Is Sci-Fi Channel losing it's way? by bad2verse

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Is Sci-Fi Channel losing it's way?

POSTED BY: BAD2VERSE
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2006 02:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13253
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:08 PM

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