|
What happened to the Sci-Fi Channel?
Before I had kids I used to love this channel. Had some old series, some new stuff, and a mix of horror/sci-fi movies.
I've been watching the menu now, the only series/movie I recondize is Crossing Over which is complete bullocks to me..and all the scifi movies they have on I've never heard of before. Who watches this channel anymore? |
Uhoh, prepare for a sermon from das Monkey :)
|
Just to be different, I will defend the Sci Fi Channel in this thread( and only in this thread). No matter what follows, I am not insane.
The new SciFi Channel is not only aimed at the classic sci fi viewer, but also the younger hipper sci fi viewer, and the viewer who may enjoy science fiction programming but doesn't have a replica of the Enterprise in their home. Basically, the Sci Fi channel is everyones sci fi. With classic shows like The Incredible Hulk and Twilight Zone, new takes on popular shows like Battlestar Galactica, and groundbreaking series like Steven Spielberg's Taken and Children Of Dune, the Sci Fi Channel has programming for the science fiction fan in everyone. SciFi Originals are a chance for new visionaries to emerge. In an industry dominated by blockbusters and big stars, Sci Fi Original Movies allow a new breed of filmmaker to have their work shown on a major network. With stars like Richard Grieco, Leonard Nimoy, Bruce Campbelland Christopher Lambert lending their talents to SciFi's Original Movies it's only a matter of time before these films are regarding in the same light as the classics of the past. D |
What happened is only the most intelligant, charasmatic and artistically grounded studio head ever to take the reigns of a major tv studio, and it's name is Hammer. :)
I am prepared to take some poo flinging from das. |
Originally posted by Derrich Just to be different, I will defend the Sci Fi Channel in this thread( and only in this thread). No matter what follows, I am not insane. The new SciFi Channel is not only aimed at the classic sci fi viewer, but also the younger hipper sci fi viewer, and the viewer who may enjoy science fiction programming but doesn't have a replica of the Enterprise in their home. Basically, the Sci Fi channel is everyones sci fi. With classic shows like The Incredible Hulk and Twilight Zone, new takes on popular shows like Battlestar Galactica, and groundbreaking series like Steven Spielberg's Taken and Children Of Dune, the Sci Fi Channel has programming for the science fiction fan in everyone. SciFi Originals are a chance for new visionaries to emerge. In an industry dominated by blockbusters and big stars, Sci Fi Original Movies allow a new breed of filmmaker to have their work shown on a major network. With stars like Richard Grieco, Leonard Nimoy, Bruce Campbelland Christopher Lambert lending their talents to SciFi's Original Movies it's only a matter of time before these films are regarding in the same light as the classics of the past. das? |
After cancelling Farscape the SciFi Channel is dead to me.
|
The only thing I watch on SciFi anymore is Stargate SG-1...and I have to wait until next January to do that when the season begins again.
What I don't get is all the horror movies. That just turns it off big time for me. Give me SciFi dammit! I really think they need to syndicate ST:DS9. You can never have too much trek. |
:lol:
I could give you the long answer, but at the heart of it all is one simple truth: Sci-Fi Channel management (with Hammer in charge) hates sci-fi programming. They've even gone so far as to ignorantly mock their loyal viewers in press releases. The current mission of the Sci-Fi Channel is to avoid at all costs anything unique, original, or intellectual. If you think I'm exaggerating, I'm not ... that's really what they want. The more generic the network the better. Why they continue to call it the Sci-Fi Channel is beyond me, since what they really want already exists. It's called USA (Hammer's former job). There's nothing Sci-Fi about the Sci-Fi Channel, and nothing Original about their so-called Sci-Fi Original Pictures. What happened to the Sci-Fi Channel? Greed. They're dead to me too, and nothing short of a formal public apology for intentionally and maliciously lying to its viewers while sandbagging their two most popular shows will make me ever tune in again. Either that or Hammer's head on pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at her lifeless eyes and wave like <i>this.</i> das |
A multinational corporation sodomized them. (Short and accurate answer.)
|
Even shorter answer:
http://www.disturbingauctions.com/thumbnails/cymbal.jpg |
What some people label greed, I see as survival. For Sci Fi to survive, it must expand its core audience. Sure, we all loved Farscape, and Invisible Man has it's fans, but as the numbers show, even more people enjoy the new fresh direction the channel is taking. More miniseries, more stories about things that the average person can relate to, more diverse programming. That is what will make SciFi a last into the future while still providing the type of programming that can't be found elsewhere.
For hardcore science fiction fans, SciFi has shows like Babylon5, Crusade, and Twilight Zone. For casual fans, there's Crossing Over with John Edward and Scare Tactics with Shannen Doherty. And for middle of the road sci fi viewers, great shows like Stargate SG-1 and the new Battlestar Galactic will bridge the gap. The truth is that the SciFi channel is more viable and diverse now than it ever has been. D |
Originally posted by das Monkey Either that or Hammer's head on pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at her lifeless eyes and wave like <i>this.</i> das http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/gif/chars/vir.gif |
|
|
Originally posted by Derrich The truth is that the SciFi channel is more viable and diverse now than it ever has been. D |
Aside from Stargate SG-1, are there even any original-series's with new episodes still airing? I haven't watched the channel in a long time and am a bit out of touch. I think they need to get back with the good original series's again and drop the b-grade original movies and crap reruns.
|
The Sci-Fi Channel is anything but diversified right now. The words that come to mind are "homogenized", "derivative", and "repetitive".
|
They cancelled MST3K. They are dead to me.
|
SciFi has moved it's focus to original movies but there are still a number of original series. Scare Tactics and Crossing Over both show that the channel can reach out to non scifi fans while still satisfiying it's core audience. Stargate SG-1 is one of the biggest success stories in the industry and is one of the longest running genre shows still on the air.
When Comedy Central dropped MST3k it was the SciFi channel that stepped in and kept the show alive. There's no debate that the quality and popularity of the show had began to wane and it's a good thing that SciFi let the show end its run on a high note instead of keeping it on the air, slowly wasting away. There will always be people who believe that they can program the channel better. But in todays world, a number of different factors come into play when running a network. SciFi has done a good job of walking the line between a niche genre channel and a profitable mainstream one. |
It is sci fi in name only. When I had cable, I'd be confused by the proliferation of non science fiction/fantasy movies on the channel. I swear I saw One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest there once. Or maybe it was Das Boot. Either way, I was like :whofart: when I landed on the channel.
I believe the phrase "ill-trained monkey" comes into the equation when you talk about the channel owners and management. |
:lol: These posts read like press releases.
I don't want to get too deep into this argument other than to point out that <i>SG-1</i> is Showtime's series. Sci-Fi (sic) bought its ratings for quite a high price and then gave it <i>Farscape</i>'s timeslot. Using it as an example of their "original" programming is like giving UPN credit for <i>Buffy</i>. Another "Sci-Fi Original" ... <i>The Dead Zone</i>. Oh wait ... that's USA. Then there are "Sci-Fi Original Pictures" like <b>Shadow Realm</b> ... I mean two episodes of the Fox series <i>Night Visions</i> falsely marketed as a brand new film. Using the terms "original" and "sci-fi" to describe the current state of this channel is like calling President Bush an eloquently articulate orator. True Sci-Fi Originals are <i>Farscape</i> (cancelled under false pretenses and flurry of lies and deceit, finale falsely marketed as intended finale), <i>The Invisible Man</i> (cancelled, finale falsely marketed as intended finale), <i>The Chronicle</i> (cancelled), <i>Legend of the Rangers</i> (declined to make series, press releases on decision purposefully statistically misleading), and <i>First Wave</i> (cancelled). If you want to support their homogenized mediocrity, that's fine, but let's be honest about how "original" this network is compared to 3 years ago. das |
What I want to know is why the heck do they want to sue the gov't to release information on UFOs???? If it's so hard for them to make $$, why are they wasting what they have on this idiotic idea?
"Well, it's a publicity stunt!" I hear someone say. Come again? Just how does that turn into new viewers? Will they gain as many viewers as they lost when they cancelled Farscape? I used to watch most of the Sci-Fi channel's original programing. It wasn't all great, but it was interesting to me. So I'd have my Tivo get all of their Friday (?) night line-up and watch it over the next week. Then the shows started dropping like flies. So I stopped watching. The thing is, when I was watching, I'd see commercials for movies and series that they were going to show, and watch some of those too. (I got hooked on "Space: Above and Beyond" that way.) Now that I never tune in, I don't pay attention to what they are showing, so I never turn to Sci-Fi. <rant>One word on "Crossing Over." That is the biggest POS I've seen in a loooong time. Before every show they should announce "This is fiction with no element of science. If you believe that this guy talks with the dead, you are an idiot." I think it is morally indefensable that Sci-Fi is showing it. I'll bet there are thousands of people who have gone to psychics and other con artist trying to contact the dear departed after seeing this show. He's not even that GOOD at what he does. Geeze. </rant> -Videophile |
Man, The Chronicle is cancelled? It just started ariring on Space (our sci-fi channel, no relation other than buying some of sci-fi's stuff, i think) and i enjoy it.
Damn. That and Starhunter (not new, may not be a Sci-fi show as the international cast suggests a Canadian-European co-production, but i may be pulling that outta my butt as I'm purely speculating and really know nothing) are the only new shows i've started watching this year... Edit: Ah, Starhunters is partially produced by Alliance Atlantis. |
The channel has gone down hill fast. A couple years ago they had a good line up. Especially liked the Friday lineup. As I remember lineup was Farscape, Invisible man and First Wave. Now only watch it for Stargate.
|
Yeah, they pulled the plug about the same time they yanked <i>The Invisible Man</i>. It was a fun show. I miss it too.
das |
Sci Fi three years ago was a good niche channel. Sci Fi today is an up and coming player in the cable market place. What better way to legitimize a genre that by than having a successful network. Sure there would be people who would like to see Dr Who, Farscape, Star Trek and B5(in all it's incarnations) on 24hours a day, but the simple truth is that there is more to Science Fiction than the hardcore shows. Not everyone wants to wait 2 years to get hooked on B5. Not everyone can follow all the twists and turns of Farscape. But everyone can enjoy it when a monster jumps out of a closet in Scare Tactics. Theres not a dry eye in the house when John Edwards connects with a lost family member. Thats what the new SciFi Channel is about. Opening the genre up to the masses.
I would hardly call an emmy award winning event like Steven Spielberg's Taken mediocre. I dont think the star studded cast of Children of Dune is homogenized. And the upcoming reinvention of BattleStar Galactica proves that SciFi has the vision to use old classics in new and exciting ways. A female Starbuck, a Latino Adama, it's decisions like this that show Sci Fi isn't just for geeks, it's for everyone. |
I love Scare Tactics!!! Not that she plays a huge role, but I hope Shannon Doherty doesn't quit hosting if/when she gets that sitcom of hers.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/dvdtalk/rome.gif |
Opening what genre up to the masses? It sure isn't science fiction. <i>Crossing Over</i> is fiction and borderline fraud. <i>Scare Tactics</i> is monsters jumping out of closets. And what about <i>The Dream Team</i>? Not even the crowd who broadens the category of "science fiction" so far as to include space fantasies like <b>Star Wars</b> would consider this crap part of the genre.
They may be reaching a larger audience, but don't kid yourself into believing they're bringing science fiction to the masses just because they still carry the Sci-Fi name on the marquee. "SciFi isn't just for geeks, it's for everyone." ... I think you mean "Sci-Fi Channel isn't just for Sci-Fi, it's for anything we choose to air." What they're doing is the absolute worst disservice possible to the genre, and if you want it to be appreciated by the masses, I'm shocked that you defend these actions. They're sending a message to the world loud and clear that intelligent, thought-provoking, science fiction has no place on television, not even on the one channel named after the genre itself. It's not legitimizing the genre; it's destroying it. What's the next step in the evolution of man? I suggest we take Calculus, replace derivatives and integrals with identification of shapes and colors followed by nap time and cookies, and open it up to the masses. Not everyone can follow a differential equation. But everyone can enjoy nap time and cookies. What better way to legitimize Calculus than making it accessible to all. das |
But the SciFi channel does have deep, thought provoking shows. The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits and B5 all fit that description. SciFi brought the uncut version of Dune to tv and Blade Runner in widescreen. Lesser known, quality shows like Brimstone and Now and Again have had all of their episodes air on the channel. When Sliders was dropped by the networks, it was SciFi that came to it's rescue.
The SciFi channel has done more to save and protect the genre than any other network. 'Science Fiction' is being remade constantly and we're lucky to have a network flexible enough to change with the times. Bringing in younger viewers with shows like Roswell and Firestarter is neccessary because in a few years, all of the fans of your so called 'real sci fi' will be old and no longer a factor. For the genre to live on, the genre must attract a new generation of viewers. Sure, it would be nice if the schedule was packed wall to wall with AAA shows, but thats just not possible. For every person that loves Farscape, there are 3 that love Knight Rider or Earth 2. Why should those people be deprived of what they percieve as Science Fiction? To take your calculus analogy to another level, more people would enjoy and understand calculus if it were presented in a friendlier, more accessible format than a thick book and abstract problems. The same way more people will flock to science fiction when its presented in a easier, less 'intellectual' format. No one wants to turn on the TV to feel dumb. D |
Yeah, they pulled the plug about the same time they yanked The Invisible Man. It was a fun show. I miss it too. One thing I've learned from discovering all these shows after they were cancelled is that I tend to judge some shows too harshly. I gave up on SG-1 part way through the first season, but I've been watching a few episodes now that its on Space and it's pretty decent. Space up here isn't perfect, but at least they don't show stuff like Braveheart. |
I'm fine with using stupid shows as a gateway drug to more intellectual shows, but that's not what we have anymore. During the glory days of Friday Prime, they only had a couple of really great shows. The rest had broad audience appeal. Bring 'em in with an easy show like <i>SG-1</i> and hope you can lure them into something more challenging like <i>Farscape</i>. That's great. Bring 'em in with the T&A of <i>Lexx</i>, and hope they stick around for something a bit more cerebral like <i>The Invisible Man</i>.
Now it's bring them in with a derivative mini-series that contains no actual involvement from Spielberg, and hope they're stupid enough to hang around for idiotic programming like <i>The Dream Team</i>. To use the "make it more accessible" defense, there has to be a goal. If you lure people to calculus with nap time and cookies, you still have to teach calculus at some point and time, or what's the point. You can't just make it friendly to stupid people; you still have to teach it. There is no quality series on the horizon, no value to dumbing down the channel. They're not making science fiction accessible to the masses; they're just making stupid shows for the average viewer to watch and slapping the "Sci-Fi" name on it. That's not noble, and it doesn't help the genre. You have to have balance, and there is none. I'm not demanding wall to wall quality. There are no AAA shows anymore. None. <i>SG-1</i> is the best thing they have going over there, and it's not as good as it used to be, wasn't that great to begin with, and was bought from another channel. "For every person that loves Farscape, there are 3 that love Knight Rider or Earth 2. Why should those people be deprived of what they percieve as Science Fiction?" They're not. There are a good 20+ channels that would show <i>Knight Rider</i> and plenty that would show <i>Earth 2</i>, but there's only one possible home for a show like <i>Farscape</i>, and if they're going to parade around as the Sci-Fi Channel, then dammit, they need to have at least one original show on there that challenges the viewer to think. Preferably more, but having one should be a requirement. They have dick. Watered-down generic shows loosely based around fantasy can find a home on many channels. There has to be a home somewhere for the good shit, or else it's all a waste. There are hundreds of stations for the viewer not to feel dumb. Hell, even in its prime, the Sci-Fi (sic) Channel was 80-90% mass-appeal shows like <i>Quantum Leap</i> and <i>Highlander: The Series</i>. But if the best science fiction shows on television are shit on by the station that proclaims itself to be the Sci-Fi Channel, there is no hope for the genre. No matter how many viewers you get, if none of the shows have any quality or any relation to science fiction, everyone loses. In closing, **** Sci-Fi. **** 'em in the ear. das |
I'm sorta new to the scifi channel, only being a viewer for about 2 years. I used it to watch the full run of Babylon 5 and Stargate. Along the way I would watch some of the advertised shows. All I can say is that channel is a huge waste. With so many channels to choose from they give me little to no reason to even check and see what they're running. I just recently got into Farscape over the summer (dvd's and borrowed tapes) and I'm dumbfounded as to how they could have treated the show the way I've read they did. I understand they need to turn a profit, but what happened to being proud of a product and sticking by it?
I enjoy the day marathons (when its something I want to watch) but there is no consistent way to watch so many of the shows they run. They'll run a block of sliders and then it wouldn't be on for a week. They'll run Hercules and then nothing for ages. I'm even cool with the scifi channel also running fantasy/horror shows and movies because in my mind they all kind of go hand and hand. That being said lets stop running the crappy ass movies, get a decent schedule for the syndicated shows(so people like me can plan to watch), and stop milking stargate so hard. Overkill anyone? |
<center>http://scifi.com/fp/features/top_fea...eheart_pic.jpg
http://scifi.com/fp/features/top_fea...heart_text.gif 'nuff said</center> |
I lost interest in Sci-Fi because it seems they show the same cheesy low bodget movies over and over again. They used to have some great programming and would pop in some great unknown films (I first saw 'Cube' on Sci-Fi and Invisible Man was cool). Now, I could care less about what is on Sci-Fi. And, yes, Crossing Over is the biggest piece of S*** sham of a show on TV. I can't believe how people fall for such a fraud.
|
Derrich, while I respect your opinion of the Sci-Fi Channel, I have to point out one very critical flaw in your thinking. You credit Sci-Fi for being able to broaden their audience, adjusting their programming to appeal to a wider audience base. But that was not the original point of the channel. In fact, much as with other cable channels like The Technology Channel or The Anime Channel, Sci-Fi was originally intended to be a niche channel to provide programming for the science fiction marketplace, which, though not "mainstream", consisted of a strong base of generally literate, educated individuals with spending ability. This, in fact, is why, up until the last couple of years, the programming was diversified "within the science fiction genre". The schedule was a mix of original science fiction programming and classic genre series. The original programming did not reflect other series on the air on the major networks (unlike "Scare Tactics", which is a direct result of the proliferation of trashy reality series like "Fear Factor").
Yes, Sci-Fi does currently do the occasional "event" like a "Taken" maxi-series or a "Dune". And I give the network its due credit for being able to come up with quality mini-series like this. But also look at how they're promoting them. "Taken" was sold more off of Steven Spielberg's name than the concept. The "Dune" mini-series heavily promoted the big-name movie stars in each, William Hurt and Susan Sarandon. They're bringing people in by bypassing the science fiction aspects and promoting the personalities involved. And it gets them big ratings. For those programs. But the overall network ratings clearly indicate that most of the people they're bringing in with the personalities are not sticking around for their other programming. So, when it gets down to it, despite their attempts to broaden their viewer base, their core viewership still consists of the hardcore science fiction fans. And, unless the network is going to full-time run programming that can be sold on the basis of the actors and directors involved, they're going to have difficulty expanding to a mainstream base. That said, it's in their best interest to try and retain their sf core. Which means continuing to spend money on more dynamic, original, sf-themed programs like "Farscape", like "The Invisible Man", like "First Wave", and accepting that these will not do the numbers of a "Dune" or a "Taken" or even a "Stargate SG-1", but will help them maintain and grow their core viewership amongst the science fiction fans. What it comes down to is how they want their network to be defined. Do they want to be known for boldly inventive science fiction programming, with an occasional event project that will bring in a more mainstream audience? Or do they want the reverse, to be a mainstream channel that only occasionally produces something dynamic and original in the science fiction genre? I know what I wish they'd choose, but it's clearly not the choice they've made. |
I gave up on Sci-Fi after they got rid of g vs. E.
I wish someone would re-run that show. |
<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Rogue588 •<HR SIZE=1><center>http://scifi.com/fp/features/top_fea...eheart_pic.jpg
http://scifi.com/fp/features/top_fea...heart_text.gif 'nuff said</center> <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn. I thought the ground assault was going well. No need to drop the nuke in here just yet. das |
Originally posted by das Monkey Damn. I thought the ground assault was going well. No need to drop the nuke in here just yet. But, ya know...it got me thinking... http://www.theforumisdown.com/upload...oincidence.jpg coincidence..? |
I think this quote from a 1991 Bonnie Hammer interview illustrates much of the problem. It's her definition of sci-fi:
"It's anything outside of what we know to be true. Sci-fi is speculative fiction." She then goes on to cite 'Field of Dreams' as a sci-fi movie. So basically she considers any movie with any sort of fantastic element as science fiction. Still not sure where Braveheart fits in there... wait a minute, I see the misunderstanding now... http://www.movieconnection.it/schede/braveheart.jpghttp://www.reelcriticism.com/ziggyre.../letthatbe.gif |
<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth DRG •<HR SIZE=1>http://www.movieconnection.it/schede/braveheart.jpghttp://www.reelcriticism.com/ziggyre.../letthatbe.gif <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
:lol:rotfl:lol: Brilliant! :up: das |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.