Too many people forget that Sci Fi stands for Science FICTION!!!!
And the other operative word is "science"...the "fiction" is the imaginative conjecture that comes from unproven 'what-ifs'...but if they're utterly ludicrous and not based on real scientific principles, they're FANTASY.
Thus, Heroes and Spiderman and all the comic book stuff is fantasy, not science fic tion. It's loosely pulp sci-fi as it has about 5% realistic scientific probability and a whole lot of 'suspension of disbelief'. Its fun, when done well, but it isn't the real deal as far as science fiction goes. A guy blinking his eyes and flying or teleporting or shooting webs out of his wrists is only going to engage a childlike mindset willing to not have to 'think too hard' about the premise. Again, I like that when I'm in the mood...but science fiction it ain't. I like zombie movies, too...when they're smart (read, set some semi-realistic ground rules and stick with them) and have some subtext/social commentary, that is. It's all good, this is entertainment after all. If you're not sure what the hell 'the good stuff is', maybe read some good authors of the past century (from Verne to Bradbury to Orson Scott Card, etc.) and see some movies like the aforementioned Blade Runner or even Matrix or Children of Men. They have a solid idea/basis that doesn't get utterly ludicrous based on the rules they set up. They also function as solid drama, concerned with character and the human condition. They're aimed at adults who want to chew on something in their minds...a game of 'what if' with a relation to the current real world.
And, hey, it doesn't always have to be serious to be real science fiction--and parallel universes and the like ARE solid science, albeit theoretical, just do a little reading up on modern string and m-theory. Heck, read the 100-yr-old classic, "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbott. The idea of a multi-verse is fascinating stuff and is a more 'intelligent' kind of magic that many stories use to great effect. Think about light flicks like 'Tron' and 'Buckaroo Banzai' and you'll see what I mean.
Likewise, 'Eureka' is a silly light sci-fi comedy show...but like Star Trek and other bona fide science fiction programs, it tries to (by and large) maintain the said logic of its premises. It doesn't take itself too seriously (neither did the classic Farscape...which, granted, is about 1/2 sci-fi and 1/2 fantasy, but the creators admit that btw). It is pretty smart about its plotlines and tries to keep things somewhat scientifically respectable. That's the difference.
I'm only voicing these things because I've been so disappointed that SciFi has, imho, only partway supported the genre for which it's named. It panders to schlock, mostly, and lowest common denomenator 'filler' that isn't what it purports to sell as a "science fiction" network. So, as well as upgrading to HD...let's hope they upgrade their content as well.
Battlestar Galactica is a start. It should be a model for the spine of their programming going forward. With so many viewers willing to settle for less, much less, I'm not holding my breath however. The execs at SciFi seem to see nothing absurd w/ superhero shows and pro wrestling being on a science fiction channel versus, say, Spike TV, so what hope do we fans of the genre have?
Their attitude seems to be clear: Why serve steak when grisly hamburger seems to do.
For as picky as folks around here are when it comes to HD bitrates and the like, I'd think more here would be asking for more in the actual quality of the programs themselves. That's just me, though, and if you like the bulk of SciFi's programming, more power to you. I hope someone steps in and steps up to fill the void, though. We'll see.
And to 'watchel1', who seems to have a real problem w/ the questions/concerns I'm raising (and has apparently missed alot of previous references and points I've made)--you say, "if you don't like it, tune in somewhere else." O.K., fine, but answer this--what other channel purports to be dedicated to science fiction programming?
:
