I guess it's sad that the only network really interested in trying to keep science fiction alive is the same network that only likes to gives shows about eight episodes, and if it isn't doing as well as "American Idol," then the show should be canned.

I guess we should've known that about Fox even back in the day when it was a struggling netlet, much like UPN and The WB are today. You all know what I'm talking about ... this obscure series based on a movie called "Alien Nation." I was hooked on that series from the start, and loved it. When Fox decided to pull the plug after the first season, I was livid. But that was the days before the Internet was a viable place to really vent my frustration to other fans.

But Fox didn't give up on the genre, and soon, make a huge mark with the series "The X-Files," which has gone down as legend these days. That, along witht he help of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" helped usher in a resurgence of science fiction to television and even the movies.

During that time period, we got to watch shows like "Earth 2," "Space: Above and Beyond," and even "Earth: Final Conflict." At the same time, the box office was pushing out science fiction hits like there was no tomorrow, things like "Independence Day" and even the highly satirical "Galaxy Quest." It seemed that science fiction had really made the move to general pop culture, and that it would have a much longer shelf life than say, westerns ... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Science fiction is on a downturn, and even running a Web site like this, adds more punctuation to it. This time last year, we were sorting through different series that were about to come on television, movies that were about to be released, or were in early production, and trying to figure out the ones we would have the time (and you, our readers, would have a desire to explore0, and the ones we would just have to let sit and wait for possible pickup down the road.

We didn't hesitate to make sure that "Smallville" and "Firefly" were on our minds, and even decided to push forward a little more with "Angel" and "Buffy." But what did we get? "Smallville" continued to do strong ratings for The WB, but "Firefly" was cancelled after only a handful of episodes. "Buffy" stumbled out of the gate, and ended up having its plug pulled midway through the season, making last May its unexpected end. "Angel" got picked up for another season, but only barely, despite the fact that it saw some ratings improvement over the previous year. And really none of the shows that were offered as new shows this coming season are science fiction related.

In fact, Airlock Alpha currently has no plans to add any television shows to its current coverage list, despite the fact that other shows like "Firefly," "Buffy" and "Farscape" are gone.

"Star Trek: Nemesis" tanked at the box office, and did OK on video, the comic book movies have been dominant, but "The Hulk" proved that it takes more than just a popular character to carry a film.

Will "Enterprise" get a fourth season? Yes, of course, unless the bottom line in merchandising and other areas take a big-time dive, and Paramount starts to lose money. But does that mean there is still life in Star Trek, or in science fiction in general?

Not too long ago, "Enterprise" executive producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga mentioned that it was going to take a film like "The Matrix Reloaded" to give science fiction a rebirth. "The Matrix" did well at the box office, despite mixed reviews, and "X2: X-Men United" also did well, with Patrick Stewart in the starring role. And the opening weekend of "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" is promising, but it's still questionable how much of its box office it will be able to retain going into next week.

It appears that science fiction has run out of steam, but it doesn't have to. A long time ago, networks and studios tackled science fiction because it was a departure from mindless plots and stories found in many westerns and other genres of entertainment that was littering television and movies. While it was more expensive to make, it involved dealing with artistic means, and battling complex stories that made the original "Star Trek" famous.

But as the big wigs took on to science fiction more, so did the makers of other genre works. While sitcoms and dramas deepened their load, and worked toward extreme innovation, much of science fiction -- especially in the Star Trek realm -- took a dive into the opposite direction, creating mindless dribble that no one really cares about.

The only exceptions to those rules -- shows like "Farscape" and "Firefly" -- didn't last long for whatever reasons. Apparently it's not as fashionable to lose money on science fiction, when there's other drama out there that can be even deeper, but done with a lot less money.

Seriously ... would you rather see "The Hours" or "The Hulk"? "The Pianist" or "Star Trek: Nemesis"? What happened to the days when science fiction was innovative? Why did it suffer so much under the iron foot of mediocrity? And will it ever be able to rebound?

It's hard to tell. Some 15 years ago, westerns were dead. But then, after a break, some innovative minds got together and brought us "Unforgiven," which won Oscars and introduced a small resurgence back into that genre. Will the same ever happen to science fiction?

It's hard to tell. If mindless science fiction continues to be made, and deep science fiction is fed to the wolves, then it will be dark days ahead indeed.

Michael Hinman is the founder and news editor of Airlock Alpha. He is based in Tampa, Fla.

Talk about this story on the Airlock Alpha message boards. Click here!.