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: 13445
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:41 AM

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

Even if a bill like that was ever passed, you can bet the cable companies would just jack up the prices for the individual channels so our cable bills would end up being even higher than they are now.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

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

Monday, August 28, 2006 12:21 PM

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?

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyO
CZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Njk3ODg4MyZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=

"The Senate has already killed a bill sponsored by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would force cable operators to offer a la carte programming. That legislation has the same goal -- allowing parents to decide what shows come into their house, without paying for content they don't want."

And to stay on subject, SciFi Channel is losing it's way...

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

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:09 PM

MYCROFTXXX

Sci Fi channel has definitely lost its way at least for the moment. Only way they can redeem themselves is to take the money they'll save after cancelling SG-1 and bring back our BDHs.

Now a little seriousness...

One thing to keep in mind is that SG-1 DID stay on the air a long time compared to almost all TV shows, cable or broadcast. In case, y'all forgot, no Star Trek TV show lasted longer than 7 years thanks to the likelihood the actor contract renewals would go through the roof (think Friends or Seinfeld.) Frankly, I was surprised SG-1 made it past that mark.

Let's keep in mind they are still underwriting Battlestar Galactica. Not everyone will agree, but to me it has good writing, an ensemble cast larger than our beloved show (not to mention Academy/Emmy Award winning actors that don't come cheap), a long story arc (Babylon 5 comes to mind), great special effects, all things that cost a LOT of money. To me that means there are still a few serious Sci Fi fan executives left at the Sci-Fi channel. I hope they keep the faith.

A little trip down memory lane:

They resurrected MST3K when Comedy Central dumped it.

They backed a very avant garde show called Farscape that definitely took some faith to release, gave it a few years then cancelled it only to bring it back for a short miniseries (Proof they did listen to their fans at least once.)

SG-1 then later Atlantis

Now, Battlestar Galactica

I, personally think Firefly/Serenity fits their pattern for picking up "lost" shows and making them work or consider things that you know no other network would touch ("Farscape: muppets in space", a derogatory phrase I once read it was called by some press hack.)

Let's hope they do give Firefly/Serenity a chance. Winning this year's Hugo definitely gives the show a great deal of credibility and in Hollywood that counts for something.

Okay, end of seriousness...

Anyone know what they plan to do with the 8PM timeslot on Friday after SG-1 completes it run?

Battlebots anyone?

--

Given a choice between the earth-that-is and the 'verse-that-will-be I'll take the latter.

宁静

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

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:36 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"

Quote:
Originally posted by RMMC:
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.
RMMC

I for one would never ignor a bra campaign. Especially if yours was one of them.

Quote:
Originally posted by RMMC:
And to the suggestion of Disney....please, God, no.
RMMC

Oh, Lord, milady, 'twas all in jest. May it never be so. But think of it, a Firefly Outlet store at the mall...

"Well, here I am."

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

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:25 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"

I don't think that Science Fiction television has to be low budget by definition. There is a proud heritage of low budget ancestors on TV and in film that is hard to ignor. Before Star Wars rewrote the budget to box office chapter in Hollywood there were precious few big budget Sci Fi movies and even fewer of that group that made bank. We were dished up B-movies and we gladly accepted them because it was all we could get. This ain't the case anymore.

TV has taken longer to get to this point, because "failures" are more immediately felt by the networks. Sure Lost in Space lasted four seasons but 20th Century Fox (where have I heard that name before) had tons of props and such to recycle from a host of movies, and then recycled a good number of them again within the show's run. Later on, BSG-1 tried to translate the SW phenomenon to TV, with unfortunate results that ultimately made the networks very timid about big budget Sci Fi shows. So we got things like the Six Million Dollar Man, the Man From Atlantis, the Invisible Man or even the Incredible Hulk. Some cheap and forgettable, some cheap but engaging.

The advent of the SciFi Channel signalled the Television industry that there was in fact a bankable fanbase out there, one which never would have been acknowledged without cable. Cable was and should remain as others have noted, the province and playground of specific genres. (I'm really surprised there's no Horror Channel.) There is no reason in the world why we should have to accept low budget crap. I will gladly accept low budget, well considered, quality shows. I think most of us would. We don't need lots of pretty lights, give us just enough. We don't need a ton of CGI, use it only when necessary. How big was the Twilight Zone's budget? And how much of it went into glitz and dazzle? The stories and the characters were the focus, not the hocus pocus (although hocus pocus was the story in a few cases...). It all came back to the TALENT.

Has SciFi lost its way? I think only partially. There is still some good stuff to hope for. They need a big oomph to fill the shoes of SG-1, which will take them a while to find. For God sake stop making the Original Movies and use that money to hire some real talent. There are Straczynskis, McFarlanes, Whedons, yes, even young Jim Hensons and George Lucas's (before the Dark Side took over), fresh-faced Frank Millers and thousands of others. Use the budget to find these people. And thereby find your way back.

One more note about the Wrasslin'. Is it that much less appropriate than the all night Acne Infomercials (unless of course there's a Catwoman movie tie-in...)??

"Well, here I am."

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

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:08 PM

TERRI

Quote:
Originally posted by 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*

I know we're not going to get into the Joel v. Mike debate. Actually, I loved both and thought they were hilarious. I did come into the Mstie fold when Mike was running the gor-ram thing so maybe I'm a little biased. Back to Scifi, though. I just want to say all these Scifi Channel presents things are getting downright ridiculous. When I saw Boa, Python, Boa II, Python II and then Boa 3: Boa vs. Python, I knew that I couldn't take anymore. Yeah, on one hand, these are paving the way for generations in the future to pan bad B movies. On the other hand, they're taking valuable funding from good shows that could be created on a weekly basis. Whoever (I'm sorry, I forgot) said something about USA being able to produce awesome original programming is right. They're getting it right all kinds of ways. I just watched the Dead Zone, the 4400, Monk, and Psych season finales all this weekend. I really think if they would get their act together they could have it. I don't want this to become another G4TV. Which if you don't know about it was a tech and video gaming station, that lost it's way, and now only has shows about drift racing and bikini clad anime girls. I understand that this is a completely different level, but still. Also (and I'll keep this short) on the idea of a pay channel (HBO, Showtime) picking up Firefly, I say bad idea. Firstly, they take chances on off beat shows, sure, but they have very few shows that last season after season, even if they are hugely (or at least moderatly) popular (think Dead Like Me, Fat Actress, Rome (it's only coming back for one more season). Other than Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the Sopranos, what's really stuck around? FF could not take another canceling. Not even from HBO. If that happens, we've got to stick a fork in her. So, I think it's better that we take our time, and work something solid out. I don't want Scifi or HBO getting fidgety and cancelling her again. If that takes a couple more years, then so be it.

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

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:09 PM

TERRI

Sorry, double posted.

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

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:57 AM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"

Quote:

Originally posted by TERRI:
On the other hand, they're taking valuable funding from good shows that could be created on a weekly basis.
...
Whoever (I'm sorry, I forgot) said something about USA being able to produce awesome original programming is right. They're getting it right all kinds of ways
...
I don't want Scifi or HBO getting fidgety and cancelling her again. If that takes a couple more years, then so be it.

Hear, hear! Stop throwing good money after bad! Here's the thing I DO NOT GET. SciFi Channel and the USA Network both belong to NBC/Universal!! Obviously they don't have the same execs making decisions on programming, but it seems a top-down call to order might be in order. 'Specially since they greenlit the Serenity movie. Seems like a natural...but they're still leary, despite the DVD sales, because of the "eh" box office.

I think we'd all wait as long as it took, but the longer it takes, the less likely it seems and the less like the original show it will be. (cf. ST-TOS vs. ST-TMP/ST-TNG...good stuff sure (yes I did like the Motion Picture), but way different.)

"Well, here I am."

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:48 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Why is SciFi so expensive? I thought I read that "Serenity" was done on the cheap and it looked great.

Also, I caught Eureka for the first time last night. That seemed good. If they would do more programming like that and less of "Savage Planet" (Uuuuhhhhh), they might be better off...

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:20 AM

DARKFLY

Need to buy the Firefly rights then make some Firefly goodness

Go to http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=19&t=22697 for more info!

Things are about to get interesting...Define interesting...Oh GOD oh GOD we're all going to die.

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:12 PM

PEULSAR5

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

Quote:
Originally posted by 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

Yet they DO show hours and hours of shows like Mega Movers and Modern Marvels about how they move large objects like oil rigs, which I haven't quite figured out what that has to do with history.

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:39 PM

MORRIGHAN

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
... The wrasslin is a joke. What are the ratings for that shit anyway?

Yeah and now this Monday they're actually running RAW?! Dood! Pass me a bud and lets go watch wrestling on...SCI-FI?!?! *Pah* :D

Sorry, I guess it's been hashed out already, but I saw that and I had to respond before I could even read on. There are some very great responses waaay above mine that have a bit more tact and kooth to them. :D

"Try to see past what she is and onto what she can be" ~Mal
"Yes, please do." ~Morri

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:24 PM

DARKFLY

I wouldn't know if the sci-fi channel is losing it's way cause I can't watch it(I'm from England) & I can't get the UK version either.But I've been to Amercia twice in the last 3 years & whenever I was watching TV it was mostly the Sci-fi channel & HBO.I actually saw the last minute of Heart of Gold on Sci-fi when I was in the US last year & this was when I had just seen Serenity in the cinema the previous day(in America).Sci-fi channel in my experience is the best channel I've ever watched.

--------------------------------------------------

.
Go to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/ & vote 10/10 for Serenity

Go to

to see my cool trailer.

Things are about to get interesting...Define interesting...Oh GOD oh GOD we're all going to die.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:40 AM

NUMFARVERA

I had read earlier that SciFi was changing to SurgeTV on Nov. 1, and expanding their wrestling shows from 1 night to several.

Thankfully, this appears to be a hoax.

From what I understand about SG-1, the majority of the profits of the series go to MGM, not SciFi, so SciFi decided to cancel it...pretty tacky to do so around the presentation of their 200th ep.

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:51 AM

YUROICHI

I kinda of understand the cancelation of SG-1 the ratings slipped from what I understand when Richard Dean Anderson left. Eureka has been a blessing and right before that Dead like me. I know it aired some where else but I had never seen it.

It would be a great idea for Sci-Fi to pick up Firefly and get rid of this nasty childish wrestling I still can't believe it is on Sci-Fi it makes me sick.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE