is braveheart the only one that got played on sci-fi?
did I win?

and TOS, Lost in Space, Space 1999, etc
there have been sci-fi shows, of different quality, on network tv for decades.

I don't consider sci-fi to be pure evil, but it could be so much more than it is. Showing anime would be more sci-fi related than some of that "horror" crap they show, stuff that's so lame it isn't even scary, just lame
I will reserve judgement of BG until I see it and will try to keep an open mind, but I still wish they had worked with Larson and Hatch to come to an agreement and allow Hatch's idea of the original cast 20 years later as the command staff with some new people playing the lower ranking people

I don't understand how Farscape's fans caused the show's demise? Are you really making that argument? Most networks would LOVE to have fans as devoted as those in the Farscape camp. To actually use that as a reason for its cancellation is beyond belief.

The way I see it, Sci Fi has made mistakes in the past, but those mistakes have been amplified by some. With it's large inventory of high quality original movies and innovative series, it's a channel on the same level as HBO. And it does it on a lower budget in a niche demographic.

Fans are a good thing. But fans that villefy the head of a network and attack other shows that take over their show's timeslot do not help matters. Eventhough Farscape was one of SciFi's top rated shows, it's fans refused to embrace new efforts like Tremors and Dream Team. So essentially, they were living on an island called Farscape instead of being a part of a nation called the SciFi channel.

D

Did you watch Tremors and Dream Team? I hope they weren't part of your "quality sci-fi programming."

Good answer. But not the one I was looking for.

I was going for a list of things that are NOT SF. Braveheart was a diversion. Now you're just trolling. Actually, I suspect you of trolling all along, which is just a step away from your admitted "Devil's advocate" role.

If you're going to argue a viewpoint contrary to your own, at least TRY to do it intelligently.

HBO had an acclaimed mini series by Steven Spielberg called Band of Brothers.
SciFi had an acclaimed mini series by Steven Speilberg called Taken.

William Hurt and Susan Sarandon(both a-list stars) were main characters in the Dune and Children of Dune series.

Edward James Olmos, an oscar winning actor, will head up Battlestar Galactica.

Stargate SG-1 was previously on Showtime.

That's a lot of high level talent going to SciFi. Sure, they don't have a
'Sopranos' or 'Sex in the City' break out hit, but I think it's only a matter of time before that happens. Whose to say there couldn't be Sex in the City on SciFi, but based in a space station. Or a Soprano-esque mob story set in the near future?

OK. You’ve redeemed yourself a bit there. Interesting arguments.

But, as has been discussed at length a year or so ago, taking a concept and throwing ray guns and flying saucers at it does not SF make.

My problem with your latest points is you lump together Buffy, Angel, Smallville, and Jake 2.0. Most recently Tremors and The Wet Dream Team. It implies a complete lack of understanding of the genre, a major complaint aimed at the current SciFi [sic] regime.

Taking it back to your original point, that the Dead to das Channel is diversifying and that’s a good thing, lets pose some more diversification with the intent of getting niche channels to the masses:

Baseball on The Golf Channel
Westerns on Food Network
NASCAR on The Weather Channel
Anna Nichole on – anything

Soon enough you’ll have ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/WB clones on every channel.

I mean, we already have AKC shows on ESPN. Whassup wid dat?

Hey, now alla sudden Apolla 13 is sci fi.

Last I checked, that story really happened. Oh wait, it happened in space, and qualifies as fiction since it's a movie. My bad.

Check again.

And, since Mitch Pileggi was on the X-Files...

Dude, you're getting your facts mixed up. Apollo 13 wasn't about landing on the moon. It was that one where the astronauts faked going to mars and then got chased around the desert by black helicopters.

Geez, don't you know anything?

Would it lend any cred to the fact that I met one of the "astronauts" when I was a year old? He shook my wee hand and I threw up on him. It was great.

I have no excuse for that. Not even a lame one.

They definitley could, and one thing is for certain: If they did, and the shows had a large fan base, Sci Fi would cancel it and show 40 year old Twilight Zones in its time slot.

There's one other way HBO and Sci Fi are a lot alike. Back when HBO was still young it decided to move away from its movie only offerings and start diversifying into sports that would usually only be found on ESPN. Just like Sci Fi is now diversifying into non sci fi related programming that would usually only be found on USA.

Viva la homogenization!

I loved it when that show tried to use Capricorn One as proof we didn't go to the moon.
"well, since this finctional movie was made about going to mars, the apollo 11 landing was obviously done the same way"
and they said it with a straight face

Now that Farscape has announced it will be returning for a mini series, I expect a lot of people will be changing thier tunes in regards to the SciFi channel(even if the producers decide not to bring the series back to the network that supported it for 4 years).

Last weekend I was visiting family and the SciFi channle was on. The Richard Grieco movie, 'Web' was playing. When I asked why they were watching it, the response I got was 'It's a new movie'. And looking on the schedule for the rest of the day, SciFi was showing a number of movies made in 2002/2003. Thats NEW science fiction being created for and shown by the network that so many people say is destroying the genre. When it comes to creating and developing genre films, no one does more than SciFi.

D

corrected

I do not understand how Farscape most likely going to another channel would make people think differently of the Sci-Fi channel. It would only make the Sci-Fi channel look even more like hypocrites if they were to bring it back for a miniseries considering they cancelled it for being "too expensive for its limited fanbase."

Why? The network did its damnedest to kill the show during what turned out to be its final season, then announced they were using a renig clause to get out of season five, something they had pruodly announced less than a year earlier that they were going to support.

Even if Sci-Fi airs it, you can't inspire goodwill by slightly undoing a massive injustice that you yourself committed.

And, if it doesn't air on SciFi, what reason would anybody have for changing their tunes in regards to SciFi?

When it comes to destroying great genre shows in exchange for developing lame genre shows and films, no one does more than SciFi.

No, it's not. SciFi isn't creating anything. Those movies were not created by them, financed by them, developed by them, or anything other than shown by them. Sci Fi buys straight to video clunkers and shows them on TV. Other cable channels do that as well, the only difference being that other channells don't try and push it off as original programming.

I don't think Sci Fi should be applauded for sticking to their programming genre.

Have you actually *watched* those movies? I mean seriously. I was house-sitting and bored that weekend, so I watched a couple. Sabretooth, starring that a-list first rate actOR David Keith, and noted shakespearian actor John Rhys-Davies, was just the best bit of science fiction I have *ever* seen. Really. It had the BEST computer generated kitty cat EVER, and it just done kilt all those bad people.

John Rhys-Davies really needs to get a better agent.

I guess the SciFi channel doesn't know the difference between quantity and quality, because they have been putting on an awful lot of crap lately.

With so many big happenings for the SciFI Channel lately, now would be a good time to focus on the good that the network is doing. This morning, I was pleased to see that the SciFi channel had dedicated some of it's valuable airtime to education. In particular, it aired a special about how the new Battlestar Galactica series would enlighten viewers about propoganda and jingoism during wartime. Not only was it an insightful topic, it was aired in Spanish, thus showing that the SciFi network embraces many different cultures. While other networks would stop at nothing to promote such a big event as BSG, SciFi took a timeout to fashion a non proomotional educational peice that can be shown in classrooms across the country.

In addition to the great Farscape miniseries news, it seems that the acclaimed Babylon 5 may be making a return to television. And I'd be willing to bet that the SciFi channel will be it's home. Not only has the network kept the original series and it's spinoff on the air for years, it now will be the home of the next B5 epic. Finally SciFI will have a chance to host a new part of the B5 Universe.

Excuse me? Is not SciFi airing a big mini-series event called "Battlestar Galactica" next week? How is any special about the new series not a promotional piece? It doesn't matter what spin they put on it, they're airing it to get people to watch "Battlestar Galactica".

Why would you bet that SciFi will be the home of any new Babylon 5? They show reruns, sure, but they're also the network that canned "Legend of the Rangers" for less than solid reasons and has endlessly announced that they are not interested in more space-based series. Besides, even if they were to get a new B5 show, I wouldn't have faith in them to air it to its conclusion rather than chopping it off short as they did with another well-liked, critically acclaimed science fiction series.

You know, when you started all this, you were proclaiming that you were just playing devil's advocate, but you're seemed to move well beyond that. Do you actually believe all this stuff you're spewing about SciFi?

Ever get the feeling you're being played?

It's becoming more and more obvious that the new BattleStar Galactica will be an important milestone for the entertaiment/sci fi industry. Before the educational program aired in Spanish early monday morning, I thought that BSG would be just another epic feather in sci-fi's cap. But now it's plain to see that it's much more.

BSG is a metaphor about man losing control over his own creation. This is one of the fiew times that a shoe talks about how technology can overtake and control humanity. BSG takes the themes touched on in 2001 to a new level, and the effects are sure to be bigger and better than the Kubrick film. But thats not all. BSG tackles the themes of youth clashing against the establishment. With a hip young Starbuck at odds against the fatherly Adama, its easy to see how this miniseries will strike a chord in both young and old for a long time to come. SciFi may be making a mistake marketing this mini series as purely entertainment, because in the future it's sure to be seen as a reflection of our society with lessons that students and teachers will be learning from long after it's initial airing.