Top 50 Science Fiction TV Shows 684
pbaumgar writes "Boston.com is running an article discussing their top 50 Sci-Fi TV shows of all-time. What are some of your favorites?" From the article: "Number 10 -'Sliders. 'Sliders' should have been a widespread hit, but it was ahead of its time. The show was about a wiz-kid genius Quinn Mallory, played by Jerry O'Connell, and his band of three companions who slide among Earth's alternate realities. Toward the end of the series, the show quickly slid in quality as three of its stars - O'Connell, Sabrina Lloyd and John Rhys-Davies - departed and were replaced by others. A tragic demise to a fine show." They don't even give a nod to greatest-trek-of-all-time DS9, so I don't know about this list.
ranking (Score:4, Insightful)
No Max Headroom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Moore's still up there. (Score:2, Insightful)
Moore's better baby did pretty damn well.
Um, hello (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure of the list either. (Score:4, Insightful)
Science Fiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Buffy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Science Fiction?!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DS9??? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of those shows aren't Science Fiction.
No Lexx? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Prisoner (Score:5, Insightful)
Best sf show (Score:5, Insightful)
Next best is an oldie: The Prisoner. If you're under 40, you likely missed it.
firefly? (Score:5, Insightful)
list as high quality as navigation (Score:5, Insightful)
Xena, though a fine show, is hardly a science fiction. It has none of the technology, exploration of current social problems, or even exploration of various cultures. Pretty much it just a medeival cop show.
Sliders was not ahead of it's time. It was just another huckleberry finn, star trek, docotor who knockoff with none of the redeeming factors. It is quite suitable for the adolecent maile, with a good role model, a pretty girl into geeks, and trivial story line. However, there are no layers that might make it interesting to an adult. The writing was woodden, even by scifi standards.
One contemporary scifi show that is seldom mentioned is 'The Cape'. Based on reality, good exploration life, and how we might move forward. Much more interesting than anything I saw on that list, though the show only works if you ignore current reality, as is true for most scifi.
There's Something Really Scary About This ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Um, hello (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science Fiction?!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science Fiction?!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Science fiction needs two elements - *science* and *fiction*. Everything else is just fluff.
Superman and Buffy have no science elements. They are merely fiction.
Re:The Prisoner (Score:3, Insightful)
Saturday Afternoon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Star Trek DS9 Was truly superior (Score:2, Insightful)
Voyager was pretty bad, I thought. I can't believe they put that in the top 50 and not DS9. Too many episodes about the doctor or how holograms have taken over their ship. I mean, how many times did Voyager get captured by aliens in the delta quadrant? I remember one episode in particular about how they had an opportunity to return to the alpha quadrant via a wormhole, but a couple of Ferengi in an inferior ship outsmarted the Voyager crew and they ended up not being able to return home themselves. And don't even get me started on that one episode where Paris mutates into a frog and impregnates Janeway...
Re:Idiotic List (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never understood why so many people seem to believe that "sci-fi" must include aliens or space ships to be sci-fi. Sci-fi often becomes confused with fantasy.
If we were to make a list of "best" sci-fi, and strictly adhered to them being actual sci-fi, I do not believe you could get a list of 50 if you limited yourself to television. In order to have a list with any meaning, you would have to seperate the truly great from shows that either failed entirely, or were never able to garner more than a niche audience. And because of the non-linear nature of the best specimens of sci-fi (Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc - shows that were not dedicated to sci-fi-only), you would be forced to either include these sometimes-sci-fi shows, or admit that your list just lost it's heaviest hitters.
In such a list, I get the feeling that Farscape MIGHT only stand a chance of getting in. As for Lexx, First Wave, this new BSG, and many of the other shows experiencing a brief period of popularity or who have a dedicated and vocal but small audience... they wouldn't stand a chance.
As for Stargate, I never personally got into the show, but it would most likely make it into such a list intact. It's probably the only currently running show that would.
And dammit Star Trek SHOULD be at the top of the list. No one can say another sci-fi show has had a greater impact. Twilight Zone would be next in line, then probably Lost In Space (another show I never loved, but has stood the test of time).
Jilted Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Someday, Ruth Buzzy and Jim Neighbors will get their due.
Re:ranking (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also the possibility that the series is highly rated because it's simply a good show and not because it is completely "unique" from the original.
The fact that Starbuck used to be a guy doesn't have any impact on that unless you're stuck on the original series. Starbuck being a woman has created some interesting plot points, and the "stunt" you were referring to has only been made a big deal by detractors, not the producers. It has never been a major selling point to watch the show.
BSG is doing well because it's simply a good, entertaining, and thoughtful show. The end.
Re:Ahead of their time (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, these shows are borderline by any standard, and don't fit the purist definition of SF. But under the broad definition of SF as any sort of non-mundane fiction ("we know it when we see it"), they both fit.
At the time I didn't see this, but in retrospect, I do. Perspective is a wonderful thing.
Re:Doctor Who: 1963-2007 (at least) (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but the resurrection also brought in a munch needed jump in the quality of the show. The filming is better, the writing is better, and the effects don't look like MST3K anymore. Hehe.
I'm starting to realize that a lot of complaints about these shows are by people who haven't invested in them. I didn't like Farscape or B5, but man, I honestly can't say I've seen more than 5 eps of either. So who am I to make declaritive comments about either? (Sorry, this isn't in reply to your comment, I've just seen a flood of bickering over all of the shows sucking.)
Re:Flamebait Squared (Score:3, Insightful)
3. Get 50 ad-ridden pages semi-related to scifi posted to a tech site with almost a million readers.
2. ???
1. Profit!
Re:Sliders (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Soap Opera, DS9, B5, BSG (Score:5, Insightful)
Babylon 5 was not a soap opera. Babylon 5 was a story. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. Towards the end of B5 you can definitely see all of the pieces being moved off of the board one by one.
A soap opera is not going anywhere. Things just keep happening. You can keep it up for as long as you want. Characters can come and go. The basic direction can change. This is very different than a novel, or Babylon 5.
DS 9 might be a soap opera. (I quit watching after 2nd season due to liking B5 better and had insufficient time for both DS9 and B5.) I don't know if DS9 was a soap opera. Was the story working its way towards any overall conclusion?
This brings me to the new Battlestar Galactica. I wonder if it is like B5 in that there is a distinct conclusion that they are heading towards? Maybe so, but maybe they don't have a plan for getting there? Will they drive off into the ditch along the way and never get to the conclusion. I sure hope not. I would be very disappointed in investing time to watch it.
Re:New BSG is #2? WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
(edit mine)
In contrast to the origional series aka Wagon Train in Space staring Lorne Greene? A boy and his mechanical dog? And evil inverse video goat man? Making it a point to create perfectly reflective robots without regard to lighting resulting in having to use colored filters so you couldn't see the crew? Recycled special effects from the movie which employed recycled special effects. Not to speak of Galactica 1980 who had a group of kids farm with their super strength or play baseball and win to avoid detection from the goverment. Or worse yet "You're pregnant? How is this possible? Must have been devine intervention!" Can you say a transparent attempt to prevent kids from finding out where babies come from?
I know there are fans of the old series who might be offended, but let's face it BSG 1979 had some awful moments and the new series in many regards is an improvement. I agree it shouldn't get a #2 spot. It's too new and hasn't had long enough to prove itself.
Re:Um, hello (Score:2, Insightful)
Can I get a HELL YEAH! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's MUCH better than Xena which ranked 12.
Re:Full Listing (Score:1, Insightful)
and some people would say Farscape even though it sucked ass. It's still better than Andromeda or other retarded crap in that list.
plus countless others better than "Lost" or that stupid comedy shit.
Re:ranking (Score:5, Insightful)
The Twilight Zone will stand the test of time. It already has since it's a creature of the late 1950s to early 1960s. While so much of what is on the list will be forgotten, it will remain a classic.
Re:DS9??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Absoultely. DS-9 started off weak, but once the long plot lines were developed (more than one) the show became a great ones. Not only that, the magic reset button can totally ruin a show (mucking about with time for example to reset for example. SG-1, for example, has done this at least twice, and both times they did not fit well with the rest of the plot.
In a book, that's what can make a great book, is a well-defined plot line that goes from start to end. We should expect that of a series (any, not just sci-fi), not just the individual shows that make up a series.
Sliders was a show that had a magic reset button (the slide at the end) but tried to develop a long plot line (besides the slide home) , but didn't quite succeed. I have heard that network executives also got involved to be able to switch the order of the shows, which is why after the first couple shows you never saw the lead-in to the next show. You instead, possibly got a tease starter or ender: hints about what happened on the previous planet, but wasn't an episode or hints about the next planet, also not an episode. That plus the main characters leaving were a sure demise.
Stargate and Stargate Atlantis don't focus on that underlying plot line, but it is there. Not necessarily linking every show, but it does provide some development of the characters. Case in point, the 'two hour season finales' for both the past two weeks. Two one-hour shows, the second of which was a finale. Little linking, between them.
Battlestar Galactica focuses on it, where nearly every show depends heavily on the previous one. Makes you need to see each episode when it runs.
So true about actual soaps' reset buttons. At least the sci-fi resets are a little more plausible (though I still hate most of the time travel ones).
Re:Star Trek DS9 Was truly superior (Score:1, Insightful)
ST:TNG was the last decent Star Trek that was actually SCIENCE FICTION, instead of soap opera with a "future" theme.
Red Dwarf (the original british version) was the best science fiction TV series. Yes, it wasn't a "serious" series. But it was also mostly hard science fiction. Doctor Who comes a close second, followed by futurama, not a serious series either but full of hard science fiction.
Now, if only someone talented would make Banks' "Use of Weapons" or "Consider Phlebas" into a series. Of course, the chances of someone in america making a series about godlike commies from space who are the good (or at least slightly less bad) guys is perhaps slim, but you can't deny that Consider Phlebas would make good watching. Even if the horror of "Use of Weapons" and what exactly it was that the Chairmaker did might be a bit harder to translate to screen, I reckon it could be done (just so long as they don't resort to a sucky "BladeRunner"-style narrative to pound it into viewers skulls)
Re:Idiotic List (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good indicator of what sci-fi is when at it's best... not stories about cool futuristic technologies, but stories about how technology affects the way we think and interact with eachother.
Re:Um, hello (Score:2, Insightful)
You suck, Boston.com (Score:3, Insightful)
On a slightly more relevent note, I just marathoned like seven episodes of the new Battlestar Galactica on my DVR, and I think it might actually be the best show on TV, including those edgy shows on cable where they show boobies. Its that good.
Re:DS9??? (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of those shows aren't Science Fiction.
Agreed. I can't believe Farscape didn't make the list while shows like Wild Wild West, the Man from UNCLE, and the Avengers did. The Prisoner was far more SciFi than the Avengers, and that didn't make the list either. While I liked the other shows, they were not science fiction. While the original Star Trek probably deserves the top spot, the only other show that had fans actively protesting and trying to reverse its cancellation was Farscape.
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Number 12: 'Xena: Warrior Princess'
Xena better than Buffy? Both sci-fi?
Farscape.. (Score:2, Insightful)
"The Time Tunnel" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doctor Who: 1963-2007 (at least) (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh brother. First, Farscape died because it was too dependent on cathing every single episode. Second, enough of the elitist bullshit. I can't believe how obnoxious the Farscape fans I've talked to are. I'm sorry that a show you loved died, I truely am. It really sucks when a good show (Futurama, Miracles, Firefly, Quantum Leap, etc) has its life tragically cut shot. But to act as though you're opearting on some higher level is irritating. You may have made the time to watch and fully appreciate Farscape, but not everybody can. Star Trek was more accessible, that's why it was successful. TV is a luxury. Tastes are wildly diverse. If you catch a bizarre show and you have no fucking clue what's going on, it's not because you're simple. It's hard for a show to work if it demands that you stick to its schedule.
In any event, these are fortunate times for sci-fi. Lots of people have DVRs and entire seasons of TV shows are selling well on DVD. It's difficult to imagine a show like BSG making it 10 years ago. Just this week I finally talked a friend of mine into catching an episode of it. He was really really confused. He didn't understand who the Cylons were. (it worked a lot better on the original series where the Cylons were all big toasters.) He didn't understand what the conflict was about. Well I could keep going. But at the very least he has a DVR. Maybe when the show runs its course again he can catch it and fully appreciate it. It would be awful, though, to judge him harshly for not being in his 'comfort zone'. It's not his fault. Fortunately, BSG stands to succeed.
Re:Space Above and Beyond (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you had space ships with wings that banked like airplanes, I do not remember how they solved that whole FTL thing. And if I remember right they often had the fighter jocks land there space planes and become ground pounders.
It may have been enjoyable but no cheap and lazy contrivances?
Less than a lot of shows. It compares pretty well to the new BSG actually. The ships actually had control jets front and back (similar to BSG) and while they did have a tendency to do too much airplane style maneuvering, they did at least have some acknowledgement of the sorts of control systems required. They solved the whole FTL thing the same way everyone else does - they cheated and had some sort of hyperspace "jump". Find me an SF TV show that has some careful considered and well explained FTL system. And as for the last point - they were supposed to be "marines" thus mixing space and land combat - it's not an entirely unreasonable suggestion and, for instance, BSG does much the same thing: the pilots often find themselves acting and land troops.
Which is not to say it wasn't without plot contrivances, but they weren't of the "cheap lazy" form that all the holodeck and alternate dimension adn so on episodes of Trek.
Jedidiah.
Re:Idiotic List (Score:3, Insightful)
The acting is ordinary and the characters two dimensional. The plots are simplistic with only the vaguest linking between shows. And, most importantly, the world isn't internally consistant. It always amazed me that the ship's science/engineering officer was always able to come up with the solution to a age old problem just in the nick of time. Strangly the thousands of scientists not working on ships can't do the same.
Compared with the current crop of good sci-fi (Firefly, Farscape, B5 and the new BSG), most of the Star Treks are B grade. Especially the original and TNG.
Re:ranking (Score:3, Insightful)
I loved the old Dr Who, but I can see reasons why you'd give Star Trek or Twilight Zone a leg up. Unfortunately most of what passes for "Sci Fi" nowadays is Space Opera w/ Wild On chicks given scientist roles. IMHO the last decent sci-fi series was the first half of the X-Files... nothing in the past 5+ years has much to do with science at all... is space-fantasy at best.
Keep in mind this list also includes "Lost", and "Xena Warrior Princess"... not very sci-fi IMHO.
PS Where's "Max Headroom"? "Probe"? There's _lots_ of short-lived TV series that had more legitimate SF themes.
Re:Not only is DS9 not on the list... (Score:3, Insightful)
And some pretty hot babes, too! Sorry, couldn't resist.
RED DWARF!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DS9??? (Score:2, Insightful)
1969 was a 'stranded in time, need to get back.'. No reset button.
In 2010, we entered in 2010, and the plot was 'send something back to 'the present' to change history. Arguably that's a reset button, but that was rather the plot.
WoO was a classic 'time loop' episode. You could argue there were a very large number of reset buttons in it, but I think that's rather required in a time loop episode. (And sci-fi shows are required by law to do time loop episodes.)
In the Atlantis episode, we learn that this is the second timeline, and what happened in the first time. No reset button.
In the SG-1 season ender, we have SG-1 go back in time and screw up the timeline so bad that the the Stargate program doesn't even exist, leaving only a video recording of themselves.
So the team members that should have been in SG-1, who get shown the video, go back and screw up the timeline even more, so much that not only does the original timeline come back, but altered in such a way that SG-1 doesn't have to go back in the first place. (Hence the title 'Moebius'.)
So, in eight and a half seasons of SG-1, and one and half seasons of Atlantis, let's see..
If by 'reset button' you mean 'altering the timeline and then altering it back where no one remembers it', we've had...one. Although, technically, the original SG-1 still died in the past, as did later did their replacements. The new SG-1 doesn't remember because they didn't do it, although they do have a tape recording to tell them what happened.
If by 'reset button', you mean 'events got out of control and the solution was to alter the past', the only episode that did that was 2010, and that was rather obviously the solution in the first place, as skipping 10 years of history would be a silly way to continue the show.
I don't really know which reset buttons you are talking about thtat didn't fit with the theme.
Re:Space Above and Beyond (Score:2, Insightful)