So, the other day, Sci-Fi showed its...answer to the 50s campy sci-fi (at least, I hope it was intended to be that).
On one night, it showed Battlestar Galactica and both Stargates.
Yup. I assume it was about a guy who turned into a mosquito...y'know, like The Fly.
See, it's things like that that get rolled eyes when I mention liking science fiction.
But to me, any compelling movie/TV show/book, etc. can't just rest on its setting. You can't have the most exciting setting in the world (2000 years in the future, in a parallel universe where etc. etc.) without compelling characters and an interesting story.
People who've never read Clarke's 2001 (which, honest to goodness, makes the movie make lots more sense); people who've never seen contemplative, speculative fiction like Contact; people who dismissed Buffy and a campy teeny-bopper show never saw the masterful "The Body"; these people have missed out on lots of gosh-darned good storytelling because of the associations they've made with the term "sci-fi."
And that's a shame.