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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Sci Fi rewrote its name to appeal to Non-Sci-Fi & Fantasy Geeks. So it only makes sense that they change their programming to cast a bigger net into the demographic pool.
Really? I always thought SyFy was a reference to 'the syph'... i.e. syphilis.
Re: (Score:3)
I dont read loads of sci fi...but i always liked reading it more than watching it, due to what is often meh acting and special effects (i understand this is due to budget and such, but i dont care for it)
also, id rather play a fun scifi video game. mass effect 2 was pretty good, imo. /not a sci fi snob, just like what i like //beer snob, however.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:5, Interesting)
Fantasy Books are now king while interest in science-based fiction is almost null.
Yes. Our local Barnes and Noble has four shelf sections of "Paranormal Teen Romance", plus one of "New Paranormal Teen Romance". Half of the SF section is now vampire-related. So is a big fraction of the romance section, plus some of the main fiction section. All the vampire books combined into one section would be impressive. One of the goths who works there says that vampire book sales are down, but zombie books are picking up.
At retail, SF is either space opera, paranormal, or reprints.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the girls got so excited to actually purchase the book that, when I waved her up to my cash register from the line, she ran as fast as she could to get to me. She slipped on the tile floor in front of the register, sprawled head first into the counter, and knocked herself clean out.
But I'll bet she saw sparkles...
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Funny)
This makes me want a "Disgusting and wrong" moderation that counts as an upvote.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Funny)
Well, what do you expect from a generation who found their love to read in the Harry Potter books? The people who started reading them in 1997 are graduating from college and have enough spare income for books.
I don't mean that as a dig against the Harry Potter books. They're actually pretty good.
You're not helping the case for Harry Potter readers.
King of a small, impoverished kingdom (Score:3)
It wouldn't make a difference.
You are entirely correct in your assessment of SF versus F in the literary world.
But to a TV programmer, the audience for these genres is A) hardly distinguishable, and B) hardly worth targetting programming at.
Why? There aren't a lot of products they can specifically target to SF&F fans. At least, products from industries that make enough money to make television advertisements and pay for airtime.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
and get rid of the ghost hunters and other pseudo reality tv.
On second thought, they can keep wrestling... But only if they do it Kaiju Battel style.
http://kaiju.com/home.htm
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: (Score:3)
Bit of a tradeoff there though. How much gay man-rasslin stuff are you willing to watch in order to see fit oiled women with huge fake chests roll around on the floor? ;)
Without paying cover anyways.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Rasslin was that evil wizard from those D&D books?
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:4, Interesting)
It's already been proven the previous incarnation wasn't financially viable.
thus the reason it was sold to NBC/Universal.
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.
Re:Fantasy is now king (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd basically need a limitless source of money you can sink into it with no hope of a return to execute your plan. There just isn't any money in targeting a relatively small, fickle customer base that prides itself on never buying anything that's been advertised and happily pirates everything, claiming they are entitled to free entertainment.
Re: (Score:3)
I take my inspiration from A Christmas Story.
Give the audience a puzzle. A really, really hard puzzle. The final solution is mainly an ad for a sponsor, but hopefully something a bit more rewarding than "Be sure to drink your ovaltine."
To make it easier, give out hints periodically, where the hints have to do with other sponsors. Or just embed them in the ads somehow.
The idea is to make your audience want to see the ads. I'm sure I'm not the only one to think of this, and maybe I've just been living und
Re:SyFi is to Science as MTV is to music (Score:4, Interesting)
Note how many true Sci Fi authors have gravitated to to name "Speculative fiction" cf. they don't want their lofty ideas to be constrained
by the weights of "Science".
This can be a decent thing. Novels like 1984 and Brave New World could be considered "speculative fiction". I don't find it a terrible sin against the genre to switch between exploring technology (hard sci-fi) and exploring concepts (speculative). My two favorite Sci-fi authors (Stanislaw Lem and Clifford Simak) are both light on hard science, and heavy on philosophical exploration.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that science fiction shouldn't just be about technology and physics (I've seen the over-explanation of both of these kill more novels than help), it should be about exploring the "what if?". "What if" can be both extrapolation of sceintific and technological trends, and the extrapolation of social, cultural, and other trends. Take Philip Dick, no one will deny his importance to the genre, but he had very little high techology, and practically no ad nauseum descriptions of how gadgets worked, his fiction was still highly engaging on an intellectual level.
I really don't get the "hardcore science" or it isn't sci-fi crowd, they always come off as boring snobs who completely ignore 90% of the genre, and nearly all of the early works and history. There are very few hard science fiction novels that I find enjoyable, I'd rather just read a non-fiction book on the concepts, since all the jargon and explanations often get in the way of the most important thing, an enjoyable story. Sometimes dragging out the Star-Trek-eque particle of the week is perfectly acceptable if it keeps things from becoming nothing more than a pedantic slog.
Contrast to the BS of "Transformers" or any superhero movie. Why do I care?
Transformers wasn't really sci-fi. You could replace the robots with giant space dinosaurs and the movie (cartoon) would be exactly the same. It was an action flick (or cartoon) using loose science fiction trappings. Contrast it with Blade Runner, which also lacks the "hard" bits of science, but manages to explore interesting concepts and consequences. I would happily call Blade Runner a sci-fi story, but Transformers is just action.
Re: (Score:3)
There's several different kinds of sci-fi, with different purposes. Blade Runner, for instance, sets itself in a future world not too far in the future, to philosophically explore the ramifications of cloning, genetic engineering, and slavery (i.e., genetically-engineered human clones were created to be used as slaves). It didn't go into the science much, just that the Replicants were genetically engineered to be super-people for use in dangerous environments, and had a limited lifetime, and explored the
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.
What you say? (Score:5, Funny)
You could not be further from the truth! I'm very much looking forward to Mega BearLion vs Giant Robo-Piranha 2: The Revenge!
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Robo-Piranha RULES!
Wrestling now (Score:5, Informative)
They killed SGU so they could put wrestling in its place. What more evidence do you need?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They probably killed SGU because it wasn't giving them the ratings they wanted. Viacom wanted to squeeze wrestling into a potentially profitable space; they saw that lots of 18-29 aged folk watch Syfy and figured they could just patch the hole left by Stargate. Clearly one block of 18-29'ers is not representative of the whole thing since the experiment flopped, and now they're aggressively backpedaling.
That doesn't really excuse the reruns of Law & Order: SVU on the station though, does it?
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:Wrestling now (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It was the lack of wit and "let's see what part of the ship breaks down this week!" that killed SGU for me. I think SGU had a lot of potential but it was basically Twilight in space.
SGU (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrestling now (Score:5, Funny)
They killed SGU so they could put wrestling in its place
On the bright side, wrestling has a more credible plot and more likeable characters.
Until it's cheaper, yes (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the costuming reality show (Face Off) has been fairly interesting, even if the producers are hitting the "reality show drama" notes quite a bit too hard. There is some skill and technique on display, and I would be ecstatic if they added little segments about the different techniques they're using "this material takes a couple of hours to set and require different kinds of paint, but allow for more realistic mobility..." instead of the "But Person X is hitting on Person Y, and that's making Person Z jealous" manufactured bullshit.
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?
Re:Syfy is to science fiction... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
TechTV did not become G4. Comcast bought TechTV for their distribution contracts and kept a little bit of the programming.
...Or as normal people would call it, TechTV became G4.
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.
Re:Caprica? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
After the way BSG ended, Ca-prick-a didn't stand, or deserve a chance.
"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
They are a business (Score:3)
SyFy Channel Saved Me Money! (Score:4, Interesting)
I ordered the lesser priced service specifically because I was no longer interested in that channel. So Syfy sucking has saved me $20+/month
It looks like I'll get my science fiction in print and from any number of the streaming services.
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.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the name change.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
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.
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: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: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: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: (Score:2)
At some point there will be so many "generic" channels spreading out dull-witted viewers that it will be more profitable to specialize.
It's hard to imagine, with 1300+ active channels coming down from just one satellite network (I'm not making that number up; I can count them on my DirecTV receiver; they include the music channels, but they also include a bunch of 2-way interactive gaming channels and on-demand content channels, some of them 1080p and/or 3-D; there's a literally ungodly fuckload of bandwidt
Re: (Score:2)
A very good answer. It's really the nature of broadband TV media. Having a channel on a cable box can't come cheap and you're pretty much at the mercy of ad agencies. You either sell out or die.
I'm really looking forward to more private, smaller shows on the internet taking off. I don't see any reason why something like The Guild, couldn't be done in a lot of different settings, especially as the recording/editing technology keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and more homes switch onto using things like set
Re: (Score:3)
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?
You forgot about how 60% of the History Channel's programming seems to be about things like how Aliens gave us every technology discovered in the last 2000 years. Which is funny given how it'd be perfectly acceptable to me for that to be on the SyFy channel.. the H in 'History Channel' now no longer means Hitler.
Stargate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's never been very good at it (Score:2)
Summarizer clearly forgets the years when there was no palpable science fiction on the channel and it was all horror shit.
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.
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...
they've abandoned the market (Score:2)
The good news, of course, is that there is clearly an audience for actual sci-fi. Someone WILL decide that they'd like to take that audience and make money selling their eyeballs to advertisers. The audience tends to have a lot of disposable income, too, which makes them a prime target for certain sellers. So rest assured, this problem will fix itself.
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.
Wrestling? Ghost Hunters? (Score:2)
When they started showing crap like wrestling, ghost hunters and changed their name to that insipid SyFy I knew they were gone for good.
Let's also not forget the tragedy of Babylon 5. They said they were canceling at season 4, so the creators had to rush the show's plot, then they decided afterward to renew a 5th season, so they had to make up new crap completely outside the realm of the original planned plot line.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's also not forget the tragedy of Babylon 5. They said they were canceling at season 4, so the creators had to rush the show's plot, then they decided afterward to renew a 5th season, so they had to make up new crap completely outside the realm of the original planned plot line.
Babylon 5 ran on PTEN for four seasons. When they didn't renew it for season 5, it moved to TNT for the final season. One canceled it, and another picked it up. Not only did the networks not do what you described, SciFi had nothing to do with it.
No (Score:4, Funny)
Also, SGU was not science fiction, it was Twilight in space with fewer vampires and more tears.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course SGU was Sci-fi. The fact that you, or I for that matter, don't like it doesn't mean it's not sci-fi.
And it's trivial to make a sci-fi show thats about vampires.
comcast / nbc seems to be doing a tech tv to syfy! (Score:2)
comcast / nbc seems to be doing a tech tv to syfy!
This is why NBC should not get the olympics (Score:3)
After what they did in 2010. I'm all for ESPN taking over. Same thing for the NHL.
Re: (Score:3)
No one should get the Olympics.
The Olympics should have all the cameras and just license access to the feeds. This way ANY one can have access to any event.
Broadcaster can get which ever feed they want, they can compete in which events to dhow, how many commercials, that sort of thing.
It allows competition.
No, Syfy does not love Sci-Fi (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction (Score:2)
From the article summary:
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 show is the greatest experiment ever invented by two mad scientists working for a scientific institute here on Earth. The robots in space were created by the subject of the experiments, who at the time was just another face in a red jumpsuit working for the mad scientists.
Also, it hasn't happened yet. It will happen, though, in the not too distant
Re: (Score:3)
It's just s show. You should really just relax.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a TV show, you should really just relax.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, I don't know if anybody's mentioned this yet, but you should repeat to yourself "it's just a show, I should really just relax."
You know, if you were wondering about how he eats or breathes, or other science facts.
Cable (Score:3)
Cable channels used to be about narrowcasting to targeted demographics. About eight years or so back, the channel owners started to rethink that strategy. So The Nashville Network (country-targeted) went to TNN and then became Spike, aiming its programming against a broader male demographic and de-emphasizing and abandoning an explicit connection to the music genre. Unless a cable channel has a lock-hold on a very loyal demographic with a great profile for advertisers, it will go to diversifying its programming and slug it out with general interest programming with a more subtle skew.
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with most of what you are saying, but this is a little like asking why Australopithecus afarensis bothered filling its niche if it was just going to die out.
The market existed but turned out to be an evolutionary dead end.
Science Fiction Fans don't Watch Ads (Score:5, Insightful)
BBC-America for Sci Fi? (Score:3)
In some cases, the opposite almost seems to be happening with BBC America. Less British stuff, and strangely more Sci Fi. You've got Doctor Who, Torchwood and Primeval, but then strangely you also have ST:TNG and the X-Files.
These specialized channels always lose focus (Score:3)
There is already a replacement Sci-Fi channel (Score:5, Informative)
It's called BBCAmerica.
Dr Who
Torchwood
Being Human
Etc.
more original and better programming than "Sci-FI" ever had.
(BTW, Stargate SG1 started on Showtime, not Sci-Fi)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget Outcasts! It's a brief run series (7 episodes, of which 5 are out), but I've found it quite watchable.
To be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:3)
I mean take a look at Dick Tracy's watch - not even as good as our cellphones. The stuff they did in Star Trek? We don't need a starship to do the same. Look at World of Warcraft. It's not a video game - it's a simulator for how human beings will behave in the future when we have the power to transfer our consciousness into bodies other than our own for entertainment.
Syfy is failing not because of a lack of sci fi material to work with, but because it's no longer more amazing than reality.
Re: (Score:3)
I love science shows!
"We're gonna need another Timmy!"
Re: (Score:3)
It's called Wipeout.
And yeah, it's passable for a half hour.
Re:Watch FarScape for free with Amazon Prime (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought everyone knew that they wanted to put reality TV and fantasy into their programming schedule. This was the reason they changed their name.
Nope, they changed it so they could trademark their name.
They couldn't trademark SciFi since that was an ordinary term. But SyFy is different and not in the dictionary so they could.
Since people just refer to it as SciFi (and now SyFy) they have a trademark. As opposed to channels and outlets with the SciFi weekends.
Re: (Score:3)
Thou hast blasphemed
Re: (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, Discover
Re: (Score:3)
Good SciFi doesn't have to be expensive to produce. Good SciFi just needs good writers with an excellent imagination.
Do you remember the old Dr. Who shows? Not the new stuff. The old shows made 20-some years ago. That was GREAT SciFi and their budget was very small. Consequently the special effects were awful, the acting terrible, the camera work questionable, etc., etc., but the STORIES were fantastic. That is what made that show great. That is what makes SciFi great in general.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not chase the ratings and the money?
Sometimes ratings don't always equate to money. Since Farscape [wikipedia.org] was mentioned I'll use it as an example. The show was a success in every sense of the word EXCEPT where profit was concerned. The production costs were so expensive that the ad revenue couldn't sustain it.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if this says something about the type of people who watch Sci-Fi / SyFy?
They can't get dates on Friday night?