Science Fiction: The Great Divide Part 1

In 2009, James Cameron’s science fiction epic, Avatar, was released into movie theaters everywhere. A whirlwind force of unparalleled 3D accomplishment, visual splendor, art direction, and sheer spectacle, the movie boasts a score of 83 (out of 100) on the review amalgamation site That was not Avatar’s only success. The movie raked in an absolutely ridiculous amount of money–once it was all said and done, Avatar earned $2,782,275,172 worldwide. According to the International Monetary Fund, this is essentially the entire GDP of the South American country of Guyana from 2012. If you prefer a more concrete analogy, Avatar grossed 114,970 Toyota Prius hybrid cars.

In 2001, Microsoft Studios and Bungie released Halo: Combat Evolved, a sci-fi first person shooter, for the brand new Xbox. Halo was unanimously received as the best console FPS to date; its aggregate score on is an impressive 95.54%. For a console which only sold 25 million units, Halo itself sold 6.43 million discs. Halo 2, released in 2004, sold even better at 8.49 million and was also critically praised. The narrative repeated itself with Halo 3 in 2007 and Halo 4 in 2012; these titles sold 11.78 and 8.35 million, respectively. The Halo franchise is arguably the most important new franchise in video games since the turn of the millennium, and the franchise also includes best-selling spinoffs Halo: Reach, Halo 3: ODST, Halo Wars, Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, and PC releases for Halo 1 and 2.

In 2008, Suzanne Collins’ book The Hunger Games, published by Scholastic, hit the shelves. The book, a science-fiction story of a post-apocalyptic society, was positively received by many, including commercially successful authors such as Stephen King and Stephanie Meyer. It hit the New York Times Best Seller list in November and has spent time there for 148 weeks, or roughly the amount of time it takes to receive a package via the US Postal Service. The following books, Catching Fire and Mockingjay, were released the following two years and have met similar success.

In 2011, Terra Nova, Fox Network’s greatly hyped and highly anticipated sci-fi time-travel epic, premiered. It didn’t even last until 2012. After its initial 13 episode season, declining viewership, expensive production costs, and mounting impatience from top management prompted Fox to cancel the show.

One of these things is not like the others.

There is a curious thing going on in media nowadays. As I have shown, science fiction is a hugely profitable enterprise in movies, games, and books. Yet, this does not seem to be the case for television. Sure, there have been recent television successes in the sci-fi genre (Lost, Fringe, and Doctor Who), and there have been failures in the movie/game/book sections of sci-fi too (Will Smith’s After Earth comes to mind). There are two things to consider, though. First is that sci-fi is routinely a moneymaker for the other media–in addition to Avatar, there were the Star Trek reboots, District 9, Star Wars; in addition to Halo, there was Gears of War, Mass Effect, Borderlands. The same cannot be said for television–the biggest shows are House, CSI, How I Met Your Mother, and the like.

The second thing is that there is a decent list of recent sci-fi shows that were flops. Here are some other shows, in addition to Terra Nova, which didn’t last very long themselves:

Alphas-19 episodes, 2010
Bionic Woman-8 episodes, 2007
Caprica-24 episodes, 2011-2012
Dollhouse-27 episodes, 2009-2010
Firefly-14 episodes, 2002
Flash Forward-22 episodes, 2009-2010
Stargate Universe–44 episodes, 2009-2011
V-22 episodes, 2009-2011

Even the most successful of this list, Stargate Universe, was a huge disappointment. It lasted for two seasons as opposed to 5 for Stargate Atlantis and 10 for Stargate SG-1; its total was less than half of Atlantis (100) and about a fifth of that of SG-1 (214).

The rift between television and other media regarding sci-fi is fascinating. I do think there are reasons for this, though. These will be explained in part 2.


There are colors everywhere.  Our quite limited fragment of the electromagnetic spectrum, visible light, still yields an extraordinary amount of variation in colors.  The subtle difference from seafoam to aqua is one such example (though to lots of men both are merely ‘green’), and there are an almost infinite amount of variations in that color family, let alone the visible spectrum.  Technically, black and white are both colors as well, as they represent the reflection of no colors or all colors.  And yet, many colors aren’t used, supplanted by more neutral colors that illicit less of a reaction.

Here’s an exercise.  Think of a business, sports team, product, etc. when you see these colors:







For red, blue, and black, you probably thought of any variety of things, from Coca-Cola to Pepsi to the Nebraska Cornhuskers to the Chicago White Sox.  However, for yellow, you probably thought of Sprint, and for pink, you probably thought of T-Mobile.  These companies feature those two underused colors prominently.  In a world where there are many colors, using them well can give you a big boost on the competition, or at least differentiate yourself from others.

It is this reason why I find Major League Baseball to be one of the most perplexing entities in sports.  This is not just because baseball people are by far the most stubborn when it comes to everything in sports these days (player safety, advanced statistics, tradition vs. innovation, replay), but because baseball teams are the most unoriginal bunch when it comes to uniforms.

Don’t believe me?

These teams in baseball feature navy blue as their primary color: Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Houston Astros, Minnesota Twins, New York Yankees, Seattle Mariners, Tampa Bay Rays, Atlanta Braves, Milwaukee Brewers, San Diego Padres.  Total: 10

These teams in baseball feature a lighter, royal-type blue as their primary color: Kansas City Royals, Toronto Blue Jays, Chicago Cubs, Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Mets.  Total: 5

These teams in baseball feature red as their primary color:  Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Angels, Texas Rangers, Arizona Diamondbacks, Cincinnati Reds, Philadelphia Phillies, St. Louis Cardinals, Washington Nationals.  Total: 8

In Major League Baseball, 23 out of 30 teams feature red or blue as their primary color.  Seven of those teams include both red and blue.  Of the seven remaining teams, two feature black as the primary color, two feature orange as the primary color, and there is one team each featuring yellow, green, and purple.  The Oakland A’s are the most adventurous team in the whole league, as they are the only team that features two different colors that are not red, blue, or black.  Amazing.

For reference, 15 teams in the NFL, less than half of the 32 teams, feature red or blue as their primary color.  The NFL also sports (no pun intended) (I lied, pun intended) a wider variety of colors, including brown, gold, silver, pewter, aqua, and maroon, as well as a more creative approach to using red and blue.

Does this mean that baseball is out of touch?  Not necessarily, or at least not in that aspect.  But in a world where colors and branding are extremely important, most of baseball’s teams are unwilling to change.  I suppose once you have over a century of tradition under your belt you tend to see things differently, but come on, guys, the navy blue is getting really boring.