MovieChat Forums > Defying Gravity (2009) Discussion > reasons for failure.

reasons for failure.

posted 10 years ago by wolfgangvonposakilla
2 replies | jump to latest

-One main reason would be simply said because the melodrama crowd doesn't care about sci-fi and the sci-fi crowd doesn't care about melodrama. It's a combination that's doomed to fail. Don't get me wrong, both fans of sci-fi and fans of soap opera may switch genres from time to time, we're all multi-faceted people today but there's few people who want these 2 genres at the same time. If you're in the mood for soap opera you just don't need the space angle and vice versa. Sure there's dramatic space/sci-fi series out there, but there's drama and than there's melodrama or soap opera. Not the same...

Firstly, the atmosphere/vibe of the show made no sense e.g: many episodes start with some shots of Antares' exterior, floating through space. But instead of an ominous vibe and some epic or bombastic music we get the sort of lighthearted tunes as heard on grey's anatomy or desperate housewives, complete with touchy-feely voice overs. It completely kills the mood, makes the awesomeness of outer space into a joke.

Secondly, it kills the (attempted) hard sci-fi approach. Even if the technology depicted in Defying gravity (save for the supernatural stuff) came of as very believable for the near future (the protocols and procedures much less though), it's totally unrealistic that astronauts trained for a 3 trillion dollar mission would behave so juvenile and stupid. These aren't heroes, they're hormonal teenagers.

And thirdly, the show was far from evenly split between melodrama and action/sci-fi. Even during the venus landing they still bothered us and interupted with stupid flashbacks.

-The other main reason was of course the flimsy supernatural plot. In a way Defying gravity was like a weaker version of lost: A select group of intimately connected people, isolated in an unhospitable enviroment, confronted with strange unknown phenomenons. The flashbacks, the hallucinations of dead people, the ambiguous nature of the fractal objects (is it science or is it metaphysical/godly? science vs. faith).

Speaking about the fractal objects, whatever they were they sure as *beep* were one giant macguffin device. They could basically do anything... whenever, whatever the plot required. Again reminiscent of lost's magical island (no fan of lost here as you might figure). BTW, here's an article to prove my point. In it the series' creator talks about the influences of lost and how he was NEVER going to specify what the fractal objects exactly were. (repost from another thread)

http://cliqueclack.com/tv/2009/10/29/how-defying-gravity-would-have-progressed-straight-from-the-creator/

-A third more specific reason (and also more personal maybe) was how badly the 'big reveal' in episode 9, and it's aftermath, was handled. Straight from the revealing of beta we move on to a long drawn-out, blatant exposition scene that contained some of the worst acting of the entire show (on behalf of Eve's actress and the interrogating soldier), it felt like Eve was reading a page from her diary. For me it clearly showed that anybody involved in the show from cast to creators didn't know how to properly handle mystery/sci-fi. The following episodes moved straight back to the melodramatic up untill and during the venus landing, which was very unimpressive.

-And finaly, the religion vs. science discussion (in the form of morales vs. wassenfelder) is Ok as long as it remains just that, a discussion. But seen how this show was inspired by lost, where faith clearly won over science, and how Defying gravity's creator is somewhat of a believer in a higher power as evident by that same article given above...It wouldn't surprise me, had defying gravity gone on to lean over to the metaphysical/godly side. Which has no place in sci-fi if you ask me. Otherwise it's not sci-fi anymore but just plain fantasy. The technology doesn't need to be realistic, as long as it's pseudo-science I can deal with it. But if you put religion in it, than it becomes inconsistent and just silly.

Here's another article about what would be the future storyline of the series. (repost from another thread)

http://cliqueclack.com/tv/2010/10/28/how-defying-gravity-would-have-ended-the-final-chapter/

[–] huwdj 10 years ago

I think it's a little simpler than that. It failed because the studio never really knew what to do with it. It was promoted as Grey's Anatomy in space and they gave up and started dismantling the sets part way through the run. The Idiot critics complained because it was not Grey's Anatomy in space and IT WAS SET ON A SPACESHIP ! I remembeer them doing it - I wanted to reach in to the screen and tear their stupid heads off and have since refused to consider the opinion of any TV critic.
You may assume from my comments thus far that I liked this series and you would be correct to do so. I'm not convinced the earth bound characters had anywhere to go but I sensed a really big story arc developing and very much wanted to see where it would take us. I'm still pissed that it was cancelled - even more so than Firefly and Studio 60.

[–] Korios 8 years ago

I think sci-fi fans were also alienated by the fact that 99% of the show's timeline is identical to our current, with only a few minor cosmetic futuristic touches (as if they were added not to lose face), all of which is technology about to break out in the next 5-8 years. The show largely felt like it was depicted in 2025, 2030 max, not in freaking 2052. There is just no way TV screens in 2052 will look exactly the same as today.

The real-time communication across the solar system also did not help, since it was never explained at all, not even with a single meager line about "subspace communication", "tachyons", or "quantum entanglement".

The economics of the show are also often inconsistent. The Antares mission cost 10 trillion dollars yet it costs merely 5 million dollars (aka 0.00005% of the total budget) to train a single astronaut, about the same as today, and that was considered a significant cost ("It costs 5 million dollars to train Wass, so we will go over budget")? To put that in perspective, if the mission had cost 10 billion dollars Gross would be complaining about 5,000 dollars.

Apparently Gross meant 5 billion dollars, since in 2052, due to ~2% inflation each year, 1000 US dollars will be worth about 1 2009 dollar. If you recall during the bets Ted bet "50 large", aka 50,000 dollars. That was a nice touch and pretty accurate. So every current cost will be about x1000 in 2052, or maybe rather x700-750, depending on the next 36 years' inflation.

Oh, not to mention the ridiculous notion that, while these things were transmitting all over the solar system, a single shady company and ISO could keep the whole thing secret for almost 15 years. What about all the other radio observatories all over the world? What about Arecibo? What about SETI? Just about you are the first to discover something it does not mean that noone else will pick the signals.

Did they buy them all off or silence them? Well, that's impossible. After the Floor crew found out the truth the first leak (the "black boulder") was soon released. You cannot maintain a conspiracy with thousands of people (the astronomers) knowing.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.