- This topic has 18 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Most of us are pretty depressed at the current state of TV Sci Fi. MOst of us would agree that there isn’t any new stuff worthy of inclusion as a guide on this site. So how should we classify cult TV Sci Fi. How should we determine what show is worthy of inclusion or indeed, how could we define Cult TV Sci Fi.
How could we say that Star Trek the Original Series IS Cult TV Sci Fi and Stargate SG1 is not?
Could it be characterization…. Xev the virginal Love Slave, Alfred Bester – the dude we all though was REALLY cool yet absolutely despicable, or maybe the Sci Fi of Dune with the excellent ways that the Freymen had blue eyes or maybe the tackiness of Dr Who?
Could it be the ‘out of the box’ way we were forced to look at ourselves as seen in the ultimate Cult TV shows like the Prisoner or Kin Dza Dza. Or is it something simpler…. is it that a writer (say JMS of Babylon 5 (who is the only guy I’ve ever heard of that wrote ALL the shows (22) in a single season (season 3), or the dudes that produced Farscape that were given enough room to freely express themselves without too much intervention from the network morons.
We need to come up with a serious definition of Cult TV Sci Fi. Anyone care to give me their ideas?
SadGeezer wrote:Most of us are pretty depressed at the current state of TV Sci Fi. MOst of us would agree that there isn’t any new stuff worthy of inclusion as a guide on this site. So how should we classify cult TV Sci Fi. How should we determine what show is worthy of inclusion or indeed, how could we define Cult TV Sci Fi.
How could we say that Star Trek the Original Series IS Cult TV Sci Fi and Stargate SG1 is not?
Could it be characterization…. Xev the virginal Love Slave, Alfred Bester – the dude we all though was REALLY cool yet absolutely despicable, or maybe the Sci Fi of Dune with the excellent ways that the Freymen had blue eyes or maybe the tackiness of Dr Who?
Could it be the ‘out of the box’ way we were forced to look at ourselves as seen in the ultimate Cult TV shows like the Prisoner or Kin Dza Dza. Or is it something simpler…. is it that a writer (say JMS of Babylon 5 (who is the only guy I’ve ever heard of that wrote ALL the shows (22) in a single season (season 3), or the dudes that produced Farscape that were given enough room to freely express themselves without too much intervention from the network morons.
We need to come up with a serious definition of Cult TV Sci Fi. Anyone care to give me their ideas?
I think you just made a big mistake there Sadgeezer – The creator of “The SadGeezers Guide to Cult TV SciFi” – should never have to explain himself. Sort of like the creator of a club never having to go through any form of initiation….. You should determine what constitutes “cult TV sci-fi” by whatever standards you wish. Just be sure you answer all queries with a bellowing NO! or YES! (even better to have the sound of thunder booming in the background).
However; if you are truly wanting to know (and want to do it in a public forum) here is how you know:
——————————————————————-
Test For Inclusion Into The Field Of TV Cult Sci-Fi.
1. Is it on TV?
2. Is science involved in the “theme” of the show…..?
3. Is it fiction?
4. Does the show have a cult following?
Test: If you answer yes to all of the above questions; then that particular show can be included in the category of “TV Cult Sci-Fi.
___________________________________________
There you go Sadgeezer – It would have been better to have done this in private…..One must never question the decisiveness of the man at the helm (which is you Sadgeezer…..).
Maurice
Fatguy makes the necessary starting points. I’ll expand on that a bit…
If we’re to have a clear understanding of what constitutes cult sci-fi television, then we must have a basic understanding of what cult and sci-fi is, as well as what is television (lots of movies show on TV, but unless they’re made for TV specifically then they should not be included, and TV, short for television is that box with the little people inside that you stare at. Btw, people who get the Playboy channel commonly refer to it as the boob tube).
Cult by its nature lies outside the mainstream, and has loyal adherents that are marginalised by their quasi-religious devotion.
The true (or “hard”) sci-fi genre is fiction that is informed by scientific thought and principles. For instance, there is a real and knowable universe which is governed by empirical laws (a rational universe as opposed to those in horror and fantasy, ‘though the genre lines are often crossed — and all fiction is fantasy to an extent — like those other genres I mentioned it will usually involve the “fantastic”).
The fiction aspect relies on hypothesising or imagining (generally future) discoveries and developments in science. Sometimes this is an extension of current scientific theories and knowledge, and sometimes it’s pseudo-science (when you find al lot of pretentious techno-babble like in the later Star Treks this often indicative of a “soft” sci-fi approach – soft sci-fi requires little understanding of real science). I would also say that sci-fi is generally ultimately optimistic about the future. Compare Star Trek’s attitude “To boldly go where no man has gone far” to the horror genre idea that there are boundaries “man” (as in humankind) was never meant to cross. In horror to seek some knowledge (in what is really an unknowable universe) is often a transgression, whereas in science and science fiction “man” should seek out knowledge, seek enlightenment (like I said before, the genre lines often cross — i’ll say that I prefer those shows where the lines do cross, and many cult shows are atypically generic — unconventional; do not follow normal genre conventions).
Oops, I’m going on a bit… could go on forever.
Some say that all sci-fi is cult since none of it is totally mainstream, I disagree. And of course most every show has some loyal adherents, but…
Since we have sci-fi and the qualifier cult (for cult-sci-fi), then under our definition some sci-fi must not be cult. I’d say that cult sci-fi is sci-fi which does not attracts real interest from the majority of the sci-fi crowd, but attracts serious devotion from a loyal few (it’s not as simple as that ‘though). Some sci-fi shows, or other genres, have had mainstream acceptance, as well as attracting a loyal cult following (an often small, but disturbing fan base who will seek out the opportunity to rave about their favourite show with other like-minded people, and will often be marginalised and looked-down upon by their family and friends. or will hide, and sometimes be ashamed of, their interest until they find other like-minded people. I would also say that not only are many of the followers fans in a cult, they’re true fans (i.e. fanatical).Many cult shows have a small fan-base in the beginning, but build it up over time. I also believe that a cult show will withstand the test of time; it won’t just be a flavour of the day.
So, once again, generally cult sci-fi is sci-fi that has a very loyal following of fanatics, and is overlooked by the mainstream (the mainstream sci-fi watchers specifically). Sometimes it becomes cult because it’s so bad, usually because it’s different; off-beat.
But sometimes it will have great ratings to begin with, i.e is aimed and accepted by a wide mainstream audience, but there has to be something quirky and original that will ensure that it withstands the test of time.
Kin Dza Dza is an interesting case. I don’t know how loyal a following it has in Russia for instance, and yet I instinctively perceive it as cult sci-fi – sometimes perceiving what is cult involves a more emotional recognition than an analytical one. It just looks like cult sci-fi – well, it does also have all the elements of a “cult genre” film, and is it ever quirky (never seen anything like it; once again, a truly GREAT find. And since it’s generally unknown in the West, that makes it even more cult to my mind (less mainstream). Speaking of “cult genre”, sometimes they deliberately try to make a film as a cult film – and it has become a genre to itself which transcends the sci-fi, fantasy, horror, drama, comedy genres and labels.
My final loose definition, for now lol: Cult sci-fi TV is cult sci-fi TV. It is science fiction programming made for TV that is quirky (unusual) in some way and does not overly appeal to most of the sci-fi crowd (or is relatively unknown to them), but develops a very loyal and devout fanbase (comparatively small and marginalised in some way), and can be expected to withstand the test of time.
While cult fans may be marginalised, and ALIENated, hahaha, in some ways, they often feel a sense of superiority because they are the chosen ones, they are those who truly appreciate something wonderful and unusual that other people just don’t “get.” Cult sci-fiers are special cases, and I’ve always been proud to be a cult TV and movie fan; sets me apart from the riff-raff.
Interestingly, almost everything I like in TV and film could be described as innately “cult”. Enterprise may develop a cult following, but it is aimed at to wide an audience (to mainstream) for me to consider it to be.
Good points Logan – but back to my simple test. The science aspect may be a red herring if we try to draw a line there; so the science being a necessary part of each show may be the only determinate.
However, the cult aspect could be expanded. I suggest a nomination procedure by the membership as to whether a particular show should be included – a number (let us say twenty five) could be set and if this number were familiar with the show and considered it to meet the test – then it would be included and a forum potentially set up (the number would be set as to ensure the forum (if made for it) would have enough of a base to keep the forum active at this site).
Just some thoughts – others please chime in…..
Maurice
I’m chiming in like a faulty cuckoo clock…
Your test is a good one, and I apologise if I verge on the sine qua nonsense and throw a few goldfish out to muddy the waters… The science element of the fiction is the only absolute (empirical laws etc.) when it comes to hard science fiction, but when it comes to cult, and specifically cult sci-fi (see last post)… Also, since soft sci-fi is still considered by many to be valid sci-fi, ‘though rather flaccid (rather like my sagacity)…
As to your rating system, since cult is by defintion non- mainstream, and non-mainstream is not popular (unpopular or unpopulous), such a (as it would probably amount to if not approached with foresight, forethought, and foreshadow) popularity context presents a possibly interesting paradox. Since paradoxes (for instance temporal paradoxes) are so common in much sci-fi, then paradoxically while I dismiss the idea as contrary to the spirit of, at least, the cultish from an observers point of view (and I am more the anthropogist when it comes to observing cult phenomena), I think it fits the spirit of sci-fi quite admirably — especially if there is a strongly adhered to scientific (or psuedo-scientific if one desires) criteria in the nomination procedures. We must distance ourselves from the cult of sci-fi to observe a standardised Sad methodology.
A very good idea, I think, for the obvious reasons (i.e. not really those I listed her, which should, by the way, be taken with many grains of salt and extreme sympathy — serious sleep deprivation).
However, I raise a related point that interests me. This board is partially segemnted into Popular Sci-fi and Other Cult Sci-fi — like I said, one might argue that cult and popular don’t mix well — on the other hand , some cult sci-fi shows do have far more followers than others (i.e popular cult then is a fairly accurate statement). Still, I do find “popular” and “cult” to be quite the contradiction in terms.
On the other hand, they’re not listed as Popular Cult sci-fi and yet it’s implied that they are cult shows since this a cult sci-fi board (and through association becuase there’s an Other Cult Sci-fi section).
How is it decided which are popular, and which are Other (I know we’re working on deciding what’s cult and what’s not cult and so this is a bit of a red herring)? Dune, for instance, did very well in the ratings (had mainstream success) but is in the Other Cult Sci-Fi Section. Dr. Who often ranks number one on Cult sci-fi lists (as does The Prisoner) and has enjoyed very popular success. Or is it by the number of posts (Lexx is THE most popular here, but then it has its own section as befits such a glorious beast). It’s not the test of time criteria obviously, I would’ve thought it would be recent and non-recent here, but not necessarily the case. Is it recent ones that have developed a real cult reputation then? In some ways the ultimate cult shows should have the least users (could be argued). Okay, I can think of some better explanations, but erroneous possibilities can be far more stimulating.. 😉 And I do know cult…
Here’s the answer I would think, popular sci-fi is that which is popular and sci-fi, and if it is specifically (as implied) the rather oxymoronic “popular cult sci-fi”, then it is that which has reached the mainstream, has soething of an established reputation (perhaps not too new) and is fairly recent (still fresh in people’s minds). Oh, and as cult it must have a loyal following of groupies (and is probably quite offbeat, though not that far off the beaten path).
Perhaps recent and classic cult sci-fi might be a better sytem, but that would have its difficulties. Or by primary country of origin (where main funding comes from, complicated pudding stuff) British, Canadian, and American sci-fi? Or maybe a few more specific categories. One could use a variation on Fatguy’s rating system to determine which should fit into which category even. But, it must be said, I like the board just the way it is. 😀
So what are some prime examples of: cult-sci-fi; popular sci-fi; popular cult sci-fi; unpopular (or obscure, same thing really) sci-fi; and unpopular cult sci-fi? And which is more cult, the popular or the unpopular in your opinions?
So what, in your opinions constitues cult sci-fi (see my definition in my previous post)?
SadGeezer wrote:Most of us are pretty depressed at the current state of TV Sci Fi. MOst of us would agree that there isn’t any new stuff worthy of inclusion as a guide on this site.
I disagree! There is much vitality in the world of cult TV sci-fi. What is stagnant and leads to poor traffic to the site is the construct of this site. By asking the fundamental definition that defines this site – Sadgeezer – you have opened the door to a “zero base review” of this site and it’s purpose.
________________________________________________My Evaluation Of Sadgeezer’s Site:
First major complaint from all I have encountered is that the main pages take too long to load. That is a big turn-off. To give you an example I was talking to a friend on messenger and asked that person to evaluate my post on Sadgeezer – first response was whining about how long it takes to navigate the site….. Perhaps there is some way to keep the helpful pages but have a simplified navigation for repeat visiters…..
Secondly – this site needs a constitution. This is one that you will have to mull over Sadgeezer, since it means giving up some measure of control over the site. The best part of it is seeing the site get a life of it’s own and go where the membership wants it to – like watching a child grow up and make it’s own decisions and destiny. The rights of members and scope of actions by administrators and moderators, how forums are created/disassembled, what constitutes “cult TV sci-fi (why isn’t a show like “Futureramma” at Sadgeezer if there is an interest…..). A constitution would allow people to use the rules to make a web site a bit more unpredictable – but a lot more interesting and popular.
Thirdly – this site needs more creative freedom to attract creative talent. What does Sadgeezer offer the writer who posts on this site…..exposure. What does the writer offer Sadgeezer when he contributes to the site…..an interesting and viable venue. However – to attract creativity…..you must not stifle it. This is an adult web site and sexual/violent fiction should not be discouraged unless it violates laws like hate laws , child pornography, etc.. If people can not express themselves at this site – they will simply go somewhere else. Trolling is not a major problem here as the site is too fragmented; trolls like sites that “funnel” all users into one forum where they have maximum exposure. A user group like the one Jhevz has would be a good compromise if there is some friction on this issue…..
Plus side of Sadgeezer is obvious: Established and respected web site run by likable people who are there for the love of the pastime.
Evaluation: Sadgeezer needs a conceptual facelift to keep it viable and exciting.
___________________________________________
I am just one member, others must have more interesting ideas to contribute to this fundamental discussion of our pastime.
Maurice
_______________________________________________Perhaps it’s time we didn’t limit ourselves to cult TV sci-fi, and since I’ve already given my definition I’ll diverge and digress a little more (feel free to skip), though I’m sure I’ll come up with a better one (it can be a bit problematic), and even surer that my fellow posters will come up with better ones still…
Some of the shows here are arguably cult (YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THEY ARE BUT YOU DON’T NEED TO), and arguably sci-fi (most any show has some “cult” following, and a great many shows not categorised as sci-fi have some sci-fi elements to them). For instance, Andromeda, though sci-fi (soft sci-fi I think) may be a little too new and a little too mainstream to be considered truly cult — it’s a good show, but is it truly indicative (a prime respresentative) of a cult show, or Dune, or Stargate etc. for that matter?
I suppose that it can still find a mainstream sci-fi audience and still have a loyal cult following, but popular and cult like I said are contradictory. And Patrick McGoohan claimed that The Prisoner is not sci-fi. It certainly has strong sci-fi elements, but it borrows from different genres, and could be classified as spy thriller, political thriller, action, adventure, or a surrealist or existential piece. Loosely sci-fiesque is certainly more than adequate for our purposes.
Buffy would be more readily classified as fantasy, or even horror-comedy than sci-fi. We also have much discussion of sci-fi and horror movies here, and I think that’s GREAT! It’s eclectic. I believe this board has moved in the direction of a general sci-fi/fantasy/horror, whatever, resource and forums. Good! I like the variety! What this board should really be about is good or interesting or most importantly, I think, DIFFERENT sci-fi/scifiish/fantasy etc. shows (and movies I think) and not just whether they’re cult. And remember, bad ones often have big cult followings. So what is good or interesting sci-fi? Well that depends on your own personal tastes.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me if there aren’t many great new sci-fi shows coming out. I bet there are lots of great ones from around the world such as Space Swamis but we don’t get to see them. It doesn’t bother me MUCH because there are so many great classic sci-fi, or sci-fiish shows like Blake’s Seven, The Twilight Zone (doesn’t limit itself to sci-fi), the Outer limits, UFO, Space 1999, Star Trek TOS, the Invaders etc., and so many other non sci-fi shows that are wonderful (some of them are new).
I bet there are lots of fantastic old sci-fi shows that I’ve never seen. What bothers me is that my sci-fi station largely ignores the wonderful old series, and many newish ones from around the world that must exist and are probably good. Many people have never been exposed to these great old shows; deprived. Sad. 😥 I would very much like to see new good ones of course, but i think sci-fi productions would improve if more shows were truly informed by the old shows. You can’t expect much intelligent and creative sci-fi if your audience is not tele-literate since you’re catering to them, and they grow to accept and expect low standards — and it’s out with the old, in with the new. The recycling of classics really can fertilise new minds and new concepts (and remember too that most sci-fi these days is aimed at kids. Well so was Dr. Who, and I still love it). Still, I wish there were more adult sci-fi shows — shows that cater to a more worldly, experienced, educated and informed audience. So often they pander to the lowest common denominator (which is really just about money rather than creative vision).
We need more luminaries in sci-fi who can make lower budget experimental independent sci-fi productions. So often it’s make a show by numbers, but here are niche markets for more unusual fare (government grants can help, and sometimes do, fund these, and there are now hundreds and hundreds of stations we can get — its usually the same stuff all around the place — and the specialty channels can use the more original fare, but it’s not easy to make money off originality, so sci-fi productions, which is already by its nature generally too generic (genre conventions), relies heavily on formula. if it works this time, well lets try it again, leaving sci-fi lacking in creativity. Babylon 5 is an interesting case, they gave Strazynski (sp?) much creative freedom. It really did become about as auteur as they can get. Too many people involved tends to spoil the vision and becomes confused, sanitised, and/or uninspired. Too many cooks spoils the broth.
There was a recent British one that I really liked, but I never had the chance to watch most of it (on at 3:00 am 🙄 ) called Space Island One, and I really liked Odyssey 5, so no, I don’t even think it’s in the doldrums, but there really is not a lot of variety or originality when it comes to most sci-fi. I would love to see more foreign language sci-fi shows; there must be a few great ones, must be lots of excellent Russian and Spanish ones.
Anyway, for my money, I’d like to see more guides and forums on what are generally classified as cult sci-fi classics such as Blake’s 7 (it takes time for a show to reach cult status). And while there are many great old shows to cover, and new ones I’m convinced, unfortunately most of us don’t have easy access to them.
Re Fatguy’s latest points which I am not knowledgeable enough to respond to adequately, I have also been told that the pages take way too long to load which is a reason why many people don’t use the forums (the guides are very popular still, especially the LEXX ones). Is there any way to streamline it, or whatever without getting rid of the great options? Any way that it could load faster; often times out on me. A constitution I rather like the idea of, but while this is an adult board, I don’t want it to become a porno site — what I call a woodie board. Really there is far more freedom, and this site is far more democratic than most boards already. Most censorship I come across is self-censorship; do it all the time. Sadgeezer is always looking for input and often implements it. This is a versatile board, and always improving with the contribution of ALL. Compare to some other moderated boards for instance; here we can really participate in the running of the site, and can be involved in the decision making process with our suggestions etc.. It’s OUR (all of ours) board in a sense. Here we can suggest changes to the site, really be listened to, and often see it happen (if it’s practical and if time permits).
But if you build it faster they will come; they already do, and some new organisation might help, but… I like it slower, leads to more thoughtful posts, but because one is virtually required to be more thoughtful and take a little more time, it discourages people from posting a lot.
Fatguy wrote:Plus side of Sadgeezer is obvious: Established and respected web site run by likable people who are there for the love of the pastime.
Absolutely, as Sad has said before, this site is a labour of love … it certainly shows. And I would also generally include the wonderful members who are also here for the love of the pastime (it may be just for posting). It’s the friendly, interesting, kind, helpful, funny, and knowledgeable people here that keep me coming back. I learn something new every time I visit, and get lots of chuckles. 😀 I wish some of them would post more, but when they do, it’s pure gold! I’d rather one great post, than 20 mediocre ones (and by great I don’t mean long like this sloppy one 🙄 🙄 ).
Great comments guys, still not sure though what constitutes Cult TV Sci Fi though.
fundamentally, this SadGeezer (me) is concerned that there isn’t enough sci fi to constitute contributions by you – the members of the site. Ie. that sadgeezers like you don’t feel that it’s worth reviewing episodes of shows because you don’t feel that a particular show you are interested in is worthy.
I know Logan has been considering contributions and Headgehog has just completed the the SadGeezers Guide to Dune, but why aren’t we commenting on Stargate, – it’s a fairly cool show but it’s not considered my most of the visitors to this site to be worthy of a mention.
Fatguy, you are on the wrong track regarding my request for a definition – The SadGeezers Guide to Cult TV Sci Fi is most certainly not MY guide to Cult TV Sci Fi – it’s all Sci Fi SadGeezers. I just manage the site with others. Most of the contributions to the site are from people such as yourself and Logan. The introduction to this site defines a SadGeezer – I wrote most of the guides mainly because I am the oldest member and because until recently, there has not been a facility for others to do their own reviews, news items etc.
Your comments about the problems with the site are noted and appreciated, but there isn’t much I can do about it. This site is HUGE! 500 review and section pages and a few thousand forum posts not to mention 1700 graphics and 1700+ sci fi links in the database and many other pages. In many ways the site is a victim of it’s own success. I’m not a business and I can’t afford to place the site on a dedicated server. Speed is a issue, but there was a decision made a while back not to limit the development of the site to being optimised for people with slow internet connections. I use the site in the UK though it is based on a server in the US – it’s fast for me. (This is a different subject and off topic, perhaps we could start a thread in the Pub asking you guys how the site could be improved. There are a large number of resources available here – most visitors don’t even know about them!! and this is proving difficult to manage and prioritise development).
Traditionally, my original subjective definition of Cult TV Sci Fi was that each series should have spaceships, aliens and hi tech. They should also be recognisable as ‘different’ from the norm. I would class the series ’24’ as cult TV Sci Fi though it doesn’t match some of the criteria above….. hence the request for input from you guys.
I find that too much TV nowadays simply provides an endless stream of happy endings. The majority of the public appears to like that since programs which do that eg. Star Trek get primetime viewing and pick up huge numbers of fans. (I’m not Star Trek bashing, I watch and enjoy it if it’s on, I just don’t seek it out (Unless it’s the original series 😀 ))
The sort of stuff that appeals to me is the rather messier end of the market. Antiheros, (the criminals in Blake’s 7 taking on the federation) regular guys (Stanley Tweedle seeking out a pleasant life rather than a glorious one) and people who can get into something with every intention of doing good and making a complete hash of it (farscape?).
Give me wobbly sets and good story lines over flashy special effects every time (Dr Who).
My guess is that the people who watch the more marginalised sci fi will tend to be the more proactive since they either have to stay up late, religiously set there videos or (in my case) have to buy the entire series on DVD because it’s not available on terrestrial TV (Lexx). Making them more likely to go and seek out message boards in order to reassure themselves that they’re not alone in the universe.
The marginalised sci fi also tends to leave threads hanging, not explain things or have stuff which is just plain weird. This makes for good essay and discussion fodder since far more is open to interpretation. In my opinion, the sort which explains everything to the nth degree leaves fewer openings for interesting debate.
I’ve never watched the Stargate series. I was put off by the film when I found that a bunch of Egyptologists had had that machine from the 1960s and couldn’t recognise the constellation of Orion when they saw it. Since Orion is the representation of Osiris, I was pretty unimpressed.
SadGeezer wrote:Great comments guys, still not sure though what constitutes Cult TV Sci Fi though….
Traditionally, my original subjective definition of Cult TV Sci Fi was that each series should have spaceships, aliens and hi tech. They should also be recognisable as ‘different’ from the norm. I would class the series ’24’ as cult TV Sci Fi though it doesn’t match some of the criteria above….. hence the request for input from you guys.
Perhaps it’s just evolving into “The Sadgeezer’s Guide to Cult and Sci-Fi TV”.
By your original definition, Firefly couldn’t be included as it has no aliens. Buffy certainly wouldn’t be here, nor the Prisoner. Everything here is at least either technologically advanced or has a speculative nature which helps it link in theme with the other shows.
But I think most importantly what all the shows featured here have in common is that they can be deconstructed to our hearts’ delight by people of different personality types without losing their hull integrity. The fact that many of the guides include “cultures” and various studies of technology should be a clue to that. You can’t do that with a non-cult show. Cult shows have writers who either plan multi-levels or return to previous themes to weave their shows together. I find that shows that fail to gain momentum don’t have this level of detail.
Is it really any wonder “Black Scorpion” and “The Chronicle” only get analyzed by one personality type and fade into obscurity?
Star Trek TOS can be picked apart both seriously and just for fun by different types of people from different angles and still be enjoyable. That makes it a cult show. I find that while TNG had more specific socially-relevant themes, it was really just a sci-fi action adventure in which the bad guy is revealed at minute 25, and the main character reaches the point of no return at minute 50, then everything is resolved by the top of the hour. That makes it not a cult show. Not that intelligent people don’t analyze it, but they all seem to be of limited personality type. (That’s not bad, just different.)
You could watch Buffy merely for action and entertainment as it carries a ditzy cover, but if you want to look for serious underlying themes threading everything together, they are there. In that respect it reminds me of She Wolf of London. That makes it a cult show. I might add the only reason I bought the disks was after strolling around this site and finding out there was more to it than “silly blonde kills vampire this episode, and this episode, and this episode”. I would not have given it another look otherwise.
As far as Stargate goes, I consider it cult even though it’s primarily episodic. You could watch many episodes as merely sci-fi action adventure, but the experience is enhanced by filling in the blanks in the backstory.
Of course, I have to believe that Stargate is a cult show because otherwise when Mr. Pet talks like T’ealc in public he would be insane. Clearly. BTW he ordered Sci-Fi again just to see it this summer. Only the influence of a cult could have gotten him to do that. GRRRRR! But I am still not watching TV. I will only watch Stargate on tape if Bastet shows up. She’s my favorite goddess so I’m curious to see how they would portray her. But I digress.
Though it would certainly not fit in here, Seinfeld has a cult following for the same reason. It has underlying themes which resurface and can be picked apart by different types of people. Without that attention to detail it would have been another Gang-of-Four sitcom in an apartment building. The Simpsons likewise has themes which resurface and references to popular culture which can be discussed ad nauseum by many different personality types. Just look at everything they find at The Simpsons Archive[/url]! Too bad Futurama[/url] was so badly treated by the schedulers, but at least their cult is still alive.
The more tired I am, the longer my posts get….
Anyhoo, it appears to me that the details behind the individual episode plots are what make a show cult or not, and whether someone who cares can pull them together in such a way as to inspire discussion beyond “yeah, that was a good episode, what’s on next?”
83;D
Cult t.v.is just what it says,show has a cult like following!Stuff we cannot leave alone even years after show ends!Hey,we set the rules(fans)choice is what its all about.SADGeezer has created a setting we can express this!EXTREMLY COOL!!! 😀 😀 😀
starmanjohn wrote:Cult t.v.is just what it says,show has a cult like following!Stuff we cannot leave alone even years after show ends!
StarmanJohn, yes… succinctly put. In a nutshell, that’s exactly what it is.
I’ll also say that I believe that nursewhen and pet make crucial points about the conditions that make for a cult show. Definitely something to bear in mind when deciding which shows should be chosen for inclusion; especially in the forums where one wants healthy debate and discussion. “Questions [may be] a burden to others, answers a prison for oneself,” but the best shows to heartily discuss leave room for individual interpretation and let you draw many of your own conclusions – not all cut and dried.
So I’ll add this to the points I made in my original post in this thread including the idea that a cult is a non-mainstream community of people who share and communicate a powerful passion for something.
A cult show has a relatively small but VERY loyal fanbase comprised of people who are almost religiously devoted to it (not just another show they like). These people will generally seek out other like-minded people to become a sort of community – a cult in fact (the hardcore, dedicated sadgeezer community is a kind of cult I would say too). Also, a cult show must be expected to withstand the test of time –expect ongoing interest, deconstruction, devotion, and analysis — and cult status must be earned. There is a difference between cult show candidates and established cult shows. Some shows have a loyal fanbase when they’re in production, but interest is lost after the show ends – that’s a fad. When people remain very enthusiastic even after the show is over, well it’s attained cult status. When serious interest is held over many years, then it becomes a cult classic (especially when there’s a strong “community” of people who share that serious interest).
I just want to say that while I’ve been attracted to cult sci-fi for as long as I can remember, I’ve only relatively recently become a member of a cult sci-fi community. So while I have a fairly decent theoretical knowledge of what it means, I don’t know the finer details of what it means in practice. For instance, I’ve never really gotten into fandom. I’d love to hear from those who’ve really been in the trenches, so to speak, about what cult (and cult fandom) means to them, and others they associate with.
(and we still haven’t really hammered out a definitive definition)
but just to add my 2 worthless South African cents… I always thought that the cult status was defined by the fans and not the shows themselves. If it has a cult following, as opposed to being just really popular, then it is cult sci-fi.
Take Robotech. It ended in the mid eighties. Thousands of fans fought for it, it’s been aired all over the world again and again, and last year, the brought out the DVD’s. The fans have conventions and follow it all over the net… they recieve news letters about it. It’s a cult following. That simple.
Ok, i didn’t read all of these comments so ignore me if I’m repeating anything.
Why ask this question?
Do you want to re-focus the website?
Or is it a lack of cult like enthusiasm for anything new or lack of anything new worthy of cult following.I think we each have our own intrepretations of the generally accepted definitions of scifi; hard, soft, space opera, cyber punk, et all.
Scifi has the unique opportunity of provoking insight into how to change the present to create a future we’re more comfortable in, it’s self reflection with an emphais on the future that seperates it from other art forms. And of course it’s entertaining to be challenged by visions of the future no matter how fact-based or fantasy-based it is. Which is why it attracks cult like followings- because people who want to stretch themselves and our reality are the most intrigued by these notions.
“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” -George Bernard Shaw
Ultimately I agree with FatBoy’s inital comment,
SadGeezer- what do YOU want here?
If it’s more discussions like this I’m game! As a Farscape fan,(wormholes,wormholes!) who attended panels on what to do to bring it back at Dragon*Con, like what folks have done for Robotech- to use an example- I hope Cult TV SciFi is alive and well and works!!!!
Goodluck!
SadGeezer wrote:How should we determine what show is worthy of inclusion or indeed, how could we define Cult TV Sci Fi.
K.I.S.S. Answer:
What is worthy of inclusion:
Any scifi/fantasy form of entertainment (book, show, movie, game, mini-series etc) that has one or more fans who are willing to spend many hours of their own free time to develope an entire sadguide (fansite).If someone is willing to give up their weekends for a month to build a guide, then there must be others out there willing to spend their own free time to learn more about that program.
Should a medium of entertainment satisfy these statements, then it shall be determined to have a cult following. The true test is time. If someone is willing to do a fansite 5 years after the programs’ release, and people are still willing to read about it, then it has a surviving cult, and shall be truly classified as Cult Sci Fi entertainment.
I found this at another forum; thought it didn’t deserve a new topic, but since it’s relevant to this discussion…
The following list is TV Guide’s “The Top 25 Cult Shows Ever” from their latest issue.
Notes: I don’t know how they came up with the results. Any one pick up the issue? Did they run polls at their website? Is it a critics list? Did they do research on the fan-base? I think we can all agree that when it comes to devotion, a Trekkie is pretty hard to beat, so number one is an obvious choice. Also, this is not a 25 Cult Sci-fi/Fantasy list, just cult, so it’s pretty impressive how many of the shows are of our genre.
1. STAR TREK
2. THE X-FILES
3. BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
4. FARSCAPE
5. MONTY PYTHON’S FLYING CIRCUS
6. THE SIMPSONS
7. THE PRISONER
8. THE TWILIGHT ZONE
9. XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS
10. PEE-WEE’S PLAYHOUSE
11. MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000
12. FAMILY GUY
13. BABYLON 5
14. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
15. QUANTUM LEAP
16. MY SO CALLED LIFE
17. THE AVENGERS
18. DOCTOR WHO
19. DARK SHADOWS
20. TWIN PEAKS
21. MARY HARTMAN, MARY HARTMAN
22. H.R. PUFNSTUF
23. FOREVER KNIGHT
24. ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS
25. FREAKS AND GEEKS
Too bad there’s no Red Dwarf, no Lexx, no Outer Limits, no UFO, no The Invaders, no Blake’s 7, no Lost in Space, no Space 1999 etc — ah, but it’s only 25 and not confined to sci-fi. And in non-sci-fi, would’ve liked to have seen Black Adder make the list, but perhaps it didn’t get a big enough run in the US — but the Beeb’s Ab Fab is there. And what about Blossom and Full House? Damn! They didn’t make the final cut. 🙄
So, what is a cult show? Judging by the list entries, it can be a show like The Simpsons (one of my faves) which has had major mainstream success — it’s generally popular and well-accepted enough to be considered mainstream, but also has a “cult” following. Perhaps the main thing that sets the cultist apart from the mainstreamist is the level of devotion. The more loyal (vocal, devout etc.) the fans (i.e. the more fanatical); the more “cult” is the show. Personally I wouldn’t judge by numbers, but by the extremes the followers go to support, discuss, and LIVE their favourite show.
Now, that news story Pet submitted about the guy who modeled his apartment after Star Trek TNG, there’s a loyal follower. He literally lives in a sci-fi [model] universe. Being a sci-fi cultist isn’t just a fancy, it’s a way of life; a way of perceiving the world. It’s a religion.
Praise be to cult sci-fi! We humble ourselves before the holy girdle of Kirk!
Great post Logan, I must’ve divined you from afar in the other thread. I thought almost exactly the same thing.
To an even further degree, I loved AbFab (s1-4, 5 kinda sucked) too, it’s one of my all time favorite BBC shows, but I certainly wouldn’t of applied it here.
As for who made up the list? I’d guess they handed around a memo in-house. Usually a lot of thought does not go into these lists as they tend to come up wildly varying “100 greatest TV shows” every few years.
The fact that Farscape was so high on the list almost confirms this, as Farscape is a HUGE favorite over at TVguide.com, they lobbied as hard as some of the internet groups to get it back on the air.
Another thing is how are TV shows advertised? How do the Corporations see the they are given to sell? The VHS box of I Worship His Shadow told of Brave gladiator Thodin leads a ragtag band of rebels against His Shadow blah blah…” If they must hide the real story of IWHS, perhaps the true story is “cult TV.”
If a TV show is heavily advertised or widely talked about and acknowledged in the mass media, can it be “cult” TV? Maybe “cult show” is dynamic. Could StarTrek Original have been cult at one time, long ago, but not today?
Cult TV as Religion? Can a religious follower Bash his/her own religion? Can a Trekkie bash StarTrek? I dunno. Can a LEXX fan bash LEXX? mmm…Yes![/b] 😆
What is cult status? Is it Established Cult? Can we just say “Establishment” instead to keep things simple, utilitarian, and contextually efficient?
Does Defining “cult” merely define it away. Maybe its a Xen thing
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.