Does Syfy Really Love Sci-Fi? 742
brumgrunt writes "Has Syfy fallen out with science fiction altogether? A look at its latest scheduling shows that it's further away from its roots than ever. 'There's still a lot of the older sci-fi content on the airwaves, but it's slowly being phased out, and forget about original programming. After all, this is the programming crew who ruined Caprica by stuffing it into the Friday night death slot and splitting the season into two parts. These are the geniuses who killed off Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe. These are the people who wrecked Farscape, one of the most inventive and fun sci-fi shows to ever be on television. They also ended Mystery Science Theater 3000, only the greatest show ever invented by robots in space.' Is this now as good as it gets?"
Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Insightful)
From a lot of recent articles I've been reading, Fantasy Books are now king while interest in science-based fiction is almost null.
So if the same for books is also true for television, then it makes sense for Sci-Fi Channel to rename itself, and then move towards more fantasy shows. Fantasy is more profitable.
Re:What you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
For this reason, I could exclude SciFi channel from my Sci-Fi movies recording rule and be much better off for it.
TCM or AMC are much more likely to show Sci-Fi classics than SyFy.
Although the local PBS station does show old B movies. However, even those seem better made than the self-produced stuff from SyFy.
Syfy is to science fiction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Syfy has become to science fiction like MTV is to music television. Or TechTV (now "G4") is to technology.
It's a shame. I used to love their original programming. Now... wrestling? Really?
Caprica? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
SyFy didn't ruin Caprica. Ronald D. Moore did. The show sucked Baltar's Balls. The presense of Eric Stoltz was not enough to fix horrible story telling.
"Is this now as good as it gets?" (Score:3, Insightful)
this is a question whose answer reveals less about reality and more about the psychology of whomever answers
Bills to Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
"After all, this is the programming crew who ruined Caprica by stuffing it into the Friday night death slot and splitting the season into two parts. These are the geniuses who killed off Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe. These are the people who wrecked Farscape, one of the most inventive and fun sci-fi shows to ever be on television. They also ended Mystery Science Theater 3000"
How DARE they cancel that show that nobody liked, and those two shows that had bad ratings. And that other show that had bad ratings. And that nine-year-old show that had a good run for years on their network.
I sometimes get the feeling that Sci-Fi fans are so desperate for more content that they religiously and desperately cling to whatever they get, and in the process make shows into far more than they actually are. It's understandable, and even sympathetic. Then again, so is the network trying to pay the bills.
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, come up with interesting shows... then kill them, or ruin them. Then, you've got a specific niche market that you're targeted at, why not "rebrand" yourself, and try to appeal to an overfull market, while treating the folks who made you viable as ignorant , and chasing them away as hard as you can?
*Great* business plan.
But then, most of them a) don't read SF, b) don't understand it, and c) flunked 5th grade science, and know so much about how the world works that they'd electricute themselves cleaning a toaster (you have to clean them? Really? How? Why?)
And on the sf side, as a lifelong sf fan, it *used* to be that there were 10 year or so cycles, where you'd get more fantasy for 10 years, then more sf; the last 15 or so, it's overwhelmingly fantasy. My take is that with the dumbing down of the educational system, and especially the unravelling of the Space Program, kids don't see a chance for them, so they go off into fantasy worlds where *something* can happen, and maybe they'll win the lottery, too.
mark
Advertising demographics trumps genre (Score:5, Insightful)
It boils down to this:
Science fiction and fantasy programming, no matter how high-quality or compelling, do not draw a sufficiently advertising-targetable, high-spending audience to justify a seperate channel.
In lieu of this, Syfy has chosen the fallback position, which is to appeal to a much broader but reliable audience, young men. Programmers know what shows appeal to this demographic, and advertisers know which products to pitch to them during the breaks.
Thus: Wrestling, ghost hunting, lurid monster movies.
Science fiction is not the only genre or category to suffer. A&E and Bravo were concieved as outlets for artsy movies. MTV used to show music videos and be about, well, music. What kind of programs do these channels show now?
Under the current rules of broadcast and cablecast TV, the situation will never get better. Non-premium channels will get more and more generic and lowbrow. Cheap "reality" shows and infomercials will fill more and more programming slots.
If you really want high-quality SF&F content, you're going to have to be willing to PAY for it. Either on a premium channel, or by some kind of net subscription.
Re:Bills to Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
So, why run a sci-fi channel if you don't believe (correctly, or otherwise) that sci-fi shows are going to pay the bills?
Same as other networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at other "specialty networks": The Learning Channel (TLC), MTV, VH1, etc have all bailed on their original programming and having nothing to do with the name of their network. Hell, even the History Channel has bought into the reality TV bullshit. For the most part all of the networks are showing the same crap now.
Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can just DVR that channel when something interesting shows up on the schedule, if I even reference it. I know from sites like this one and other more in tune sites when something interesting might show up on that channel, the thing is, I use those sites to find it across any channel. After they changed their name to SyFy I was honestly relieved, its is perfect for who they are, some fruity feel good channel trying to cash in on whatever they can but most definitely not bout science fiction.
They have had some good original productions, The OZ and Dune come to mind. Series wise, Stargate and SGA were good to watch, though I admit I much rather watch SG compared to the other two. BSG was good till it started split seasons, then it became annoying. Some of the older shows simply ran their course. They were cult status by the time SciFi mangled them. They have had some original shows, Eureka was definitely out there at times.
Caprica - get real, name one episode that was worth watching - talk about no connection to the series your supposed to be related too - they could have added vampires and werewolves to it and not missed the marker farther than they did.
Re:Advertising demographics trumps genre (Score:4, Insightful)
And let's be honest here, as a lifelong science fiction fan, I have to say most science fiction TV fans vastly overrate the quality of their cult favorites. No, Stargate is not great science fiction.
Re:Watch FarScape for free with Amazon Prime (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Syfy does not love Sci-Fi (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrestling now (Score:5, Insightful)
SGU was terrible.
I really wish they ran a live version of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe in place of it.
SG:Atlantis and SG1 were great shows. SGU just lacked any of the wit and fun those shows brought us. I watched SG:A and SG1 because they were fun, last thing I really needed was a giant bummer.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Insightful)
they can keep wrestling
Recently heard something funny. To paraphrase, "Wrestling is the gayist thing straight men will watch." Nope, nothing gay about muscled, oil men, rolling around on the floor, while pretending to wrestle, while trying to present bad drama. Normally that roll is reserved for drama queens.
Re:Bills to Pay (Score:4, Insightful)
How DARE they cancel that show that nobody liked, and those two shows that had bad ratings. And that other show that had bad ratings. And that nine-year-old show that had a good run for years on their network.
...Says you. The thing is, when people talk about "bad" ratings, they never put it in context. "Bad" ratings to a network executive does not mean what normal people would consider it to mean, which is that people aren't watching the show. I watched it. Many of my friends watched and enjoyed it. To a network executive, though, "bad" means, "I'll bet another show can get better in its place." And so they replace it with a different show, but that show does miserably, it gets "bad" ratings too, so they replace it again. And again. And again. Unless you have a Friends, Lost, or something else performing on that order of magnitude, every show has "bad" ratings.
It used to be, network executives understood that sometimes it takes a couple of seasons for a show to really get its legs, for people to get interested in it and for its audience to build. Now, they evaluate everything on a week-by-week basis. Some shows last only two or three episodes. Very, very few last more than a season or two.
The end result of this is that I usually don't even bother watching a series now until it's at least three or four seasons into it. If it's lasted that long, then I'll start watching it. I'm just so tired of getting invested in shows just to see them pulled because they're getting "bad" ratings. This season, for example, I started watching No Ordinary Family, and I think it's one of the best shows on television. Most ratings sites say it's going to be canceled. I also started watching The Cape. Not the best show, but still, a fun throwback to the old-style action superhero genre. Likewise, probably going to be canceled. Network executives are likely thinking, "If we cancel it, maybe we'll get something in its place that is an American Idol-like ratings killer!" In reality, they're going to replace it with something even more dreadful, and thus the cycle goes on.
In theory, one of the big draws of a channel like Syfy is that it appeals to a niche audience, people who, because they are looking for that specific genre, will get a consistent audience regardless of "bad" ratings. As it gets more and more away from its roots, though, it will lose that audience and its shows, when competing against the big networks for a more general mass audience, will get killed.
Personally, I think the answer to this is hopefully the Internet. We're starting to see the birth of shows like Felicia Day's The Guild. That show doesn't need approval of network executives to keep going. As long as it's pulling in some money, she can still make it. Shoot, even if it's not pulling in money (which is not the case, I believe), she can finance it if she wants and keep it going. Yes, I know, compared to content produced by big studios, it looks a bit, um, "budget-oriented." Still, I compare it to what television was like in the very early days. Once people realize the potential and the vastness of the audience, we'll start to see more and bigger-budget content producers line up to go directly to the consumers instead of through a middle-man network executive to be the gatekeeper of what we can and can't watch.
Science Fiction Fans don't Watch Ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sci-Fi's "Original Content" Will Not Be Missed (Score:3, Insightful)
>over-used, oft-repeated plots.
Please come up with a plot that isn't based on one of these basic conflicts:
man vs. nature
man vs. man
man vs. the environment
man vs. machines/technology
man vs. the supernatural
man vs. self
man vs. god/religion
I like to point out that "Dude, Where's My Car" has subplots from among all of these categories:
Quest, Adventure, Pursuit, Rescue, Escape, Revenge, Riddle, Rivalry, Underdog, Temptation, Metamorphosis, Transformation, Maturation, Love, Forbidden Love, Sacrifice, Discovery, Wretched Excess, Ascension, and Decision.
Does that make it better than your usual "underdog goes through a transformation and falls in love while on a quest", e.g. "Rocky" or maybe even "Coming to America"?
Re:Caprica? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
After the way BSG ended, Ca-prick-a didn't stand, or deserve a chance.
Re:Same as other networks (Score:4, Insightful)
It's mind-boggling how true this statement is actually. In fact, I'll be calling up my cable provider today and cancelling my "tier 3" package as all the channels on tier 3 no longer show the programming I purchased tier 3 to get!
I'm in Canada so the stations are a little different but beyond sports many of the extra channel packages I've purchased just don't show what I want to see anymore...
Re:Advertising demographics trumps genre (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Stargate is not great science fiction.
But it is the perfect combination of decent science fiction and an entertaining plot with likable and relatable characters.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Insightful)
No, It's already been proven that the previous incarnation was mismanaged.
It might be perfectly viable if they had program directors who didn't take their best shows and put them in the worst possible slots, thus guaranteeing their failure.
Schedulers alienated by SciFi? (Score:4, Insightful)
How DARE they cancel that show that nobody liked
No doubt there were some shows that got canned deservedly. In other cases, however, the mis-handling of the show by SciFi channel was a major factor in causing audience dislike. The extent of mis-handling suggests that the scheduling decision-makers lacked any understanding of SciFi, and were likely completely alienated by it. Why else would they do things which were almost certain to decrease audiences?
One example is Lexx, a pretty good series if you get it on DVD. In its "wisdom", the SciFi channel decided not to show the first season at all [*]. This guaranteed that the audience would be a bit mystified, as the first season provided the context for subsequent seasons, and was excellent in itself. The SciFi channel then aired the second season shows out of their intended sequence. Audience confusion was complete, and the series bombed in North America, largely due to the actions of the SciFi channel morons.
[*] Maybe they were scared of the jiggling tits shown in one of the episodes. I doubt this, however, as they could easily have cut a minute from the episode and stuffed another ad in the gap.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, nothing gay about muscled, oil men, rolling around on the floor, while pretending to wrestle, while trying to present bad drama. Normally that roll is reserved for drama queens.
The most mysterious hold in all of wrestling is the one it has on it's viewers.
To be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Advertising demographics trumps genre (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Stargate is not great science fiction.
But it is the perfect combination of decent science fiction and an entertaining plot with likable and relatable characters.
I believe you are referring to Babylon 5, not Stargate. B5 had deep, conflicted characters and pretty decent acting. Stargate....not so much. SG always impressed me as B5-lite.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't even true for non-science fiction shows.
Executives have destroyed popular shows repeatedly.
The individual show may be wonderful so they move it to a different night to try and get viewers to watch a set of shows. Frequent moves meant that I missed an entire half season of stargate universe.
Executives are incented for bonuses- not to build successful 10 year shows.
Actors are incented to make big money- not to build successful 10 year shows.
Executives mess with and censor the creative teams all the time.
Sometimes, it's good. More often it bowlderizes the shows.
Sci Fi was probably not sustainable. In part because Sci Fi (not SF) became mainstream. And because networks are about profits- and reality programming (Wrestling shows and ghost shows) are more profitable than Sci Fi shows.
It's not if the shows were profitable. The question was, "Could we find something MORE profitable to put in the same time slot".
That's a big shift from 30 years ago. 30 years ago, if a show was profitable, it stayed on. Now, if it can make 1 million but you have another show that will make 1.5 million, then you cancel the first show.
The salaries of actors doesn't help. The salaries of editors and directors doesn't help. They've bid themselves into a place where they will be unemployed rather than working- but if they do get work, the money is great. 30 years ago, they made less but it was easier to get work.
Ultimately, there is a huge glut of entertainment right now. I'm in the process of cutting back on cable. $90 a month was unjustifiable. Now, I'm starting to think $62 is unjustifable. $40 was always my comfort level.
There is more free/cheap stuff than I could watch for the next 5 years if I didn't have to work. Why should I pay a premium just to see something in the first 90 days?
Re:SyFi is to Science as MTV is to music (Score:4, Insightful)
Reactionless drives? FTL? Sound magically carrying through vacuum? Blatant disregard for thermodynamics and conservation laws? Either explain it away in a way that doesn't poke a thousand other holes in your idea of 'science', or stick to less 'speculative' (read: bullshit) fiction.
Yeah, I hear you man. "Positronic brain"? High-level abstract rules that yet are so inherent to the underlying mechanics of the brain itself that they can't possibly be broken? It's just some magical woo with a "positron" science buzzword thrown on top of it. That Asimov idiot should have gotten an education before writing "sci-fi"!
My point being: "suspension of disbelief" doesn't just apply to things for which you personally find it hard to suspend disbelief.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Insightful)
It must be an American thing. It's make sense though, as a "Christian nation" it must be easier to except fantasy than it is science fiction.