I leave others to discuss your other points... I just wanted to point out that Sci-Fi (sic) had nothing to do with the Brave New World movie. It was made for NBC. They simply show it from time to time.

Well, if you were joking, now I'll never know.

<b>datagirl7</b>, I'm at work, so I'll have to wait until I get home to search. I was able to find them the last time someone around here made false accusations that this stuff was made up, but that was probably a year ago. At the time, all the data was still on the www.scifi.com website. I don't know if it's still there or if any of it is still on my harddrive. You may need to search other sites for it. The press releases with the most incriminating information are from late 2001 if I remember correctly.

das

I think Derrich must work either in programming or marketing at Sci Fi, or even possibly be a relation to Hammer. Me thinks he does protest too much.

Derrich, do you really think you're going to make anyone turnaround and say, "Hey, you're right. Their programming doesn't suck, and Braveheart is indeed Sci Fi!" Doubtful.

Anyone can say what they will, but the fact remains that the network went down hill after they stopped using the Sci Fi Santa. He was the best, and I looked forward to his songs. They still haunt me.

I'm the Sci Fi Santa, it's Memorial Day. I'm not supposed to be here, but I showed up anyway...

My favorite Sci Fi ad from the good ol' days was the Kevin Garnett "I am Sci Fi" one. He walked among the cosmos with spaceships firing upon him, and then proceeded to dunk a planet through its rings with authority. He then hung from the rings and growled, "I AM SCI FI!!!" Great ad. :up: I remember when I too was Sci Fi. :(

das

Following your "Taken" logic, I guess since "Smallville" has a spaceship in it (the ship that brought Clark to Earth) it must be a spaceship story as well.

The focus of "Taken" wasn't the ships, it was the people. I'll give you "Battlestar Galactica", but those two shows total compared to a year of SciFi's programming - well, that's a rather large gulf.

SciFi's become the dumping ground for cheesy movies, bad reality programming ("Crossing Over"? Give me a break) a gem or two ("Dune") and good shows run into the ground ("Twilight Zone", "Star Trek", "Babylon 5"). The one innovative show they had - "Farscape" - they killed. Now, please explain the logic behind killing off your #2 most popular show. I guess "CSI" and "ER" are next on the kill list on their respective networks.

ER's moving to Sci Fi Channel, no worries about a cancellation. You see, ER was created by Michael Crichton, who also wrote Jurassic Park. So, both are Sci Fi.

Just like Mel Gibson stars in Mad Max and Signs, thus making Braveheart Sci Fi.

Sean Connery was in Highlander and Outlander, so Finding Forrester is also Sci Fi.

Since Steven Spielger made Taken, Schindlers List is also Sci Fi.

I think I've hit upon the '6 Degrees' programming method that Sci Fi channel has begun using.

It's only days before they show Hudson Hawk...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mattrk
I guess "CSI" and "ER" are next on the kill list on their respective networks.

---

Following an earlier thread of "logic" from Derrich, it would be assumed that Sci-Fi will probably end up airing ER or CSI to draw viewers in. Their Braveheart/Flintstones combo brought over MANY viewers..

I'm guessing Derrich had a point when he first started responding, but now his replies seem borderline troll-ish. I mean, sure there are THREE sides to every story...but evidence [and history] has shown there's only TWO in this case. No matter HOW Derrich chooses to spin it..

But then, what do I know...i'm part of the "vocal minority"...

:lol:

:thumbsup: @ Derrich

4 pages later and there's still a bunch of people who didn't understand your first post :lol:

What does the Sci Fi channel need to do to redeem itself in some viewers eyes?
Attract big names? Done(Event Miniseries)
Show classic SciFi series? Done(daily blocks of classic scifi)
Update well loved shows in a modern format? Done(BSG)
Adapt classic science fiction novels? Done(Brave New World, etc)
Show new, original movies? Done(SciFi Originals)

It seems that the channel will forever be paying for past missteps. The cancellation of a series or two should not be the defining moment of a network. SciFi gives a show a much better chance at survival than other netwoks (for example Fox with FireFly and Lone Gunmen, TNT with Crusade,CBS with Now and Again and Brimstone). Many of those shows are either currently airing on SciFi or will be soon.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Rogue588 •<HR SIZE=1>But then, what do I know...i'm part of the "vocal minority"... <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would you say that? Perhaps you're the "underinformed online mob."

das

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth greydt •<HR SIZE=1>:lol:

:thumbsup: @ Derrich

4 pages later and there's still a bunch of people who didn't understand your first post :lol: <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
It made sense when I first read it. I even laughed at it and didn't respond to the first couple of posts. But over time, after chances for clarification, my opinion has changed, which is unfortunate. Turning back becomes difficult at this point.

das

:confused:

Forget Sci-Fi, anybody know what happened to the thread starter Scot1458?

90 posts later I'm still posting on a position which is completely opposite of my true position. I almost convinced myself. So to clarify it once more, I am defending the Sci Fi channel in this thread just to be different. To see if it can be done. I am not insane, but to take the stance I'm taking it is neccessary to make insane statements. I now return to the previously scheduled newspeak.

Today on SciFi's schedule is Dark Shadows, Babylon 5(letterboxed), Stargate Sg-1, X-Files, Retro PuppetMaster, the Twilight Zone, the investigative New Roswell, and no less than three genre films. To me, thats proof that the SciFi channel is dedicated to satisfying all scifi fans.



D

I had this long winded post but decided to just shorten it and give the basics.

-SciFi of then rocked.

-I loved tuning in at 11-12 to watch my daily dose of Twilight Zone and at 4 to watch Star Trek and Quantumn Leap. SciFi hates me so they retooled their schedule for the 100th time to piss me off. Well, that said, I don't tune in as often (if ever)

-The SciFi originals never look interesting to me. I think the Robocop and Tremors ones looked cool. I still didn't care enough to catch them. Actually, whenever they announce something, I ignore it. It'll just be another low production value turd parade that defaces it's franchise.

-Watching Sci-Fi/Horror films on cable sucks ass. It's pointless. Some of these films are known for gore and sexuality. I'll stick with commercial-free Showtime Beyond for movies.

-Why did they stop the Saturday morning anime thing?

-Stick with a consistent schedule already! The only thing consistent with that channel is John Edwards and how everytime I turned on the channel, he's on!

-Please put a 2 hour mandatory block of Star Trek and Twilight Zone. Without these two, the SciFi channel wouldn't exist to me.

Well that said, I don't know what the hell is up with the SciFi Channel. I used to like it. I still kinda do. It has so much potential but I can't put up with their bull crap. Pissing off viewers (epecially SciFi fans (your core audience!!)) is the dumbest thing you could do. What on earth is the logical reasoning behind it?

Hold on there buster. You can knock the Scifi channel and you can knock the movie based off the cartoon, but leave the Flintstones cartoon out of this! That toon is the shiznit, don't get it twisted.

BTW does anyone know where I can find the "I am Scifi" promos? I loved those.

Derrich, as a long standing member of the uninformed internet mob I must ask you to stop parading Brave New World about. NBC made that movie, not Sci-Fi, they just rerun it. You might as well give Sci Fi credit for the 1980 Martian Chronicles miniseries.

boredsilly, it's a well known fact that the Flintstones are an adaptation of The Honeymooners. Hanna Barberra has admitted it, and Mad (or was it Cracked?) once did a comparison in their magazine. There's nothing wrong with that, however.

Anyone, I never watched Farscape and I don't like Babylon 5. The thing that irks me the most about Sci Fi is that damnable John Edwards show.

Si Fi Channel, stop showing heavily cut Full Moon movies from the past 15 years and try showing the occasional 50's or 60's sci fi flick. C'mon, would it kill you to throw on THEM every once in awhile? Don't talk to me about cost, most of those movies are public domain now. Full Moon Theater was actually kind of cool, accept you moved it to 3:00 am and the movies were so heavily cut that they were unfollowable.

Yeah, baby. :) I missed your eloquent rants, das. Couldn't resist checking in now that I have a dvr and can actually keep up with my tv watching (spoilers aren't as much of an issue, at least for current weeks' shows). And I was going to make a rant of my own on how horrid usa2 is, but you saved me the headache.

I completely agree.

Hey, <b>Princess</b>!! Long time ... can we expect more of you around here, or is this a brief honor?

das

*sniff* I was missed. :)

I'll do my best to stick around - hopefully no spoilers will chase me away again. Since I got a dvr at the beginning of the season I've been able to keep up, so I felt brave enough to venture back. Plus I missed you guys. :) Thanks for the welcome back!

Don't forget to set your DVR to pick up Sci Fi's BattleStar Galactica on December 9th. The re-invention of the classic series should go a long way in showing that the SciFi Channel is dedicated to brining quality science fiction stories to tv. With state of the art effects, a young 'hip' cast, and a female Starbuck, BattleStar Galactica is set to become a classic once again. And it's only on SciFi.

With the news of the possible continuation of Farscape, the series that was cultivated and championed by the Sci Fi Channel, now would be a good time to point out all the other series that were saved in part or in whole by the Sci Fi Channel.

Farscape
Sliders
G vs E
Legend of the Rangers(Telefilm)
StarGate SG-1
Lexx
Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

All of these shows and their fans owe SciFi a debt of grattitude for saving them.

Thank You SciFi Channel.

killed on a cliff-hanger, nothing said about SciFi having anything to do with this yet.

Quote:

---

Sliders

---

Cheaped to death and dumbed down badly.. left hanging...

ditto...
You have the GALL to call this saving a series??? Are you born stupid or just a shill??? Delayed an eternity and then deliberately programmed against the BIGGEST FOOTBALL GAME of the year? Even tho East coast ratings were bad, the rest of the country were execllent.. but SlyLi ignored that.. it was dead before it aired in their eyes..

Somethings do have an 'expire date' that must be observed, not ignored.

Perhaps only the good thing done.. but the Bonnie-bridage killed it as of Jan'04... it's gone forever then.

Quote:

---

Thank You SciFi Channel.

---

.. for doing more in the past 3 years to destroy the SciFi genre and irritate and piss off SciFi Fandom...

Wow. Late once again. REAL late.

Coupla things.

To those who support the view that “SciFi to the masses” is a good thing, I submit that this approach will do (is doing) to SF what the internet is doing to the printed word. Hence the third season of Enterprise.

But, more importantly:Damn. Makes me wanna change my sig and go back to posting in Otter.

:D

Forgive me for asking as I'm part of the uninformed internet mob, but how in the blue hell is Lord of the Rings Sci-fi????????

Perhaps I missed the obvious, but please inform me as to how the SciFi channel making science fiction fashionable results in the Lord of the Rings being made. Last time I checked, LotR is the grand daddy of FANTASY.

Farscape & LEXX were both 'scifi originals' neither had been 'saved'. They were started and killed by the same channel.

OK they saved Sliders, G vs E, and Stargate. Sliders and G vs E sucked royally when switched over to scifi, but they did save them.

No credit for Legend of the Rangers since JMS proposed this to them. I think was even called as a scifi original movie in the promos.

So having fun playing devil's advocate?

What pisses me off is that they started airing The Incredible Hulk tv series for a few months then just stopped. No explanation, I checked the web site and even emailed them, NOTHING. Nice way to treat your customers SCI-FI.

If the objective is to get people up-in-arms, it still seems to be working. ;)

It was fun, then scary, now it's fun again.

SciFi Channel should take resposibility for not only saving the shows I mentioned above, but also scifi shows on bigger networks. Shows like Buffy and Angel are only possible because of the crossover fanbase that SciFi Channel has cultivated.

When SciFi switched focus and essentially told viewers that it was 'cool' to be into science fiction again, shows like Buffy became more popular. Where would Jake 2,0 be if the SciFi Channel hadn't created the hip scifi demographic. A concrete example of this phemomenon is Smallville. Before the new direction of the SciFi channel, the previous incarnation is Superman on TV was Lois and Clark, a show aimed at older audiences. But Smallville is mainstream 'teen' oriented, a group that simply did not watch comic book shows before the SciFi channel made it acceptable.

You say that as if it were a good thing.

I thought Taken was good and I'm glad they produced it.

Buffy, Angel, Smallville, Jake 2.0, Lois and Clark, Braveheart.

Pick the one that doesn’t belong.

Braveheart is about as much science fiction as Maid in Manhattan. Whats next? Reruns of One Day at a Time??

Wrong answer. ;)

I think thats it's admirable the after all the years of being on the air, the SciFi channel's only real mistake was to air Braveheart. A few non-scifi hours out of thousands of hours of quality science fiction programming is not such a bad thing. Compare it to MTV which has all but abandoned it's original 'Music Television' moniker to show reality shows and fluff peices. SciFi has strengthened it's lineup every step of the way, shifting focus at times, but always on the same course of airing enjoyable science fiction and fantasy shows and catering to it's fans.

Derrich, your lame attempts at defending SlyLi have been blown out of the water....

Aint-it-cool-News has a review of the 1st two nights of the BSG mini-series... http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=16490

this is what you call scifi???

Read the rest if you dare... but this is a trainwreck in slow motion.

To hades with SlyLi.

I really don't think SCI-FI saved G vs. E since the show aired on USA and they just moved it to sci-fi because they felt it was a better fit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Londo
Derrich, your lame attempts at defending SlyLi have been blown out of the water....

Aint-it-cool-News has a review of the 1st two nights of the BSG mini-series... http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=16490

this is what you call scifi???

---

Holy shit that was funny...

[waitin' for the spin..]

You can't take what is said on AICN with any amount of credibility. The reviewer admits to seeing only a half finished show with placeholder sound and visual effects. It's obvious that he was expecting a carbon copy of the original BSG and not the new re-invention of the series that SciFi has created. The same person that scoffs at attractive cylons has not problem with the attractive 'program' of Monica Bellucci in the Matrix. I sense a double standard. Battle Star Galactica will be a tour de force of story and special effects. And despite the crazed, expletive filled rantings of an internet 'reporter' I am sure that the public will applaud once they get to see the -completed- version of the SciFi Channel's BattleStar Galactica.

Have you seen it? He at least has seen an unfinished version. What is your review based on?

I base my opinion on SciFi's past triumphs. Dune, Farscape, Children of Dune, and Steven Speilberg's Taken were all critical and ratings successes. I don't see any evidence that SciFi's newest efforts will be any different. And when a reviewers starts the review explaining how he doesn't like to watch tv shows as if they're beneath him, it doesn't add to his credibility.

D