Slashdot Mirror


What Has Fox Got Against Its Own Sci-Fi Shows?

brumgrunt writes "Dollhouse. The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Fringe. Three science fiction shows that Fox commissioned, put on the air, and — in the case of at least one of them — has won rave reviews. But why does it seem that Fox is trying to kill some of its own shows with crazy scheduling decisions? How can Fringe survive after being pulled for two months, and what hope is there for Sarah Connor and Dollhouse on a Friday night?"

48 of 753 comments (clear)

  1. Duh, what's new? They're Fox by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fox is NOTORIOUS for not sticking with their series (and have been for at least 15 years now). I can name a dozens of great shows just off the top of my head that they've abandoned over the years (usually after moving them around, not promoting them, etc.). In the new millenium, they've gotten even worse. They will cancel series now before they even finish a full season, even if they have the season already "in the can" (Firefly and Wonderfalls are two prime examples). Basically, if you agree to do a show for Fox, you better go into it knowing that it's probably not going to last long (count yourself lucky if they don't pull the plug after just a few episodes have aired).

    I once heard an explanation of why networks do this sort of thing. There is a lot of executive turnover at networks, and when a new programming exec comes in, the first thing he wants to do it to advance his own projects. You see, on his own pet projects, he gets to take full credit for them if they succeed. But if one of his predecessor's pet projects succeeds, he doesn't get to take any credit for it. That means that incoming execs have every motivation to kill off all their predecessor's projects (no matter how sucessful they may be) to make room for their own. So they will often take a show that is successful and start fucking around with it, just so they can justify cancelling it. You take your predecessor's big show, move it around to a shitty night, force a bunch of stupid "notes" down the show-runner's throat ("Hey, can you bring in a sassy robot? How about a cute, wise-cracking kid?"), and then don't promote it at all. Bingo! The show's ratings tank, and you get to go before the studio president and say "Gee, look's like my predecessor's show didn't have any legs. Now let me tell you about *MY* great new show..."

    Judging by how much this happens at Fox, apparently they have a *LOT* of turnover.

    Oh, and a special R.I.P. to my beloved "Strange Luck," cancelled after just 17 episodes.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Blinocac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems this would be a good opportunity for some bright young exec to step up and run with some succesful shows that are already in place, and get himself some recognition as the guy who didn't kill the good shows. But then, we don't have time for rational solutions.

    2. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do we have time to make a batch of Torgo's Executive Powder?

    3. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by PeterP · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reminds me of the first Family Guy episode after they got cancelled:

      Peter: Everybody, I've got bad news. We've been cancelled.
      Lois: Oh, no! Peter, how could they do that?
      Peter: Well, unfortunately, Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We've just got to accept the fact that Fox has to make room for terrific shows like Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonderfalls, Fastlane, Andy Richter Controls the Universe, Skin, Girls Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, FreakyLinks, Wanda at Large, Costello, The Lone Gunmen, A Minute With Stan Hooper, Normal, Ohio, Pasadena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddie, The $treet, American Embassy, Cedric The Entertainer, The Tick, Luis and Greg the Bunny.
      Lois: Is there no hope?
      Peter: Well, I suppose if all those shows go down the tubes, we might have a shot.

    4. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by coren2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is fox remember... there is nothing rational or thoughtful about it.

      It is fair and balanced however.

    5. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Funny

      The bright young execs are too busy managing to keep the "fair" away from the "balanced" over at the Fox News department, lest they meet and annihilate each other in a blissfully exothermic reaction.

    6. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by jonas_haase · · Score: 5, Funny

      whooosh

      --
      bad spellers of the world UNTIE
    7. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please no!

      That would mean that the roaches and the network execs would survive the zombie apocalypse. Can you see what kind of place the world would be? Those poor roaches. Think of the bugs!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except you didn't say it properly. Here, let me fix it for you!

      [FUNNY-FOREIGN-ACCENT]
      Ees funny, because all shows are now off air!
      [/FUNNY-FOREIGN-ACCENT]

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    9. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fox is like Circuit City. They cut their good stuff and bring in new and inexperienced stuff because it's cheaper. Every time a show becomes more popular, with each renewal, writers, actors and others negotiate for higher pay. Fox does not look for viewer loyalty and clearly does not see this as important to their bottom line. They, instead, seem to be focused on short-term gains and returns. They are the most capitalistic of the networks and the results speak for themselves.

      It doesn't matter to them that viewers who care about the long term enjoyment of a series will often avoid getting hooked into a show because it is run by Fox as there are plenty of people who are willing to watch and their numbers are sufficient and their advertisers don't seem to care either, which leads me to the next point. If you would like to teach Fox to behave and keep their best series, you have to complain to the ADVERTISERS, not to Fox. Fox will not listen to viewers -- they are short-sighted to the point that they take viewers for granted.

    10. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fox, cancelling more sci-fi? Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

      --
      Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
    11. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Rue+C+Koegel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i hear ya.... personally, i think one of the reasons the executives cut so much good programing is because of the messages they carry.

      firefly came off as a fairly anti-christian, anti-government, pro-confederate, pro-crime TV sci-fi/western.

      FOX's focus seems to be mainly on entertaining, not educating, and certainly not on encouraging intellectual conversation.

      ps: i'm currently watching FF for the first time.

      --
      DON'T CAPITALIZE! CO-OPERATE! AND FREE EVERYTHING!
    12. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Alright I took time to read the article, and I think it's just a lot of FUD. After all, Terminator and Dollhouse have not been canceled yet. And Friday is not automatically a death slot:

      Millenium - three year run
      Sliders - three year run on FOX plus two more on SciFi
      X-Files - a little known show of moderate repute that lasted 11 seasons

      Now granted FOX is known for canceling scifi and fantasy shows throughout the 90s, however Joss Whedon said himself that those execs are long gone. The new executives are willing to stand behind their shows and let them grow, especially if the show has a strong online following, as is the case with Fringe, Terminator, and Dollhouse. Bottom Line: I'm not concerned.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. DVR by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With DVR's becoming more and more popular, the time that a show airs is less and less important. Perhaps the execs realize this and are trying to work it to their advantage. Sometimes you need to take some risks to move forward.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:DVR by Talderas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Be honest now, are you a sweet transvestite from Transsexual Transylvania?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:DVR by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the networks don't really care if you watch the shows. They want you to watch the commercials. Most people who watch a show time-shifted are going to be fast-forwarding through the commercials.

  3. All I can say... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...is thank god BSG is on Sci-Fi channel and not Fox. Otherwise we'd likely have had only one season of it.

  4. Friday isn't all that bad by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Informative

    Friday isn't all that bad for Sci-Fi. The longest running sci-fi show in history, Stargate:SG1, spent most of it's life (if not all) on Friday nights. It's spinoff, Stargate Atlantis, also resided on Friday night as well.

    1. Re:Friday isn't all that bad by Blinocac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, just a hunch, but the typical Sci-Fi audience member, is not doing a whole lot on a Friday night that doesn't include painting figurines or rolling dice.

    2. Re:Friday isn't all that bad by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      And just to clarify, that should be longest running US-based Sci-Fi show in history. Dr. Who has the world record.

  5. And Futurama by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a lot of executive turnover at networks, and when a new programming exec comes in, the first thing he wants to do it to advance his own projects.

    That does not suffice for an explanation. You see, they must notice that the longer you leave a show in a solid time slot the more your established viewership watches it. Case in point: Futurama. I liked the show but I never knew when it was on so I often missed it when it was on the air. They moved it around to death!

    Even if they had put it on Saturday at 2pm I would have known when to watch it. Adult Swim is much the same--bad time slot but I know when it's on so I always watch it. Their shows get moved around way too much and as a result, it's harder for me to grow attached to any one show in a solid time slot.

    And don't tell me Fox doesn't know this, their syndication of The Simpson all through high school at 5 & 5:30 on weekdays was very popular. No, I attribute this to just sheer stupidity--maybe even the logic that if they move it around they will collect more viewers who normally don't watch the regular time slots.

    You would think thorough statistics would solve this problem ... but I'm not inclined to believe Fox has savvy executives in this respect. For all I know, they're moving around shows based on the number of complaints that are filed with the FCC from conservative Christian groups.

    I heard the Futurama folks were looking at doing another TV slot but were just too jaded from their Fox experience to wanna start it again. I think they should get into their contract a solid time slot on a day to ensure success. I wouldn't blame them if they opted to go the straight to DVD route forever or try to work something out with Comedy Central.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:And Futurama by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They moved it around to death!"

      And they wonder why people P2P TV episodes.

      If it's easier to look for a torrent, and download it than to just sit on a couch and watch your favorite show, then the TV people are doing something wrong.

      Maybe Fox pays less to Futurama (and any other show) for the first X episodes, then they start having to pay more? If that's the case then that might explain why they'll keep trying to churn shows.

      But on the flipside, most US TV series don't appear to really have "proper" endings, unlike many Japanese anime. So not sure how that works out.

      Maybe if Fox wants churn, they should start encouraging TV shows that end, and end properly as part of the arc, rather than something thrown together.

      --
    2. Re:And Futurama by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those 5 o'clock Simpsons episodes were programmed by your local station (which may have been a Fox station), not by Fox.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:And Futurama by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe if Fox wants churn, they should start encouraging TV shows that end, and end properly as part of the arc, rather than something thrown together.

      It would be nice for shows to have story arcs that end in a satisfying way, but that conflicts with the desire to make as much money as possible. As long as a show is popular, it will stay on the air. If its original story arc was only for 1 or 2 seasons, that arc will be extended indefinitely, or a new arc will be started.

      Even shows that were advertised as being a complete story arc ended up being stretched well beyond what they were originally intended for (see: Lost). Of course, that sort of thing usually ends up decreasing the quality of the show, which tends to mean that show will drop viewers. If it drops enough viewers, the show will be canceled before it can complete its (expanded) arc.

      The only way a show can reasonably expect to complete its storyline in a satisfying way is if a.) its storyline is not bound by time, so it could be wrapped up within, say, half a season at any point, and b.) the show is so wildly popular that it can keep going until the producers themselves decide it's time to wind it down. Very few shows meet those criteria, and so most shows end up dying without finishing the story.

    4. Re:And Futurama by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The fact that so many great shows have been canceled on Fox over the years and yet MadTV somehow KEEPS GOING ON AND ON FOR SOME INEXPLICABLE REASON was what finally turned me into an atheist.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:And Futurama by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's blend the two logics together.

      a) Show A is your favorite and it has pretty neat ratings on its current slot because people finally found out when it would be.

      b) Show B is new exec's pet project.

      Cue exec train of thought: "Hmm... That slot of Show A must be really good because it has killer ratings with the audience I want for my pet project..."

      The fallacy is that it's not the slot but the show that makes the ratings. Once you get a network exec to realize that, we might see more shows keep their slot and survive.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:And Futurama by sinclair44 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they put the SciFi shows on Friday nights because they think that the target audience doesn't have a social life and would take a break from their MMORPG or D&D game to watch an hour of TV and give the previous time slot to something that the mainstream audience.

      Hey, I asked my DM if we could break for Dollhouse the last couple of weeks, and he correctly pointed out that I didn't have my priorities in order!

      --
      Omnes stulti sunt.
    7. Re:And Futurama by ubrgeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder actually how much has to do with Rupert Murdoch (say his name three times and he appears, so be carefull.) There was an interview a few days ago in "Portfolio" with Paul LaMonica's discussing his new book, "Inside Rupert's Brain." From the article:

      MM: You describe Murdoch has having almost a kind of attention deficit disorder -- he gets obsessed with something for two or three years, then forgets all about it and moves onto something else. Recently, he's been taking a lot of criticism for his fixation on newspapers. Is it just a phase?

      PL: That one I think is going to be a little more difficult for him to outgrow. Clearly he did kind of have that phase with satellite television and with online media...but with newspapers, simply because it is a business he grew up in, it may be a little harder for him to let go that infatuation, especially since The Wall Street Journal is something he's hungered for for at least two decades. Anything that's a kind of ego-driven type of media business, which in many cases books and newspapers are, it may be difficult for him to give that up even if it's not fiscally a growing part of his business.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    8. Re:And Futurama by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You would think thorough statistics would solve this problem ...

      Here's my experience with statistics in a corporate environment.

      YOU: Sir, our team has completed our month-long analysis of the economic data. We've done preliminary data analysis, removed outliers, run a Pearson error test, t-interval hypothesis tests, and a Chi-square analysis. The confidence interval is (95%: 45.1 to 52.8) and you can see that in contradiction to your earlier theory, our findings are very strongly correlated, with P-value 0.0026.

      EXECUTIVE: Yeah, fuck off.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    9. Re:And Futurama by bigtomrodney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People love a show with a clear and ending arc. What it really opens up for is a chance to make a new show to build off where that arc ended.

      A strong example of this was the BBC series Life On Mars. It was two seasons, of eight episodes each. Every episode was practically a movie and could still be enjoyed standalone (though not as much as if you were following it regularly). What upset me about it being remade in America is that I knew that it would be dragged out as long as ratings were good but most likely cancelled before the story was finished.

      As it is the American show has been cancelled but not before they completed more episodes than the BBC series. So, for roughly the same amount of screentime they rolled the dice and lost. They could have concentrated on something solid and memorable but instead it became a cheap franchise.

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
  6. Duh, they're CRAP... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tried watching Fringe. It was a crappy low-rent X-files ripoff with little redeaming value.

    I tried watching Dollhouse. It was a crappy creepy low-rent show about mind-wiped prostitutes...

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Duh, they're CRAP... by GrayCalx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I lasted 5 minutes into Dollhouse. I recall there being a line like "Who cares, lets dance!" Allllright Wheddon that's where I check out.

    2. Re:Duh, they're CRAP... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, c'mon. Fringe is fun, silly fluff. Walter (Peter's crazy dad) is one of the best characters to come along in a while. People need to lighten up. You read message boards about genre shows, and everyone is so *serious* about it all, and act like they have been personally insulted if something doesn't appeal to them.

      creepy low-rent show about mind-wiped prostitutes

      You say that like it's a bad thing. ;-) I haven't watched it yet, so I can't say.

  7. The fix... by toleraen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just sprinkle a little Torgo's Executive Powder in Fox's water supply.

  8. Dollhouse? Meh by technomom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Firefly's handling was a travesty. Great show that was scheduled to death.

    But Dollhouse sucks on its own. It's Fantasy Island with anorexic girls.

  9. Sci Fi shows on Friday? by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It almost seems like fox thinks that nerds are more likely not to have plans on Friday night than other groups. Either that or maybe they think nerds are more likely to have DVRs? What are they thinking?

  10. Re: Firefly by brufar · · Score: 5, Informative

    I really enjoyed the firefly series after purchasing it on DVD, and watching the episodes in order. FOX seemed to do everything in their power to kill this show..

    1. Friday night scheduling.
    2. Airing the episodes out of order.. I mean HELLO ?? The order was 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 1; with 11 â" 13 unaired

    The wikipedia entry for Firefly contains more detailed criticism of Fox for their treatment of this series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Firefly_episodes

    Fox is definitely the last place you want to try out a new series. It's hard to start watching a new series on their network, knowing their track record for killing off anything that might be halfway decent.. Why bother getting interested in a show that won't be around tomorrow ?

    --
    far...out
  11. Re:Occam's effin' Razor by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow, that's some reception. I didn't realize you got Fox on your planet.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  12. Dollhouse is no Firefly by electrosoccertux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wouldn't blame them for pulling it. Episodes 1-2 were terrible. 3 was bearable, yet only because of a plot twist. Episode 4 actually went somewhere, finally had some of the clever banter between characters that made Firefly special. Finally starting to care about what happens to them.

    I'd say it's entirely Joss's fault if Fox wants to cancel it. I have better things to do than watch garbage like eps 1-2. Had I not gotten bored and ended up watching Ep3, I would have left and never come back. We know what Joss is capable of, and this certainly isn't it.

    1. Re:Dollhouse is no Firefly by flitty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fox did the same Episode Shuffle with Dollhouse that was done with Firefly. I heard a critic say that the Bow Hunter episode was originally episode 6, and some of the plot had to be cut out because it involved stuff that hadn't occured yet being the second episode. Also, the very beginning of the series, the motorcycle sequence, was a complete addition by the executives at fox.

      But yes, Dollhouse is no Firefly, due to Dr. Dusku's Horrible acting ability, and the fact that the only real "character" is the programmer guy. A blank slate is not a character.
      /rant

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    2. Re:Dollhouse is no Firefly by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My understanding is that thus far the shuffling has been largely done by Whedon, despite a lot of claims to the contrary. Whedon rejected the pilot, for example, as it just didn't fit together. The major issues with Dollhouse are that Fox has been, apparently, very heavy handed with the first few episodes (and given thus far we've had one good one, one OK one, and two dreadful ones [2, 4, 1 and 2, respectively], it's safe to say they've not done so to the show's credit. Supposedly Ep6 or 7 is where it starts getting "good".

      BTW, does anyone else have problems with the notion that Fringe is "Sci-fi"? To my mind, paranormal investigations are anti-sci-fi. But, whatever. I hope Fringe dies. And T:SCC, well, I think Friedman's entirely to blame what happened to it, not scheduling. The show has been utterly awful this season, seventeen shows (well, minus that cool one with Cameron spending her evenings in the library investigating the robot from the 1920s) of utter, unrelenting, depression. Unfortunately, I can't see how this could have turned out better, given that if Fox or WB had decided to take it over, we'd probably have a Ted McGinley terminator chasing the Connors by now, with the Connors defending themselves using their hilarious new canine terminator.

      Someone give Friedman some anti-depressants.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Dollhouse is no Firefly by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't agree with you more about the Firefly movie. Joss Whedon seems to be of two minds. There is the guy who can write compelling characters and pretty clever dialogue (like his adult crews in Alien Resurrection/Firefly, and much of the banter between them), and then there is the lame teeny-soap-opera guy who keeps falling back on silly cliches like "90-lb anorexic girl who KICKS SOME ASS!" I get the sense of a guy who WANTS to write adult television and movies, but just can't seem to get past his awkward teenage years. He can't seem to decide if he wants to write for Battlestar Galactica or Hannah Montana.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  13. It is the cost by fwarren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The same thing happened in 1979 with Battlestar Galactica. The network green lighted the show. Heavily promoted it and it was doing well. The demographics were great. Show with the most college graduates watching had the under 35 crowd going for it. So why did it have to die?

    In a word, production costs. An hour of Galactica could cost 1 million dollars which would bring in 2 million dollars. Thus a 1 million dollar profit. On the other hand 30 minutes of Happy Days and 30 minutes of Mork and Mindy would cost the network a total of $250,000. But it would bring in 2.5 million.

    So do the math. Decent sci-fi show 1 dollar out for every dollar in. Cheap but good rated comedy gives us 2.25 dollars out for every dollar in.

    The network starts looking at that time slot and sees that it can put in 2 sitcoms, or a Law and Order, or a CSI and make twice as much money. At that point the show has to die.

    In the case of classic Glactica they put the show in hiatus. Then brought it back without advertising, they changed what time it was on. They changed what night it was on. The fans were to loyal. They would hunt the show out and find it each time. The ratings were not dropping fast enough. They had to convert the show into "Galictica 1981" (shudder) to finally kill the thing.

    As with most business decisions. Follow the money.

    --
    vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
  14. Fox sucks! by tuxgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, fox and other networks do really stupid shit such as cancel good shows and continue running garbage such as Fear Factor and American Idiot.

    My wife and I enjoyed viewing the Dresden Files and Moonlight. I wasn't hip to Firefly until after it was canceled, but think it was better than most of the garbage of the airwaves that continues to run for what seems like decades.

    Just the other day I was walking through a job site cafeteria and observing individuals viewing repeats of some 10 season long retarded sitcom on fox. The jokes weren't funny, and the canned laughter sounded stupid. Those doing the viewing looked like zombies focused on the green slime coming from the screen. I had the thought that the producers of most shows like this must think the viewing population are morons needing to be shown, by canned laughter, what constitutes entertainment.

    If it weren't for the DVR I would sell the flat screen and get a life. Validation of the prose: "Watching TV is the same as giving up."

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  15. Fox And Jennifer Love Hewitt's Boobs by chromozone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know a guy who was president of Fox TV in the 90's. I used to get the impression (listening to him) that the network was always working against itself (they had had something like 6 presidents in a row lose their jobs in brief stints). I recall talking about Jennifer Love Hewitt's failed series that was a spinoff from "Party of Five". When I asked him about show he said "They guessed her horrible. They should have put her in a tube top and forgot about it". Since then whenever I hear the expression "screw up a wet dream" I think of Fox Entertainment.

  16. here's the truth. by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fox doesn't hate sci-fi. Fox hates paying for sci-fi. Sci-fi is expensive.

    Fox used to ditch any show after a season if it wasn't an instant hit.

    Then they realized they could sell DVDs of the shows at a profit.

    It's better to have more profit than not. So Fox has started canceling shows after a season or two unless they're raving hits instantly.

    They sell the DVDs and make a profit. It doesn't matter if we love the show. If America doesn't love it, it's gone.

    The Sci-fi channel decided in the past 2 years to skip well written content in favor of B movies. They figure if it's got aliens and monsters, people will watch. Sci-fi channel thinks people are in it for the aliens and monsters, not the story or production value or plausibility.

    and for all you fans of MST3K, it was not sci-fi. It was comedy. Get over yourselves.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  17. Mistaken Identity by X86Daddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People are under the mistaken impression that Fox is an entertainment company producing shows as a product for viewers who are their customers. Incorrect.

    Fox is a media company, and their product is viewers, which they sell to advertisers, their actual customers. Apply this knowledge to "news" channels, etc... and you'll understand a lot.

    That business model means that any actual quality entertainment is a fluke. Especially if it's something deemed such quality that a small demographic really enjoys it... that is never their goal. Understanding this, one can look for quality entertainment in books, or films and shows *after* they aired and were reviewed well, despite the system.

    The interesting question is not "why does Fox screw up at something outside of their goals." The interesting question is "what method of funding and creating shows as quality entertainment might be sustainable as a business that we could flock to?" Distributed digital patronage or something? Maybe I should submit that as an Ask Slashdot.

  18. Isn't is obvious by drix · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anybody who is nerdy enough to write in to Slashdot bemoaning the probable demise of these shows is going to have no problem clearing up their busy Friday night social schedule in order to watch them.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.