Why doesn't sci fi have the mass appeal that fantasy has?

[Parson]

As with most genre definitions, the line between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy is very, very blurry. On the whole, if you were to ask me I'd draw the line at how much science is the center or the story. So almost all popular Science Fiction would probably fall in the Fantasy camp in the end. Even something like The Martian which is about the best modern true Science Fiction around, still has that very fantasy wind storm.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I won't pretend to be an authority on science fantasy, because I'm definitely not, but in my mind that conjures something more like Gene Wolfe's Book of The New Sun, which could equally be justified as either a fantasy or a science fiction novel, and does a very good job of blending elements of both.

I think he viewed it as SF. Even the most lyrical and fantasy-like descriptions of TBOTNS were, it turned out when the complexity of the work was recognised, based on science - for instance his description of space "bending" according to relativistic phenomena (I forget which volume that's in). He was an exception author. I do agree wholeheartedly that the blend of elements is very skillful.

 

[Foxbat]

I think science fantasy is maybe a name that should be resurrected. As a Babylon 5 fan (currently going through my annual re-watch), it’s blindingly obvious the relationship between fantasy and the B5 universe. Take the return of the Great Enemy and the space elves that call themselves Minbari. And of course, we have rangers and a perilous journey by the main protagonist, right into the heart of the Enemy. We even have a Gandalf grey/white moment in Sheridan’s resurrection.

A more pertinent question for me would be, why didn’t Babylon 5 have the mass appeal it deserved?

 

[Vince W]

A more pertinent question for me would be, why didn’t Babylon 5 have the mass appeal it deserved?

Deep Space Nine overshadowed B5 and it shouldn't have.

A lot of New Wave science fiction should more rightly called science fantasy, especially when you consider the number of stories involving telepathy, ESP, and other such magics.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Probably it was just a matter of timing and circumstance that Babylon 5 never made it to the big screen. It had TV movies but that apparently wasn't enough to keep it going. I have seen a lot of Star War and Star Trek memorabilia but I don't recall any Babylon 5 memorabilia, but I must have seen it, having gone to a lot of shows. Without the big screen movie exposure, Babylon 5 was globally distributed on VHS, which was circling the drain. It would still be a few years before DVDs became cheap, and the internet was just beginning to make things immortal. Maybe because Star Trek was born on TV, it had to fight its way to achieve eternal existence, while Stars Wars, born on the big screen, never had to look back.

When a name doesn't stick in the public's mind, it doesn't work. Any number of popular works can be attached to the name, but if the public doesn't endorse it, the name doesn't get used. Some eco science fiction stories and movies were big in the 1970s, but they were only seen as science fiction, and even now, trying to call them eco science fiction is a futile exercise. Maybe the words science and fantasy can't be seen together. Maybe it encompasses too much territory so it is hard to imagine or it arrived on the scene too late. For writers it is easy to understand, but for readers it might be like saying lets replace science fiction with a new word, science fantasy. From my understanding, science fantasy is bigger than science fiction. I know people who call Star Trek fantasy because they don't read science fiction.

 

[Parson]

I bit my tongue at first I didn't want to derail this thread, but since we're going down that path. I think one reason Babylon 5 didn't make as great a splash as Star Trek at the time was it's distribution. It was distributed on cable TV (and on different networks IRC). So not as many people were aware of it. And at least as important it was not nearly as accessible a story. You had to be a bit of SF Wonk to pick right up on it. And this might be my own problem, but I didn't think the sets etc. were nearly as good on Babylon 5 than the Star Trek franchise ones were.

 

[J Riff]

it does?

 

[Justin_B]

I think the crux of it may be that consumers of fantasy accept a complete suspension of reality (magic, mystical creatures etc) whereas Scifi in many respects is a hyper-extension of our current reality, and many aspects of evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Often the consumer is caught out comparing (consciously or not) the technology, society etc to the current, or near future of our reality (or realities). The suspension of belief/dis-belief is easier to achieve with Fantasy. Its the whole, my sword can cut through stone, thing. One hand "it's magic" and on the other "it's physics"

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think mainstream media has a lot to do with it. People will often go with what is seen as popular rather than what is presented as niche.

Recently there was a tv programme in Britain based on the 100 most popular books. Much of the screen time was spent on the 'classics' whilst little was spent on sci-fi and fantasy, even when those novels were higher in the charts.