to actually get there! They even answered the question of why Kirk’s Klingon’s looked the way they did (Yes, I know it was really the cost of the makeup for TV versus movies), and did so with a well thought out idea. Enterprise should have been given the standard six year run, as the viewers were still captivated by the backstory aspects, as well as all the new storylines.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:34 am
[...] There is a third option, significantly less fun and yet much more realistic. We could simply stew in anger over yet another delay that seems to dilute the power of an extremely powerful series. A few months ago, Stephanie over at ClosetSciFiGeek.com blogged about how the best shows seem to be the shorter shows (Buffy the Vampire Slayer being the exception). Perhaps the best example of this is Joss Whedon’s Firefly, a show that lasted barely half a season but still has a legion of rabid fans. Stephanie’s point was that ending Battlestar Galactica now was a good move as it preserved the integrity of the series, keeping it from jumping the shark so to speak. But if the network seems determined to drag BSG out as long as possible without paying for more material, will Battlestar Galactica really benefit from that effort? Or will fans become so fatigued that the final episode will disappoint them, no matter what happens? They say that anticipation is part of the fun, but this is getting ridiculous. Did You Enjoy this Post? Subscribe to Battlestar Galactica. It’s Free! « Back Home Posted in BSG on November 7th, 2007 Link to this Entry Email This Entry [...]