This isn't a "real history" of SF. It's a history of SF in movies and TV.
Every SF idea began in literature, decades before anyone saw it on a screen.
Wouldn't mind yet another show about showbiz and special effects, if not for the *beep* title.
There may be an emphasis on film and TV, but after all, the majority of their audience is most familiar with those versions. But you apparently missed the parts where they discussed Asimov's Foundation, Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness and Robinson's Mars Trilogy, and they mentioned Verne and Wells before that, so I don't think you can say they have ignored the literature side of the equation.
shareI skimmed through the first episode and saw it was 99% about TV or film SF. Did they even mention Asimov in the "robots" part? A documentary isn't supposed to just reinforce the audience's preconceptions.
It would be fine if they hadn't called it "The Real History of SF", because film and TV is not that at all. It's just absurd the concentration on actors, people who just read lines, not the scriptwriters. It's like they actually did a show about literature and spent 90% of it interviewing the guys who posed for the cover photos.
They did talk about Asimov, quite a bit. if you had seen the eps you'd know that they have writers/authors, directors, special effects specialist, etc.
It sounds like you really didn't watch the show. Others have rebutted your assumptions about the content but I find itstrange that you ccan't take the show for what it is: a show about the history of science fiction in film and television.
shareIt is that -- a show about the history of science fiction in film and television -- but it was a history that, in four parts, almost completely managed to avoid one of the most influential shows in the history of television -- Star Trek.
The original series broke ground in many ways, specifically in the area of social commentary within the genre. The show dealt with race relations (Let That Be Your Last Battlefield), Armageddon (The Doomsday Machine) subordination to technology (The Ultimate Computer), the arms race (The Omega Glory) and time travel (City on the Edge of Forever).
This isn't even to mention the social barriers the show broke down for those shows which followed it (for example, television's first interracial kiss came in "Plato's Stepchildren"). It accurately predicted technology we see today such as cell phones (the communicator), universal translators, GPS, and ultrasound surgery.
I just think it's really unfortunate that in four hours of documentary television which is otherwise pretty good, more attention couldn't have been paid to a show which was years ahead of its time and which hit all the buttons of science fiction.
Part one had a lot about Star Trek. Were we watching the same show? Anyway, Star Trek and Star Wars – also talked about at length – both use sci-fi decoration, but aren't hard-core by any means. The title of the series is very misleading. Purely aimed at the nostalgia generation and not delving at all into anything like a true overview of the genre.
And the actor interviews seem like mini comic-con. Cringeworthy!
Sci-fi in film has a long history – almost as long as cinema itself. Sci-fi literature, hundreds of years old, is WAY ahead of its cinematic counterpart. From what I have seen of the series so far there are glaring holes. Doesn't do sci-fi justice at all. Along with an upside down Discovery from 2001. Shame!
Nobody's perfect!
Troll,
Watch the episode before you claim what it's about, please.
Half the emphasis of the Robots episode WAS Asimov and the 3 laws, the other being alien robots/machines. As someone else mentions, Le Guin's world building ideas are the jump off point for the Space episode...
They're 45 minute episodes, there's a great deal missing... but the highlights are good for what it is.
Indeed, the title is wrong. But not surprise at all. Hollywood and US act like they are center of everything. What is partially even true this days.
Whole approach is just typical TV-show like: pull instant attention, so they used Rutger Hauer in first seconds, what was nice, but such things does not make "Real History" .
I watched so far only E1, and did not hear words Verne, Wells, Lem . However, there were some US writers mentioned and talking. Not really good history lesson.
"I watched so far only E1, and did not hear words Verne, Wells".
Verne was mentioned in reference to "From Earth to the Moon" (and they showed a clip of the silent movie version with the chorus line loading the ship into the gun and the ship poking out of the "Man in the Moon's" Eye).
Wells was covered with mentions of "War of the Worlds". These mentions might have been in Episode 2 not 1.
Each episode covered different aspects and thus the lack of mention in Episode 1 could be due to these writers not having written about that episode's topic.
It's not even that. It's like someone had a 6-pack one evening, picked a few that he liked, some of which were obscure and declared that to be "the history". For example no mention of "Solaris" which has been highly praised for realistic depiction of a space station in disarray, not to mention the philosophical aspect. Also no mention of "Babylon 5".
They've put "Alien" under "Robots" instead of making separate episode about monsters and general Horror-Sci-Fi crossover sub-genre. No "Superheros" episode ? No mention that the very term "robot" is the invention of a Sci-Fi writer? What's more history than that ??
Extremely lame and unprofessional production with enormously arrogant title.
Lighten up, Francis.
I enjoyed it, regardless of how accurate the title may and how narrowly focused the scope of the material.
The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.