spainlinx0

Actually this show was on network TV before it ever went to the Sci-Fi channel. So again, it's another non-original show.

das Monkey

• Quoth Derrich •<HR SIZE=1>Having the head to the network villified and the programming degraded by under-informed online mobs could not have made it easy to attract new series.<HR SIZE=1>

Up to this point I had respected your differing opinion and enjoyed discussing it, but that's the end of that. Before dismissing those who disagree with you as under-informed, I suggest you at least check the accuracy of statements in your own posts. Enjoy your channel.

das

AGuyNamedMike

Derrich

Before this gets out of hand, I would like to reiterate that I'm taking this position just to be different. There are other posts in the forum that would shed light on my true feelings about the channel.

That being said, back to the dark side.

Whan a show is cancelled, there are many many factors that come into play. And only the shows creators and the network may know the full story. When Farscape was cancelled many fans pointed to statements by Ms Hammer about Sci Fi's commitent the the series. The creators also released supposedly confidential contract details that on the surface made it look like they were promised another year worth of shows. The full contract was never released so who knows what the whole truth is. But what we do know as the truth is that Farscape's ratings were down, it's budget was rising, and Stargate Sg-1 did much better in the same timeslot.

So even though Farscape had it's fans, it had grown too big to sustain itself, and SciFi's pockets are not deep enough to keep and albatross around it's neck, even a much loved albatross.

Londo

I hate coming in late on a conversation, but das, you're almost right, but the problem is not all Bonnie Hammer, the problem is the next monkey (no relation) up the tree..

One Michael Jackson, imported from the UK when Vivendi got their hands on the channel.

Herr Jackson has stated that "aliens, spaceships and comedy" have no place in Science Fiction.

That's why Farscape got had, ti just took him longer to do so.

That's why "The Chronicle" got screwed. He came in about the time the 6th episode aired. He put it on 'double secret' cancellation. The ratings were very good, the demos were execellent, the critics likes it.. he didn't care. Even their internal demographics showed and that on some weeks it got BETTER ratings than Farscape (the top performer).

But it was still cancelled.... yet continued to be touted as "a SciFi Original Hit".

this was after the 6th episode was aired. Instructions were given to NOT tell the production staff. They were even given indications that a second season was a given... they wrote a cliff-hanger. Still told nothing. Production contiued, finished, episodes in the can. Second season scripts written.

Told nothing. Till a month before pre-pro for season 2 was to start.. then told to shove off.

Even tho Herr Jackson had killed them many months before. It had aliens, monsters, humor.... no place for it on HIS SciFi channel.
(this story from someone inside the production staff).

(aside: Please watch and support Jake 2.0, Silvo Horta was the creator of "The Chronicle").

I only hope and pray that either NBC shakes some sense into them and sends MJ packing... or Viacom gos thru with their plans to make a REAL SciFi Channel.

Londo

BTW want to see a REAL SciFi Channel's schedule??? Lookie here

das Monkey

There's plenty of blame to go around, but Hammer has echoed the "no spaceships" comments in her press releases. She's also been at the forefront of mocking the intelligence and social aptitude of the channel's viewers. Whether she's just doing what she's told as the "face" of the channel or is making the decisions herself (probably a lot of both), I focus most ire on her, mainly because she's the one who has outright lied to the viewers in direct quotes.

Don't worry, though ... Jackson is also the object of much anger, as the guy doesn't know the first thing about quality science fiction. When they came through with all their declarations of how shows that took place in space or had humor were for losers, and I-Man got killed despite being the second highest rated show on the channel, and then they jumped on the Snow Bowl as an excuse to ignore incredibly strong West Coast ratings for To Live and Die in Starlight, I realized what was happening and that Farscape was next as soon as they could "justify" it. At that point, it was the highest rated thing in the channel's history. Over the next year, a 9 month midseason hiatus, a massive purchase of another network's ratings, and a bunch of timeslot changes, they found a way to drop the ratings a couple tenths of a point, and then they pulled the trigger.

For all the talk of budget and whatnot, the number one thing wrong with Farscape is that it had a spaceship, so I feel your pain on The Chronicle. Hearing you talk about it brings back a lot of memories of some of the behind the scenes stuff I saw when working to save Farscape, and it makes me sick to remember the levels of gutless deceit the Sci-Fi executives engaged in. While cancelling good shows pissed me off, I boycott the channel today because of the way they tried to manipulate both the fans and producers with premeditated lies and bullshit.

Re: Silvio Horta, he's friends with a good friend of mine, so I have been trying to support Jake 2.0. Luckily, it's a fun show, so it's easy to watch and enjoy.

das

Londo

das... well, when you have the chance, pass along praise both praise for Jake and The Chronicle. Gawd I would love to see one more two hour movie of that to wrap up the loose ends and to see Grace's daughter (oops...). At least I have my DVD-R's of The Chronicle to pop in every so often when I need a pick-me-up (I still think "The King is Undead" is brilliant stuff, as well as the Swedish Mafia hangin out in an IKEA store).

Derrich

Instead of looking to the past I suggest that we look at what SciFi is doing in the present. SciFi is still the home of more acclaimed science fiction television in the US than any other network. B5 and B5:Crusade are both on the schedule. Recently a large portion of the daily schedule was commited to showing the best Farscape episodes. Twilight Zone and Outer Limits (both old and new) are on the schedule. The original Star Trek is being shown on SciFi. Steven Speilberg's Taken is being rebroadcast. the list goes on and on. Instead of looking at the few things that may be a problem with the schedule, look at the all of the good SciFi is doing.

Bonnie Hammer and Michael Jackson have a vision for the future of Science Fiction television and it looks like their vision is being realized. Without the SciFi channel, the genre would be dead on US tvswith only a few bad syndicated shows to keep is staggering along.

das Monkey

Instead of "looking to the past" ... let's talk about all the old shows they repeat that were syndicated to death long before Sci-Fi consolidated their broadcast rights and would be syndicated elsewhere if Sci-Fi dropped them?

das

Chew

This thread is more entertaining than the channel.

Derrich

I see SciFi's consolidation of broadcast rights a good thing. A very good thing as a matter of fact. Instead of hoping that maybe(just maybe) a local channel will decide to buy and broadcast The Incredible Hulk at a reasonable time, you know exactly where it is. The SciFi channel. No more searching the TV Guide to see if some local independant is showing Wonder Woman. It's at SciFi. Want to see BattleStar Galactica and dont feel like staying up to see the 1am showing on some UHF station with poor reception? It's on the SciFi channel.

The SciFI channel is one stop shopping for classics like these. Otherwise, they'd be lanquishing in syndicated hell, fighting bad timeslots and poor distribution. It's easlily the best thing to happen for shows like these.

spainlinx0

Why would they show Farscape so frequently after cancelling it? If they feel that it wasn't worthy of renewing and finishing it's story, why would they feel it was good enough to run for practically a whole day? If the ratings were so "poor" why would they keep running it? That is what I don't understand about this channel.

ChrisHicks

they're just rubbing salt in the wounds...

tasha99

I lost faith in the scifi channel when they cancelled Farscape. The only way they could get in my good graces again would be to do a 20 hour Farscape miniseries where they finish the damn show.

tasha

Derrich

Ultimately it's up to the creators of Farscape to continue the story. There has been talk about books that continue the Farscape story. But really, the last episode of Farscape was a fitting end to the series. It encompasses many of the attributes that there fans were used to. Action, suspense, and a nice cliff hanger. To continue the series would just diminish it's legacy. Farscape would become a type of Galactica 1980.

Chew

Farscape isn't even capable of steeping to that level of suckage.

renaldow

Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits... shows being rebroadcast... I thought you wanted us to look at the present, not the past?

Sci Fi's only real sci-fi programming are 30-40 year old shows that were syndicated to death before Sci-Fi picked them up. These are all shows that an independant local station would show midafternoon on the weekends to fill space (before infomercials were created.) Hardly anything cutting edge or compelling. Why is that Sci Fi always trots these shows out as being some sort of spectacular showcase? They are hardly that. They are filler programming that at one time was bought by the pound (ST aside.)

Go here:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-m...4/03/14.00.sfc

For those of you too lazy to leave the thread it's a press release from 4/2002 stating from here on out Sci Fi is going to be presenting 4 original miniseries a year, starting in 2003. It gives a run down of the shows it's starting with. Out of all of the shows listed, only Taken has been shown, and Battlestar Galactica coming up. Where are the other shows? I'm assuming they have been dropped now for being 'too scifi.'

Sci Fi could have been a great channel, they chose not to be. Instead they decided to be USA jr, which is a sad place for any channel to be. Forget Braveheart, I'm still waiting for the day when Sci Fi shows 'Bring it On' and '10 Things I Hate About You.'

das Monkey

• Quoth renaldow •<HR SIZE=1>Forget Braveheart, I'm still waiting for the day when Sci Fi shows 'Bring it On' and '10 Things I Hate About You.' <HR SIZE=1>

I think it would be great if they showed these films. Many people enjoy them who do not enjoy science fiction. By bringing them to the channel, you would increase the genre as a whole, and everyone would benefit. It fits perfectly into Hammer and Jackson's vision for the future, and I would applaud them for it.

Sorry. I just wanted to try on the Coat of Insanity. You can have it back now.

das

spainlinx0

I'm not sure if he had the right channel, but my friend said one time late at night he turned on the Sci-Fi channel and they were showing the Flintstones movie. That might top Braveheart, although I don't know if it had Braveheart's cool teaser.

das Monkey

He had the right channel. There's a banner for it too, although someone hasn't posted it yet.

das

renaldow

The Flinstones is sci-fi. Talking animals and the 2nd movie even had an alien. It's hardcore.

Derrich

If Jurrasic Park is Science Fiction then why isn't the Flintstones.

SciFi is only behind on it's self imposed Miniseries quota by 1. Steven Speilberg's Taken, Children of Dune and the reinvention of BattleStar Galactica make for 3 well recieved and successful miniseries. The final 4 episodes of Farscape were serialized and could be considered one of SciFi's mini series. So as I see it, the channel is right on track.

Look at what has happened in the past year as a result of SciFi pushing the industry. More SciFi movies are being shown in theatres, more scifi themed shows are popping up on other major networks. This is a direct result of the SciFi channel making the genre not only fashionable, but accessable. The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, Jake 2.0, Smallville, Enterprise,the list goes on and on. All of them owe the SciFi channel a debt of gratitude for making Science Fiction viable.

Of all of those shows, only 1 is a spaceship themed oddessy. The others are character based shows that take place on the ground. This is exactly the direction that Ms Hammer said the genre was heading and she was right. Bonnie Hammer not only predicted where Science Fiction would be, she was able to position the network to be there first.

D

das Monkey

OK, I've gone from thinking you're semi-serious, to completely sarcastic, to serious, to a nutcase, to sarcastic again, back to serious, and now, you're either employing a form of sarcasm unique to even me or you've lost your mind. Come clean.

das

mllefoo

Flintstones = bad Hanna Barberra cartoon parody of The Honeymooners made into a pale lackluster movie with John Goodman.

Jurassic Park = Intetresting cloning concept gone terribly awry.

You *can* put them into the same category, but that would be like saying Ishtar is in the same league as Lawrence of Arabia. Sure, they both take place in a desert, but they aren't the same genre by any stretch of the imagination.