Still Hope for Farscape

An anonymous reader wrote in to say that the "Save Farscape" campaign thinks there is still hope. If the next 11 episodes (starting Friday, January 10 on the SciFi Channel) pull the right numbers ). According to this interview with David Kemper:"If we were to do 2s, straight across the boards for these eleven eps, I would be expecting to have phone conversations with people immediately..." Of course that is pretty unlikely- but my household won't miss an episode. To bad the cats don't count in the nielsons ;)

Comments

Why save it?

[DevilM]

"kill your television" and live life to its fullest

Re:Why save it?

[clutch110]

So on the same token, should we stop going to plays or operas and live life to the fullest?

Isn't this the same thing, one person or group of people showing their creative vision to the world?

I agree, most of television is crap, but to disregard it on the whole is a mistake.

Re:Why save it?

[Seek_1]

Why save it?

Because Farscape just happens to be THE BEST SCI-FI show ever created! If you've watched it for longer than two episodes in a row, you'd probably realize this and come to the same conclusion.

SAVE FARSCAPE!

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

If you treat TV in a similar vain as say a play then I can see your point. However, most people just plop down in front of the tube and waste their life away.

Make TV a special event to be enjoyed socially with friends and strangers a like and then you'll have something. Until then, even the most creative content from TV can be better found somewhere else.

Re:Why save it?

[TheTick]

Should we avoid cinema too?

How about theater?

Should we throw away our books?

I'm curious: how much culture do we have to shed before we can "live life to the fullest"?

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

If you get your culture from TV then I can't really help you.

Re:Why save it?

[DAldredge]

Why does Farscape do the same thing to viewers that the 'Whacketts' show did to viewers in Max Headroom?

Re:Why save it?

[clutch110]

To this I will agree. I almost never watch television alone. There are the shows that I enjoy that my wife and family do not, but hardly ever do we waste away in front of it.

The kids would much rather play or read a book than watch something that is of no value to them.

Re:Why save it?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Because Farscape just happens to be THE BEST SCI-FI show ever created!"

No, Doctor Who was the best Scifi show ever created.

Efforts to get that show played on Scifi-Channel would be better rewarded. 25+ years of eps without the derivitive dribble.

Label me a troll if you like, but there's a reason that Farscape's being canned. There's an even better reason why DrW went on for so long.

Re:Why save it?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Snob. Everything around you comprises your culture. The Bible, Shakespeare, and Milton are culture, but so are "I Love Lucy," Titanic, and Nirvana.

Re:Why save it?

[PhoenixFlare]

Or maybe you could live life to its fullest, and stop whining about people wasting time on television?

At least write a letter to your local newspaper or something, instead of posting on Slashdot, of all places...

This might suprise you, but fanatically loving one show does not a couch potato make. A huge amount of people watch TV in moderation, something you should practice rather than saying "kill your television" over one cause/show.

Re:Why save it?

[toopc]

"kill your television" and live life to its fullest

Spend your time posting worthless comments on discussions boards instead! Now that's living life to its fullest!!

Re:Why save it?

[entrylevel]

I wouldn't go so far as to say BEST.SCIFI.SHOW.EVER, although how people can compare it to SG-1 is beyond me. "Powering up 100 percent! Captain. sir. Ti'lk, are you OK?" WTF?! Apparently it translates badly from the original whatever-the-hell-language it was originally dubbed in. My loss I guess. (I also don't care much for Anime.)

I much prefer dialog like "You have knowledge of time and the ability unravel events. I should kill you just for that." Does anyone remember that episode? In one scene Crichton gets thrown back to the first day he set foot on Moya, everyone except him is acting exactly the same, with the same camera footage and everything, but he reacts to everything differently. Just when you've had enough of the scene, he turns around, points to the back of his neck, mutters "tongue.", and Dargo wallops him in the back of his neck with his tongue. Then it cuts back to him face down on the island in the void with the Ancient. I thought that was some creative shit. Anyway...

If Farscape goes off the air I think it will be a loss. I'm no Farscape zealot (I'm lots of things, not just Farscape!), but if the SciFi channel cancels it only to replace it with Braveheart (I like the movie and all, but how is it SciFi?) and the X-Files (hello, I saw every good episode 6 times!), they will have just confused away another dedicated viewer. I won't boycott SciFi just for cancelling a cool (IMHO) show, but I can't watch channels whose programming choices give me a headache just trying to comprehend them.

Anyway, I'll watch all the new episodes when they air, or I'll tape them if I'm out. I truly hope anyone who enjoys the show even a little will do the same.

(On a side note: does anyone think Neilsen boxes actually exist (anymore)? Wouldn't it be easier to just put some kind of chip in the TV. I dunno, maybe call it a "V-Chip"?)

Re:Why save it?

[Evil Adrian]

It's not snobbish; just because something is a part of our culture doesn't make it good for the culture. Drugs would be a good example. So would the "everybody for themselves" mentality. Among other things.

Re:Why save it?

[fermion]

I would agree with you. At their best, plays, operas, movies, television, games, etc. provide a contrived social construct in which human relations may be formed. The art provides a basis for interactions, i.e. a couple may not have anything in common, but they can talk about the movie, or at the very least use the fantasy aspect to lower thier own inhibitions and make out with an otherwise unacceptable person. At the worst, these art forms create a substitute for social interaction. TV is particularly open to such abuse because it is so easily a solitary activity. It reminds me of something I once read in a sex ed book: masturbation is ok until in becomes an addictive behavior that keeps a person from proper social interaction.

In any case, all this is silly because we are really not talking about an entire art form. Losing Farscape is not going to sound the death knoll of the TV industry. However, I would agree with the original poster that some of the people who are so traumatized by the ending of Farscape might consider if their level of TV viewing is healthy. It kind of reminds me of the end of Northern Exposure. The cancelation was disappointing, but life goes on. I could not understand the people who got so angry over it.

Re:Why save it?

[robson]

"kill your television" and live life to its fullest

Yeah, we know what you think, Jonathan... :)

Re:Why save it?

[Patrick13]

At least you can get Farscape Episodes on DVD.

Or P2P them, but I suppose, that isn't really helping them out very much!

Re:Why save it?

[prnz]

No, Doctor Who was the best Scifi show ever created.

Efforts to get that show played on Scifi-Channel would be better rewarded. 25+ years of eps without the derivitive dribble.

Doctor Who was good but certainly not as consistently good as Farscape. Your memory is doing a good job of keeping eps like City of Death and Curse of Fenric while filtering out Timelash or Horns of Nimon.

And FYI, Doctor Who did run for a while on Sci-Fi channel. Mostly from the mid-Tom Baker era in their original 30-min format and heavily edited to add commercial time. Efforts to get that show out on DVD faster would be better rewarded that offering it as pearls to the USA network swine.

The reason Farscape is being canned has nothing to do with the quality or ratings of the show, except perhaps that quality is expensive and they don't get all the dough. USA/Sci-Fi channel would rather pimp crap shows they own and can milk for syndication than run something worth watching.

Just my 2c, not to be spent on any product advertised during John Edward,
Paul

Re:Why save it?

[shepd]

>"kill your television" and live life to its fullest

I tried that. Then I had to talk to others in life, and they had a real hard time understanding anything I was making a point on.

So, if you want to live your life fullest with a small circle of people separated by miles of land, hey, feel free. Myself, I like to talk to other about things. I consider social interaction living life to its fullest.

Yourself? What do you consider living live to its fullest, apart from TV?

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

I do own a TV, but I only use it for DVDs.

Re:Why save it?

[danielobvt]

God, I could never bring myself to watch more than 15 minutes of Dr. Who (or as I call it, Dr Snooze, best solution for isomnia).

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

>I tried that. Then I had to talk to others in >life, and they had a real hard time >understanding anything I was making a point on.
>
You couldn't talk to others because you didn't watch TV?

>So, if you want to live your life fullest with a >small circle of people separated by miles of >land, hey, feel free. Myself, I like to talk to >other about things. I consider social >interaction living life to its fullest.
>
How does not watching TV mean you can't interact socially? I've found there is more time for social interaction when you don't watch TV.

>Yourself? What do you consider living live to >its fullest, apart from TV?
>
There are plenty of interesting and intellectually stimulating activities one can do e.g. read a book, watch a play, discuss your favorite subjects among friends, etc.

Re:Why save it?

[moerbius]

What worries me is when they starting putting chips in me. BTW, I am a Farscape zealot. Far from simplistic SF formula, incredible make-up, muppets, fabulous scripting, sex = LIFE as we don't know it but should, not some sanitized if nevertheless interesting superficial pap like Star Trek (Enterprise excepted) or middle America which no doubt determines ratings.

Re:Why save it?

[Jonathan]

Guess what's different about cinema, theater and books compared to TV? A conscious decision to experience some content that interests one. While I suppose it is not impossible to only watch TV shows that interest you (TIVO and the like seem to point to such a future), in general most people I know who watch TV simply turn it on when they get home and passively watch it all evening, perhaps channel surfing to avoid something particularly bad.

Re:Why save it?

[TheTick]

TV can be experienced passively, as you suggest. It is not a function of the medium that it must be experienced that way. People make concious decisions to experience crappy books, movies, music, and what-have-you all the time. Why don't we see condemnation of those media as well?

Re:Why save it?

[moerbius]

Your 2c goes a long way. The problem is that the swine of the USA network live in a much larger trough than TV.

Re:Why save it?

[P. Niss]

Now Sci-Fi wants to cancel the U.S. Constitution too?!? Jesus Christ, and I was just trying to adjust to the thought of living without Farscape. Those fuckers have no shame. Maybe we all should get together and cancel them.

Re:Why save it?

[danielobvt]

I couldnt help it. When some AC brought up a show that I despise, it was just sitting there, waiting for me to use it (as bad as it was, when it popped in, it really did represent how I felt about the show. And sometimes bad plays on words just need to be used.) I see even you are getting into the spirit. ;) Suprised you rose to the bait....

Re:Why save it?

[Patrick13]

At their best, plays, operas, movies, television, games, etc. provide a contrived social construct in which human relations may be formed...TV is particularly open to such abuse because it is so easily a solitary activity.

uhh. I think you forgot that they are also entertainment! Anyhow, according to your definition, the invention of the book must be the very worst of these forms, because outside of "Story Hour" in your local public library, it is most definitely a solitary activity... Imagine a couple, not having anything else in common except a book they both read, and (gasp) discussing it.

Re:Why save it?

[entrylevel]

That's why I said "Anyone remember that episode?" Complex shows don't make much sense out of context. Whereas a simple show like, say, 7th Heaven, or, uhm, SG-1, make perfect sense with very little context. "Powering up! 100%!" See?

Basically what I was describing was a very adept and unsual portrayal of time travel involving excellent writing, good acting, and awesome cinematography, using footage from the pilot episode.

Otherwise, LOL and all that.

Re:Why save it?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"God, I could never bring myself to watch more than 15 minutes of Dr. Who (or as I call it, Dr Snooze, best solution for isomnia)."

Farscape == Fartscrape

Re:Why save it?

[Com2Kid]

• Snob. Everything around you comprises your culture. The Bible, Shakespeare, and Milton are culture, but so are "I Love Lucy," Titanic, and Nirvana

Hey, so do stories about cannibalism.

Mind if I come over, tear you to shreds, and eat you?

Oh, wait, WRONG DEFINITION OF CULTURE

Re:Why save it?

[Patrick13]

The obvious solution is that the SAVE FARSCAPE campaign needs to recruit the Raelians, that way they can make clones of the fans, and therefore increase the audience base.

Re:Why save it?

[blincoln]

25+ years of eps without the derivitive dribble.

I liked the Dr. Who of the 80s, back when I used to watch more TV.

When I was going to school up in Canada, the Sci-Fi network equivalent up there (Space?) started running the series from the beginning. It was a huge mistake, because the early B&W episodes are basically uninteresting to most viewers of today. I didn't dislike them, but OTOH most of the stories would now be compressed into five minutes or less of episode time.

Ratings were so poor that they never ran the newer (more interesting, IMO) episodes while I was up there.

Re:Why save it?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

How often do you read the bible?

How much of it are you familiar with? Do you know the stories of Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham and Isaac, Noah, Job, the birth and death of Jesus, the life of St. Paul? For a book that we're only exposed to for "trivial amounts of time," it sure is universally known, huh?

It's invalid to criticise this aspect of life because it's an aspect of life.

Not exactly, but close. I'm saying that it's invalid to criticize television on grounds that it is not a legitimate part of our culture.

Maintaining a sharp and healthy mind is a proactive task. Television is like eating twinkies.

Bah. Television is what you make of it. You can sit and watch passively, or you can consider and reflect and discuss just as with any other medium. And, of course, the occasional twinkie never hurt anybody. All things in moderation.

Re:Why save it?

[shepd]

>You couldn't talk to others because you didn't watch TV?

Others like to talk about TV. Not knowing anything about it makes it a conversation blocker. Perhaps where you live it was different, but for me, during survivor, I may as well not have existed.

Basically, I guess it depends where you live, and the type of people who you work with.

Re:Why save it?

[vrmlguy]

It kind of reminds me of the end of Northern Exposure.

Sorry, but the cancelation of Nothern Exposure was a mercy killing. I loved Northern Exposure but once Joel left...

The show tried to keep going, but its heart was gone. Hell, Joel's leaving was the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. Northern Exposure was a sophisticated remake of Green Acres. Yes, really!!! Joel was Oliver Douglas, an everyman who found himself in a weird, off-kilter world. So how did the character get written out? By becoming the weirdiest, most off-kilter character ever seen! It was a betrayal of everything that his character stood for. I continued to watch for a while, but gave up before the last episode ran.

Re:Why save it?

[Slashamatic]

You make an excellent point. The BBC had ocassional gems and DW was one of them. It was always on a low budget but many of the actors were so good that you could forget the cardboard scenery flapping around.

I would add that a long term series such as Dr Who is special but some very good shows cames out of British commercial terrestrial television, particularly Channel 4. One point is that the British show commercial televison interrupted by adverts rather than the other way round. The ads pay the bills but there seems to be less pressure to artificially rig plots to prevent channel hopping during the ads. This seems to result in a better show, whatever it it is.

As for your last point about '500 channels of mainstream crap' - I wholeheatedly agree. The shole poiunt of cable is that it was suposed to allow niche channels. Even Sci-Fi seems to be trying to move away from science fiction or even fantasy to concentrate on stuff like "Crossing Over".

Farscape owes a lot of what it is from Dr Who and Blakes 7. It is not a rip off,

Claudia black is hot

[Nicholas_D]

she may be 30 something..but she sure is cute!

Re:Claudia black is hot

[Ribo99]

She's only 29. At least according to IMDB.

I agree with your appraisal of her cuteness though ;) Plus she's a damn fine actress. If you have a chance you should check out the Farscape episode The Way We Weren't, one of my faves. She's spectactular in it.

Re:Claudia black is hot

[Subcarrier]

She is, and we all like women who kick butt, but what about that sexy voice?

Re:Claudia black is hot

[DoctorPepper]

Oh, please! she has the face of a horse. You seriously need to get out more.

Re:Claudia black is hot

[jadeshand]

Claudia has a classically beautiful face, like Katherine Hepburn and Meryl Streep. It's the cheekbones, they just keep getting better.

Check out www.claudiablack.de for some great photos of her.

ZIP?

[Roadmaster]

is the kemper interview long enough that they just *HAD* to put it in a zip file? or is it yet another ploy to counter the slashdot effect?

Re:ZIP?

[jx100]

then it should've been gzip, so at least some of us could read it directly in our browsers.

Nielsen

[CySurflex]

Nielsen ratings only apply to nielsen households which is a small percentage of the american public. If your TiVo or your cable set-top box was allowed to send back viewing habits info to the cable provider, the media companies would have much better numbers to go by.

I never understood why people always get so riled up by that prospect.

Re:Nielsen

[SirWhoopass]

I don't know how keen I am on having every ad agency in the country know my viewing habits, but you are right. The Nielsen rating only apply to a very small number of households. I would bet a lot of groups are underrepresented. How many single college kids living in apartments/dorms do you know with Nielsen boxes?

It would be interesting to see what happened if you could suddenly get viewing data from all those TiVos, digital cable boxes, and satellites out there. It might be like when album sales became directly tied to the sales register instead of clerk reporting. It was discovered that country music accounted for far more sales than was credited.

Re:Nielsen

[msobkow]

Personally I don't care what ad companies target a show -- I fast forward through the crap unless it catches my interest anyhow.

Here's a hint for the advertisers: make it amusing. I'll actually watch an amusing ad, even if I have no interest in the product. IBM, Blockbuster, and a few others seem to have grasped that; corps like GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. are still under the misguided belief that their ads have anything to do with which vehicle I end up buying.

Re:Nielsen

[Da w00t]

Actually, the TiVos -- all of them (except those without service) send back to TiVo what you watch. And, if you know where to look you see a build tag "NEILSEN_LOGGING" in the release version file, much like Red Hat's /etc/redhat-release.

Re:Nielsen

[JordoCrouse]

I don't know how keen I am on having every ad agency in the country know my viewing habits, but you are right.

I don't know how much I care about that. In my opinion, if they are going to broadcast an ad anyway, they might as well use something that appeals me as well as something applicable to my life situation (hint: more beer commercials, less tampon commercials).

I have yet to hear a compelling argument why targeted advertising is so bad, but if anyone out there wants to give it a shot, I'm all ears...

Re:Nielsen

[amuro98]

Your Tivo by default will tell Tivo the company what it is recording. Tivo the company uses this to compile aggregated data of what their subscribers are recording. This means they can say how many subscribers recorded Friends last night, but not which ones.

You can request that Tivo the company not collect this data from you.

Even so, I suspect the viewing habits of most folks here would just cause most marketting companies to throw out our data as "abberations" or "noise."

Re:Nielsen

[mobets]

It isn't so much that they collect viewing datta. What bugs me is when they collect data that can be traced back to me. I could care less if my watching a show incremented a counter, but as soon as they as they stick my name or account number into the database, I get a bit worried.

Re:Nielsen

[swillden]

If your TiVo or your cable set-top box was allowed to send back viewing habits info to the cable provider, the media companies would have much better numbers to go by.

Not likely.

Although I don't really know a lot about how many homes are used or how they're selected, I would be very surprised if the Nielsen system either has (a) too few homes for a highly reliable sample (it only takes a few thousand) or (b) a poorly-selected sample. Why? Because it's so easy to do it right, and so many people know how to do it right, that it just makes no sense to screw it up. If Nielsen weren't using statistical "best practices" (or close to it), there would be an opening for a competitor to come in and beat them by providing better data.

Were Nielsen to start including all Tivo users in their sample, they'd degrade their numbers, not improve them because Tivo users are not a representative sample of the TV-watching public. They are probably an extremely good sample of the TV-obsessed couch potato demographic, though ;-)

Re:Nielsen

[micromoog]

Nielsen is a highly respected data-collection agency. They have very rigid standards regarding their statistical methods, to the point where their margin of error is something like 2-3%. They take extreme care in getting a fair sample of the population.

Your method would be unscientific, with an overrepresentation of TiVo and cable customers. And Farscape would still suck.

Re:Nielsen

[skeedlelee]

You mention amusing adds and all I can think of is that old add (ran during the superbowl I think) where they fired gerbils or some rodent things out of a cannon into a wall with the company name on it. I can never remember the name, but the image of rodents smacking a wall, falling to the ground, shaking a bit then walking a way left an impression. Really no clue what they were selling though.

Re:Nielsen

[swillden]

Television pisses me off because more likely than not you're already paying for the video feed with an overpriced cable or satalite bill, yet they feel the need to tack on extra means of income by trying to force you to watch commercials that most likely you don't give a shit about.

Those are separate. The money you pay to get the signal goes to support the distribution network. The bulk of the advertising revenue goes to support the production of the shows.

Of course, a profit margin exists in both revenue streams, but, hey, the bills have to get paid.

If you are really that bothered by commercials, you have other options. You can buy all of the material you watch (DVDs, etc.); you might be able to find someone to sell you commercial-free material (you can definitely get commercial-free music); you can opt out and not watch; or you can flip channels/stations (essentially freeloading, although as in many circumstances, freeloading requires a lot more effort than paying). Really, there's no reason to get pissed off here, no one's forcing you to do anything. Decide what you want, decide what you're willing to pay, and figure out what falls in the intersection of those sets. If A /intersect B = {}, so be it. Try going outside.

In my case, I don't care about commercials all that much, but I can't get free TV (not legally, anyway; my brother-in-law is an AT&T broadband installer, and would hook me up for free, but I'm not into that) and it's just not worth paying for, so we don't watch TV.

Re:Nielsen

[Hott of the World]

Outpost.com! Just think of them as the Amazon that everyone forgot.

Re:Nielsen

[Gaijin42]

They wont use tivo ratings until everyone has a tivo. Tivo users are a self selecting group, high income, and geeky. Thats great, if you are marketing to high income geeks (So SciFi would love those numbers)

However, High income geeks are not the average household on there, and that is what the nielsons are trying to measure. The nielsons numbers would be worthless if they didnt base them off of a random sample

Re:Nielsen

[zx-6e]

Digital cable goes along way bridge this gap. With Cable-on-demand, the providers know exactly what you are watching...

Re:Nielsen

[AKnightCowboy]

I'll actually watch an amusing ad, even if I have no interest in the product. IBM, Blockbuster, and a few others seem to have grasped that;

The latest IBM ads are hilarious. "There is no magic pixie dust." :-)

corps like GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. are still under the misguided belief that their ads have anything to do with which vehicle I end up buying.

GM, Ford and Dodge seem to market their cars to males. Pickup trucks inevitably are marketed as "tough" and must have the obligitory 2 tons of steel/plywood/sand dropped into their bed by a crane. Blah. Like I'd scratch my $20k truck by carrying any of that shit anymore than I'd go offroading in a $40k SUV.

Re:Nielsen

[xagon7]

Nielson is part of the problem. They use a system called the Beta-Binomial and many other formulas to determine actual numbers from theor small demographic. Part of the problem however, is that Nielson only pays roughly $10 for a person to become part of their survey. The general demo for Farscape is people that make roughly over $50k/year, those (us geelk generally), ususlly could care less about the $10 to take part in the survey, just like the telephone surveys...so...the demos usually reflect average lower-middle class and poor families who "generally" only care about Monday night football and WWE Raw.

Re:Nielsen

[marekk]

This is completely false. While Nielsen households are not a completely random sample of the viewing audience, they are accurate enough to represent the viewership audience per show within an acceptable margin of error. Random sampling/surveys are a scientifically sound method of obtaining an overview of the whole.

If the Nielsen ratings weren't accurate, stations, broadcasters, advertisers, etc would be screaming for a more accurate viewership measuring system. The accuracy of the Nielsen ratings is essential to the surviability of the NielsenMedia company. If the people that studied these ratings (advertisers, execs) didn't feel they were accurate, they would be looking for a new parter to monitor ratings.

Re:Nielsen

[SirWhoopass]

The targeted advertising itself? No real problems. It's the information that they use to target you. Do you really want the world to know you watch 25 hours of Jerry Springer a month? What if your health insurance company bought that information and decided you watch too much TV, so they're increasing your rates?

I don't actually think this would happen any time soon, but it's the other side of the equation.

Re:Nielsen

[/dev/trash]

don't you mean Fry's?

Re:Nielsen

[Miguelito]

I'll probably regret asking this, but how the hell does owning a Tivo put one in the elitist category? Sure, they're not dirt cheap, but not everyone that owns one is filthy rich or a computer geek.

Hell, I'd think even if it were nothing but elitists, it'd balance out ratings more as the current crop of ratings seems to only account for complete morons with no brains.

Re:Nielsen

[amuro98]

I didn't mean that Tivo-folk and /.-folk have different or incompatible TV habits, only that to the big corporations such data would just confuse them.

If one nielsen house is supposed to represent 100,000 people, what do you think would happen if the studios tried basing their decisions off what Tivo or /. folks watched?

We're not the LCD.

We're not their market.

I once had a survery taker call my house and ask me which network I prefered: ABC, NBC, CBS. When I replied that I hadn't watched anything on those networks for over 10 years, she didn't even bother continuing the survey, but just hung up.

Pity. I was hoping to be able to tell ABC, NBC, and CBS why I wasn't watching their stations...

Re:Nielsen

[Optikal]

Sci-Fi stopped marketing to high income geeks long ago. They now market to middle-aged housewifes who enjoy wasting time watching pap like John Edward or the new swill by the name of The Dream Team.

Watch for Dr. Phil on Sci-Fi this fall.

Re:Nielsen

[stefanlasiewski]

If your TiVo or your cable set-top box was allowed to send back viewing habits info to the cable provider, the media companies would have much better numbers to go by.

I'd like to see the demographic of TiVo owners first. From my perspective, Tivo owners are mostly wealthy geeks.

Re:Nielsen

[Fapestniegd]

I knew one. He didn't have a box but he did do the diary thing. But the idiot didn't count things he taped to watch later.

Re:Nielsen

[Erasmus Darwin]

Here are the details on Neilsen's Tivo usage: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/05/184423 0&mode=thread&tid=129

It seems to only be for households that they already have an agreement with.

Re:Nielsen

[LMariachi]

If the people that studied these ratings (advertisers, execs) didn't feel they were accurate, they would be looking for a new parter to monitor ratings.

Right, and we should trust them on that, because TV and advertising executives are renowned for their analytical acumen.

Re:Nielsen

[watchful.babbler]

However, the precision drops as the number of viewers of a given show decreases. So, small enough viewership == large variance in precision. Not to mention that the Nielsen ratings depend heavily on pollee honesty.

Re:Nielsen

[mpe]

I have yet to hear a compelling argument why targeted advertising is so bad, but if anyone out there wants to give it a shot, I'm all ears...

The problem is that attempts at targeting advertising so far have involved using poor algorithms on questionable data. Hence the results don't tend to target very well, with a big risk of offending viewers.

Re:Nielsen

[mpe]

Those are separate. The money you pay to get the signal goes to support the distribution network. The bulk of the advertising revenue goes to support the production of the shows.

The advertising revenue goes to the broadcaster whilst quite a bit may then go to the production company it's certainly not a direct route.

Re:Nielsen

[Rogerborg]

You're assuming that when a high earner says "no" that they don't keep trying people in the same demographic until one of them says "yes". If they had a disproportionate number of respondants in trailer parks, don't you think the advertisers might get a bit miffed?

Re:Nielsen

[Sacarino]

Some of us actually use our trucks for what they were designed for, hauling stuff around. I move a lot of mulch and gravel and whatnot when working on my yard. Now, granted, i've never needed to have my shocks tested via a crane drop - that's just silly advertising, i think.

I totally agree with your point about taking your shiny new SUV offroad.... that "luxury ride" suspension and steering aren't going to be worth a damn after treating it the way you would a Jeep.

Re:Nielsen

[swillden]

The point is that your cable or satellite payment isn't enough to pay for both distribution and content, so the other poster's theory that he's being screwed twice is silly.

Re:Nielsen

[zerocool^]

While Nielsen households are not a completely random sample of the viewing audience, they are accurate enough to represent the viewership audience per show within an acceptable margin of error.

Most of us call "acceptable margin of error" College Students.

You think I'm kidding. How many college students are there in the US? They ALL watch TV. I've never even heard of a college kid with a neilson box. It doesn't happen. They say our tastes are too eclectic. What they don't realize is that, while we don't have all the money in the world, most of us are very impressionable, and would respond to targeted advertising.

Neilson ratings are why shows like Farscape and The Family Guy get the axe. Everyone assumes no one watches them because sophisticated baby boomers and pretentious 30-somethings don't watch cheezy-looking sci-fi channel shows or raunchy cartoons on fox. But I'm not above potty humor, and I'm certainly not above looking through the non-star-trek-budget cast and set to see the genious plotlines.

It's a lost cause. I hate to say it, and I'm still going to watch, but I think it's over.

~Wx

Re:Nielsen

[Winged Cat]

There are a lot of entrenched interests in keeping the status quo, even though everyone who has done honest analysis (which is a frighteningly small number of the decision makers) knows the stats are way inaccurate.

In truth, they market to the households that Nielsen measures, because Nielsen has brainwashed so many advertisers into believing only Nielsen numbers. Reality be damned.

Re:Nielsen

[kazzaerexys]

Random sampling is a sound statistical method if you can do some work to show that your sample population meets some necessary criteria. The greater the nonuniformities in the ground truth distribution, the less likely a uniform sampling method is to represent that distribution. There are any number of ways the results could get skewed by the Nielsens.

As for, ``If the Nielsen ratings weren't accurate...,'' well, how would one know? The point is that there is no alternative against which to compare the Nielsen results. The Nielsen system more-or-less props up the current economic model for television income and advertising, so nobody is going to gripe too loudy. If it turns out that low viewership shows, like Farscape, are underrepresented by the current sampling method, well that's just an extra argument to can them. However, since the comments that the SciFi channel folks have made on the subject make it sound like a declining viewer share has only just crossed the threshhold of profitability, then it could be a serious matter if that viewer share is, indeed, underrepresented.

The accuracy of Nielsen ratings is important to almost nobody. The acceptability of those ratings as the standard metric for advertising dollars...now that is essential to the survivability of the Nielsen Media company.

Re:Nielsen

[renderhead]

Hell, I'd think even if it were nothing but elitists, it'd balance out ratings more as the current crop of ratings seems to only account for complete morons with no brains.

Yep, they're called "average television viewers."

Basically, media companies can't put all of their marketing power behind products for all types of viewers, so they prioritize. Unfortunately, rather than actually take the time and effort that it would take to divy up their expenditures in a fair way (i.e. Largest audience gets most money, second largest gets slightly less, etc.), they dump all of their funds into the top two or three audiences according to their data. They can't appeal to the mean or median viewer, so they have to go for the mode. The mode is mostly sheep, a.k.a. idiots. That's the way it goes. *sigh*

Still Hope For BeOS

[Anonymous Coward]

An anonymous reader wrote in to say that the "Save BeOS" campaign thinks there is still hope. If the next 11 quarters (starting Friday, January 10 on the Palm Channel) pull the right numbers). According to this interview with David Kemper:"If we were to use NetPositive, straight across the Palm site, for these eleven quarters, I would be expecting to have phone conversations with people immediately..." Of course that is pretty unlikely- but my household won't miss a chance to resurrect BeOS. To bad the cats can't point and click ;)

Re:Still Hope For BeOS

[joe_bruin]

didn't you hear, beos is already saved. no money needed, but feel free to contribute code. in about a year, they'll be where Be was 3 years ago (which was pretty good, for 3 years ago). finally, a descent gui for my p2-266! now if they only had nfs. and a descent web browser. god knows they have enough irc clients.

yes, i'm offtopic. but i'd rather save beos than waste my time watching tv (and trying to save a tv show so i can waste more time watching tv).

Re:Still Hope For BeOS

[Eccles]

finally, a descent gui

A gui where you fly through tunnels in 3-D? :-S

Re:Still Hope For BeOS

[mmu_man]

There *is* a NFS client for BeOS, and an SMB client too, and a descent web browser (Mozilla and Phoenix) !
http://bebits.com

Re:Still Hope For BeOS

[mmu_man]

Oh, and btw, just overclock your K6-2 and you'll be able to watch Divx in BeOS :)
(I do on my K6-2 350 :))

Oh, and not to mention http://beunited.org and http://yellowtab.com ... BeOS still lives on :)

And btw, Farscape rulz :)

Nielsens

[szcx]

Of course that is pretty unlikely- but my household won't miss an episode. To bad the cats don't count in the nielsons ;)

Unless you have a box, you count for about as much as your cats.

Farscape at its heart was good..

[Hott of the World]

But for the life of me I couldnt get past all the freakiness.

My 2 cents.

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[steeleye_brad]

"But for the life of me I couldnt get past all the freakiness"

Thank God, I'm not the only one. I could never quite make sense out of Farscape. I must say, though, it had terrific special effects. The puppets and makeup was fantastic. But the plot was too oddball for me.

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[thelexx]

It was the freakiness that kept me coming back! ;)

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[Synn]

Every episode was like the characters had taken LSD.

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[MrLint]

Farscape was indeed freaky. But remeber it was billed as an 'epic' and in the best style of 'epic type' stories of the past they were all a bit freaky. go read some you'll see why!:)

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[Slashamatic]

From time to time, I thought that the writers had!

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[Slashamatic]

I disagree, it was freaky, but how else can you represent Harvey and his influence on Chrichton. However it was definitely good, and I guess the actors were having a lot of fun with the material as well.

Interesting show on cable (Trio)

[Microsift]

"Brilliant but Cancelled" described fan efforts to save cancelled shows, noting it is nearly impossible, once the final decision is made. They did cite one example of a show that was cancelled and brought back because of fan support, "Cagney and Lacy." The show was out of production and the actors and actresses had been released from their contracts, but they managed to get everyone back.

If Farscape is officially canceled, there's probably not much hope. One notable difference is that the shows featured on "Brilliant..." were all on one of the major networks, so Sci-Fi may play it differently.

Re:Interesting show on cable (Trio)

[TenDimensions]

Well, Star Trek eventually came back on the air after 20 some odd years.

Maybe our kids will be watching Farscape: The Next Generation.

Re:What about

[Seek_1]

People like Farscape because it's different. There's nothing out there that even remotely comes close to it in terms of storylines, and originality in costumes. Besides, everyone knows the war in Iraq isn't over oil. ;)

Re:What about

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Why are people so fucking gung-ho about saving a TV show, yet wouldn't lift a finger to help another human being?

Because nearly all other human beings suck.

Next question?

Re:What about

[willith]

Hey, it's easier.

Re:Fist Sport!

[GuardianBob420]

Damn strait!!! My cats like Farscape as much as the Cmdr's, how about an all-cat stand-in cast... we'll get one of them hairless ones to play Scorpy...

Re:What about

[Evil Adrian]

Especially those that don't care about what happens to other human beings.

Dont rely on viewer count machines

[nurb432]

Everyone still call/write si-fi after each episode and ask for more...

Be sure to mention content in each weeks show so they KNOW you are really watching..

We have a chance here, lets not blow it.

Re:Dont rely on viewer count machines

[jmoriarty]

We have a chance here, lets not blow it.

I share your pain, but we have no chance. In geek-speak, it's the Kobayashi Maru, we ain't Kirk.

The Trio channel ran an interesting series of "Brilliant But Cancelled" shows in December. (Including my much lamented favorite, Profit) They also ran a documentary on cancelled TV shows, and talked about Fan campaigns to save shows. The bottom line, straight from the horse's mouth, is that they just won't work. Period. Every case except the original (ST:TOS) where a show has risen from the grave was due to some other force at work. Even the show's producers said "Thanks, but save your energy."

Ratings = $. Letters = recycling.

Accept it

[core plexus]

I know some peole will get their knickers in a twist over this, but here's The Ugly Truth: Everything Dies. Just like the post about the science programme on BBC going off the air after more than 30 years, it has to end sometime. Best advice: Go out with a bang, don't wither and whimper. One more thing: less TV, more life.

Man Gets 70mpg in Homemade Car-Made from a Mainframe Computer

Re:Accept it

[grinwell]

Best advice: Go out with a bang, don't wither and whimper. One more thing: less TV, more life.

Ah, but what if instead of going out with a bang, it goes out with a never-resolved cliffhanger??? That's what Farscape fans despair of.

And one more thing: less good TV, more CRAPPY TV

Re:Accept it

[gwernol]

Everything Dies... Best advice: Go out with a bang, don't wither and whimper. One more thing: less TV, more life.

Agreed, except that Farscape was written to be a five season show. One of the things that makes Farscape so exceptional is that it has a huge story arc running over all five seasons. Killing the show after the end of season four is particularly brutal because the storyline will never be resolved. They only had one season to go.

Re:Accept it

[TrevorB]

Well, seeing as how the show was only supposed to last exactly 5 seasons and no more, and the show ends in a major cliffhanger, fans of the show are a bit bent up about it. In shows where overall story arc matter (as opposed to everything-back-they-way-they-started-when-the-epi sode-started shows), getting the last chapter cut out of your book can be fairly upsetting.

Babylon 5 was in a similar situation. After really struggling out of the blocks and looking like it was going to make it, there were signs on the wall that 4 seasons might indeed be it. JMS tried to wrap things up nicely to end the show after 4 seasons, and then notice that the 5th and final season would go ahead came late in the year. As a consequnce (and IMHO), the 5th season suffered as a consequence, feeling more like an add on set of minor story arcs. But at least there was closure if it only went 4 seasons. Farscape's just going to end mid-stream.

I think some people see this on the scale of New Line Cinema saying that LotR:Return of the King wouldn't air in theatres. (How much importance you place on both of these is a presonal preference)

Re:Accept it

[Doppleganger]

" The moderation system is inherently flawed; some cluess f_ck says the bleeding obvious ("everything dies") and some other clueless f_ck mods him up as "insightful", because both clueless f_cks are too clueless to realize the point..."

And then someone else mods it *down*, and gets called a "clueless f_ck" for that (or gets the standard "moderators are all on crack" rant, or the "dang slashdot moderator groupthink" rant, or the "don't moderate because you disagree, post instead" rant). And everything is evened out in the end.

Or, at least, that's the theory. It usually doesn't work too badly. And anyone who puts too much stock in the moderation points needs to be hit with a clue-by-four, unless the post has been modded down to "-1, flamebait" (in which case it's ok to put some stock in the moderation, but only if it's still taken with a grain of salt)

Re:Accept it

[cheese_wallet]

Ah, but what if instead of going out with a bang, it goes out with a never-resolved cliffhanger??? That's what Farscape fans despair of

I was pretty pissed off about this season's hiatus, what crappy way to do things. And then when I heard the show was cancelled, that bugged me too, but it's been so long since I've seen an episode that I don't really care any more.

I actually thought I missed the first of these last 11 episodes last friday, and I was only mildly put off. btw, the sci fi website still says it'll be on at 10pm eastern, instead of the actual 8pm. go figure.

Re:Accept it

[core plexus]

Your anger is directed at everyone and everything that you have no control or influence over. Me, the moderators, the gang at farscape and the sci-fi channel, your mother, and who-know-who-else. You know what's bleeding obvious?

IT'S A TELEVISION SHOW. Turn off the TV and go outside and play with your friends, or make some new ones. You'll either get over it, or die.

Re:Accept it

[plastik55]

What, so you had to be watching from season one to appreciate the grand story arc? What a great way to kill a show's potential ratings.

Re:Accept it

[Rob Parkhill]

Aaarrrgh! Anyone remember "Earth 2"? The first season ended with quite the cliff-hanger. Then there was no second season.

Amazing

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So they're hoping and praying for Farscape to pull in a 2 rating? Astounding. Firefly consistently drew around a 2.4, and yet Fux dropped it faster than... a... um... fast dropping thing.

Sorry. I'm having a figurative language problem today. I can do personification and synecdoche, but I can't pull off metaphor or simile. It's like....

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is due to the differences between broadcast and network television. While Fox is a broadcast channel that essentially every television in the US can get, the Sci-Fi Channel is only available to those who have cable, and in some cases not available with the basic package.

This means that there a fewer potential viewers for a show that is on cable instead of broadcast television, and expectations for ratings are different. If Farscape was on Fox it is extremely likely that it could get a 2.4 or higher rating.

Re: Amazing

[Black Parrot]

> Fox thinks it's a real network, and holds the bar a little bit higher than an offbeat cable network like SciFi. The WB would've killed for Firefly's ratings, but Fox needs a bigger pull...

Fox mismanaged Firefly so badly that it's hard not to believe some influential exec wanted it to die. They started by running ads that grossly misrepresented the nature of the program, then they decided not to bother showing the pilot, then, right about the time people's new-season watching habits were starting to solidify they bumped it two weeks in a row for some really crappy Thanksgiving specials, and finally, after announcing that they were going to do a media blitz to try to bump up the ratings when it started showing again, they hardly bothered advertising for it on their own station, let alone any kind of "media blitz".

The only surprise is that anyone bothered watching it regularly at all. More's the shame, because it really was a good show -- but you did have to tune it in regularly and learn a bit about the characters in order to appreciate it.

Re:Amazing

[Esion Modnar]

If Farscape was on Fox...

"Coup by Clam" (you either know what I'm talking or you don't) had the crew drinking each other's urine (dont ask). I like Farscape, the writing was superb, and the plot twists kept you guessing, but I doubt it would have lasted half as long on a broadcast network, even Fux. Or worse, Fux would have sucked the life out of the scripts by Season 2. By Season 3 it would have been an anemic Trek clone.

Re:Amazing

[glwtta]

I don't necessarily know much about these things, but a 2 on cable (scifi) is a lot better than a 2.4 on a network such as Fox. They just don't see that many viewers on basic cable. At least that's how I understand these things.

Re: Amazing

[msobkow]

I watched every episode they aired, hoping beyond hope that it would turn into something worthwhile. The only ep that was actually good was the one where the captain was being tortured by the old geezer pissed off by an incomplete contract a couple episodes before.

Hearing that Firefly was cancelled was the first time I thought there might actually be some functioning brain cells in TV executive land.

Farscape will not be renewed and here's why

[loggia]

USA Networks (which owns channels like Sci-Fi and USA) is following the current trend of "own your own shows and make more money."

USA Networks does not own Farscape.

USA would rather pump out garbage like Tremors: The Series, The Dream Team with Anna and Michael and other crap... because they own it and would reap the windfall if the shows become syndicated later on.

Now I did not say this plan makes sense. It doesn't. Disney has tried this with ABC and fallen to the bottom of the ratings heap. Far to the bottom. So much so that they are losing a tremendous amount of money on ABC. How is this better than working with a variety of production companies to create hits and making money the old way? It isn't.

But that is the current wisdom.

Also, USA Networks thinks showing the same programs on USA and Sci-Fi is a good idea and so is showing cheap black-and-white shows that get low ratings.

This is "smart."

Re:Farscape will not be renewed and here's why

[geekoid]

Actually, they cut it so they could run Takken.

Re:Farscape will not be renewed and here's why

[zerocool^]

Disney has tried this with ABC and fallen to the bottom of the ratings heap.

Bullshit. ABC = sports. ESPN = also owned by ABC/Disney. If you don't think that makes them all the money they want, you're sorely mistaken. I get 4 (FOUR) espn channels 24/7 (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN classic, ESPNews). Not counting the Pay Per View stuff (NCAA football, basketball, NFL sunday ticket, NHL center ice, MLB extra innings, etc).

Add to that all of the sports events that are on ABC (lots of college and NFL football games, national championships, etc) and ABC makes plenty of money. All the extra crap (what is it now, 12 secrets to dating my daughter, who also happens to be the celebrity mole) is crap, but I imagine they made an equal amount of money on the Miami-OSU game as they did on all their programming for the rest of the week combined.

Don't cry for ABC. Their ratings are fine.

~Wx

Re:What about

[AeternitasXIII]

You have thus struck upon the one truth of the human condition: only your condition and those you rely upon matter, despite what the millions of hypocrites out there continue to believe. Hate to be the cynic, but someone had to say it. Entertainment matters because it makes these people happy; a war with a bunch of people who were better off as tribal nomads than as slaves to Western oil interests doesn't make anyone happy...well, maybe Bush and Cheney, but we can scarcely count them as humans, let alone people.

Re:What about

[DAldredge]

No. People like Farscape because they did too many drugs while watching the Muppet Show.

Re:What about

[Twirlip of the Mists]

How many homeless shelters have you visited this week, Evil Adrian? How many meals have you given out?

Look, at least I'm honest about it. Generally speaking, I don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about other people. Neither do you. The difference is that I admit it freely, while you seem to be ashamed of the fact.

Nielsons ratings

[Ragetech]

I'm so pissed... I got called to record my viewing habits for a week for the Nielson ratings, but my week I'm supposed to "diary" what I watch is from last Thursday until this coming Thursday. I was kind of hoping to be able to record the new Farscape episode -- at least I got to put a blip on for last Friday's repeats, but...

Farscape is the only show I've watched, in the past five years, that I've followed religiously. It's hard to explain it to anyone how much you can get into it, but it was sooo well done; it's cancellation by SciFi really made me loose interest in T.V. -- besides The Simpsons, what shows are out there that are long lasting?

My girlfriend's Japanese, and she was telling me of this soap she used to watch that her father watches, that was on for literally 20 years. Unfortunatly, the tv execs don't invest in shows that much here. They want quick, easy cash... and eventually it's going to hurt them.

Ok, I'm rabling... go Farscape!

Re:Nielsons ratings

[DeepRedux]

Twenty years is nothing for a soap opera. The US soap opera Days of Our Lives has been on since November 8, 1965.

Re:Nielsons ratings

[Esion Modnar]

Most of them have spent more on their 6-car garages than you'll ever spend on three houses. Yeah, I'm sure they're hurting.

Slashdot the SciFi Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

If the SciFi Channel is planning to nix Farscape, we can at least demonstrate some interest by browsing their site. :)

Did anyone catch their "original movie" Dragon Fighter last weekend? What a cookie-cutter of a plot, predictable and silly. I swear these folks wouldn't know science fiction if Harlan Ellison tattooed it across their butts. Farscape may not have been high art (what on the tube is?), but they did manage to pull off an original episode once in a while.

A Nielsen Point...

[geddes]

A Nielsen point is the percentage of televisions in the US that tuned into the show. So a 2 would mean that 2% of the households with televisions in the united states (or roughly 2 million televisions) had tuned into the show. (More information at the Nielsen FAQ.

For reference, the most popular TV show last week was CSI, followed by Monday Night football. CSI got 13 points, Monday Night Football 11 (data here). So though a 2 isn't blockbuster (the lowest scoring show in the top twenty got a 6), it is still impressive. I don't know if farscape can do it.

Re:A Nielsen Point...

[gwernol]

For reference, the most popular TV show last week was CSI, followed by Monday Night football. CSI got 13 points, Monday Night Football 11 (data here [yahoo.com]). So though a 2 isn't blockbuster (the lowest scoring show in the top twenty got a 6), it is still impressive. I don't know if farscape can do it.

For further reference, take a look at this page which shows the Nielsen ratings for all four seasons of Farscape. For season 4 it was averaging around a 1.4, so getting up to a 2.0 is not a huge leap, but it is some work.

Re:A Nielsen Point...

[Sinus0idal]

Phew... I was beginning to wonder why Farscape couldn't pull a 2 person crowd!! :-) I didn't think it was that unliked!!

Priorities first.

[Anonvmous Coward]

Futurama.

Re:Priorities first.

[NanoGator]

"Priorities first."
"Futurama."

My kingdom for a mod point.

Re:Priorities first.

[Hayzeus]

Agreed. Cartoon Network, by the way, has taken it up and will be running it all this week (I think 10PM CST. Don't know if there will be any new episodes or not.

This information comes from my 12-yo son, but is probably reasonably reliable.

Re:Priorities first.

[Anonymous Freak]

hehe.. And YOUR post got the mod up... Oh, the irony!

Re:Priorities first.

[Eccles]

Cartoon Network, by the way, has taken it up and will be running it all this week (I think 10PM CST.)

'cording to TVguide.com, it starts this Sunday, with daily eps starting that Monday.

Re:Priorities first.

[jacoplane]

Some people, like me, would say that Farscape is a higher priority than Futurama. That being said, I don't think there's any chance the show can be saved. According to SciFi's Farscape cancellation FAQ:

Q: Have the sets been destroyed?
A: Although they were initially scheduled to be struck during the week of September 9, SCI FI Channel requested a reprieve as any possibility of saving the series was explored. Unfortunately, we understand that the sets will now be struck by Friday, September 20.

Seems to me that if all the sets have been destroyed, there's little hope of bringing the show back...

Re:Priorities first.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Some people, like me, would say that Farscape is a higher priority than Futurama."

I doubt it. Arguably, Farscape is a much more acquired taste than Futurama. It also is not on Fox's Sunday night lineup.

"Seems to me that if all the sets have been destroyed, there's little hope of bringing the show back..."

Hmm. Maybe. Remember the Back to the Future Trilogy? They rebuilt the sets for each movie and nobody could really tell the difference. They could rebuild just fine. They'd even be able to make up a creative reason for changes they couldn't recreate.

Thinking a little more about what you said, it occurs to me that the cost of rebuilding those sets could potentially drive the show into the red. Yeah... I see your point. The good news is that the sets can be rebuilt, the bad news is that they're budget driven and that could be a devastating blow.

Ouch.

Good thing Futurama's animated and doesn't have any sets. ;)

you count for about as much as your cats.

[kfg]

Or maybe less, judging from commercial content.

KFG

Check ad viewing

[Gorimek]

In that case they could also check who zaps through the commercials on the Tivo, and just don't count them for the ratings.

If I ran a network or was a customer of one, I would definitely want that info.

I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[lugonn]

I wish I could watch Farscape I really do. But the Gods have conspired to take away my illegal cable connection.

The John and Erin(sp?) romance is kinda getting stale anyway. I just want to scream "Fuck already David and Mattie!"

See what happens when you cancel a good TV show on a impressionable 10 year old? They grow up and expect TOO much from their sci-fi.

I can't wait to see Jersey Girl. I hate Kevin Smith.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[Anonymous Hack]

I'm only a new inductee to the world of Farscape; in fact i just forced myself to start watching after the last few months of "save Farscape" posts on Slashdot. I figured it might be another Babylon 5 or Blake's 7 - where it looks like some gay BBC show at first but then it turns out to actually be good. Of course it seems i was right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) and it is. Good, that is. In spite of the Fraggles. And the BBC reject actors. Almost as good as the Fraggles itself, in fact. I recommend it to any sci-fi fan.

One thing i don't understand, though, is this charming fan commentary:

The John and Erin(sp?) romance is kinda getting stale anyway. I just want to scream "Fuck already David and Mattie!"

Dude. Didn't they tell you in school the only social interaction guys are supposed to get excited about is in WWE? And real life, of course (but only if she's teh sexxxy). Sci-fi relationships are for geeks. Oh, wait a second...

Mmmm... Tasha Yarr... errr

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[mdwebster]

*spoilers*

They've had sex already, more than once, IIRC.
But when your duplicate dies that your girlfriend was having a relationship with and then she goes off and gets pregnant by someone else in order to save your life it kinda dries the intimacy up a bit ... :)

I *like* the fact that it's not a cut-and-dried relationship. Nuance, subtlety, texture ... Yeah, texture ... :)

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[splateagle]

The John and Erin(sp?) romance is kinda getting stale anyway. I just want to scream "Fuck already David and Mattie!"

interesting choice of analogy there: Moonlighting 'Jumped the Shark' when David and Maddie got it on, no matter how rosy your memories of the show are, the blunt fact is that after season 3 the show just wasn't itself anymore.

Personally I lost the plot with Farscape when my cable went out for two months and I came back to find half the caharcters gone and a bunch of new ones, but the consensus seems to be that (as yet) it's remained innovative, fresh, and insanely watchable.

For my money bowing the show out now is probably best. Sure it's sad when things end, but end they must eventually, and it's FAR better when they do it before they've started to rot.

PS the (sp?) - you got Erin right but Maddie wrong: it's two 'd's not two 't's ... There should be a David Addison-esque line there but I can't think of one...

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[Overt Coward]

you got Erin right

Actually, no. I think it's spelled "Aeyrn".

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[splateagle]

ta. I'll sleep better for that ;)

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[lugonn]

I'm trying to sum up all my Moonlighting memories from when I was 13 (season 3-4). The last thing I remember was David and Maddie arguing at Maddie's house, and David walking out on her and the show was over. I was like, "what the hell...that's it!" That made no sense. Why'd he leave?

That's exactly how I felt when Erin took off and left John stuck in space with no gas. She should just be happy there is still a John clone, or was he the real John. I thought they were the same. Who knows. Bring back the hot nymph with the white makeup, and shave the vegetable chicks head please (or was I hallucinating hair, can't remember).

"Blue Moon Detective Agency. Whenever there's trouble, we're there on the double!"

Wow, this whole posts made almost no sense...cool.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[lugonn]

They've had sex already, more than once, IIRC.

I see IIRC a lot, what does it mean.

Erin should get over it. The doubles were the same person. Drama I guess.

They should bring the wormholes, Tallon, Craise, and Scorpious back. That'd get the show on track again.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[splateagle]

Paramount Comedy over here in the UK finally started showing Moonlighting in the mornings again a few months back, and now that I have satelite not cable I can actually TiVo it (for reasons best know to flextech, Paramount only airs from 7pm on Paramount which is annoying) *anyway* I'm not sure why but they started airing it from the middle of season 3 (the eps recorded after the big unexplained production delays back in the 80s) I hadn't seen the show since I was about 12 either and eagerly started watching again... it was hugely disapointing: the spark I remembered flickered for a few eps and then fizzled completely, then (just as I was about to delete the season pass) Paramount started back from the first episode - it's now unmissable, my housemate to whom I'd raved about this show now understands why and until we catch back up with the end of season three (in a couple of weeks' time: it's on every weekday) we have some first rate TV... then I'll delete the pass, put the show back into the box marked 'fond memories' and try to forget that there were another three season's worth of shows made that never should have been.

To drag this kicking and screaming back on-topic, This is the kind of thing Farscape fans should be saved from by letting the show bow out gracefully - ending while it's still worth caring about is sad, but much less sad than having it trundle on for years getting gradually worse and losing its fan base until it's remembered as just another worn out Sci Fi series.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[lugonn]

This is the kind of thing Farscape fans should be saved from

Exactly! This is what I was reffering to with the whole reference to Moonlighting and Roswell. Both shows started out with great promise, then sputtered and died becuase the characters got muddled in emotional battles.

What made the shows so great was how the characters reacted in extrodinary circumstances. Then the shows focused on their personal issues, and all the action and excitment went down the crapper and the shows become soap operas.

They still show Moonlighting on Cable here in the states. It's on a 'for women' channel called Lifetime. Apparently, cable operators think the show only appealed to women, but really only the last 2 1/2 seasons did. Alas, since I have no Cable...I must stare at my Cybil Shepard poster.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[mdwebster]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them cancelling the show if they had given the production company advanced notice. As it was there was obviously some 'out' clause in the 2 year contract that allowed Sci-Fi to get out halfway through, but as things stand they more or less finalized the cancellation while they were taping the last show of Season 4.

What really pisses me off is they always end the season on a cliffhanger, so what we're left with is the final episode of a season cliffhanging for the start of Season 5 which will never come. That sucks.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[mdwebster]

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.

mmmm, drama.

Wormholes were a major player in the most recent episode and promise to continue to be for the rest of the show. Scorpius has been back for the last 5 or 6 episodes and, without spoiling you too much, Talyn & Crais aren't coming back.

Well, aren't they helping. . .

[kfg]

the cast and crew to continue to be able to feed their families? Helping starts with one child and one family at a time.

Support Farscape, for the children.

KFG

The sets have been destroyed.

[fava]

Not taken down and put into storage but destroyed with chainsaws and taken to the dump. Rebuilding all the sets would be very expensive, the ratings would have to be very good to justify it.

Re:The sets have been destroyed.

[Deffexor]

Actually, Ben Browder (and I think even David Kemper) said himself that the sets were falling apart after 4 seasons and that re-building them from scratch would have been cheaper and faster than trying to salvage them.

Though I agree that they are going to have to pull consistent 2s or higher in the Nielsen ratings to get this series saved. Anyway, I'll be watching. Too bad I don't have a Nielsen box. :(

Re:The sets have been destroyed.

[fava]

I dont even get the sci-fi channel so I cant effect the ratings even if I had a Nielson box. I discovered farscape about a month ago and am watching with the help of the p2p networks.

Yes, save Farscape!

[Scrameustache]

I don't watch it (mostly because the theme song is about as sweet to my ears as the sound of a cat sliding down a blackboard), but save Farscape, and then save Firefly , wich I do like : )

pleaaaase!

Re:Yes, save Farscape!

[amuro98]

Firefly was doomed from the start.

It aired Friday nights during that awkward summer/fall transition when everyone's either on vacation, or getting re-integrated into school life (eg. parties.)

Fox didn't air the pilot movie which explained who everyone was and what was going on, but instead aired that horrendous episode about the train robbery, which was easily the *worst* episode of the season. I'd heard the pilot movie was supposed to have aired back in December around Christmas (which would have been another brilliant move by Fox...)

Oh yeah, and don't forget about the baseball playoffs, which knocked out a few episodes, depending on where you happen to live.

Officially, Fox says the show is on hiatus until they find a new timeslot for it, but I don't think anyone here would be surprised if Firefly never came back.

Re:Yes, save Farscape!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... definately save firefly which fox totally messed up by showing all the episodes out of order... Now that they've shown the pilot (episodes 11 and 12), the whole thing makes a lot more sense.

Sadly it got cancelled before they even showed the pilot.

Do these people have a clue?

Re:Yes, save Farscape!

[startled]

"I don't watch it (mostly because the theme song is about as sweet to my ears as the sound of a cat sliding down a blackboard), but save Farscape, and then save Firefly , wich I do like : )"

Firefly totally shocked me by being excellent. I was expecting a show I might tolerate on occasion if I was really, really desparate. Instead, I got a show that was innovative and polished. Filming techniques and plot structures in many of the episodes were strikingly different from the same old crap pumped out night after night all over TV.

Firefly stands as a great show in its own right, not just as a good sci fi show. It's really unfortunate it got canned-- it'll probably open another slot for some shitty CSI ripoff.

Never mind Farscape, save Firefly!

[jefp]

Far superior program.

Re:Never mind Farscape, save Firefly!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a competition; save them both, and bring out new episodes of Futurama, too. Save the fabulous three F's: Farscape, Firefly, and Futurama.

Re:Never mind Farscape, save Firefly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at the very least make Enterprise LESS BORING

The Guiding Light premeired, on radio. . .

[kfg]

in 1937. It's still going strong on television.

Maybe you just need to take up watching soaps?

KFG

Re:The Guiding Light premeired, on radio. . .

[CableModemSniper]

Yeah, soaps last forever. Christ, my mother has been watching General Hospital since she was a kid.

Re:What about

[wurp]

Yes, which means you have almost no chance of ever improving, while Evil Adrian might be redeemable.

No hope

[grinwell]

SCIFI has no intention of renewing Farscape. The 2.0 would not only exceed any of Farscape's ratings so far, but would be the highest of any SCIFI series (except the "Taken" miniseries).

Someone even Graphed the Ratings

The Ramen Noodle Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how as the economy has worsened, that not only has the supply of Ramen noodles increased, but the price has dropped? I saw them today for 10 cents a pack.

How can anyone make a profit on 10 cents a pack? The answer is, profit is not a factor... its a government funded welfare program. The federal government is subsidizing the production of Ramen noodles during this period of economic decline.

Re:The Ramen Noodle Conspiracy

[Worminater]

actually, I believe roman noodles to be one of the greatest foods of all time for college students. Tuition for one semester: 10,000 Apartment per semester:2,000 Books:400 Food: 5 bucks a week +pizza money, ahhh

Save Enterprise!

[yobbo]

Oh wait it hasn't been cancelled... yet.

Re:Save Enterprise!

[mehip2001]

but we can hope

Re:Save Enterprise!

[spanky1]

Are you serious? Enterprise kicks ass! This is the first Star Trek series that I have gotten really into the first season. TNG and Voyager took me until the second season. DS9 I never really liked.

Re:Save Enterprise!

[nutshell42]

Considered how successful most of the "Save ..." campaigns are that could be just what we need to get rid of that uninspired junk. (no matter how much you like it, even the biggest fan couldn't call the Enterprise storylines "innovative")

Now we only have to start a petition against the cancellation and it's as good as dead =)

Re:Save Enterprise!

[faaaz]

I would be extremely happy if Enterprise got cancelled, and it should. Even the execs have hinted cancellation. Star Trek _needs_ new producers and most of all: new writers. Enterprise is basically the same thing as TNG and VOY, but with different actors and settings.

Whenever I watch Enterprise I get so bored that I fire up some computer game and play while the episode is on. In the end, I find that I haven't missed anything at all. Now, the time conspiracy might be exciting and all, but it's poorly executed.

I would cancel Enterprise. Then we could bury Star Trek with dignity instead of having it in the barn, sucking all life out.

Re:Save Enterprise!

[Slashamatic]

I wouldn't cancel Enterprise yet. It isn't so bad (better than a lot of Voyager, for example). But I wouldn't want to see it go past three series, I agree with you that Trek needs a long rest with maybe an occasional movie, but that is all.

Regrettably, Trek has become very much a formulaic "Milch Kuh" (Milk-cow) for the producers and it is clearly running dry. The producers have a way of doing things that permeates through down to the writers and the actors. Both may change, but unless the producers change, the show stays very much the same. B5 and Farscape have been more interesting for the viewers, and both were made on a very much smaller budget.

Re:Uh huh

[amuro98]

If cancelling one of their best rated shows is Sci-Fi's idea of "publicity" they deserve to die.

When Sci-Fi announced they weren't going to pick up Farscape for a 5th season, they not only got a lot of letters (yes, snail mail) from fans, but they also took a lot of flack from the industry who thought that Sci-Fi was essentially telling a large part of its audience to 'just go away.'

If this is some sort of publicity stunt, it's just going to backfire on them. Horribly.

Most of my friends think Farscape has already ended, not realizing that season 4 was only half completed. They've already stopped watching Sci-Fi, and probably won't bother with the new episodes later this month.

In fact, most of the hype about Farscape has come from the fans - not Sci-Fi itself.

Personally I urge folks to stop watching Sci-Fi altogether - and that includes the new Farscape episodes. Sci-Fi has come out and publically stated that they do not care what the fans think. It's also apparent from their upcoming schedules that they care even less about science fiction. In place of Farscape will be yet more "Crossing Over" as well as other shows about audience members dreams and supernatural experiences. Big whoop.

At this rate, the Sci-Fi channel will become the next MTV - a channel that has betrayed its original purpose.

Why is it

[Kizzle]

that every time there is a story about TV on /. there are 50 insightful people that brag about how they don't watch TV. So I like to watch some tv now and then, fuck off. You sit around and post on slashdot, one of the biggest time sinks there is. Am I the only one that is tired of this anti TV nazi bullshit?

Re:Why is it

[fiesty]

Shut up......Hahaha I told you to shut up..... I never really watched Farscape. but anyways STOP YOUR B*TCHIN'

Re:Uh huh

[keymygrip]

For all the prospective cancelling of FarScape that went on, Fox sure did cancel Firefly quickly.

I don't think this is particularly off topic and I know that Fox is not cable and really relies on ratings for advertising but I am pissed that Firefly is off the air after not much of a chance.

Maybe there is a trend or pattern emerging that people don't like to watch good shows. I think more accurately and not jokingly is I am finding a smaller demographic of people around me that like Science Fiction as I get older. At first it seemed odd, but even at my tech place of work less than a quarter of the people I know like Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Some of them did at one time but claim they grew out of it.

Anyone else notice that around them? I find it disturbing.

"Dragon Fighter" wasn't worth watching

[msobkow]

The overuse of multi-camera framing, weak plot, poor scripting, and general "made for video" feel of "Dragon Fighter" left me surfing after I'd suffered through the first hour. Whoever did the edits wasn't qualified to cut a home movie, much less a feature-length flick. (All they needed to complete the home-edit feel is have the camera constantly zooming in and out. Never give your parents a camera with zoom capability!)

Unfortunately, that is the kind of drek that SciFi pumps out now. Schlock horror that isn't even worth a video rental.

Farfetched

[tecnobabble]

I think it should be noted that its doubtful that this will amount to anything. Many of the actors have gone onto other things, and the Farscape sets were destroyed in october.

I have a Nielsens Box in my home..

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone convince me that it is worth my time to watch this show?

Re:I have a Nielsens Box in my home..

[Shipscat]

Do you have a couple of brain cells to rub together? I'm not being sarcastic here, but the reason Farscape is worth your time is that it doesn't "dumb down' for it's audience- it makes you think, and feel, and laugh, and surprises you- just when you think that you know what the plot is going to be-like every Star Trek episode- it does something entirely different and logical. It's visually beautiful, the music is magnificent, and the acting is superb. And they tell wonderful stories. And it has some of the hottest actors and actresses ever. Farscape is watched by a lot of people that aren't into watching TV. It's also watched socially, with get togethers and long discussions about plot points, science, and philosophy- remember the early days of X-files? Another reason to watch this show is that Scifi shafted its fans royally. They made a big deal about an unprecedented two season deal a year ago (with an unadvertised out clause) and then proceeded to have a seven month hiatus with no reruns and delayed the return of the show for two months without advertising, causing a lot of viewers to think it was already gone. Then , when the ratings declined slightly, and their newly bought Sg-1 did better, they axed it without warning. Scifi has consistently axed their second highest show, even when the ratings were good, then developed new programming to be axed. So watch it for all those people who trusted Scifi that it was safe for two years when it wasn't, and then had their letters, emails, telegraphs, and faxes ignored. If you have a box, you have the power that most of the viewers don't- you can be heard. watch Kansas, the episode showing at 8 Pm ET this Friday. I guarantee that even if you have never seen an ep before you will find yourself identifying with the lost astronaut attempting to find his way home- and you'll laugh your eema off. thanks for listening .;)

Re:I have a Nielsens Box in my home..

[bill_mcgonigle]

Probably not if you're not a Sci-Fi/Space show fan. If you are, you might consider that Farscape is the only Sci-Fi/Space show that isn't about a military crew. Quite the opposite, they're all escaped prisoners. The military folk (called PeaceKeepers) are the bad guys. The heroes are on the run from them. So, if you consider that there may be more ways to experience space than through the military, it's can be a fun show.

The problem that has befallen Farscape is that they're not very good about letting go of old characters. The big-bad from the second (third?) season, called Scorpious, is now living on the ship. This is the kind of guy most nuns would behead and who has tortured several of the crew. But the actor is pretty good, and his costume is creepy, so they kept him. They've invented excuses for why, but it's all contrived.

Additionally, the basic premise of the show is that John needs to get back to Earth. However, they've thrown just one or two episodes a season at the problem, only recently focusing on it (after it was too later). It's like the writers were afraid they wouldn't be able to come up with anything to prolong that plot line (main story arc - insert flashing red lights) so they avoided it.

Still, the show does come up with some real gems a few times a season, and has been known to display exceptional imagination and to not be afraid to experiment with the craft of TV shows (e.g. the cartoon episode). It's much better to see someone trying hard and occasionally failing than to see them playing out cookie-cutter plots and never succeeding.

But, hey, I'd be happy if John's caught a wormhole that wound up activating the Gate in the SGC.

you hit it on the head

[Lumpy]

To bad the cats don't count in the nielsons ;

If a nielsen family is not watching it, it doesn't matter.

I dont care if 97% of the nation watches and loves it if the 0.5% of the population that is a nielsen metered family is NOT watching it it DIES.

this is why nielsen ratings mean absolutely nothing today. they are numbers that measure very innacurately.

Re:you hit it on the head

[Gaijin42]

uh, you really dont understand statistics do you. a .5% (and I think its much smaller than that actually) RANDOM sample of the entire nation is a very accurate picture of the entire nation.

Re:you hit it on the head

[Lumpy]

please read the other post that answered my parent post.

it is not a RANDOM sampling. and it is horribly skewed. I've seen the data, and compared to what I see and there is Not a random and even sampling.

plus of the 2 nielsen families I knew... skewing is very typical...

"I love this show, I'm telling the box that all 5 of us are here and 2 guests are here"

It's horribly innacurate, because it is a tiny segment of the population.

Re:Uh huh

[realmolo]

Problem is, Firefly sucked. Sucks. Here's some news for all the people that like science fiction: Most Of It Is Bad. And if it's on TV, it's almost *guaranteed* to be bad. Too many fans of these shows don't realize that they are only fans because they love the genre, and are constantly in need of a fix.

Re:The tried and true formula...

[DevilM]

In Soviet Russia... oh shit their goes my karma!

Sorry guys...

[squireofgothos]

I think that if a letter writing campaign hasn't succeded yet, then it likely never will. The original Star Trek was extended for a third season thanks to letter writing, but at least the fans of Farscape already have more than that.
Just think though: One day you too might watch Farscape: The Motion Picture, which will be followed by nine more, and six other series based on the universe, until you truly wish that they'd left well enough alone...

That said, I'm going back to my cave to console myself with original Star Trek episodes...
(Yes, they sucked. But I didn't like the one episode of Farscape I saw either... Somebody 'esplain the Farscape attraction to me please?)

My cats & the Nielsens

[MacAndrew]

My cats produce better material than these Nielsen households enjoy.

I keep hoping they are not representative of TV viewers as a whole, but statistically I suspect they are.

Where the biggest errors may come in is where advertisers draw lessons from the ratings.

Catch your Nielsens here. Do you agree with the rankings?

Re:My cats & the Nielsens

[satanami69]

My God, it's nothing but football and crime shows!

Do you think maybe the two are related

Re:My cats & the Nielsens

[LMariachi]

Good example of Nielsen stupidity: They count "NFL Monday Showcase" at 9:00PM as a show distinct from "NFL Monday Night Football" at 9:07PM.

(And if you think "Yes Dear" holding the 14 spot is a bad sign for American culture, you must not remember when "Three's Company" was the number one show in the country.)

Re:Uh huh

[mehip2001]

I think people would like sci-fi more if someone really made something that is actually good. I try to check out as much sci-fi as I can and most is just garbage (sorry I lump FireFly in that category).
If the networks want a good sci-fi series maybe they should find someone besides the creator of crap like Buffy. Most of these shows are good tries but they meander endlessly.

Re:Uh huh

[Synn]

They should name this the MTV Effect or something.

1> Start something aimed at a specific small market.
2> Get a taste for money.
3> Ignore why you started in the first place and do what everyone else is doing(or actually, do worse stuff to just make a quick buck).

Brilliant but ... the Internet

[MacAndrew]

I note that "Brilliant but Canceled" was cancelled. (kidding)

The difference here may be the internet. The fan campaign would not be 1% as coordinated, or powerful in recruitment, without I can't even believe I find myself considering writinga letter or giving money to this cause. (See savefarscape.com.)

It's a long shot, but such are often the best shots. And the past may not be prologue. :)

Here's something they can do for Farscape

[sielwolf]

Stop showing it on Friday night! Contrary to what a lot of folks think, some of us actually go out and do social activity on the Weekends.

And no, Rosie Palms and her five friends doesn't count.

Re:Here's something they can do for Farscape

[finny]

some of us actually go out and do social activity on the Weekends

Whoa! What's that like!?

TV is dying (was Re:Uh huh)

[quantumpanda]

Anecdotally, I've found that Firefly suffered from an increasing apathy among the more sophisticated viewers.

One of my co-workers is as big a fan of good SF and fantasy TV as I am. But he refused to watch a single episode of Firefly. Why? He was certain, before it ever aired, that it would die early, and he didn't want to get into another show that was going to die midstream.

Let's face it: we have passed the point when any truly original show is going to get a decent chance to attract viewers. If it's not a hit right out of the gate, it's not going to last. (I'm honestly surprised that Andromeda hasn't been canceled yet.) Long-running genre shows like X-Files, Buffy, and B5 would not, if they premiered today, last more than a season. None of them were ratings giants at the very start.

Every single new series that I started watching at the beginning of this season, with one exception, has either been canceled by its network or given up on by me (which usually has preceded cancellation by a very short period). Most were both canceled and given up on. I fully expect two more of my current shows to end after this season (Buffy and Charmed).

I find my TiVo increasingly filled with non-fiction (mostly History Channel and Discovery Multichannel stuff) and reruns of older stuff I love (like Sci-Fi Channel's umpteen-times-a-day Twilight Zone reruns), and less and less new fiction worth watching. The last time I had to clear out my TiVo for anything was for Taken, and while I greatly enjoyed it, I'm not sure it was worth 20 viewing hours. I'm spending less and less time watching TiVo and more and more watching my growing collection of DVDs.

I still have hope that television can recover from its great creeping miasma, but that hope is waning fast.

Re: TV is dying (was Re:Uh huh)

[Black Parrot]

> I still have hope that television can recover from its great creeping miasma, but that hope is waning fast.

I think the broadcast networks are dead and just don't know it yet. (Or maybe they do know it.) Cable has killed them. You're starting to see informercials during prime time, for Christ's sake. And more and more of the remaining programming is the cheap-to-produce "reality" shite, sitcoms, talk shows, "entertainment" programs that are thinly disguised ads for the music and movie industries, etc., with an ever increasing erotic content to entice casual channel flippers to linger for a while.

In 10 years any of the broadcast networks that still exist will be unrecognizable as what you thought "television" meant when you were a kid.

Re:TV is dying (was Re:Uh huh)

[mpe]

I'm honestly surprised that Andromeda hasn't been canceled yet.

Isn't losing all of the original writers being cancelled by another name...

They Changed The Time Again

[TTMuskrat]

For those who want to keep trying to Save Farscape, here are some things you should know:

• The new "season" (SciFi's words, even though its still Season 4) starts this Friday, Jan. 10th.
• The time has changed AGAIN. It is now being shown at 8PM EST/PST and 7PM CST

I do believe that SciFi changed Farscape's scheduled viewing hour for the second time this season to further cut down on viewership so the suits could point to even lower Nielsen Ratings as a reason for cancellation.

So, for these next 11 Fridays, tune into SciFi channel for 1 hour, Support 'Scape, and then tune in to another station. :)

Re:They Changed The Time Again

[kalidasa]

The time has changed AGAIN. It is now being shown at 8PM EST/PST and 7PM CST I do believe that SciFi changed Farscape's scheduled viewing hour for the second time this season to further cut down on viewership so the suits could point to even lower Nielsen Ratings as a reason for cancellation.

On the other hand, perhaps 8pm is a better time slot. I know I'm more liikely to watch something at that time, and go out at 9.

Re:They Changed The Time Again

[japhmi]

So, for these next 11 Fridays, tune into SciFi channel for 1 hour, Support 'Scape, and then tune in to another station. :)

As long as you're their for an hour, stay for 2 and watch Stargate SG-1 (which, in my mind, is a better show).

OT I hate fox so much OT

[Scrameustache]

Fox didn't air the pilot movie which explained who everyone was and what was going on, but instead aired that horrendous episode about the train robbery, which was easily the *worst* episode of the season. I'd heard the pilot movie was supposed to have aired back in December around Christmas (which would have been another brilliant move by Fox...)

It aired in late december, I watched, it was good.

Officially, Fox says the show is on hiatus until they find a new timeslot for it, but I don't think anyone here would be surprised if Firefly never came back.

Fox is not buying any more episodes, and they aren't airing any of the ones they have in stock...

Go check out fireflysupport.com, they have details.

Sounds like blackmail to me.

[jabber01]

If the next 11 episodes pull the right numbers sounds an awful lot like Jimmy Swaggart's If my ministry doesn't collect 8 Million dollars... of a few years back.

Are TV execs so soul-less as to decide a show's viability by the number of eyeballs they deliver to advertizers, without so much as a moment's consideration for the inherent quality of the show itself? Oh whom am I kidding? Of course. The bastards!

How many avid fans of Shakespeare are there? Of opera and theater in general? Of reading classic books? Even of reading pulp instead of watching soap operas?

It's clear that "Good Taste" is the trait of the minority. Yet, it is utterly shameful that we live in an age where economies of scale and advertizing dollars are the sole drivers of the success of entertainment.

Why must good entertainment be relegated to the relatively well off, and sustained by charitable contributions of the wealthy, while the tripe is sold by the bucket, paid for by people looking to take as much money as possible from anyone gullible enough to not change the channel or walk away every 8 minutes?

Bah! Ok, I'm done. Who's next on the soap-box?

Re:Sounds like blackmail to me.

[Duds]

True and in essence I agree with you.

The problem is that farscape costs a butt load to make. Someone has to pay for that, if it's not on HBO or something it's got to be the viewer via ads.

And the advertisers will only pay if the people who buy stuff are watching.

tivo doesn't report stats?

[Narcocide]

i thought tivo *DID* report anonymous viewing stats? does anyone know for sure?

Re:tivo doesn't report stats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tivo doesn't include demographics in their viewing data; so they can't say whether a 20-year old with a miminim wage job watched the show or a 30-something yuppie with $100K income. So advertisers aren't as interested in tivo data since it isn't as useful.

Re:Uh huh

[Esion Modnar]

Any bets when Sci-Fi will change their name? How about:
"National Enquirer Channel" or
"Look-at-what-I-just-dug-out-of-my-ear Channel" or
"You Smell Something? Channel" or
"Go Away, We're Too Busy Sh8tting Our Own Pants Channel"

Re:Suicide by Cable Provider?

[Esion Modnar]

Get a dish, cancel cable, and be sure to tell the monopolistic b8stards why.

Neilson

[Cyno01]

My hosue got a Neilson survey, i was to late to save Firefly, but i tried my hardest for Farscape along with some other great shows.

Re:What about

[P. Niss]

I like watching the Muppets do drugs on Farscape.

DRM (warning flamebait)

[tqft]

If all your viewing devices were DRM enabled then the exact audience of Farscape (and the rest) could be known. The writers may even find out that type "342" viewers prefer sex scenes with strange aliens to those with the regular crew members. The advertising revenue would go up when they realised that ads for computers, cell phones and singles services worked, but that female hygiene products were ignored. You would then get shows the advertisers think you wanted at times that suited you. Wow. However, even if every TV etc was magically DRM enabled with a feedback path, do you think TV execs are smart enough to use the data?

Not a huge leap???

[uptownguy]

For season 4 it was averaging around a 1.4, so getting up to a 2.0 is not a huge leap, but it is some work.

...and you base this "not a huge leap" on what, exactly? A show that is in the crapper, at least according to the people who look at these numbers. And what about the amount of money it costs to produce each show? Farscape is a tremendously expensive show to produce. And to go from 1.4 to 2.0 means 50% more viewers -- that's pretty substantial, especially after four seasons -- you have to figure those who want to watch it ARE watching it. You'd have to have every other person who watches the show convince someone new to watch it, coming in for the last season...

We can talk about artistic merit all we want but last I checked, the business was a for profit one.

from...

[m1chael]

humble beginnings i started to get into the show more (probably into the brand new second series or so (in Oz)). this is due to lack of seriousness of it (unlike any trek show) and people/aliens actually have sex on a starship!

HOT LESBIAN HOOKERS IN SPACE

[Cyno01]

Lets try to bring back Firefly too while were at it. If you need a reason read the subject again and click here here and here and scroll about halfway down.

The Chronicle and SciFi

[DevilsEngine]

A very similar thing happened with The Chronicle. Though the show had not been on for as long as Farscape, it developed quite good ratings for SciFi. In weeks where new episodes aired, it was (with a couple of exceptions) the top show on the network. Then it was moved around, stuck on hiatus, brought back in fits and spurts, and finally strangled after a single season. The constant changes to the schedule and the lack of support for any program has effectively destroyed SciFi's ratings. When it started, The Chronicle pulled in over 2 ratings. Ratings in that range were a given for new episodes of Farscape just a year or two back. But as fans have learned that they can't trust SciFi, they've stopped watching. Why get invested in a series when a single season of episodes will be spread over a year or halted without warning? Science Fiction fans are more loyal than any other viewers on television, yet the SciFi Channel has managed to send them running in droves. SciFi is an perfect example of management to the point of destruction.

Re:Farscape Category?

[evilviper]

Could be... I may have just mixed-up 2 and 3. I'd have to go back and watch the old episodes to be sure where it stopped being interesting, and turned into a soap opera in space when everyone does nothing but bitch and moan at each other.

USA Networks...

[Obiwan Kenobi]

Also brings us The Dead Zone, simply be best sci fi show to come out in a long time.

The supernatural element is mixed perfectly with existing conflicts (ie, his relationship to his ex-girlfriend, his new found fame) and the first season was simply one of the best sustained-quality tv series I've seen in awhile. Now we get a big second season arc, dealing with the presidential canidate that's going to bring Armaggedon, on top of his now nationally renowned notoriety, has made for a fine season opener and promise of greater things to come.

I'll admit they've made some serious crap before, but between That Other Great USA Show, Monk (if you don't like it you haven't seen it), and the fantastic Dead Zone, I do believe that USA doesn't get it wrong all of the time.

Still hope, eh?

[Savatte]

What, does that mean they fired the current writing staff?

Re:What about

[RockyJSquirel]

Your kind of attitude is what makes the world a shitty place to live in.

You are worthless.

Hmm. This is an example of the sort of attitude that that makes the world wonderful?

I'm not sure if we need a:
"+1 Unintentionally Funny"
mod
or a
"-1 No Clue at all"
mod.

Though to tell the truth, I find your own narrow minded self rightious hostility more depressing than funny.

Rocky J. Squirrel

Why bother---

[Heartbreak]

trying to save a series that has had maybe three watchable episodes in the last two years? It's too bad about Firefly, though---it was actually getting interesting. Why not barrage various networks to pick it up, instead?

Re:What about

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Hee hee. Good one, Rocky.

Re:recently Neilson confirmed

[cel4145]

don't they know that farcape fans don't do neilson surveys? that's for boob tube watchers, not serious sci-fi fans.

besides, how do you hook one of those nielsen things to my ati wonder card?

Brilliant but cancelled

[CleverNickName]

I've heard of this other show that was brought back because of fan reaction and lobbying.

Some Sci-Fi show from the 60s.

Ordinarily, studios just don't listen to audiences, as counter intuitive as that seems, especially today, when most studios are just arms of a gigantic multi-national corporation (that's controlled by the Gnomes of Zurich with help from the girl scouts and the orbital mind control lasers)

Re:Brilliant but cancelled

[Sacarino]

They brought back Battlestar Galactica?

;)

Re:Brilliant but cancelled

[Rogerborg]

Uh, but That 60's Show did actually get canned, and it took ten years for the ashes to be raked over. Similarly, I don't see networks missing Farscape until it's gone.

But what do I know? Or rather, without a Neilsen box, what do the networks care what my opinion is?

Here's an idea.

[BLiP2]

I say we should all demand a seperate category for Farscape on slashdot. That way, and I mean this with the greatest amount of respect to Farscape fans, I can filter out all the stories confirming, yet again, Farscape is still canceled.

I mean my favorite TV show of all time got canceled too, but you don't see me whining about it. I have come to terms with the loss. I understand that its brilliance was to great for this world, and I will always cherish the memories of the time we spent together. That, and my collection of episode I downloaded from the net. Yay technology!

(Here's to you, Family Guy)

Long running shows

[Duds]

They're far more common in terms of factual shows, for instance the previously mentioned "tomorrows world" after well over 30. But there's a few here in the UK, possibly because it's very common for shows to skip years. (partly because there's usually 6-8 in a season).

For instance Red Dwarf has been around since 1988 but there's only been 8 seasons and 52 episodes. There's a film and a 9th being written, refreshingly, these will be shown "when they're ready".

I think a model like this could maybe save shows like Farscape, especially in a situation like this where you'll be rebuilding most of it anyway. Take a year or two off and return with a new and final season in 2004/5.

New episodes already on the BBC

[Natlaw]

The BBC is currently two episodes ahead of the USA and as we get the BBC here in the Netherlands, I have seen them.

From the BBC review (Spoilers!):
"Kansas (the next new episode for the USA) is superb. If only it had been shown before the cancellation decision, maybe Farscape would be headed for a fifth season now."

And I concur. Unlike the first shows of the fourth season, they are somewhat less 'alien'* and the pacing is slower, which (I think) is an improvement.
Certainly worth watching!

*less of granny's blowing powder and forward/backflashes

Well said

[Rogerborg]

Every time I see Angry Young Geeks declaiming that they'll do X or Y or Z to keep their favourite show on the air, I have to wonder why they don't understand that if you aren't in the Neilsen sample, nobody cares.

And why should they care? So you're an avid watcher of the show. Does that mean you're an avid watcher of the commercials?. No, so they don't care. You could try writing to them and telling them that you make >$100K and you watch all the commercials, but to what effect? They already know how many people with what income watch the show. All you're doing is identifying yourself, you're not altering the figures on which their decision will be made.

Fan protests and letter campaigns are a waste of time, as is campaigning to other fans, or even to the general public. What you need to do is to find Neilsen households, and persuade them to watch. I wonder how many Neilsen households understand just how powerful they are. In fact, I wonder how many corporations are covertly tracking them down (one way or another) and targetting them right now to skew the figures.

End of an era?

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Firefly, Birds of Prey, Farscape, Stargate (or maybe not), Dark Angel...

Is the age of "The Series" finally over?

What crap will we get instead?

Do you think that the availability of high quality episodes on p2p (350 and 700 Meg divx or xvid with mp3 or ogg sound) has anything to do with it?

I would imagine it wouldn't because the main audience for these is bound to be people who missed shows when they aired, or can't afford/are too mean to buy the dvds or videos, or don't live in the us and want the episodes NOW before they air (though as noted elsewhere Stargate and Farscape have aired earlier in the UK than the US).

graspee

Cats! How pathetic!!!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

WOW. Thanks for reinforcing the steriotype of Scifi fans as pathetic loners. I hope you and your cats are very happy together.

Sci Fi says no

[higginsx]

the head of Sci Fi Channel, Bonnie Hammer, said at the TV critics tour in Los Angeles today that she couldn't come to terms witht he producers for additional episodes.