Are we in a golden age of sci fi and fantasy?

[CaptJohnSheridan]

What is responsible for the surge in popularity for sci fi and fantasy? We have shows like Game of Thrones, Westworld, and The Expanse. HBO has Foundation by Isaac Asimov in the works and JJ Abrams is going to make a HBO show about colonizing another planet. Spike is working on a show based on the Mars trilogy. Mass Effect is about to return to the video game world. Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy as well as fantasy superhero movies like Doctor Strange and animated movies like Big Hero 6 and Frozen has been successful at the box office. Hard sci fi movies like The Martian and Interstellar have also found success at the box office. What is responsible for the success of sci fi and fantasy? With wars and political extremism reigning supreme over Earth make people desire more escapism into quality stories and universes? Has CGI technology advancement contributed to the acceptance of sci fi and fantasy? Or are those movies and shows are of excellent quality?

 

[Saelune]

I feel like between the 60's and 80's was the golden age of Sci-Fi and Fantasy.

Star Wars, Star Trek, D&D, that old Hobbit animated film, and a bunch of weird space movies.

 

[Satinavian]

Fantasy yes. there have been a couple of successes big enough that Fantasy is now regarded as of possible interest to much of the population, which allows really big investments in Fantasy entertainment. That has not always been the case. I blame the Lord of the Rings films, Harry Potter and then Game of Thrones. Fantasy is now mainstream.

Sci-Fi through ? No. There was more and more interesting Sci Fi around in other decades. I think, Sci Fi has declined after significantly after 2000.


I would not file the Superheroes genre under Sci Fi or Fantasy. While technically an argument could be made as superpowers are not realistic it is its own thing with its own story conventions, tropes and so on.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think we're in the Golden Age of sci-fi. I mean Doctor Who suddenly having a fanbase outside Australia and Britain? Battlestar Galactica having cross demographic appeal? Plenty more instances of it no longer being niche or trying to appeal to more than a handful of dedicated viewers.

Not only that, it's reached critical saturation now.

 

[Hawki]

I'm reluctant to throw terms around like "golden age" - it's far more condusive to evaluate material on its own merits rather than arbitrarily lumping them together. I think there's more fantasy/sci-fi around nowadays, but is it necessarily better? I dunno, but it's not necessarily worse either.

Looking at this thread, I don't think it's so much a case of these genres are just better now, but rather that the modern day has given audiences quality material (like we've had in the past), while other material has fallen by the wayside for whatever reason. A lot of what's being mentioned is material that's popular in the mainstream. Disagreements about some of the quality of what's mentioned here aside, in any period of time, you can find stinkers alongside the stand-outs, only it's the stand-outs that are remembered.

But if it is in a golden age, I'd say it's because of ease of access in both physical and digital media. And that yes, there's a glut of superhero material.

 

[Michel Henzel]

It depends on what type you are wanting as both genres have a ton of sub-genres to them. In terms of Sci-fi that I'm wanting it feels like a dark age. Where's all my soft sci-fi shows like Star Trek, Farscape, StarGate, Babylon 5 or Andromeda?

Also, appearently, the golden age of Sci-fi ended decades ago, like in the 40's or something. But that's what the wiki says.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's a lot more money to throw at various genres, I don't know if that counts.

I've not been impressed by most recent stuff, but that's just me.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

As long as sci-fi and fantasy are all super dark and grim and rapey and ultra serious will really serious people being serious all the time, we'll never be in a Golden Age.

God what I would give for Game of Thrones to be axed and to get Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Something with a sense of joy, like someone somewhere involved in some capacity with the creation of the show isn't a manic depressant.

 

[Hawki]

Where's all my soft sci-fi shows like Star Trek, Farscape, StarGate, Babylon 5 or Andromeda?

Dark Matter, Killjoys, Prisoner Zero,** Legends of Tomorrow,* Doctor Who,** Defiance, etc.

Like I said up above, there's not a lack of this material. How good it is is down to you of course, but this is only the sci-fi stuff that meets the definition of soft sci-fi IN SPAAACE!. Oh, and Defiance, which shares some of the creative DNA with Farscape.

*Is that superhero material or sci-fi though? I dunno. It's part of what steered the Arrowverse into pulp anyway.

**Which I'd argue are more sci-fa than sci-fi, but whatever.

As long as sci-fi and fantasy are all super dark and grim and rapey and ultra serious will really serious people being serious all the time, we'll never be in a Golden Age.

God what I would give for Game of Thrones to be axed and to get Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Something with a sense of joy, like someone somewhere involved in some capacity with the creation of the show isn't a manic depressant.

...da fuq?

Okay, you don't like Game of Thrones, that's fine. But a few problems with that line of thought:

-If anything, speculative fiction is veering far too much towards the pulpy end of the spectrum, especially within the superhero genre. Not that I ever really cared about that genre in the first place, but even Arrow succumbed to the happy-lite material that's sprung up since the MCU hit it big. Not to mention the most recent episode of Doctor Who was also similarly infected.

-If Game of Thrones was taken off the air, today, what fantasy show would there be to replace it? Merlin? Gone. Atlantis? Gone. Camelot? Gone. Riftworld Chronicles? So niche I had to check if it even made it past its pilot. Shannara? Okay, maybe - can't comment on the show directly, but having read the books it's based on, I'd hardly lift it up as a pedastal of the genre. The idea that Game of Thrones is mutually excluding anything is nonsensical, because right now, it's an outlier.

-If we're talking about "70s sci-fi series that needs a revival," I see your Buck Rodgers and raise you a Blake's 7.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Oh come on, tv today is filled with grim growly people growling grimly. Its all angst and drama and needlessly bloody deaths and even more angst and then for the sake of it, angst.
Supernatural is just a soap drama now(filled with torture and blood), barely a ghost or werewolf in sight. The Walking Dead is a mess of angst and drama and unlikable characters doing unlikable things, then being all angsty about it. Game of Thrones has more angst that a Highschool goth club, and then everyone gets raped and killed. And then raped again.
And most of the Superhero shows went from episodic crime fighting to season long angst offs to see who can frown at the camera the most.

And we don't need a new fantasy show. Between the Witcher, Dragon Age and Game of Thrones we've done the grim dark angsty fantasy genre to death.

And 70s Buck? Fuck that, I'm talking 1940s, when they had old ray guns and no understanding of space.

 

[The Madman]

If you like low fantasy settings maybe, but as a fan of high fantasy the sub-genre might as well be dead with every other author and show/movie trying to one up Game of Thrones on the 'dark & gritty' scale.

I just want me some bearded wizards casting fireball and magic missile, is that so much to ask?

 

[Skatalite]

I don't know. Not for me, at least. I've seen no fantasy movies or shows yet coming close to LotR or Pan's Labyrinth. Haven't seen many sci-fi movies/shows come close to Alien/The Thing/Blade Runner either, besides Moon (which is already 7-8 years old) and Fury Road. I think GoT, Interstellar and The Martian are great though. And then there's Blade Runner 2049, probably the movie I'm most looking forward to right now.

 

[Hawki]

Oh come on, tv today is filled with grim growly people growling grimly. Its all angst and drama and needlessly bloody deaths and even more angst and then for the sake of it, angst.

That's news to me.

Supernatural is just a soap drama now(filled with torture and blood), barely a ghost or werewolf in sight.

Can't comment on that, but...

The Walking Dead is a mess of angst and drama and unlikable characters doing unlikable things, then being all angsty about it.

...No. Just no.

The entire point/premise of The Walking Dead is the question of what people do when bereft of civilization. Do they rise to the challenge, or resort to baser instincts? Obstensibly the walkers are the enemy, but the walkers are really just the impetus/catalyst for the characters to act. Sometimes, good people do bad things. Sometimes, you HAVE to do bad things. And when you do bad things, when the world's gone to hell, it only stands to reason that you're going to be affected by it.

That's not to say the show is perfect mind you - I've only watched the first five seasons, and season five is easily the weakest, but the reason is the weakest is that it loses a lot of its impetus. I can't comment on later seasons, but as far as I've seen, the Walking Dead is a take on the apocalypse that remembers that human beings are...well, human beings, and will sometimes do terrible things. This is at the very heart of the zombie genre (well, good zombie fiction anyway), that human beings can be as much a threat as the undead (see Night of the Living Dead).

But there's always Z Nation if that's your thing I suppose.

Game of Thrones has more angst that a Highschool goth club,

You keep using the word "angst," but I'm not sure you know what it means. Because GoT is a grim show with a grim setting, but there's very little angst from the characters. At least half of them do terrible things and don't give a damn that they do terrible things. So if I think of angst, it's...what, Jon being upset that Ygritte has died? Oh no, drama! How terrible!

And most of the Superhero shows went from episodic crime fighting to season long angst offs to see who can frown at the camera the most.

...da faq?

Okay, I know that I'm the last person to discuss superheroes with, but I can't think of a single one out now that meets this criteria. Every superhero show I can think of right now seems to be based on the MCU - happy-lite, bereft of consequence, competent, but bland, etc. That's not to say I can't enjoy light-hearted superhero material (see Spectacular Spider-Man), but even that understood the basics of storytelling (consequences, character development, gravitas, etc.). Superhero shows today are, what, Powerpuff Girls? Teen Titans Go? Ultimate Spider-Man? The Arrowverse? Maybe Marvel's Netflix shows, but I haven't touched them with a ten foot pole.

The only show I can think of that meets this claim is Arrow, and only then, the first two seasons (a.k.a. the two good seasons before the season 3 nosedive). There's a lot wrong with season 3 outside of its context/content, but it didn't help when Arrow went from a somewhat grounded, gritty show, to a show where the protagonist refuses to kill, where we have an Iron Man wanabee, and The Flash proving that the titular Arrow has become academic in the shared universe that bears his name.

And the less said about the superhero trend infecting Doctor Who, the better.

And we don't need a new fantasy show. Between the Witcher, Dragon Age and Game of Thrones we've done the grim dark angsty fantasy genre to death.

There's not exactly a shortage of happy-lite fantasy either. If anything, it's far more prevalent.

Course I can enjoy both, mind you.

And 70s Buck? Fuck that, I'm talking 1940s, when they had old ray guns and no understanding of space.

That sounds a lot more like science fantasy than science fiction.

If you like low fantasy settings maybe, but as a fan of high fantasy the sub-genre might as well be dead with every other author and show/movie trying to one up Game of Thrones on the 'dark & gritty' scale.

Wait, what?

Okay, high fantasy is always going to be more fringe than low fantasy, that's a given. But I haven't seen anything try to one-up Game of Thrones. Most fantasy material over the past decade or so has been towards the lighter end of the spectrum - the only fantasy show I can think of in recent times that even comes close to Game of Thrones is Camelot, and even that's very tame by GoT standards. I keep seeing these claims of "dark and gritty," but I haven't seen any names to back it up. If anything, fantasy shows outside GoT seem to be billing themselves as an alternative to a problem that doesn't exist (e.g. Shannara Chronicles).

As for fantasy novels I...really don't see any of this. There's far more novels than TV shows, so I can't really make blanket statements, but looking at some of the most popular fantasy novels of the past decade or so, apart from Game of Thrones, which of them are "dark and gritty?" Because Mistborn isn't. The Dark Tower isn't. Kingkiller Chronicle isn't. Percy Jackson isn't. Deltora isn't. Shannara isn't. Harry Potter isn't. Throne of Glass isn't. Malazan is about as close as I can think of, but that hardly falls into the "dark and gritty" category (doesn't help that the first book is terrible, but that's another matter). Maybe these "dark and gritty" books are out there, but apart from Game of Thrones, I can't think of any. And it seems that "dark and gritty" is being thrown around to the point where it loses all meaning.

That's not to say those books I listed are bad - quite a few on that list include works I like. But if there's a glut of GoT-esque books, I haven't seen them. If anything, I'd welcome them, because fantasy tends to be very tropey - it's part of why I'm spending more time reading non-genre fiction these days (e.g. currently reading 'All The Light We Cannot See' in addition to 'Wishsong of Shannara'). Guess which one is better?

I just want me some bearded wizards casting fireball and magic missile, is that so much to ask?

You're not exactly lacking in choice these days. But personally, I'm a bit more curious as to why a wizard is casting a fireball, not the fact that he can do it. In other words, give me a good story first, I'll care about your magic system later.

I think GoT, Interstellar and The Martian are great though. And then there's Blade Runner 2049, probably the movie I'm most looking forward to right now.

Sci-fi in film seems to be quite solid right now - in addition to what you mentioned, I'll add Gravity, Arrival, and even Passengers to the list. And yes, Blade Runner 2049 for the win.

 

[The Madman]

As for fantasy novels I...really don't see any of this. There's far more novels than TV shows, so I can't really make blanket statements, but looking at some of the most popular fantasy novels of the past decade or so, apart from Game of Thrones, which of them are "dark and gritty?" Because Mistborn isn't. The Dark Tower isn't. Kingkiller Chronicle isn't. Percy Jackson isn't. Deltora isn't. Shannara isn't. Harry Potter isn't. Throne of Glass isn't. Malazan is about as close as I can think of, but that hardly falls into the "dark and gritty" category (doesn't help that the first book is terrible, but that's another matter). Maybe these "dark and gritty" books are out there, but apart from Game of Thrones, I can't think of any. And it seems that "dark and gritty" is being thrown around to the point where it loses all meaning.

Look, I'm obviously being hyperbolic here, but can you really say high fantasy is even remotely popular these days? Hell, most of the series you just listed aren't even high fantasy. Also, some of those I've read are kinda depressing.

Incidentally if you're looking for a series similar in style to GoT look up The Lies of Locke Lamora if you haven't.

 

[Hawki]

As for fantasy novels I...really don't see any of this. There's far more novels than TV shows, so I can't really make blanket statements, but looking at some of the most popular fantasy novels of the past decade or so, apart from Game of Thrones, which of them are "dark and gritty?" Because Mistborn isn't. The Dark Tower isn't. Kingkiller Chronicle isn't. Percy Jackson isn't. Deltora isn't. Shannara isn't. Harry Potter isn't. Throne of Glass isn't. Malazan is about as close as I can think of, but that hardly falls into the "dark and gritty" category (doesn't help that the first book is terrible, but that's another matter). Maybe these "dark and gritty" books are out there, but apart from Game of Thrones, I can't think of any. And it seems that "dark and gritty" is being thrown around to the point where it loses all meaning.

Look, I'm obviously being hyperbolic here, but can you really say high fantasy is even remotely popular these days? Hell, most of the series you just listed aren't even high fantasy. Also, some of those I've read are kinda depressing.

Actually, the only non-high fantasy series I listed are Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. That's 2 out of 9.

And like I said, high fantasy is fringe, so there is that. Every so often we get high fantasy that enters the public conciousness (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, probably the Chronicles of Narnia), but they're the exceptions to the rule.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And like I said, high fantasy is fringe, so there is that. Every so often we get high fantasy that enters the public conciousness (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, probably the Chronicles of Narnia), but they're the exceptions to the rule.

Sorry, Game of Thrones is high fantasy? What definition of High Fantasy are you using?

 

[Hawki]

And like I said, high fantasy is fringe, so there is that. Every so often we get high fantasy that enters the public conciousness (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, probably the Chronicles of Narnia), but they're the exceptions to the rule.

Sorry, Game of Thrones is high fantasy? What definition of High Fantasy are you using?

I'm going to save some time and just quote Wikipedia:

"High fantasy is defined as fantasy set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world, rather than "the real", or "primary" world. The secondary world is usually internally consistent, but its rules differ from those of the primary world. By contrast, low fantasy is characterized by being set in the primary, or "real" world, or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements."

So, yes, A Song of Ice and Fire is high fantasy because its setting is completely segragated from the real world. There is some wriggle room when you're dealing with fantasy settings that include the real world but don't focus on it (e.g. Chronicles of Narnia, His Dark Materials, The Dark Tower, etc.), but ASoIaF doesn't have any such ambiguity.

 

[Skatalite]

I think GoT, Interstellar and The Martian are great though. And then there's Blade Runner 2049, probably the movie I'm most looking forward to right now.

Sci-fi in film seems to be quite solid right now - in addition to what you mentioned, I'll add Gravity, Arrival, and even Passengers to the list. And yes, Blade Runner 2049 for the win.

Right I forgot about Gravity, that's a good one. And I haven't seen Arrival yet, but it's been on my 'to watch' list for a while now. Sci-fi sure seems to be doing better than fantasy right now (at least in movies). Is Fantastic Beasts any good?

 

[Hawki]

Is Fantastic Beasts any good?

According to Rotten Tomatoes, I'm in a minority, but my answer is "no." It ended up in my bottom 20 list for films last year.

It's certainly a creative film, at least in regards to the creature design, but its plot meanders a lot, and there's also the acting - almost all the characters speak in awkward, hushed whispers. Which is fine for Newt, he's meant to be awkward, but it gets tiresome when nearly everyone is doing it. Basically, has sparks of creativity, but fails to properly execute the story based around them.