Sci Fi morphs into Syfy

POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Monday, March 23, 2009 02:11
VIEWED: 7807
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:15 PM

What this says to me is they will clone more "reality" shows like Ghost Hunters and The World's Greatest Gamer to fill their time slots and actual science fiction will pushed even further back on the back burner.

Pretty much given up on Sci Fi.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

Color Officer / Battalion O.I.C.

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

RIPWASH

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:01 PM

I just sent them a feedback message and told them to think of us as the citizens of Whoville: WE ARE HERE! WE ARE HERE! WE ARE HERE! WE ARE HERE!!!!!!

Couldn't resist.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

VECTREXER

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:34 PM

Imagine even more infomercials starting at an earlier time?
Imagine even more ECW or even other night of wrestling? Imagine even more non-Science Fiction?
Imagine greater amount of BS?

I cannot imagine anything related Science Fiction coming out of "SyFy". Then best they could do would be to license Burn Notice.

Anyone here think that FOX management and SyFy management must have been cloned and raised by the same people?

STORYMARK

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
Sci-Fi has been a mess for years.
For every BSG there are two dozen lousy Sci-Fi original movies.
Sci-Fi should have dropped the crappy movies and picked up Firefly back when Whedon was shopping it around.

They should do a series that follows the conventions.
They should follow some fan activities like fan films and charity events.
They should have in-depth "making of" shows.

They should have blocks assigned to different types of SF:
Time Tunnel-Land of the Giants-Lost In Space by Irwin Allen
Original BSG-Buck Rogers by Glen Larsen
etc., etc.
They should bring back the short-lived SF series blocks.
Have a Star Trek block.

Show old SF classics.
Show SF B-movies.
(And don't cut the crap out of them for no real reason!)

Its ridiculous to act like science fiction is too limiting.
Frankly, this channel has been mostly garbage for years.
I see this as more a way to show garbage like wrestling than a way to serve the SF niche audience.

Mike

Well to fair, they have tried most of that stuff over the years. Problem being, no one watches it. Yeah, it's great to see an old scifi favorite on TV, but in most cases, it's a very small group who want to watch those. And the DVD market has killed rerun viewership over the last few years.

People didn't tune in for the true scifi, but they do, unfortunetly, tne in for Rasslin and Ghost Hunters.

And beyond that, there would be rights issues. The Trek rights are tied up for several more years, so they can't do that. Fan films would not be possible, either. Conventions, maybe - but even then, it's a stretch to think that that would appeal to any but a small group.

It sucks for fans of scifi, but as a business, it'd be daft of them to abandon what works for a model they've already proven doesn't.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

MACBAKER

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:44 PM

Name change or not, there is very little science fiction on that channel anymore. Kinda like Mtv. I remember when the M stood for MUSIC! I remember when SyFy had "Sci-Fi" on it!

Given the crappy horror movies, no more BSG (after this week), and even crappier reality shows, I think this name change makes perfect sense. Now I'm sure I'll avoid it completely!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

MISSTRESSAHARA

Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:54 AM

The Canadian equivilent called Space so far has remained 99% sci-fi. Every Trek show, Stargate, and other series you can see it there.

I just hope the station doesn't change hands that think sci-fi's format is a good one.

{{{*~A footer is the closing of an article, not a kinky sex move~*}}}

PENNAUSAMIKE

Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
People didn't tune in for the true scifi, but they do, unfortunately, tune in for Rasslin and Ghost Hunters.

It sucks for fans of scifi, but as a business, it'd be daft of them to abandon what works for a model they've already proven doesn't.

I see your point.
Why show anything but American Idol and Dancing With The Stars and phony "wrestling" and ghost hunting? Why have 7 niche channels that appeal to 4 million viewers each when you can put on one show that draws 28 million viewers?

Its only about business.
Lowest common denominator business.
Why should any one bother to try to fill a niche market?
Go big or go home.

While we're at it, let's get rid of every store except Walmart.
Stupid niche stores.
Hobby shops, book stores that carry more than just the current best sellers, music that isn't the HOTTEST-THING-RIGHT-NOW; get rid of 'em all.

Sarcasm aside, I know entertainment is a business and they have to make enough money to keep the doors open. My complaint is that they frittered away assets in churning out one crappy Sci-Fi original "movie" after another. They never got science fiction. If 75% of Sci-Fi Channel was quality science fiction and nostalgic science fiction, and 25% was wrestling and Ghost Hunters and infomercials, it would still fly.
But the management wanted EVERYTHING to be lowest common denominator programming with mass mundane appeal for max profits and minimum effort.
It would be like the Speed channel showing only NASCAR cuz only NASCAR means big bucks.

I guess I feel that if you're going to create a vehicle to service a niche interest, then do THAT. If any of the suits who have run Sci-Fi thought it was going to be all Star Wars level blockbusters all the time, they obviously didn't think this thru very well. But it was never about servicing a 4 million viewer audience well; it was about climbing the corporate ladder on the backs of those stupid geeks: (and why don't they like our aliens-monsters-robots-of-the-week movies anyways?...stupid geeks)

I know Firefly doesn't have mass appeal, but I'm continually irked by the puke-tainted swill that is churned out to even less success than Firefly. Take the money spent on "The Mean Mummy" and "Toothy Walking Fish of Death" and give us some decent entertainment, gorramit!

Whew, rant mode off...

Mike

RALLEM

Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:17 AM

I have not been a Sci-fi Channel fan like most of you, for years and for the same reasons it seems, because they've shown very little actual science fiction. On the bright side though maybe another channel can take the moniker of Sci-Fi Channel and actually show them how it's done. I liked just about every idea posted above for what might have been, plus they could make more of their own original science fiction shows/movies from the more obscure authors such as Robert Heinlein. For those who might get offended at my calling Heinlein obscure, I only mean he is not of the mainstream, not today anyways. Also perhaps they could also look to Joss about doing a derivative of Firefly. It is true that not many watch the science fiction stuff they’ve been showing, but I disagree with their solution of changing their name so they can become even more diluted that they already are, and think they should have become more aggressive in their own production of original content. BSG worked out for them didn’t it?

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

MACBAKER

Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
BSG worked out for them didn’t it?

Actually, it really hasn't. Battlestar's ratings have been marginal at best. It's had a smaller average audience than Firefly or Enterprise. If BSG was on a network, it would have never made it past the mini-series.

I think Universal (who owns Sci-Fi and BSG), let it continue, because they see it as a product with long legs. It should be a decent long term revenue stream in both reruns and DVD sales.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

CELLARDOOR

Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:24 PM

Well, I can't say the announced change to SyFy will change my viewing habits of the channel. Like several before me, I had pretty much stopped watching a few years ago (unfortunately I missed BSG after the miniseries, so I guess I'll have to DVD that). I'll punch in the channel on my remote, see another episode of Ghost Hunter, and then usually switch down to Scrubs or NCIS or SVU which are somewht entertaining and seem to be on no matter what time of day. "Sci-Fi" had been an enormous disappointment in the past several years, and I think it's about time they admit they are not what their name misleadingly claimed for so long...

Too bad; I'd probably have watched the channel if they had more quality material. At least they aired Serenity though!

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE