GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Is Sci-Fi Channel losing it's way?

POSTED BY: BAD2VERSE
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2006 02:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13440
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:08 PM

BAD2VERSE


EVERY Channel has "Staples".. shows that they want to make a certain group (demographic) sit in front of their TV at a certain time each week. During this time, they get their premium ad rates, AND they advertise other shows, hoping you'll sit in front of your TV set at THAT (Another) time also every week...

VERY seldom do people actually just flip through channels and find something to watch.. and you certainly can't forecast a Channel budget depending on that.. so every channel needs their "Staple shows" at set times.

Sci-Fi Channel's Staple(s) recently have been Stargate (and the spin offs)... Come October, Battlestar will be back and that's their REALLY BIG DRAW.

But Now they are Canceling their "Long term Money maker/staple" Stargate SG-1... And I don't think the spin offs have yet hooked a big enough fan base to stand alone as a "Channel draw each week"... and as time goes on, people will quickly tire of re-runs (even 200+ of them)

That leaves only "Battlestar", which tends to have a long Lapse between Seasons.

So with Stargate Canceled, What will be Sci-Fi's "Staples" between Battlestar seasons? What will cause large groups of people to be in front of their TV sets several times a week tuned into "Sci-fi"?

Eureka is "Fluttering".. trying to take off, but not "quite" there yet...

Sci-fi is already starting to show SUPER low budget films (already "A Sci-fi original motion picture" is becoming synonymous with, "low Budget crap"), and they're even showing "WRASSLIN" (fer god's sakes.. What does Wrasslin have to do with Sci-fi????)

Is Sci-fi stuttering? Or are they going down the tubes? Or do they have some super plan to pull things out of the fire? Anyone know?

Just seems to me they are lost and casting about for a new Identity, and are losing their staple shows, which means they can't guarantee a certain audience tuned in at a certain time, ANY TIME, and it's a downward spiral from there cause advertisers get nervous easily...

I REALLY hope they have something planned, because it's lookin kinda bleak to me.. Battlestar will keep a large audience tuned in ONCE a week, but a channel can't survive with only ONE "Staple".. and when they start losing advertisers, it becomes a spiral of "Can't afford better shows, lose more advertisers, can't afford better shows, lose even more advertisers", etc etc)

If Sci-Fi is lost and casting about for new Staples... May we suggest "FireFly"? :)


________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:15 PM

USBROWNCOAT


I don't get it. You would think they would be trying so hard to put up a FF, BSG, Eureka, X-file(reruns) type line up. The wrasslin is a joke. What are the ratings for that shit anyway?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:31 PM

TERRI


Scifi has never had a way. They cancel shows in their peak, or before they even get really good. I understand that as a cable channel they're working with limited resources, but the way they do business is just shoddy. I understand canceling of Stargate, actually, it's been on for quite some time and I thought was wearing out the storyline a little bit. But shows like the Chronicle, G vs. E, Farscape, MST3k, and others, were cancelled before they're time. They don't give shows the chance to become staples before they kick them off the air. I became disillusioned with Scifi a long time ago, and I think that if anything, they shot themselves in the foot. If they would stop making crappy B-movies, and make more quality tv shows, they wouldn't be having this problem.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:32 PM

NANITE1018


Yes, Sci-Fi is losing it's way. The cancellation of SG-1 shows this. Atlantis rocks, i love that show. BSG, i don't like all that much. Doctor Who i love. Eureka i love. But that's only three really good shows. That isn't enough. I hope they pick up Firefly. Hell, that'd bring in a lot of people, all us browncoats. Maybe not as much as SG-1 did, but enough.

I just can't stand the wrestling. And i don't like the sci-fi original movies either. If they were that concerned about profits, then why couldn't they make fewer original movies and then SG-1 could continue? Or bring on Firefly.

Does anyone know when Doctor Who comes back on Sci-Fi channel again? You know for season two with the new doctor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:06 PM

BAD2VERSE


Quote:
Originally posted by Terri:
Scifi has never had a way.


"They don't have a way", is that better than not having a plan? ;)

I dunno what they're up to, but it bodes ill for us Sci-fi fans... I REALLY hope they have a plan, I'd hate to go back to the old days of constant star Trek and Twilight Zone re-runs 24/7.

A "Perfect" Friday night line up would be "SG-1, Firefly, Battlestar".. that'd GUARANTEE a Friday night audience (Even if Tivo'ed)...

Maybe Mondays or Thursday nights would see a return of Farscape (I never got into it, but lots of people did), Eureka, and a few other favs...

Just seems like they're afraid to make money, and I KNOW that's not the case, so I dunno WHAT they're doing... I'd LIKE to say "They make the Bigger bucks for figuring that stuff out", but I don't think they do.. Last I bothered to check, their Execs didn't make any more than I do.

So I'm back to the feeling that they're actually lost, and hoping to figure something out while they still have Battlestar as a hook.

________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:51 PM

RCAT


Well, Eureka has a lot of promise. Continued BSG seasons would be good. More of the latest Dr. Who would also be a plus. The wrestling (and the soaps they showed for a bit) I don't get. Sci-Fi appears to have a rotating staff that randomly schedules shows, hoping something sparks. Seems they'd be in a great position to pick up Firefly (though I know that's not likely to happen)...but, budget from SG1 (assuming it's run its' course) and drop a few of the more "cheesey" original movies, and they could potentially have enough for more eps of our BDS...if only it was that simple.

Edit: Oh, forgot to say, as much a reality shows irk me, it was a good move picking up the one w/ Stan Lee (at least Who Wants to be a Superhero had more emph. on humor than drama).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:20 PM

ZENGRRL


I got a press release this month from Sci-Fi. Here's the opening summary:

**********

SCI FI Channel has acquired the rights to multiple made-for-television movies and series from CBS Paramount Domestic Television, including "Star Trek: Enterprise," the Star Trek prequel series starring Scott Bakula and Jolene Blalock, it was announced today by Thomas Vitale, SVP, Programming and Original Movies, SCI FI Channel. The deal also includes exclusive cable rights to the classic series "The Twilight Zone"; the series "Tales from the Darkside"; several Stephen King miniseries; made-for-TV movies, including "Primal Force" and "Trilogy of Terror II"; and series such as "Haunted," "Jake 2.0" and last fall's "Threshold."

**********

I'm just excited because I'll finally get to see the unaired episodes of "Threshold." CBS just totally did not get how to market that show.

But it seems as though Sci-Fi is going back to syndicating older shows, rather than producing new programming. Granted, it's cheaper, but doesn't exactly build an audience.

I also heard they're working on a BG spin-off, tentatively called "Caprica." No other info on it.

As for the ECW crap -- that's totally because Sci-Fi is owned by NBC/Universal, which has a deal with the WWE, which owns ECW. Since WWE is aired on the USA network (also NBC/Universal), Sci-Fi got stuck with the other show. It's a stupid move, imho, because what's the point of calling yourself Sci-Fi, if you're going to air programming like that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:37 PM

SIMONWHO


Doctor Who returns on the Sci-Fi channel on the 29th September. Personally I think New Earth is a little clunky but there's some cracking episodes to come.

As for the channel itself... I suspect that the people who run it now don't like sci-fi. There's no reason for them to (you get non-smoking CEO's of cigarette companies after all) but what this means is that there's little passion to make the channel the home of Sci-Fi. It's just another channel.

The introduction of Law & Order episodes and wrestling suggests that whoever is running it is looking for the best financial figures at the end of the year. They're not looking to make the channel iconic in the way that you'd think it should be.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:46 PM

BAD2VERSE


There's an OLD interview with Thomas Vitale at the link:
http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2001/thomas_vitale.html

Even though it's old, it says that Sci-Fi DOES read the email and letters it gets, and considers them when thinking about scheduling.

Maybe a few well placed e-mails and letters (yet again) about not only FireFly, but this site (So they can SEE it's alive and well), would push them to consider FF since they are losing their "Staple Shows" and would be about Guaranteed a decent sized audience... even if they just re-ran the pre-aired episodes (as they seem to be doing in the UK) it may generate enough interest that other NEW Episodes be considered.. IF they give it a decent, STABLE, time slot each week (And THAT point needs to be made crystal clear.. "it needs a DECENT, STABLE, time slot")...

Battlestar is covering some of the same ground as FF (and getting rave reviews), Future of the Human Race, on not-always-civilized planets, and not fancy laser beams as much as good old fashion slug throwers... If it works for Battlestar, it's about the same Idea as FF and should work for FF also.

Hey, Couldn't hurt. And it might be a good time with the Future of Sci-fi looking grim... If they don't have a plan, maybe we can GIVE them one!

________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:48 PM

DINALT


I agree that wrestling shouldn't have any place on the Sci Fi channel. It cheapens the mix. Maybe they're trying to broaden their viewer base, but they should keep Sci Fi just for Sci Fi.
Similar topic came up in the 'what the ????' thread, about a bogus press release pertaining to Sci Fi. Problem is, with their current scheduling it could have been real.

And I hate to say it, but I think SG-1 probably got canned at the right time. After 10 years and 200+ episodes, it's had the best run of ANY Sci Fi show going. I know people will point to Dr Who, but it should be remembered that this hasn't had a continuous run. There've been years with no new new series, so it's had a bumpy run - it's 40 years old, but not continuously.
But I think it was right to end SG-1 when they did - let it be remembered as a great series, rather than one that deteriorated.

But it does leave Sci Fi in a much weakened state now. BSG's great, but it needs more than one show to keep a station viable.
And endless re-runs are great to a point. But there comes a time when they'll need to start thinking about quality new series if they're going to survive.
Spin off shows are fine, as they tap into an existing fan base. But they're seldom very original.

Maybe with Serenity picking up a Hugo award, and various other prestigious awards, they might think about at least a mini series based on FF.
Don't know how practical that is, but as they're owned by NBC/Universal it might be a possibility.

As long as they stop making their low budget films I'll be happy, lol. If they pooled their budgets for these films, and created 1 or 2 decent shows, they'd be onto a winner.
Start getting viewers for these shows, get more advertising - means more money, and more original shows.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:02 AM

SIMONWHO


To be fair, Doctor Who did have a 26 year run to start off with. And what about MST3K which had 11 seasons?

I have no problem with sci-fi doing low budget movies/shows - they just have to get the creative forces behind them to make it worthwhile. Honestly, who read the synopsis for Mammoth and thought "This is worthwhile television"?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:36 AM

VINTERDRAKEN


Have to admit I like the Sci Fi channels ultra low budget movies


You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:36 AM

VINTERDRAKEN


Have to admit I like the Sci Fi channels ultra low budget movies


You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:36 AM

VINTERDRAKEN


Have to admit I like the Sci Fi channels ultra low budget movies


You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:36 AM

VINTERDRAKEN


Have to admit I like the Sci Fi channels ultra low budget movies


You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:36 AM

VINTERDRAKEN


Have to admit I like the Sci Fi channels ultra low budget movies


You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:36 AM

VINTERDRAKEN


Have to admit I like the Sci Fi channels ultra low budget movies


You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:35 AM

RIVERGIRL


I love the idea of a sci fi channel--just they dont show much do they--wrassling--paid programming--

it probably costs $$.
-but I would rerun shows like FIREFLY Blakes 7 etc
as well as original shows and movies
heck even REALITY shows like the recent William Shatner saved the world--update on Shuttle missions

Also, I can kill you with my brain.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:35 AM

FLATTOP


Any re-run that I haven't seen before (and there are plenty of them) counts as new product in my book.
If Sci-Fi would put together a stable block or two of programming that ran older series end to end:
"Star Trek Wednesdays" showing Enterprise, Sci-Fi Original, Kirk, Sci-Fi Original, NextGen, Something else, DS9, Whatever, Voyager, Yet Another Show. Each in its proper order...
It could be done over, and over. Just leave that block alone for a few years, changing out the filler between ST programs. There are plenty of Sci-Fi series that it could be done to. Sure there is more to the week than any given day, but if the interspersed shows actually catch, so much the better!
As we become more and more a TiVo world, the DayOfBroadcast isn't as critical as it once was, but fans expect some consistency.
Change is good for your brain, helps keep you sharp. But that isn't why we watch TV. We want to suspend our disbelief for a little while and not have to work excessively hard to find the shows we enjoy. Make me think during the show, reward me for paying attention, but don't make figuring out where the show is this week part of it.
That's just me though. YMMV

----------
Do you know what your sin is Captain?
Aww hell; I'm a big fan of all seven.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
To be fair, Doctor Who did have a 26 year run to start off with. And what about MST3K which had 11 seasons?


Yeah, but most of which DIDN'T include Joel. To me, Joel made the show, and anything that came afterwards was 2nd rate.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:57 AM

PATIENCE


I truly do wish SciFi Channel execs would remove their heads from their rectums and realize the potential they have.

One of the main problems I have with the SciFi Channel--aside from crappy programming--is that they'll rerun a crappy movie or show into the ground! If it sucks, you can count on it being replayed over and over and over and over and...you get the idea.

SciFi acquiring the rights to the shows mentioned in a previous response only means that those shows will be run into the fracking ground and that we'll get to see them so much we'll memorize every word of dialogue.

If SciFi execs really read letters and emails, perhaps a direction to sites like ours would give them some direction. For crying out loud, there's a worse than crappy movie on right now about mutated leeches . Please gimme a break. I'm tired of my intelligence being insulted, guys!!

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:33 AM

DEEPGIRL187


Quote:
Originally posted by Terri:
I understand that as a cable channel they're working with limited resources, but the way they do business is just shoddy.


Like you've said, limited resources isn't an excuse.

I always like to point to USA Network. This summer, they ran four great shows, two of which have been on for at least five years. Each of these shows have developed a large draw, and have had great storylines. I think this is proof that you can develop quality television on cable. The problem is, Sci-Fi doesn't believe in giving shows a chance, which is exactly what USA has done.

*************************************************

"Oooh, synchronizers!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:40 AM

PATIENCE


Quote:
Originally posted by deepgirl187:
Quote:
Originally posted by Terri:
I understand that as a cable channel they're working with limited resources, but the way they do business is just shoddy.


Like you've said, limited resources isn't an excuse.


No, limited resources isn't an excuse or a reason I accept. I look at all the other cable networks and channels that are doing well for proof of that. Science Fiction has a HUGE following in the 'verse, not just the US, but all over the frackin' WORLD...so I can't accept limited resources as an axiom.

What's needed here are executives in charge of programming who are in touch with what their audience wants to see. It doesn't take a whole lot to have a few underlings monitoring sites like ours to see what people like, what they enjoy, what they WANT.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:33 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


Quote:
Originally posted by Patience:
What's needed here are executives in charge of programming who are in touch with what their audience wants to see. It doesn't take a whole lot to have a few underlings monitoring sites like ours to see what people like, what they enjoy, what they WANT.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unfortunately I think their executives do look at what people want. For the past several weeks the ECW shows have had the highest ratings of any of their shows, followed by Eureka. I don't like that news anymore than any of the rest of you, but it seems to be a fact that the majority of tv and movie watchers actually LIKE crap. Just look at two new movies out this week, Beerfest and How to Eat Fried Worms. CRAP and CRAP, and I can confidently say that having only seen the promos. And as long as people continue to go to these kind of movies, and watch crap on tv, the same kinds of crap will continue to be produced.




wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:36 AM

KANEMAN


The Sci-Fi channel is a joke. I hope they never get FF. It needs to be on a premium channel, like HBO, that has the resources to produce it as was. Anything less, I hope never happens. It would cheapen this show. Just hoping someone out there has seen the results of the DVD sales of BDM and FF and has the foresight to do something wonderful.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:50 AM

PATIENCE


Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Patience:
What's needed here are executives in charge of programming who are in touch with what their audience wants to see. It doesn't take a whole lot to have a few underlings monitoring sites like ours to see what people like, what they enjoy, what they WANT.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unfortunately I think their executives do look at what people want. For the past several weeks the ECW shows have had the highest ratings of any of their shows, followed by Eureka.


Now THAT'S scary. I guess I shouldn't be surprised or anything else--have you ever seen an interview with the average bear on the street? I slip back into looking for signs of intelligence among people, and I get disappointed many times. And I guess you're correct when you say that if people are watching crap like ECW, then the execs will put it on.

Kaneman has a good point too. If a premium channel such as HBO picked up Firefly, I can only imagine the possibilities. Look at Deadwood--frackin' EXCELLENT show, as well as Big Love. HBO could do our BDS justice.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:58 AM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Indeed, HBO could do the show some BDJustice. But, as CaliforniaKaylee so profoundly explained in the "Time to bring Firefly back, this is ridiculous" thread (Aug 23), Fox is not about to let go of the television rights. They have a no-maintenance property which at some point could reach critical fiduciary mass. What is their incentive?

HBO alas is not a Fox-ish property; they're Time Warner. NBC-Universal could, what, do a SciFi Channel Original movie? (pauses to listen to the entire Browncoat population collectively gag.) Sorry, that was mean. Straight to video? Another limited screen theatical release? Thinking the execs would be skittish at this point: everyone's looking for the PotC grail right now, and while we are mighty, we're still small and for the most part, overlooked.

I haven't given up on the SciFi Channel just yet. I think SG-1 has had a remarkable run. (And let's not forget, it didn't start out as a SciFi Channel show either.) It's time. But the problem is this: there is an abyss of possiblities (from their PoV). By that I mean creative talent to draw upon. Low budget does not have to mean dishing up puke-worthy blather time after time. Did MST3K have an enormous budget? No. It had Quality WRITING. Let me say that again: WRITING. Firefly had quality WRITING. SciFi is blowing its budgets on unconvincing CGI. Qu na. Screw that. Invest in good writers.

Firefly also had the most outstanding cast and crew you could hope for. SciFi can't hope for that brand of lightning to strike twice, but gorrammit! They have had some pretty good shows in the past. The afore-mentioned SG-1 or Farscape anyone? And now we have BSG, which to me seems like a darker version of Babylon 5 (I think I'm gonna get it for that one...) I am also very optimistic about Eureka, but it's still finding its sea legs. There is no dearth of talent out there. It just seems that SciFi jumped on the CGI bandwagon and missed its footing.

The truth is out there, SciFi. Please want to believe.

And yes I heartily agree with Flattop that any rerun I haven't seen is new to me and many reruns are definitely worth multiple viewings. If that's not true we're in a sh*t heap o' trouble as Browncoats, eh?

As for the wrestling, there is an unfortunate overlap I've noticed in the fanbase of comic book readers (of whom I proudly number myself) and the professional wrestling fans. Just call it Men in Tights syndrome. It's the "drama" created by the "subplots" that make the wrestling so "interesting" and ultimately satisfying. (Really, what would boxing be without the trash talking hype?)

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:57 AM

PEULSAR5

We sniff the air, we don't kiss the dirt.


I don't think the problem is limited to just the Sci-Fi Channel. Most cable stations seem to be giving up quality programming for cheap reruns and reality shows. I remember when Dicovery, The Learning Channel and A&E used to show hours of documentaries, now all they seem to show are people building cars, motorcycles and refurbishing houses. Leave these shows on FOX where they can all be ignored collectively. (really, whats on FOX that's worth watching?) So it shouldn't be suprising that SCI-FI is following in their footsteps.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:03 AM

KANEMAN


This is a most disappointing thread. Are we really out numbered by Wrasslin' fans? ECW has better ratings than Eureka? I can't believe this. How great would it be to have a channel that is "chock full" of shows like FF, BSN, Deadwood, etc.., with a sprinkle of History/Discovery in there? Any billionaires out in the 'verse(Sell you my idea.)? We get Hilton and Richie for three years, Brady Bunch family reunions, So, you think you can fraking dance, ECW, Every book killing mini-series Mr. King allows, Pimped out rides, Yo! mama, And gorram Donald trump, as entertainment. Yet, there doesn't seem to be a place for our BDH's. Is this fair? Am I having a nightmare or a dreamscape I can wake from? Are the sales of FF on DVD as good as I think? Does anyone have something to compare it with(sales that is).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:12 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:
Originally posted by Patience:
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Patience:
What's needed here are executives in charge of programming who are in touch with what their audience wants to see. It doesn't take a whole lot to have a few underlings monitoring sites like ours to see what people like, what they enjoy, what they WANT.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unfortunately I think their executives do look at what people want. For the past several weeks the ECW shows have had the highest ratings of any of their shows, followed by Eureka.


Now THAT'S scary. I guess I shouldn't be surprised or anything else--have you ever seen an interview with the average bear on the street? I slip back into looking for signs of intelligence among people, and I get disappointed many times. And I guess you're correct when you say that if people are watching crap like ECW, then the execs will put it on.

Kaneman has a good point too. If a premium channel such as HBO picked up Firefly, I can only imagine the possibilities. Look at Deadwood--frackin' EXCELLENT show, as well as Big Love. HBO could do our BDS justice.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.


Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but tonight is the last episode of "Deadwood". Canceled.

And as a Firefly fan, but one who is not huge fan of other SciFi, watching almost any original programming on the SciFi channel is brutal. The production values are so low!

It's seems somebody is penny smart, but dollar stupid. I think they could get more viewers, if everything didn't look so cheap!

As for wrastlin', I guess you'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:20 AM

KANEMAN


On second thought, Sci-Fi should air FF after ECW. They could get those viewers. I can see the promos now. "Cowboys, Rebels, Whores, and a dirty greasy female mechanic...Tune in immediately after tonight's ECW Rummbleathon". Those fools would all tune in.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:21 AM

PATIENCE


Quote:
Originally posted by Peulsar5:
I don't think the problem is limited to just the Sci-Fi Channel. Most cable stations seem to be giving up quality programming for cheap reruns and reality shows. I remember when Dicovery, The Learning Channel and A&E used to show hours of documentaries, now all they seem to show are people building cars, motorcycles and refurbishing houses. Leave these shows on FOX where they can all be ignored collectively. (really, whats on FOX that's worth watching?) So it shouldn't be suprising that SCI-FI is following in their footsteps.


EXCELLENT point. For the live of me I've wondered and can't see what's so Discovery-ish about a bunch of motorcycle building.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:25 AM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Kaylee would watch.

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:25 AM

PATIENCE


Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but tonight is the last episode of "Deadwood". Canceled.


I know...I'm a very devoted follower of Deadwood. One of the best damn shows on television, AND you can research their story lines and see that they're pretty much taken from the headlines of the Deadwood Pioneer.

One can't deny, though, that for the most part, HBO's original programming is excellent.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:49 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:
Originally posted by Patience:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but tonight is the last episode of "Deadwood". Canceled.


I know...I'm a very devoted follower of Deadwood. One of the best damn shows on television, AND you can research their story lines and see that they're pretty much taken from the headlines of the Deadwood Pioneer.

One can't deny, though, that for the most part, HBO's original programming is excellent.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.


The stream of profanties I used when I read it was canceled woulda' made Al Swearengen blush...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:56 AM

PATIENCE


Me too. I was so upset when I heard the news. Howsomever, I have the first two seasons on DVD, and of course will pick up the third.

For those interested, Season 2.5 of BattleStar Galactica is coming out soon.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:04 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


What's 20th Century Fox's price tag for the rights to Firefly (not to be confused with Fox Broadcasting; whoops, that's the other thread I'm currently engaged in)? Doesn't anybody at NBC/Universal think they can make a go of it? (as long as they are interested keeping production value up? Otherwise, don't bother, not that Joss would go for that anyway). Could Time Warner be persuaded to buy up all rights everywhere so it can be done any way Joss wants on HBO? But wait, are there hard feelings toward the WB over Buffy? But no, they were merged with UPN by CBS. Was Buffy a bridge builder? How do we feel about UPN? Is the answer then at Showtime with CBS/Paramount producing? Oh GOD, oh GOD, make it stop!

Has anybody mentioned Disney yet?

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:07 PM

DINALT


wrestling picking up fans on a gorram Sci Fi channel, and being their top rated show. What the hell's the world coming to ????

I agree totally with Kaneman and others. TV is getting dumber by the day, and although I enjoy the likes of American Chopper, I can't understand why it's on Discovery.

Anyways, rant out of the way. I guess if we want to influence Sci Fi at all, then join up to their forums, e-mail them or do whatever it takes.

Sci Fi Forums: http://mboard.scifi.com/

Contact:

SCI FI CHANNEL
If you have suggestions or comments for our Programming Department about the SCI FI Channel or any of its shows, please contact:

feedback@scifi.com





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:12 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


How do I know that's not going to the guy on "Who Wants To Be A Superhero"?

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:51 PM

SIMONWHO


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yeah, but most of which DIDN'T include Joel. To me, Joel made the show, and anything that came afterwards was 2nd rate.


Joel was funny... because Michael wrote him that way.

*runs from the heavy dragon fire aimed his way*

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:52 PM

BAD2VERSE


Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The Sci-Fi channel is a joke. I hope they never get FF. It needs to be on a premium channel, like HBO, that has the resources to produce it as was. Anything less, I hope never happens. It would cheapen this show. Just hoping someone out there has seen the results of the DVD sales of BDM and FF and has the foresight to do something wonderful.


You've got a good point there.. HBO has done a GREAT job with MANY series.. I didn't like some of them, but HBO still did a great job getting them produced.. Sophranos (Never got into it), Deadwood (I like Deadwood), Big Love (Took me a while to get into that one, but it's realistic (trust me)), Rome, Etc etc..



________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:05 PM

BAD2VERSE


Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but tonight is the last episode of "Deadwood". Canceled.
(Snip)


Trust me, We know.. We've been watching Deadwood since Episode 1.. bought ALL the DVD's and I capture every show to DVD for us, until it comes out for sale (The sets always have the cool "behind the scenes stuff")

The "Friend" Patience and I frequently talk about has a sister that works in the film industry and she tells us about this stuff months in advance, so we end up getting to be broken hearted months in advance ;)

And just when you think Swearengen has a heart too... Of course, in real life he dies a few years later, broke and penniless, trying to jump a freight train.. someone in the box car murders him... During the period of filming he was really making up to 10,000 dollars a night, EVERY night, in gold... they've taken some artistic licence with his saloon.. it was really just a long narrow place, and Calamity Jane worked as a whore for him on and off.

________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:35 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I don’t think anyone should fault the scifi channel for producing low-budget films. Truth be told, that’s really what science fiction is, low budget films. They appear to be low-budget anyway. A closer examination will usually reveal that low-budget scifi films are usually much more expensive then equivalent type shows in many other genres. A channel like Lifetime for instance can push out made for tv movies like a rabbit on Pergonal®, because their movies cost about 4 cents to make (or actually more like ~1-2 million USD). The most recent scifi movie, “Dragon Sword,” has an estimated budget of ~32 million USD; “Caved In” is estimated at ~15 million USD. The scifi channel, as a result, has always struggled to keep its head above water.

I don’t like some of this new crap that scifi is adding to the mix. The Wrestling thing is disturbing and “who wants to be a superhero” is just wrong, but if this is what they have to do to keep themselves a float, so be it, I guess.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:39 PM

BAD2VERSE


Quote:
Originally posted by Peulsar5:
I don't think the problem is limited to just the Sci-Fi Channel. Most cable stations seem to be giving up quality programming for cheap reruns and reality shows. I remember when Dicovery, The Learning Channel and A&E used to show hours of documentaries, now all they seem to show are people building cars, motorcycles and refurbishing houses. Leave these shows on FOX where they can all be ignored collectively. (really, whats on FOX that's worth watching?) So it shouldn't be suprising that SCI-FI is following in their footsteps.


I'm with ya brother! Does anyone else yell at their TV set? I HATE IT when a channel goes off their "topic". That's kinda why we HAVE specific channels on Cable... If I wanna watch the news, I'll turn to CNN, I DON'T like CNN showing hours of sports, that's what ESPN is for, If I want Sports scores, I'll go to ESPN.. and Wrasslin DOES NOT need to be on Sci-fi.. Sci-fi needs to be on Sci-fi!

Otherwise, why bother naming them at all? Why not just call it "Channel 1, Channel 2, channel 3", etc? Kinda seems when you want sci-fi you'd go to the SCI-FI CHANNEL, DUH!

and Wrasslin getting high rating on Sci-fi??? Where's the sanity in THAT? I thought Sci-fi channel had a pretty loyal following (A pretty stable demographic of sci-fi lovers) and suddenly "Wrasslin" is getting high marks??? From Sci-fi lovers???

Sometimes I think the insane outnumber the sane 10 to 1.

..my brother once said "They must know what they're doing, they're raking in the money".. I replied "Have you looked at their stocks? They AREN'T raking in the money, so obviously they've lost their way".

Lose touch with your demographic base, and you'll suffer for it.

________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:39 PM

NCBROWNCOAT


I agree with with rants about SciFi. Wrestling has absoultly nothing to do with Scifi but of course it's owned by Universal/NBC. They are the nice folks that gave us the BDM.

The History channel is one of the few channels that haven't resorted to wrestling and reality shows. It does quality shows and sticks to the subject. It does have over 3000 years to cover and that helps a bit.

Right now I'm watching an episode of "The Revolution" dealing the Benedict Arnold (the rat! selling out West Point to the Brits!-sorry if I've offended any British Browncoats). History Channel makes history dramatic and fun.

Also, FX has a few good dependable series and stuck to them and let them grow an audience, Rescue Me, Prison Break, Nip Tuck (too gross for me). Isn't Tommy Gavin (Denis Leary)from Rescue Me more than a bit like Mal except Tommy still hasn't grown up a bit.

Sorry about the thread hijack. Very disjointed post as it's the night before the first day of school-got to get dear daughter ready for her senior year of high school


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:53 PM

BAD2VERSE


Quote:
Originally posted by ncbrowncoat:
(Snip)

The History channel is one of the few channels that haven't resorted to wrestling and reality shows. It does quality shows and sticks to the subject. It does have over 3000 years to cover and that helps a bit. (More Snippage)


I wish we could pay-per-channel, I'd only have to pay for Sci-fi, History, Discovery, ONE HBO, and MAYBE CNN...

And I agree with you agreeing ;) If a channel bothers to give itself a name (Like "History Channel") and build it's image on that name, then they oughta stick to it!

History Channel does that pretty well, even if it's a bit strange watching "Band of brothers" on there sometimes.. it seems kinda funny to have "TV drama type shows" when you're expecting documentaries.. I'm not explaining well, but you understand what I mean (I hope ;)...

(BTW, My Youngest is a Jr. This year, and my oldest and her husband just had my first Grandson.. which is totally way cool, until you think "I'm WAY too young to be "Grandpa")
________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:57 PM

NCBROWNCOAT


I know what you mean. I thought "Band of Brothers" was really well done for an historical drama. Of course HBO did it originally and History rebroadcast it. I think Tom Hanks had a hand in producing it after doing "Saving Private Ryan"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:05 PM

KANEMAN


Yep, they did it with the BBC. They also teamed up again for Rome. I they aren't going to do anything on tv with FF, why won't f*x at least team up and split production with another channel. I'd take that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:10 PM

BAD2VERSE


Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Yep, they did it with the BBC. They also teamed up again for Rome.


I kinda got into Rome, But they moved it along kinda fast and killed off Caesar, etc.. and they didn't leave much material for another season... because after the Marc Antony and Cleopatra thing, things got kinda boring in Rome for the next hundred years or so ;)

________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:42 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by bad2verse:
I wish we could pay-per-channel, I'd only have to pay for Sci-fi, History, Discovery, ONE HBO, and MAYBE CNN...


Actually this may be happening. I heard at one point that the FCC was talking about making cable providers offer "a la carte" service which would allow you to only pay for the channels you wanted.

Anyone else hear more about that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:00 AM

THELURKER


Quote:
Originally posted by bad2verse:
and Wrasslin getting high rating on Sci-fi??? Where's the sanity in THAT? I thought Sci-fi channel had a pretty loyal following (A pretty stable demographic of sci-fi lovers) and suddenly "Wrasslin" is getting high marks??? From Sci-fi lovers???
________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

It's not Sci-fi lovers that are giving the wrestling big numbers. It's wrestling fans, switching over to watch Sci-fi during wrestling, and then switching back. They may be hoping to land a few of those viewers by promoting Sci-fi shows during wrestling, but this tactic won't work.

I agree that a solid night of originals is needed to anchor the station, and then they should build from that. Stargate Atlantis, BSG and Dr. Who form a nice trio of shows for Friday, but they need to add more.

FX has done a great job of limited run (14 episodes or so) series. I don't know what their budget is, but can it be much different than Sci-Fi's? Shows like Rescue Me, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and (the now cancelled) Over There kind of put FX on the map. At the very least, the shows NBC doesn't want anymore (Surface, for example) should move over to Sci-Fi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:00 AM

THELURKER


Quote:
Originally posted by bad2verse:
and Wrasslin getting high rating on Sci-fi??? Where's the sanity in THAT? I thought Sci-fi channel had a pretty loyal following (A pretty stable demographic of sci-fi lovers) and suddenly "Wrasslin" is getting high marks??? From Sci-fi lovers???

It's not Sci-fi lovers that are giving the wrestling big numbers. It's wrestling fans, switching over to watch Sci-fi during wrestling, and then switching back. They may be hoping to land a few of those viewers by promoting Sci-fi shows during wrestling, but this tactic won't work.

I agree that a solid night of originals is needed to anchor the station, and then they should build from that. Stargate Atlantis, BSG and Dr. Who form a nice trio of shows for Friday, but they need to add more.

FX has done a great job of limited run (14 episodes or so) series. I don't know what their budget is, but can it be much different than Sci-Fi's? Shows like Rescue Me, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and (the now cancelled) Over There kind of put FX on the map. At the very least, the shows NBC doesn't want anymore (Surface, for example) should move over to Sci-Fi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 10:02 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by bad2verse:
I wish we could pay-per-channel, I'd only have to pay for Sci-fi, History, Discovery, ONE HBO, and MAYBE CNN...


Actually this may be happening. I heard at one point that the FCC was talking about making cable providers offer "a la carte" service which would allow you to only pay for the channels you wanted.

Anyone else hear more about that?


Yeah, bill was in Congress last year. I'm pretty sure the cable companies killed it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:00 AM

RMMC


the way the SciFi channel runs itself is why I don't miss cable. The station is incompently run.

Their reason for axing Farscape, if I recall correctly, was that they wanted something that would get the 'female demographic.' This led to the infamous 'bra letter campaign' where thousands of women wrote in on their bras that they were in fact female, and had been watching the program. They were ignored.

And what was this miracle show to get the female demographics? Tremors.

I then looked at my cable bill, looked at what I was watching once that got the axe (forensic shows on Discovery) and had the plug pulled.

Best decision I made in years.

And a few notes. I think the idea of SciFi having their mitts on FF is frightening. Look what they did to Forever Knight. Bleech!

And to the suggestion of Disney....please, God, no. If they got it, they'd make Joss sign all rights away to them, shut down every web site that had piccys, fan fic or scripts. If you think Paramount is bad about that stuff, you never saw the Mouse Conglomerate in action folks. They're why 'fair usage' has come under so much fire and why copyrights are getting so that nothing will ever fall into common domain again if they get their way. They don't want to lose their corporate meal ticket which will happen if the Mouse ever drops to public domain and they know it. {/rant}

*gets down off soap box*

My apologies folks. I get a mite twitchy about the idea of SciFi or Disney getting their grubbies on our shiny show. Better one of the premium cable stations get it.

*****
RMMC

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:23 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Yeah, bill was in Congress last year. I'm pretty sure the cable companies killed it.


*Pulls out surprise-o-meter and points at self* Hmmm, negative reading, somehow I'm not surprised.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Fan-Made ‘Green Lantern’ Trailer Receives Nathan Fillion’s Endorsement
Fri, December 20, 2024 18:31 - 9 posts
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Fri, December 20, 2024 17:58 - 5 posts
Why Firefly deserved to die
Wed, December 18, 2024 16:34 - 99 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:58 - 56 posts
What if... Firefly had been British?
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts
Shiny New Year 2025 — Philadelphia, PA
Sun, December 15, 2024 15:25 - 2 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Fri, December 13, 2024 20:35 - 36 posts
James Earl Jones, commanding actor who voiced Darth Vader, dies at 93
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:17 - 6 posts
What's wrong with Star Trek Voyager, and Enterprise?
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:14 - 30 posts
WE WAITED 18 YEARS FOR A REBOOT AND DISNEY IS GOING TO DO IT...AND THEN STERILIZE COMPANIONS???!
Tue, December 10, 2024 14:25 - 95 posts
Host the 2025 Browncoat Ball! - Request for Proposals
Mon, December 2, 2024 00:22 - 4 posts
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL