Matt Roush discusses FarScape

Matt Roush of TV Guide discussed his thoughts on the final episode of Farscape and the state of TV in general.

Question: I hope you can stand one more question about the end of Farscape. After watching the series finale, it seemed to me that it could have been great except for the last two minutes, when they introduced the cliffhanger. Given that the producers, the Sci-Fi Channel and all the viewers knew for months that the show was ending, how hard would it have been to trim those last two minutes? That way the show could have ended on a good note. And why say "to be continued"? They knew it wouldn't be. I'd be interested in your opinion on this. — Abbie

Matt: As you might expect, I've been getting quite a bit of mail on this topic — most of it like this. Personally, I enjoyed the final episode, although like others I wish it had been able to give some more screen time to the other occupants of Moya beyond the dream team of John Crichton and Aeryn Sun. As for the shocking ending, in which John and Aeryn were seemingly blasted into dust (although "neutralized" is how the grotesque alien invader put it) after he proposed to her in a truly euphoric scene, I knew as most did that exec producer David Kemper had planned a wild cliffhanger as he had for the past seasons. If I have the story straight, not until this episode was finished did he and the rest of the crew learn the show wasn't being renewed. I think that by keeping this outrageous ending intact Kemper was thumbing his nose at the network, not at us. Like all those loyal subjects of the Save Farscape movement — and by the way, I appreciate all the feedback and the recently hand-delivered goodies — I believe deep down that Farscape will indeed continue in some form some day, at the very least in a movie or TV-movie sequel. The "to be continued" tag seemed to me an expression of hope, not a malicious tease.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: I was directed to your columns on a Farscape newsgroup by people who pointed out you enjoyed the show, and have kept up with them ever since. I like to see your take on both shows I love and shows that I dislike. I was thrilled to watch the beautiful and always interesting journey that was Farscape, and now that it's over, I'm wondering what you think of the state of sci-fi on television these days. Especially the space-based sci-fi such as Farscape and Firefly. Do you think it's in decline? — Felicity

Matt: Given that Farscape and Firefly are history, I think it's safe to say that space-based sci-fi is in serious decline. Farscape set the bar for this kind of series, as far as I was concerned. The only series that ever came close were Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine (though more uneven, often very rewarding) and Babylon 5 (a series I admired more than enjoyed). Firefly was such an original and risky space/Western hybrid it obviously was going to need some time to find its way, but Fox didn't give Joss Whedon a fair chance from the start. Not being a Stargate viewer or a fan of Showtime's sci-fi snoozers (Jeremiah and Odyssey 5), and wishing that Enterprise had a little more vitality, I guess I'll just have to wait for the next great thing to come along. Farscape was a complete surprise, so I'm cautiously hopeful another is waiting in the wings. But for now, the only TV genre in as bad shape as the sci-fi series is the TV comedy.

[McC]

Hmm...interesting comment about B5...being something that he admired rather than enjoyed. I personally enjoyed it, but perhaps those of you (*cough*Mike*cough*) that don't like B5 might at least be able to see it from that angle

Why should I invest into a series I won't enjoy? :P Actually, I've seen about 1/3 of B5. And yes, I understand the 'admiration' of B5, if not the enjoyment of it. I chose not to go into further detail regarding this issue unless we can spin off the Farscape forum as a Farscape Forum Plus, including discussion for Sci-Fi in general.

[McC]

That sounds like a pain And I didn't mean to get into a big discussion about it, I just wanted to dig at ya

Anyway, viva la FarScape!

Believe me, I have a very well practiced argument, but the backlash is more than I care to confront. Besides, what I have to say is an oppinion and nothing more, I don't think is worth debating.

[McC]

You've almost coaxed me onto ICQ to hear this "well-practiced argument" But I refuse!

Chicken!

Hey! How did you know I was on!? :P Coward!

hmm, well tv itself is in a serious decline, i don't believe there are any worthwhile new shows lately. *gives up entirely*

I agree with you there Spiller. After Farscape, TV is just dull.

I have a German friend who believes TV is getting much better, with shows like 'The Shield'. But overall, I think TV is very much in decline thanks to reality TV. I don't even watch anymore, mostly because of my busy schedule. I stick with news coverage and DVDs. But my guilty pleasure is Sci-Fi Friday and it's a tradition I can't break, especially in the summer. I actually really enjoy Tremors .

Originally posted by McC
You've almost coaxed me onto ICQ to hear this "well-practiced argument" But I refuse!

Well, don't worry cuz Mike is rarely on. :p More than likely, you would've missed him.

No, he knew I was on. That's why he mentioned it :p. I am on fairly infrequently however.

It's a trend you can see across the entire television spectrum. For ever Farscape there's a dozen or more low quality derivative pieces of fluff that just keep getting renewed and renewed because the ratings tell them that's what people watch. To this I have just one question: Would a man be able to survive by just eating chewing gum?

I'm also starting to wonder if they have something against scifi shows beginning with F. Farscape, Futurama, Firefly...

I'm always amazed that the networks give Sci-Fi shows any chance. They are perhaps the most unreliable genre to get into. Only Star Trek, Stargate, and The X-Files survived to become successes. The rest are cancelled and most are completely forgotten. It seems shows like "Firefly" get made because the producer is famous for having a successful track-record. This is especially true of Chris Carter, who had no-less than 3 failed attempts *although I'd never call "Millennium" a failure*. Most Sci-Fi TV seems to be made in hopes that they can tap into the audience of another show, such as "Gene Rodenberry's: Andromeda/Earth: Final Conflict". I think it's safe to assume that the genre is evaporating and will probably transition from TV-series to miniseries. That seems to be the future of classic science fiction. You can thank the success of "Lord of the Rings" and "Dune" for the drive towards limited run films and miniseries. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the future of TV in general actually. "Event" programming tends to bring in larger audiences without the struggle to keep an audience.

[McC]

I actually suspect the system will get overthrown relatively soon (within 25 years or so) and replaced with something that better suits the real apetities of the populace, as opposed to the select choices of the represented mob.

Care to give a view on what it will be?

And if you say interactive television, I'll shoot you. Seriously.

[McC]

Oh, I don't necessarily mean the format will change, I just think the economic system behind it will. The Nielsens are clearly a flawed and inaccurate system, and advertisers controlling the medium is causing more rebellion (how many people actually like sitting through commercials? I leave the room) than they are enjoyment.

Oh well that's different, and I completely agree with you. I'm just hoping that the advertisers don't go the way the same route that the RIAA and other such associatios are taking in their fields, forcing the use of an outdated distribution model because they're too scared of the future. Yes, i have a beef with them for that... I can see the big commercial channels going a similar route, forcing people to view commercials more and more, and forcing things like TIVO to record commercials automatically, before the change you're predicting comes about. They'll use falling profits as an excuse for it. Some of them have already claimed that not watching the adverts is like stealing the programs broadcast in between.

[McC]

*shrug* I pay my cable bill, and that's all they get out of me. They want me to watch the ads, they better find some way to make them unobtrusive and less annoying.

The Nielson system would work if it were put into EVERY TV, not just a box for those that ask for it.

[McC]

Then it wouldn't be the Nielsen system That's actually what I'm hoping they'll do -- put a box on every TV, as just a standard part of a cable box or something, and then record that data. It's not like it's hard to do...

Yeah, but then you'll have the morons that'll complain about it being an 'invasion of their privacy'.

Originally posted by Vertigo1
Yeah, but then you'll have the morons that'll complain about it being an 'invasion of their privacy'.

It is. The problem could be solved, however, if a law were passed that limited the ways in which the information could be used.

Unfortunately, the lawmakers of this country have a habit of being about ten years behind on technolagy.

[McC]

Why is it an invasion of privacy if it's collected anonymously? Just log the numbers, not the locations. Log how many TVs are tuned to channel X, how many to channel Y, etc. Not who, but how many. That's not an invasion of privacy at all...is it?