Ask Slashdot: Is It Time For SyFy To Go Premium?

Cutriss writes "Now that Caprica is gone and SG:U has concluded, I see new shows coming in their place such as Alphas and the Red Faction series, and I find myself asking if the fate of Atlantis and SG:U might have gone differently if SyFy had been a paid cable network. I know the Slashdot audience would probably trade a few dollars a month if it meant replacing wrestling and ghost-chasing shows with relicensed classics and more appropriate treatment of original content. Plus, with a paying audience, the ad space would become much more lucrative and SyFy could lose some of the seedier ads it has been saddled with lately, and better fund new original content."

Comments

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for it to go away.

Re:Nope

[Joe U]

I agree 100%.

  It's funny when BBC America is doing better Science Fiction.

Re:Nope

[wjousts]

Damn, beat me to it. The network formally known as "Sci Fi" is probably the single biggest disappointment on by cable line up. Nothing but crap, and that includes BSG, Stargate and all the rest of that shit (although they are marginally better than Sharkopus and similar). And to top it all, it has probably the most commercials of any cable network.

Re:Nope

[captainpanic]

It's funny when BBC America is doing better Science Fiction.

The BBC have Top Gear, which all by itself gets more viewer-hours than all scifi together.

Anyway, that syfy channel should offer it online, not on a cable, if they wish to get money from the geek community. Most of us watch it online already anyway :-)

Re:Nope

[clang_jangle]

That's the trouble, of course. We may love good (and sometimes even bad) sci-fi, but we're a teeny tiny niche market in the modern world of corporations who aim for bragging rights about "billions served".

Re:Nope

[TheWanderingHermit]

I hate to agree.

I don't think the people behind SyFy now have the brains to make it work as a premium network. They're stuck with a genre network and they know nothing about the genre and just need to rebrand it as "20-something and Stupid!" and get it over with.

It'd be cool to find a real SF network that played old classics (like UFO or others you don't see much or at all) as well as new and original productions.

Caprica shot themselves in the foot by running 3-4 episodes in a row that did nothing but give you reasons to not trust or despise characters.

But, and speaking from the point of view of someone with a writing, literature, and film background, SG:U was actually very well written and acted and once I saw that, I didn't expect it to last long on SyFy. And, honestly, I didn't expect many "SF fans" to go for it, since, as much as many protest they want something that challenges them intellectually, all many of them want are lasers, spaceships, and babes in spandex or leather.

Re:Nope

[Colonel Korn]

That's the trouble, of course. We may love good (and sometimes even bad) sci-fi, but we're a teeny tiny niche market in the modern world of corporations who aim for bragging rights about "billions served".

Remember though that TNG had 20 million viewers a week (on average, and as a syndicated show, that's astonishing) and was often the #1 viewed show in a given week. It was the Dancing with the Stars / American Idol ratings juggernaut of its day. I think that it shows we do have the capacity to watch good sci fi in large numbers if we're presented with the right show and it's properly made available.

On the other hand, maybe we really have made a shift in the last twenty years, leaving modern society with a real preference for garbage like DwtS and AI instead of thoughtful and imaginative fiction.

Re:Nope

[realityimpaired]

I rather like Sanctuary, but I get that on Space, in Canada, which is from all the reports I've seen a *much* better channel than SyFy is in the US.

And the commercials are much more tolerable when you have a PVR. :) I don't grok why I should have to watch commercials when I am already paying extra on my Satellite bill just to get the channel in the first place. I understand commercials on the free-to-air channels (stuff like NBC, CBS, or ABC in the US), but not on something I can't get without paying.

Re:Nope

[jedidiah]

Someone beat me to it.

Yes. It is time for SciFi to go away. They have p*ssed away anything that made them distinctive or relevant as a sci-fi speciality channel.

You're better off getting your "fix" on other networks these days.

Pay a special fee for Sci-Fi? Today's Sci-Fi? Lay off the chalk!

Re:Nope

[jedidiah]

No. It's not a "tiny niche market". There's sci-fi everywhere on all of the other channels. That's why "SciFi" itself is so worthless. The sum total of the other channels are more interesting when it comes to the content that should be SciFi Channel's Forte.

A "Sci Fi" wishlist is a very illuminating thing.

Re:Nope

[delinear]

What we need is TNG where we get to vote who gets kicked out of the airlock every week. Adios, Wesley...

Re:Nope

[Dr Herbert West]

Mod parent AWESOME!

Re:Nope

[RogerWilco]

all many of them want are lasers, spaceships, and babes in spandex or leather.

Sounds like someone needs Buck Rogers reruns. ;-)

Re:Nope

[skyraker]

I think the reason SG:U failed is because people were tired of Stargate. The same thing happened with Star Trek on TV, by the time Enterprise came along, viewers already were turned off. SyFy thought that by taking successful shows, they could just make another derivative. This doesn't work with SciFi. You need original ideas. Hence why newer shows such as Eureka, Warehouse 13 and Haven have some audience.

Re:Nope

[morari]

They're stuck with a genre network and they know nothing about the genre and just need to rebrand it as "20-something and Stupid!" and get it over with.

They could merge with Spike and G4 then too!

Re:Nope

[daveywest]

We're a niche market dominated by 18-34 year old males with an education and high disposable income. Any business/marketing majors out there want to comment on how desirable that demographic is?

Re:Nope

[crakbone]

Actually I think its more of how unbelievable SG:U is. The military command breaks down all the time, none of them act like trained vets, They try to do the extreme stress build up of BSG all the time and have no penalties. How many times have main characters died? How many times have they had major genetic modifications but seem make it back. With that much stress and no penalties why would people be interested? Spoiler alert: They even find a ring seed ship that can give them the power to make it home. leave it. Find out Rush can control Destiny and DON'T GO BACK.

Re:Nope

[Surt]

Or it could be that people who tuned into the other two stargates to see interesting interactions with alternative societies and aliens in a big open world didn't find a claustrophobic ship with episodes almost completely restricted to humans and their emotional dramas interesting.

Re:Nope

[Culture20]

Only if he gets teleported back on board, revived and voted out next episode, every episode.

Oh my God! They killed Crusher!

Re:Nope

[Wovel]

I am a huge SciFi fan and went through that entire age range since their increption. Outside of a very occasional movie, the only thing I ever watched was an occasional movie and the Dune mini-series they did. One other mini-series too.

I really stopped altogether when they changed the name.

My kids do watch a few things on there still, but I sm pretty sure that is over with SGU.

Re:Nope

[hedwards]

Yes, with Roku and the increasing number of other set top options for streaming video to the TV, it would make far more sense for them to go online only. Plus, it would allow them to restructure their shows sort of the way that HBO does to have plot points coming where they make sense rather than around the schedule for ad breaks.

But, my main concern would be being required to pay for a premium TV channel and not having other options.

Re:Nope

[Picass0]

>> "...which is from all the reports I've seen a *much* better channel than SyFy is in the US."

That's a low bar. If you had "The Moose Channel" (Deer not allowed, eh) that would be a better channel than SyFy. If you had a channel called "Bacon" for bacon enthusiasts that would be better than SyFy.

On the other hand if Space is a good station I wish we could get it here. Exiled SyFy viewers need a new home.

Re:Nope

[_Sprocket_]

Which just means that the producers will introduce another Wesley every week or two. So instead of one Wesley, you get a constantly repeating series of Wesley and Wesley-alikes (some Wesleys will be the same Wesley due to time travel, holodecks, and tachyon particles).

Of course... that may lead to more meta geek culture moments where post-Wesley actors (who are considerably more cool than their character) work out their personal issues in front of the world with the simple question "are we cool?"

Re:Nope

[Shotgun]

But will the Wesleys all wear red shirts?

Re:Nope

[Kreigaffe]

Now now -- SG:1 and SGA were decent shows. It's SGU that deserves its fate. Show was garbage and I gave up before the first season was over. Just a derivative piece of overblown melodrama trying to cash in on BSG, which itself was more ridiculous and unrealistic than any daytime soap.

Re:Nope

[Kreigaffe]

It's not just their emotional dramas, it's their completely unrealistic emotional dramas. Everyone on that show acts like a goddamned 13 year old girl -- if they don't like someone, they are completely unable to set aside their personal dislike and perform their job despite it, and instead go around whining and crying to EVERYBODY about "oh gosh, Tim cut in line in front of me yesterday, I soooooo hate him!!", and scheme petty revenge.. rather than simply say "HEY TIM! Don't cut in line in front of me, ok?". Or, hell, rather than ignore it and move on because you've got a fucking job to do and personal conflicts cannot interfere with your performance of work, because, like all real adults, doing shit like that gets you fired. Doing shit like that makes people avoid you. Nobody likes the petty, catty bitch (gender neutral bitch) at work, yet somehow in shows like SG:U and BSG, THAT'S HOW EVERYBODY ACTS. Also: LOST.

Re:Nope

[peragrin]

You do realize that turning the ship around is worthless right. They are billions of lightyears away and would take hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to get back.

They find a seed ship but it is being controlled with an alien race with superior weapons, who upon realizing that their race is gone go suicidal and blow up the seed ship.

So far the commander has had to suffocate one of his own people because he was trapped and dying slowly.

Don't pick on a show that you apparently haven't watched.

Re:Nope

[Kelbear]

Well, let's think about this for a moment: What is the appeal of Sci-fi for you?

As a layman, I'm more interested in the stories being told rather than technobabble about the setting. My only criteria for their technology is that the rules of their universe remain consistent enough so that they don't draw attention to themselves.

Beyond that, I'm just interested in the human story that is laid out over the framework established by the futuristic setting. I'll freely admit that Star Trek is full of camp, but it also engaged viewers to look at how we treat those that are different from us, what is to be human, how to behave ethically in the face of uncertainty, and many other interesting quandries. While the settings may be fantastic, and may involve a myriad of strange and unfamiliar races and creatures, I find that my favorite science fiction are fundamentally human stories; stories about humans as individuals or our society as a whole. When sci-fi removes the familiar trappings of the world that we know, we can take a closer look at humanity in a new context, and perhaps learning about ourself in the abstract.

I also appreciate the general sense of optimism in the franchise. It's something that has been lost in the cynicism of the times. As technology allows us to get closer to the news and revealing the horrible acts that we commit against each other, we're left with a pretty low opinion of our species as a whole. I like that Star Trek presents a relatively progressive humanity. The Federation has plenty of room for improvement, but even the idea of having resolved so many of our deepseated problems and conflicts gives the franchise a sense of hope. BSG for example, takes the opposite approach of showing our terrible inclinations through the future and into what appear to be humanity's last hours. Perhaps BSG resonated so well with audiences because that is the kind of future we expect.

I wonder if a "Section 31" series is the best route for a new star trek. It would be able to adopt the dark and gritty atmosphere of shows like BSG and 24, and may be better suited for today's audiences and their expectations of how people would really behave in dire circumstances.

Re:Nope

[novium]

Too far fetched...compared to SG:U? They're all set in the same universe- the same far-fetchedness applies. That's kind of the point.

Re:Nope

[wjousts]

Which cable system has this "Bacon" channel of which you speak? I want to subscribe!

Re:Nope

[kheldan]

In it's current incarnation, yes, it needs to go away. It's had NBC/Universal's fingers meddling with it way too much, which I believe has diluted it down to the lowest-common-denominator channel it has become. The re-branding as "SyFy" was just the final nail in the coffin. However I disagree with the OP; making it a "premium" channel would be lobbing the asteroid at it that precipitates it's extinction-level event. It no longer has shows that are anywhere near strong enough for it to stand on it's own that way. I admit that I will miss Sanctuary somewhat, if only for Amanda Tapping, but beyond that, with the demise of SG:U, I, like many, I suspect, have no other compelling reason to continue watching it.

Re:Nope

[mjwalshe]

why not just have the BBC take over like they did with primeval

Re:Nope

[tm2b]

Yeah. The writing was on the wall when they first renewed Farscape for an unprecedented two seasons at once, and then broke their contract and canceled the final season, leaving a number of plot lines up in the air. Yes, they halfway made good with the Peacekeeper Wars, but there was much that never got resolved because of the collapse of one whole season of 22 43 minute episodes into 3 hours of action.

BSG only got made because it was cofunded by the British channel SkyOne.

Re:Nope

[sockman]

The writers started it that way, intentionally. What they were thinking makes no sense.

It really has gotten awesome, and now it's over. Bummer.

Re:Nope

[sockman]

Never been in the military huh?

I spent a year in Iraq... that's really how people act. When you're stuck with the same people doing the same shit every day, it eventually turns you in to a "petty, catty bitch"

Re:Nope

[Candid88]

The first half of the first season of SGU was absolutely awful. Since then SGU has actually been pretty exciting and entertaining, with actual 'sci-fi' stuff happening, but unfortunately it had already lost 75% of it viewers within that first half of season 1 and its fate was pretty much sealed.

Add to that, Syfy playing a game of musical chairs with its schedule and giving it minimal promotion (instead focusing on monsters and wrestling instead), couldn't have helped either. Many people I know who watched the show didn't even know the show was on at times, and it's frustrating trying to pickup a continuing story arc halfway through, so not surprisingly many didn't bother.

I thought SGU was a great innovation for the franchise to make, they couldn't keep doing the exact same format forever. Unfortunately SyFy (with bigboy NBC input) utterly screwed up. Not that they care, they're going after the lowest common denominator now with shows like wrestling, reality ghost shows, and similar rubbish.

Re:Nope

[nschubach]

I'd do the same thing for Sci-Fi as I did for G4 when they got pushed into a premium subscription package. I stopped watching.

Re:Nope

[Creepy]

The problem with Syfy is they say their cheesy monster movies are extremely profitable and keep slamming them out at the expense of better shows. Their (initially) high budget shows like Caprica targeted a niche of Battlestar Galactica fans and in that respect I think it was doomed to failure from the start. The special effects in the last few Capricas was terrible. I never got into the Stargate... or any other show based on a bad movie (Buffy and Highlander to name two, but to be honest I liked the first Highlander until the second one came out...). I failed to get into Eureka, Sanctuary, Warehouse 13, or any of those (to be honest, monster/horror based sci-fi isn't really my thing). OTOH, programming wrestling and such turns me off the channel even more. Sci-fi on network TV has fared poorly with a few exceptions like Battlestar Galactica (which had great ratings despite being essentially a 1 year show - the network canceled it because it cost too much to produce) and Star Trek:TNG. I think the V reboot is doing ok, but the list of short lived failures seems endless (like Bionic Woman reboot, Sarah Connor Chronicles, Moonlight [that one made me wonder why they didn't just re-air Forever Knight], etc).

  Hollywood seems stuck in the same rut as the gaming world - no will to try original material, especially if it costs a lot. I was going to cite a 1990s sci-fi show that was a huge flop and I think only aired 3 episodes (marines fighting aliens in space is all I remember), but I can't think of the name for it and failed to find it on a search, so I'll use Firefly. The networks use flops like Firefly to validate not creating more sci-fi, even though the audience for that particular show was probably niche to begin with.

  It is possible to create good sci-fi on a budget - Moon, which I saw a couple of weeks ago was actually a quite good movie made with a tiny (for a full length movie) $5 million budget. Pay TV has advantages (like no forced morality rules), but staying on a more basic cable/satellite package does as well by offering a much broader audience. If Sci-fi put in the production values like Starz and HBO have with their shows I would consider paying for it, but I would expect them to put out something more like Forbidden Science, which was a short lived soft-core show on Skinimax (basically, follow a friend of mine's "bad movie rule" which requires boobs every 10-15 minutes to distract you from the bad plot and acting).

Re:Nope

[Stormthirst]

Caprica also shot itself in the foot by trying to appeal to a group who loved the space combat - but not having any space combat in it. They attempted to appeal to a group who loved the BSG franchise, but veering away from it. I enjoyed Caprica, but they tried to make it too tween.

Re:Nope

[dbet]

I liked Wesley, but I would have fed Troi's mum to the Klingons.

Re:Nope

[Bert64]

Wrestling is not even sci-fi, i don't see whats its doing on such a channel...

A lot of people, especially geeks are downloading shows to watch instead of watching them on tv... And this will obviously be more of a problem for sci-fi, as such programs target geeks...

If the networks would offer drm-free high quality downloads then people would use them, most people would even tollerate the commercials (although the torrent versions do have commercials stripped) so long as the video is high quality, drm free and can be downloaded easily.
Similarly, if dvr boxes with such facilities (eg dreambox, mythtv etc) were more widely available where you can download the video off the box in a standard format, instead of the crippled boxes which keep the video in proprietary formats or locked onto their own boxes.

When most of these shows are shown on tv, i'm not at home or need to be doing something else... When i do have free time i'm often on a train or waiting somewhere. I usually watch shows on my laptop, or possibly my phone and often have to download them in advance since i wont have connectivity when i watch them.

Re:Nope

[SETIGuy]

It was a dark time for the viewers. When their best ideas are to cancel anything watchable before the first season is over, it's time for them to go. We've already got one Spike TV, why do we need another one?

Their strategy should have been to capture SF shows from other networks that were good, but couldn't make the ABC/NBC/CBS cut. But they've pretty much blown every chance they've had at that. (Gee, it only pulled in better ratings than anything we've ever had, but NBC won the time slot, so we'd better pass.)

One in 10 of their own series are actually worth watching. Lets remember that SG1 started on Showtime (or was it HBO)?

BBC is the current SciFi Channel.

Re:Nope

[jwilcox154]

IMO the reason SyFy has wrestling is simple, they are transforming into another "Men's" channel much like TNN did as they transformed from The Nashville Network to The National Network and finally to Spike TV/spike.

At least SyFi isn't as bad as Spike. When spike had Star Trek Voyager they butchered the start time like many of their other shows. More times than not it started late, sometimes up to 25 minutes late which would prevent any DVR from recording the entire show.

As far as DRMs I can download the shows rather easily from my TiVo and remove the DRM to burn to either DVD or Blu-Ray. I have even converted the files rather easily for use on my iPod classic.

Re:Nope

[bsDaemon]

What's that in Klingon? (I doubt I'd be surprised to get a correct answer to that).

Re:Nope

[uniquename72]

I for one found SciFi way more watchable when it was MOSTLY Buck Rogers re-runs. This list has some of my all-time favorite shows on it. The list above it (currently showing on ScyFy) has none (well, except Friday the 13th: The Series).

Re:Nope

[SuperRenaissanceMan]

It's SGU that deserves its fate. Show was garbage and I gave up before the first season was over.

so did the producers

Re:Nope

[bryan1945]

Spot on! You knew that the "hyper-bobble-changer overload" would be fixed, but would the 2 warring factions be able to come to at least a cease fire? (Sometimes yes, sometimes no) Do we interfere, do we not? Even the fairly obvious trial of 'Is Data a person?' had some good points to it. I prefer my sci-fi to be a bit lighter, as I can get darker type shows from the Law & Orders on TV. That's why I liked Bab5 & Firefly so much- lots of serious stuff going on, but always room for some lightheartedness. (Just saw the episode where River says "And I can kill you with my brain." Cracks me up each time.)

Re:Nope

[Tetsujin]

What we need is TNG where we get to vote who gets kicked out of the airlock every week. Adios, Wesley...

You know, you may find Wesley annoying but is a TV show where all plot developments are determined by majority rule really what you want? That's a quick route straight to lowest-common-denominator crap. The ultimate in low-risk storytelling.

The thing to remember is that the viewers, for the most part, aren't particularly good at telling stories. Not that the people behind TNG, etc. were always aces at this either, but for good TV you generally need good leadership establishing direction of the show.

Re:Nope

[residieu]

I've watched enough American Idol to know that they almost never vote off the annoying ones until the end.

Re:Nope

[russotto]

I liked Wesley, but I would have fed Troi's mum to the Klingons.

I would have fed Wesley to Troi's mum.
(and a good time was had by all)

Re:Nope

[Fnord666]

What's that in Klingon? (I doubt I'd be surprised to get a correct answer to that).

I can't believe google translate doesn't have Klingon as a target language. Turn in your geek card Google!

Re:Nope

[Fnord666]

Which cable system has this "Bacon" channel of which you speak? I want to subscribe!

The good news is that it is probably available as a Comcast channel. The bad news is they just show Kevin Bacon reruns.

Re:Nope

[vlad30]

As far as DRMs I can download the shows rather easily from my TiVo and remove the DRM to burn to either DVD or Blu-Ray. I have even converted the files rather easily for use on my iPod classic.

so your mother/father/grandparents all your friends and relatives can do this as well - without your help?

Re:Nope

[Surt]

I have to suspect that's part of the military mindset. I've been working with the same people doing the same thing for 6 years, and I see nothing like that going on here.

Re:Nope

[SETIGuy]

On the off chance that this is HBO or Showtime thinking about spinning off a Science Fiction channel with classic movies, classic series and new series, then hell yes! Do it! If we're talking about making SyFy into a pay channel, then no, let it die.

Re:Nope

[murdocj]

I loved Troi's mom and kept hoping Weasley would have a tragic transporter accident.

Re:Nope

[murdocj]

You might want to give Stargate another try. They did a great job of building believable characters, fantastic story arcs, and great chemistry. The last couple of seasons after they defeated the Goauld weren't as good, but overall it was a great show.

Re:Nope

[urbanriot]

As a border Canadian who has access to both SyFy and Space, I can authoritatively state that Space caters more to the crowd that wants to watch their station, rather than trying to pull in more of the general crowd. Padding sci-fi shows with coverage of comic book, sci-fi and toy conventions... man, who else wants to see that but nerds? All they really need is more, varied content rather than repeating the same shows throughout the day.

Re:Nope

[murdocj]

For me the difference between SG1, SGA, and SGU was the characters. I really loved the characters and the interaction on SG1 (not to mention the great story arcs) On SGU, I thought they did a great job with Rush... he had to have a lot of power, because he & Eli were the only real experts on Ancient technology, but you couldn't trust him. Or to put it another way, you had to trust him with your life... but you also had to watch your back. It was an interesting dynamic.

SGA, OTOH, I just never cared about any of the characters, and I hated whoever the woman was who was in charge. She looked like she was thinking "Ok, now I need to look resolute". I just couldn't care less whether those people lived or died.

I think SGU was doomed because it had the same basic problem as star trek voyager: when you flying thru space faster than everyone else, in a super high tech ship built by people who were almost gods, how to have any continuing interaction with anyone outside the ship? They fudged it but it really never made any sense once they tried to develop ongoing enemies to deal with.

Anyway, despite that, sad to see SGU go... certainly not going to watch guys with flashlights under their chins going "oh... there's definitely something there!"

Re:Nope

[murdocj]

I thought the emphasis on the stresses of being locked in a ship with no end in sight was pretty well done. Yeah, some people are going to blow their brains out under those circumstances. Some people are going to argue. Some people are going to hole up. Some people are going to try to fix everyone. SGU did a great job of showing that. It was nice that it wasn't all laser space battles that we've seen a gazillion times before.

Re:Nope

[Phoghat]

Oh my god, you killed Wesley!

Re:Nope

[AmiMoJo]

They actually do that on Grey's Anatomy (I know, I know... er... girlfriend watches it...)

Every week or two they introduce a random new character. If they don't make the audience approval ratings they disappear a week or two later, never to be heard from again. They don't even bother killing them off, they just stop appearing. It really is the last thing we want in sci-fi.

Re:Nope

[AmiMoJo]

I admit SGU started out a bit weak but by the second half of season 1 it was damn good. A lot of people compare it to BSG but there are key differences. BSG had hardly any sci-fi in it where as SGU does, and unlike BSG which was just relentlessly depressing there SGU has a mission and a real sense of wonder and achievement.

Both shows are good, but I think given another season or two SGU could have been a really great show. Like the other two Stargate series it was growing rapidly.

Re:Nope

[elrous0]

All the Stargates before SGU were silly old-school scifi shit. You must be an old Trekkie who thinks that that unrealistic silly universe was actually remotely plausible in anything resembling the real world. Some of us happen to like our science fiction more realistic and character-oriented, thank you. The "monster/alien of the week" doesn't appeal to us. The "everything at the end of the episode is exactly the same as it was when it began" doesn't either. The old Stargates, Star Trek the Next Generation, etc.--everyone in that cast was so perfect and heroic they probably didn't even take shits. Personally I like it when a show has castmembers that at least RESEMBLE actual human beings, not heroic robots.

Re:Nope

[elrous0]

That's how real people really act in confined quarters (especially in stressful circumstances). You're just too used to seeing people acting unrealistically in other science fiction shows to realize that.

Take Star Trek The Next Generation--where people brought their children aboard a ship that was almost destroyed every week, where crewmembers never experience PTSD/paranoia/anger/frustration (despite being almost killed on a regular basis), where everyone acts like robots, where no one ever has sex, where no one ever says "Fuck this noise, I'm quitting Starfleet and going someplace safe," where society has become a perfect communist state with no money and everyone working and risking their lives for the common good, where greed is not only not good but GONE, etc. This is a show where everyone's life is threatened every week and yet no one so much as blinks an eye afterward--much less loses the press in their lint-free uniforms.

Is THAT your idea of realistic human behavior?

Re:Nope

[jwilcox154]

Not everyone can use a computer so what is your point?

Re:Nope

[MeateaW]

I think your problem is you thought SGA was any good ever.

And if you seriously dispute this, you can't dispute that SGA was horrible for the *entire* first season.
SG1 was *HORRIBLE* for the entirity of the first 3 seasons . I watch these shows religiously. I had watched them religiously for the last ~15 years or however long they have been on for. I watched the movie when it came out etc.

SGU may not have been *good* at the start. It might not have been season (approximately) 10 SG1 good. But by god, it was SciFi Gold compared to season 1 SG1, or Season 1 SGA.

(Don't get me started on BSG. Loved that series until it gave itself a lobotomy in season 3. Even now I still haven't managed to watch season 4. but that's not season 4s fault.)

I think my point is, take off your rose tinted glasses. SGU started better than all the other stargates. It just wasnt stargate sg1-again like SGA was. And we were better off for it.

Re:Nope

[murdocj]

Just watched the final episode... very well done. I was wondering how they would wind it up and they did a great job.

Re:Nope

[unitron]

...all many of them want are lasers, spaceships, and babes in spandex or leather.

To be fair to them they could, if absolutely necessary, forgo the lasers and spaceships.

Re:Nope

[TheWanderingHermit]

Nah, I know a few chicks who want much more than just babes in spandex or leather. So I figure there's gotta be lasers and spaceships.

Re:Nope

[Bert64]

But the point is, you shouldn't have to jump through hoops to remove DRM, it simply shouldn't have been there in the first place. The fact you can remove it just proves how utterly useless it is, since if you can remove it then any serious pirate obviously could too... The only people inconvenienced are average customers with little or no technical skill.

Re:Nope

[dragonturtle69]

I often think that this is what most people miss; sci-fi is the setting, not the story. Too many people see something like Bladerunner as "human hunts robots", and not an exploration of what defines human.

Star Trek is what humanity would be like, if we evolved with/due to our technology, while Battlestar Galactica gives us humanity with more technology, and keeping all of its vices. ST is an exploration of the future, BSG explores what we are.

Re:Nope

[dragonturtle69]

"Starship Troopers" maybe?

Re:Nope

[memyselfandeye]

My 2.5 cents? TNG was popular in a world where America was proud of its shuttle program, technology was going to build a better future, and we were all going to become so rich money wouldn't matter.

Now, technology helped to create housing models that spawned a deep recession, we're outsourcing our space flights to Russia, and guys like Nial Fergusson are treated like modern day Richard Feynman's and Arthur Compton's.

Of course American non-exceptionalism is a bunch of BS, but that's about the only way pop culture perceives our society nowadays. So I say rename SyFy Sci-Fi, put your shows on the Inter-tubes for $5 a season, and see what happens.

Re:Nope

[memyselfandeye]

Ditto. It seems like instead of marketing towards that demographic, they're marking towards some other demographic that is 'attached' to our demographic. I tried to watch SGU, but honestly, part of being 'fat and rich' means early to bed and early to rise. I just can't stay up till 11:00 most nights nowadays, and that damn show was never on at a convenient time here on the East Coast, and it was always changing days. Maybe that's not quite true, but while I enjoyed the show I found it difficult to actually watch it when it was on. Yet, I can watch Dr. Who practically anytime on BBC America, or via iPlayer whenever I want (cheat code via VPN though).

Finally, the drawn out plots drive me nuts. I'd take 7 good episodes over 7 good episodes spread out over 10 lousy episodes any day. Maybe online is where these creators should take their stuff.

Re:Nope

[crakbone]

Did you watch the same episode I did? The reason they left was because of Rush forcing the ships apart and warping out. No one else could stop the ship at the time. The aliens had stunners but not anything better than what the crew had. Telford actually had to show the aliens how to get systems running to find Destiny in a later episode. Turning the ship around was not to go home but back to the seed ship where there was enough power still to make it home through the gate and one of their own men was trapped. Look at the episodes again and tell me you would not have written it different.

Re:Nope

[jbolden]

SciFi is not reliably male. The most successful shows: Buffy, Firefly, Next Generation, X-Files had large female audiences as well.

Anyway the audience is not that uniform and that's the problem. Sci-FI doesn't exist as a demographic the way "football" does. Each show ends up attracting its own audience.

Re:Nope

[jwilcox154]

I agree with you it shouldn't be there. Correct me if I am wrong on this point but TiVo was most likely forced to use DRM in their files in order to use allow the legal use of cable cards in their DVR. Fortunately not many channels are flagged for copy prevention. As far as the ease of copying TiVo desktop and Desktop Plus allows someone to download from the TiVo unit and then convert it to video that is playable on an iPod, iPhone, several blackberry devices, Palm Pre, Zune, PSP, and several other devices. As far as burning them onto a video DVD or Blu-Ray it does take a few additional steps. Start off with either TiVo desktop, TiVo PLaylist, Galleon, or any web browser to download the video or videos, using either Tivo Decode or Directshow Dump to remove the wrapper, then use any DVD/Blu Ray authoring software out there as long as it supports MPEG2.

While it is rather easy not everyone would be able to perform such acts. Then again, those who have little or no technical skill probably were not able to set the clock on a VCR, or copy a simple file on a computer. No matter how easy you make something there is always going to be quite a few people who will not simply get it.

Re:Nope

[jwilcox154]

Ah, the "go slit your wrists" troll has returned. What's wrong? Too intellectually bankrupt to write anything that adds to the discussions or debates here on /., or are you just too bored? If it is the latter then go out and get a life. If it is the former then grow up, further your education, then get a life. Simple as that.

Uh yeah...

[MickyTheIdiot]

Then they can make Megamonsterdragonfrog vs. Interstellar Goldfish with even better production values.

This whole story is a joke, right?

Re:Uh yeah...

[Scutter]

Hey! Sharktopus was a thespianic masterpiece of the B-movie genre. Ok, D-movie.

Re:Uh yeah...

[maxume]

For some reason, there is a widespread tendency to see the name as a goal or mission and not as part of a branding strategy.

Re:Uh yeah...

[skids]

I thought they were already Premium. I mean, I saw "War of the Worlds" and that drilling to earths core movie, and something about "Thor" all before they were even in the movie theater!

Oh wait, those weren't the real movies? Just slapped together crap with the names resembling currently advertised movies designed to fool small poor children so they will stop pestering their parents to take them to the movies? Damn. I guess I missed a lot of cinema...

Re:Uh yeah...

[h4rr4r]

For the welfare of everyone else, anyone who uses the words "branding strategy" on a regular basis should be forcibly relocated to some sort of leper island.

Re:Uh yeah...

[jdpars]

SyFy is the new name for an American television network originally named Sci-Fi Channel. It was originally a science-fiction oriented channel, but lately has added things like wrestling, ghost/myth "hunting" shows, reality shows, and other things that don't fit in its normal category. It is known for absolutely terrible B-movies, some of which are named after or parodies of (perhaps not intentionally) current Hollywood movies. Caprica is a series spin-off of Battlestar Galactica, a popular Sci-Fi show that ended a couple years ago. SG:U and Atlantis are spin-offs of the original Stargate: SG-1 series, another popular show. And for "cable network," I assume you're kidding. Google anything else you didn't understand.

Re:Uh yeah...

[Legion303]

"I guess I missed a lot of cinema..."

I don't know that "missed" is the right word. "Narrowly avoided," maybe.

Re:Uh yeah...

[maxume]

Yeah, sure, the people inside the Comcast-NBC monster never use such phrases to describe what they think they are doing.

Re:Uh yeah...

[WhirlwindMonk]

Yeah, sure, the people inside the Comcast-NBC monster never use such phrases to describe what they think they are doing.

And you're suggesting they shouldn't be forcibly relocated to some sort of leper island?

Re:Uh yeah...

[pelrun]

Absolutely - the lepers deserve better than to be stuck with those people.

Re:Uh yeah...

[Hal_Porter]

What is this Googol of which you speak?

Re:Uh yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the new version of Archie.

Re:Uh yeah...

[delinear]

Having said that, it's probably just as bad to jab yourself in the eye with a fork as it is with a knife. Although if we're looking for a silver lining, I guess he avoided the queues and the ridiculous popcorn prices and the anti-piracy adverts.

Re:Uh yeah...

[delinear]

Or, to put it another way, SyFy was the name the channel changed to when they decided to stop trying to please people who enjoy science fiction and instead adopted the "So Yeah, F- You" approach to scheduling.

Re:Uh yeah...

[RogerWilco]

Thanks, that was actually helpful. I don't live in the USA, so I didn't know what SyFy was either. I had heard of Caprica, and made the correct guess that SG:U had something to do with SG-1.

My main problem is that most of these series don't even make it to TV over here. For me the only way to watch them is on a DVD (if I'm lucky and it gets released to Region 2 at a reasonable price), or illegally.

I would really like if new and old SciFi movies and series were available online just to save me the hassle. I would pay for them. But alas iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. block my IP because I don't live in the USA. At least in the USA content is relatively available ~1 year after initial airing, over here the content owners block legal access, in the hope that in a few years they might sell it to one of the local cable networks. Which never happens.

FYI: I live in the Netherlands.

Re:Uh yeah...

[h4rr4r]

I think it is pretty safe to say we probably need a leper free leper island for them. Would be too cruel to make the lepers deal with them.

Re:Uh yeah...

[popeye44]

Well the great thing is, You could re-do something like Face-Off on a Leper island and it would have a whole different meaning.

Re:Uh yeah...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

For the welfare of everyone else, anyone who uses the words "branding strategy" on a regular basis should be forcibly relocated to some sort of leper island.

That's been done. It was called Lost.

Re:Uh yeah...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

It's the new version of Archie.

Already commented here, or I would mod this way up.

Re:Uh yeah...

[ThurstonMoore]

If you dont know anything about the topic then why the fuck did you even post.

Re:Uh yeah...

[camperdave]

• SyFy is a corruption of Sci-Fi. It was an American TV channel dedicated to science fiction. Over the years, the program mix became less science fiction and more fantasy and wrestling. The channel was rebranded to SyFy.
• Caprica is a spin-off of the recent Battlestar Galactica remake.
• SG:U is an acronym for StarGate: Universe, which is a spinoff of Stargate SG1, which is itself a TV series based off of the 1994 movie Stargate.
• Alphas: No idea, but google says its a show about a group of superheros
• Red Faction:Never heard of it. Google says it's a show based on a video game.
• Atlantis, or Stargate Atlantis, is another spinoff of Stargate SG1.

The networks they are talking about are television broadcast networks. Time Warner is the world's largest media conglomerate. They own HBO, CNN, Warner Brothers, New Line Cinema, DC Comics, and a host of other content producers and distributors.

Re:Uh yeah...

[Scatterplot]

I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.

Re:Uh yeah...

[bryan1945]

Interestingly, I would watch that movie. Some of their monster movies (Giant Piranha, for one) are so completely ridiculous they turn into comedy.
The only thing we watch regularly is Eureka, which is also mostly comedy. The Fact or Faked show has some interesting bits, mostly for how they show how they try to fake stuff (which is kind of a sad back-handed compliment).
Used to be a good channel way back.

Re:Uh yeah...

[robot256]

If it's a sharp knife, it will be easier to clean up after.

Re:Uh yeah...

[jonadab]

I was hoping someone could tell me what the topic was.

(As it happens, someone did. Turns out it has to do with television. I'm almost sorry I asked.)

Re:Uh yeah...

[jonadab]

> SyFy is the new name for an American television network

People still watch television in 2011?

People on Slashdot, who presumably have halfway decent internet access, still watch television in 2011? Seriously?

Do you also read newspapers and go to drive-in movies? Do you send telegrams? Mail personal letters using envelopes and stamps? Send smoke signals?

Re:Uh yeah...

[gstoddart]

For the welfare of everyone else, anyone who uses the words "branding strategy" on a regular basis should be forcibly relocated to some sort of leper island.

In this case, I'd say take them to a place where they will be applying actual brands would be more appropriate. You know, the hot metal kind.

That'll teach them about a 'branding' strategy. ;-)

Internet

[Rinisari]

I would pay extra for it through not cable. If I could drop another $2-3/mo on my Netflix subscription to have Syfy's entire back catalog and new shows available day-of-release on Netflix, I'd do it in a second.

And I haven't had cable, thus not watched Syfy except at friends' houses or on Netflix since 2007.

Re:Internet

[Mick Ohrberg]

Indeed - plus my cable company (as many others, I'm sure) won't let me buy individual channels, forcing me to pay quite a few more dollars per month for a package that might include SyFy, wrestling and ghost hunting :/

Re:Internet

[Sarius64]

Easily. I'd pay $10 a month without blinking for SG:U to continue. Wouldn't it be interesting if Netflix started supporting entertainment based upon the numbers and not some flipping idiot's Hollywood version of science fiction. Seriously? Wrestling? Ghost freaking hunters?

Re:Internet

[Thruen]

I second this. If I could tack on premium content to my Netflix subscription for a fee I'd do it, as long as it didn't shoot the price up over cable. I was actually thinking the other day stations like HBO and Showtime should be doing this already, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would pay a few dollars to get new episodes of Spartacus and Dexter without paying the insane price of cable that I haven't even plugged into my TV since I moved in January.

Re:Internet

[Andy Dodd]

For a period of time on Cablevision back when I was in grad school, the only way to get Sci-Fi (it was not SyFy back then) was the top-tier premium package - it was bundled with stuff like HBO and the like. (Maybe not HBO - but it was a package above the typical 70-channel "family package" that Sci-Fi was usually a part of.)

Obviously, I didn't watch SciFi back then.

Re:Internet

[jdpars]

The sad thing is the executives who made the decision to put those things on the channel didn't care about whether they were related to the station's usual lineup or not. No other channel wanted wrestling, but they had to stick it somewhere because the ads for it still have some value. So they screwed over their smallest customer group in favor of the second smallest.

Re:Internet

[jdpars]

This makes no sense in today's world. It's not like it would be difficult for them to manage this, especially now that to get any cable provider at all you have to install a big, unsightly box in your entertainment system.

Re:Internet

[KermodeBear]

Netflix is already entering the original content market. I fully expect more of this as time goes on.

Re:Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Science Fiction is just as good as Science Fantasy.

No?

Then imagine all the wrestlers are defective terminators and we get to watch a blunder's reel of Skynet trying to get them to destroy each other.

Re:Internet

[grub]

We have basic cable and basic HD. Download the rest via RSS and torrents. It worked well for years.
In fact we even download shows we can PVR off regular TV just to avoid fast forwarding through the commercials.

Re:Internet

[Black Parrot]

This makes no sense in today's world. It's not like it would be difficult for them to manage this, especially now that to get any cable provider at all you have to install a big, unsightly box in your entertainment system.

I suspect that it has nothing to do with managing it, and everything to do with how they can squeeze the most money out of you.

Re:Internet

[Nadaka]

The only thing that would make wrestling fit on sci-fi is this: http://kaiju.com

Re:Internet

[delinear]

The jocks push out the nerds, it has always been thus :(

Re:Internet

[Denogh]

This. SG:U got off to a terrible start, but the second season (post cancellation) got pretty damned good. Not quite Atlantis good, but still up there.

Re:Internet

[pr0t0]

I'll third this: motion carries!

I've longed for a cable channel or streaming video site that allowed me to view, on demand, the following:

Any episode of these TV shows: Star Trek (all series), Doctor Who, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Stargate (I liked 'em all), BSG (sure both eras, why not), Firefly, etc.
Movies: Star Wars (all 6), Star Trek (40 now?), Blade Runner, Serenity, The Day the Earth Stood Still (original please), old Japanese monster movies, all the comic based flicks, etc.

I'd like to see original programming. There have been many shows that I enjoyed for a season or two only to have them cancelled: Surface, Invasion, Flash Forward, SG-U, Day Break, Firefly (I'll never let it die!) too many to count. Sure they haven't all been great, but they all held my attention and they were all way better than the crap SyFy shows now. Also, I don't need to see a single reality or game show. The only sport on this channel I might watch is Korean StarCraft tournaments!

I think the advertising could be there, but just not through the usual channels. Proctor & Gamble may not pay millions for Ivory Soap commercials, but video game vendors buy commercials for regular TV...a dedicated audience of geeks is their target demographic. Computer hardware and services companies would likely advertise. You could probably pay for the whole thing with advertising from 900 number services...LOL! Yeah, I'm not pushing stereotypes or anything!

Re:Internet

[jeff4747]

The cable company would love to sell you channels a-la-carte. The content producers won't let them.

Disney can't force a new channel upon cable subscribers if the cable company offers a-la-carte channels.

(Disney used as an example here. all of the content providers have taken the same position)

Re:Internet

[petscii]

No, you probably would not have.

I paid amazon on demand $1.99 per SG:U episode. I don't know anyone else who did so. I simply refuse to justify torrenting something like that. As I write this I'm still waiting for the finale to be available via Amazon. I'd buy it on Itunes but I already "own" the other thirty-something episodes on Amazon.

I emailed TVbythenumbers.com asking what my purchase did for the way ratings are computed. They never answered. Zip. Was the answer I wager.

I've not had cable for 2 years and really don't miss it much.

I'm super annoyed with HBO/Showtime that I can't buy their shows from Amazon/Itunes/etc. So that means no Dexter, Treme, Boardwalk Empire, or the Sorkin show for at least a year. HBO thinks you should pay for HBO to get their shows. I don't have a problem with that other than the fact that you have to get crappy cable. so a $8-$12 purchase of HBO actually costs you $78-$100.

Pass.

Re:Internet

[amorsen]

It is probably not the cable provider doing it, but the content providers. They like to make demands that you only offer a particular channel to subscribers in a package with these other channels, or that you can only get this channel if you provide it to ALL your subscribers.

Re:Internet

[overlordofmu]

I want to make it clear that it is not your cable company keeping you from buying individual channels.

90% of TV channels are owned by one of seven large media conglomerates. Viacom, for instance, owns Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Spike, TV Land, Nick@Nite, Nickelodeon, TeenNick, Nick Jr., MTV, VH1, MTV2, Tr3Ìs, CMT, Palladia. The cable companies cannot buy just one network and they are contractually required to group certain channel in certain ways. If the cable company doesn't agree to Viacom's terms, then no Nick, no MTV, no Spike. It is an all or nothing proposition.

How long do you think a cable company will stay in business if they don't have Nick or MTV? No Comedy Central?

The media companies hold the scarce resource (the channels and content) and they dictate the terms. One of those terms is that the cable company cannot a-la-cart the channels.

Don't blame the cable company, blame Viacom, Disney, National Amusements, News Corporation, Time Warner, General Electric and Sony.

I don't mean to rant, just trying to educate.

Don't like it? Write your congress-person, pay them more than the media company lobbyists do or boycott mass media. But don't blame the wrong group.

Re:Internet

[argosian]

I agree.

Netflix and Hulu on ROKU have completely obviated my need for cable (actually satellite, in my case). There were basically three reasons I wanted satellite in the first place: SciFi, Discovery and HBO. HBO and Discovery still have some good programming but the quality of the SyFy (lamest re-brand ever) lineup is approaching terminal velocity. They have a long sordid history of killing the few shows I do like (Farscape, Sliders, MST3K anyone?) while letting crap (Lexx, Tremors, John Edwards, etc, etc) go on far too long. Today they seem obsessed with wrasslin' and "let's freak each other out with spooky noises" shows. How about just airing some decent syndicated shows like B5 and old Dr Who? Meh, whatever. Screw SyFy.

There's tons of good stuff in the catalog of the streaming providers to keep me busy while I wait a season or two for the few current original series I like (Dexter, Spartacus, The Office, Eureka, Dr Who, etc) to come out on Netflix or I can get some of the more timely stuff like Colbert Report or shows like MythBusters on Hulu. I used to be all about the Tivo because it was TV the way I wanted it, when I wanted it. But that is beginning to seem quaint and naive now that on-demand high-quality streaming is a reality.

Re:Internet

[Mick Ohrberg]

You are, of course, correct, sir. It is, nonetheless, very frustrating.

Re:Internet

[tm2b]

Look for that to change with HBO. They are already exploring direct delivery of content to their cable channel subscribers via HBO Go, which will make it easy for them to start taking on subscribers directly.

I can not wait for the cable monopolies to be disintermediated.

Re:Internet

[Esvandiary]

Not quite Atlantis good? Really?

Whilst I completely agree they perhaps started off a little too slowly, I found SGU to be far better than Atlantis. Sure, ATL was more exciting for the most part, but the characters were in general about as deep as your average puddle, and the stories and arcs were about as believable as usual.

Now please don't get me wrong - I liked ATL a lot, as I did SG1; the Stargate franchise in the past was never about watertight stories or exceptional characterisation, it was about simple fun with occasional Striking Morals (tm).
I think this is where Universe fell down a little; it was quite a dramatic shift from the previous shows, and too much so for a lot of fans.

That said, I honestly feel it was a much better and more interesting show overall; the tension and pacing was leagues ahead of SG1 or ATL, and the stories actually felt believable. No English-speaking aliens with North American accents, and all that. Not to mention what to me was the most interesting aspect of the whole show - the interactions between the human leaders.
The production values of SGU in pretty much all areas were just way beyond the previous shows, and it has kept me interested more than any other show out there at the moment. I for one really hope they somehow find a way to continue the show, even if it's on another network.

Re:Internet

[johnlcallaway]

(Comment not directed at parent post ... just adding to what parent post stated)

My wife and I went with DirectTV a few months back and decided we would have a media room and only one TV. We don't have a DVR and don't schedule our lives based on what shows are on. It's amazing how much more time we have together to do things.

Then we dropped all but basic. It is far cheaper to use NetFlicks to always have a couple of movies lying around, plus the instant play list, than to pay all of that money for reruns of movies and shows we have already watched. Our instant queue is over 100 items, and continues to grow as we mark things we are interested in watching ... someday.

People need to remember that "it's only TV. My life will go on without it". Enjoy a show every now and then, but if tonight's final episode of favorite show is missed, life really won't change. Unless someone is the kind of person who likes to spend hours going over every detail of what was on the night before, ruining it for everyone who didn't watch it but intends to later.

So let's blame the right people ... the viewers who scream out "I'm too stupid to entertain myself .. you do it for me". THAT is what empowers those media companies everyone rails against. Boycotting is the best answer. Asking a lobbyist to do it is just more government intrusion into my life. I don't care if someone wants more government involvement in their life, I prefer as little as possible. I am perfectly capable of deciding whether to watch TV or sit on the patio with my beautiful wife sitting with me, while I enjoy bourbon, a fine cigar, and fine conversation. And just enjoy another beautiful Arizona evening.

I feel sorry for folks that need TV so much they actually pay attention to what's on.

Re:Internet

[saikou]

Alas, Netflix won't be able to save cult shows. Mostly because it would eat up all of their cash with dubious return.
Unless ratings are wildly underestimated, $10 a month won't cut it to make anything more advanced than a talk or "reality" show with no special effects

Re:Internet

[Shatrat]

I hope they bring back SG:U as well, but the experts say that it will take 3 years, minimum. That is if nothing goes wrong.

Re:Internet

[unitron]

...No other channel wanted wrestling...

Then why is it on Spike and another channel or two in addition to SyFy?

Re:Internet

[unitron]

This. SG:U got off to a terrible start, but the second season (post cancellation) got pretty damned good. Not quite Atlantis good, but still up there.

If I didn't know better I'd think it was a Friday night Fox show.

Re:Internet

[jbolden]

Wouldn't it be interesting if Netflix started supporting entertainment based upon the numbers

What exactly do you think the entire movie and television industry is based on?

Probably Not

[realcoolguy425]

A lot of Stargate fans were turned off by SGU - even Atlantis was too much of a stretch for me.

Re:Probably Not

[porn*!]

I keep hearing that SGU was disappointing for many SG fans but I really have to disagree. This is the first SG series that felt like it was written without the cheesy humor and contained real characters, not simple stereotypes that didn't evolve in the series. Atlantis was good but really just a copy of SG with new faces in the same characters.

Re:Probably Not

[Andy Dodd]

SGU started out kinda "meh" and too "soap-opera-y", but by the time they had the typical midseason hiatus it had picked up and was starting to get good.

It was right around when it got canned that the real promising "We've found Destiny's true mission" plotline started showing up and the "who is fucking who" plotlines started dying down.

Re:Probably Not

[TerranFury]

Yeah, SG:U, Atlantis, and Caprica are supposed to be examples of good sci-fi? Sure, they're better than Sharktopus or Ghost Hunters, but stellar they are not... The only reason anybody watched any of them is that they got hooked by their predecessors. I've begun to think, each time I hear an outcry from sci-fi fans when a show is canceled, that it's really just familiarity they're missing -- that these are sad, novelty-avoiding people, who desperately cling to whatever escape from reality is given them no matter how mediocre...

Re:Probably Not

[Barryke]

Nonsense. I'd like to see more SGU (wait for it..) BECAUSE all the other shows are far to familiar. It pack some good recent ideas (from Firefly, BSG, SG1, SGA, and many many more) into a new series on a new way. I've never seen anything like SGU. They don't have the annoying whispering that BSG had al to much, for example.

If you know of so many shows that is much like SGU was, please do share them. I probably like them.

Re:Probably Not

[michrech]

I actually enjoyed *both* series you mentioned, an am quite turned off at *how they were ended*. Get me involved in a story line and then just cut it off, without a finish?

Re:Probably Not

[Barryke]

Soap opera is cheap TV. It only agonizes me.
I can't help but think "Ok, but if they'd just tell person X that Y said Z, there wouldn't be any problem to waste 40 minutes on.".
Its just boils down to "dumb-decisions-by-weird-people and simple-to-avoid-miscommunication video fiction" if you pardon my bluntness.

Like tabloids. They lack any logic.

Re:Probably Not

[grub]

I only ever saw the Stargate movie in the theatre ages ago. Never did watch the TV show until SGU.

Re:Probably Not

[icebraining]

You're kidding, right? Human drama is the main component in almost all SF novels best rated by geeks. It's just good drama, not cheap tropes.

Re:Probably Not

[WhirlwindMonk]

Human drama is fine in moderation. Human drama drawn out over a full 40 minute episode and completely overshadowing why people wanted to watch the show in the first place, is not. Hence why I lost interest in House and CSI, amongst others.

Re:Probably Not

[grahamd0]

I had a roommate back in the waning years of SG1 who was really into that and Atlantis. I couldn't really get into SG1 (it wasn't bad. Ben Browder and Claudia Black just made me wish I was watching Farscape), but I enjoyed Atlantis.

Re:Probably Not

[Black Parrot]

I keep hearing that SGU was disappointing for many SG fans but I really have to disagree.

I enjoyed parts 1 & 2 of the pilot, and thought the scenario had a lot of promise, but by the end of part 3 I was feeling like it had already degenerated to where all SF shows do if they run long enough. I watched one or two more episodes, and haven't bothered tuning it in since.

This is the first SG series that felt like it was written without the cheesy humor and contained real characters, not simple stereotypes that didn't evolve in the series.

The fact that some of those realistic characters were assholes was not a plus, IMO. I can see as much of that as I want in the real world.

Atlantis was good but really just a copy of SG with new faces in the same characters.

I watched it now and then, but yeah, it wasn't very compelling.

Re:Probably Not

[Eponymous Coward]

The schedule isn't that big of a deal anymore, especially when you are producing shows for younger audiences. If you have a DVR, it's likely that you don't have a clue when any show is on.

Re:Probably Not

[porn*!]

I keep hearing that SGU was disappointing for many SG fans but I really have to disagree.

I enjoyed parts 1 & 2 of the pilot, and thought the scenario had a lot of promise, but by the end of part 3 I was feeling like it had already degenerated to where all SF shows do if they run long enough. I watched one or two more episodes, and haven't bothered tuning it in since.

I can understand that - there's an inherent tension in trying to balance the science and fiction. Everyone has there own mix preference.

This is the first SG series that felt like it was written without the cheesy humor and contained real characters, not simple stereotypes that didn't evolve in the series.

The fact that some of those realistic characters were assholes was not a plus, IMO. I can see as much of that as I want in the real world.

I guess that's where I really depart from many folks. I like the fact that the 'asshole' characters are a reflection of the real life assholes we all face.

Atlantis was good but really just a copy of SG with new faces in the same characters.

I watched it now and then, but yeah, it wasn't very compelling.

Re:Probably Not

[spectro]

Actually humor is what made SG1 such a great series on its first 5 seasons. All these funny moments happening through the episodes made it more realistic and entertaining.

Caprica and SG-U were such failures because they tried to build on BSG style without the same talented writers and fell into the trap of nonsense drama (people blaming and screaming at each other, guilty feelings, etc). They used all the tricks in the books to keep a high level of tension without quality scripts. Actors, no matter how good, can only do so much.

Somebody with free time count the average smiles you see in a SG-1 episode and compare to any episode of Caprica and SGU.

Re:Probably Not

[EzInKy]

The Cheesy humor was what made Stargate good. It was an entertaining show that didn't take itself too seriously and was "fun".

SGU on the other hand tried to be serious, and meaningful. That's not what the Stargate audience wanted (since you know, anyone who didn't want cheesy and fun wouldn't have sat through 10 years of it).

SGU shouldn't have been written as a Stargate Spinoff. if their story was good it should have been able to stand on it's own and by tieing it to a franchise that was so different from the direction they took they pulled an (inadvertent) bait and switch on the viewers.

Absolutely agree, and don't forget the camaraderie. No matter how hard I tried I just couldn't convince myself that SGU was a Stargate series. Still, I'll probably end up buying the DVD set just to complete my collection.

Re:Probably Not

[omnichad]

Head to Stargate SG-1. The first several seasons of that are a blast to watch. Completely different (I'd say better) interpretation of the story details as opposed to the movie. Much more interesting mythology behind it than the movie. SG-U is only now starting to become like SG-1 was in the last 6 episodes or so.

Re:Probably Not

[omnichad]

So what if there was good music? It was filler. Every single episode had a 6 minute montage/music video. It got old very fast.

Re:Probably Not

[omnichad]

I had a roommate back in the waning years of SG1 who was really into that and Atlantis. I couldn't really get into SG1 (it wasn't bad. Ben Browder and Claudia Black just made me wish I was watching Farscape), but I enjoyed Atlantis.

Late seasons of SG-1 simply pale in comparison. Seasons 1-7 are the ones truly worth watching. Atlantis kept that same feel to most of their series. If you like Atlantis, you'd probably like early SG-1. It's only good with Richard Dean Anderson, Don S. Davis, and the rest of the original cast. The writing was much better in that era.

Re:Probably Not

[RogerWilco]

I've never seen this SG:U, but I understood that it's relatively expensive to do special effects, the soap-opera-y stuff is usually much cheaper. So that's what you get if they try to milk a format.

Re:Probably Not

[Americano]

Indeed... I have 3 or 4 shows I enjoy watching, and have them set to record on my DVR. When I have some time, I sit down, pull up my recorded programs, and watch an episode or two. I'm not "current," but who cares? I get to watch it at my own pace at a time that's convenient for me, rather than having to rearrange my schedule so I can be home every week on a certain day & time. The only time I even notice a show's schedule generally is if there's a hiatus and suddenly I don't have anything recorded for a few weeks.

Re:Probably Not

[grub]

Just looked... 10 seasons?! Oh my... [click]

Re:Probably Not

[delinear]

This is the key thing - there's a huge gap between soap opera and human drama. Soap opera is repetitive human drama spread thin to fill episodes. Good human drama needs to be tightly scripted. A lot of UK shows do this very well, probably because they have very short runs (6-8 episodes in a season) so they don't need padding out. Give us something worth watching and we'll watch it but, by the same standard, garbage in space is still garbage.

Re:Probably Not

[cpu6502]

>>>Yeah, SG:U, Atlantis, and Caprica are supposed to be examples of good sci-fi?

Actually Caprica is a perfect example of good science fiction. Its ending reminds me of the ending of a classic SF novel, and along the way it explored different issues like religion and humanity. (As for Stargate - nah not really. It's just fun to watch.)

Science Fiction is in decline everywhere.
In the world of print, Fantasy is coming to dominate while sci-fi is relegated to a shelf or two.
For whatever reason, fantasy is now the preference among readers.
So SCI-FI did the natural thing - converted from a sci-fi channel to a fantasy channel - to please the general public.

Re:Probably Not

[Amouth]

SGU has very little special effects compared to other SG shows.. there are many episodes that i bet you could fit on 5 or less sets.

Re:Probably Not

[HuntingHades]

I didn't like the early episodes of SG:U immediately after the pilot because it seemed like it was trying too hard to be like BSG and was too far removed from typical Stargate stuff, but it definitely picked up more later in season 1 and during season 2. Unfortunately like a lot of shows, its getting cancelled just when it was getting good. A lot of shows need a season or two to become consistently good (anyone remember some of the ST:TNG episodes in the first two seasons?) and I think it deserved at least one more, but its more expensive to produce than wrestling or that Ghost Hunters BS.

Re:Probably Not

[kehren77]

I keep hearing that SGU was disappointing for many SG fans but I really have to disagree. This is the first SG series that felt like it was written without the cheesy humor and contained real characters, not simple stereotypes that didn't evolve in the series. Atlantis was good but really just a copy of SG with new faces in the same characters.

That's why people say it wasn't Stargate. They took the concept and took out the parts that people liked, such as the cheesy humor and interactions with other species and humans in the galaxy, and replaced it with petty bickering between characters, consciousness swaps during sex and other crap you'd expect from a Sci-Fi version of Jersey Shore. It wasn't Stargate.

It's like the Daniel Craig Bond movies. They took out everything that made it Bond to many people, the womanizing, the cheesy one-liners, and the gadgets. The only reason they used the Bond name was to bring people in fans. But they were rebooting the series, instead of continuing the old line of movies.

If they wanted to do this style in SGU then they should have done a reboot instead of a continuation in the same universe.

I've seen all of SG-1 and Atlantis, but SGU was unwatchable to me because they tried to make it this cheap tawdry show about shall people trying to literally and figuratively screw each other over.

Re:Probably Not

[Kreigaffe]

The characters in SG:U were the most unlike real people of any of the SG series, at least for my notion of "real people". They simply acted like catty 13 year old girls. That's not real people. BSG, Caprica, same issue. Any personal disagreements or conflicts were drawn out to the most ridiculous degree, and never handled directly or in a mature, adult fashion. Personal drama doesn't mean going around bitching to everybody about the minor sleight someone has dealt you and plotting a petty revenge and allowing it to interfere with your work. Nobody I care to associate with does that juvenile crap. Work exists on professional relationships, which is apart from your personal feelings for your coworkers, and allowing the latter to interfere with the former is grounds for termination; further, disliking a person simply means you avoid them, or ignore the sleight, or confront them directly and maturely over the matter.

And I find it very, very questionable that everybody on the damned ship would keep a diary on those damn Kinos. Messages for posterity? Sure. Petty bickering the like you'd find in the confession booths of a reality show? Give me a fucking break.

Terrible writing, horribly derivative and exploitative.

Re:Probably Not

[Candid88]

I really think you have to make a big distinction between the first half of the first season and the rest of SGU.

Those first half shows were undeniably slow, boring and empty (with just a couple of exceptions). But after those first very poor episodes, the show became great and I too really loved how "real" it always felt (the storylines, the acting), it was one of the shows biggest strengths.

Re:Probably Not

[porn*!]

Most shows need a warm-up period wherein the writing gets better and more in tune with the characters and actors. I agree that the pace in the first half of the season was dragging but that's why I record everything - I tend to ffwd when the going gets slow. I'll concede that the writers were a bit to enamored of the mind-swapping for a while but that did pass. It's a shame more folks didn't give the show more of a chance.

Re:Probably Not

[SomePgmr]

I can understand that. I liked SGU quite a bit, but as even former SG1/A cast members pointed out, SGU was not so much the happy-go-lucky, family safe show that the others were. It was a pretty radical departure.

And I can understand that the producers wanted the street cred of a BSG for the SG franchise. But I think everyone knew they were going to be alienating (doh) some of their core audience.

Re:Probably Not

[improfane]

They probably depend on collectors such as yourself to subsidize making more! Whopee!

Re:Probably Not

[trooper9]

Totally agree. Well put, sir.

Re:Probably Not

[trooper9]

I've got a few more than 3 or 4 shows I like to watch, but I agree with the rest. I have no idea when the shows I watch are actually on, but all that is completely overshadowed by the pleasure of sitting down to find a new episode of Warehouse 13, Eureka, Haven, Good Eats, etc. sitting on the DVR.

Re:Probably Not

[Repossessed]

Nobody I care to associate with does that juvenile crap. Work exists on professional relationships, which is apart from your personal feelings for your coworkers, and allowing the latter to interfere with the former is grounds for termination; further, disliking a person simply means you avoid them, or ignore the sleight, or confront them directly and maturely over the matter.

What world do you live on and how do I get there?

Re:Probably Not

[Thing 1]

OT re sig: "Attribute your quotes!" -- Mark Twain

Re:Probably Not

[MeateaW]

You obviously have a selective memory.

Season 1-3 of SG1 were horrible. (it was 60 episodes of: "lets almost save daniels girlfriend!")

I agree re season ~4 onwards.

Re:Probably Not

[omnichad]

You reduce 3 seasons of a show to one subplot and then call ME the one with selective memory? I think that there's plenty in Season 1 to enjoy. Torment of Tantalus and Thor's Hammer, for example?
 
You might enjoy the seasons when they had bigger guns. But my fondness always lies with the scrappy group that has no idea what they're doing - discovering that the greatest achievements of humanity are both small drops in a bucket and ripples felt throughout a galaxy. Now I'm making myself want to watch it...

Sure, why not?

[Rennt]

I just download the good stuff anyway.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Scutter]

There's good stuff?!

Re:Sure, why not?

[jeffmeden]

About 4 of the 9 Caprica episodes were good (by most standards...) so that makes for an enjoyable 3 hours or so before you come to the conclusion that SyFy is now a zombie cable network feeding off the brains of slow and unsuspecting victims.

Hey, come to think of it, I have a show idea to pitch to them.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Bloodwine77]

Syfy usually has one or two decent shows at any given time, but that is the limit. I do enjoy Eureka, Warehouse 13, Sanctuary, and to my surprise I found that Being Human wasn't all that bad. While I agree that the glory days of Farscape, SG-1, and BSG may be over, there is still some decent programming ... but not much. My biggest disappointment is that Syfy no longer airs Dr Who and I do not have BBC America.

Re:Sure, why not?

[softWare3ngineer]

Are Eureka and Warehouse 13 coming back to hulu? haven't seen a new episode since x-mas.

Re:Sure, why not?

[tgeek]

Premium SyFy? Hell no! But a Zombie Channel? Now there's something I could sink my necrotic teeth into! Maybe they could even hire Keith Richards as a movie host and save a decripid assload of cash on makeup and wardrobe . . .

Re:Sure, why not?

[grub]

Download Doctor Who. They're up to Ep3 in the new season, you won't be too far behind if you get it now.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Black Parrot]

Premium SyFy? Hell no! But a Zombie Channel? Now there's something I could sink my necrotic teeth into!

Maybe a mini-series where the SyFy staff and execs are holed up in their office building, fending off attacks by a world gone zombie.

Re:Sure, why not?

[gad_zuki!]

>I just download the good stuff anyway.

So did I, but its odd to download a torrent that's zero bytes long. On the other hand, my upload ratio is epic.

Re:Sure, why not?

[JWSmythe]

    Both are coming back on July 11th, 2011. They're already pushing them on their web site.

    I like Eureka, and to a degree Warehouse 13. Eureka is fun and campy. Warehouse 13, well, not so much. It's kind of predictable, almost like a Scooby Doo mystery.

    SGU was really well on it's way to being a really good show. It had a rough start, which it looks like Syfy took into account (badly) in it's decision to ditch them.

Re:Sure, why not?

[delinear]

There might not be any make up involved but it still costs a lot for him to "powder his nose".

Re:Sure, why not?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Premium SyFy? Hell no! But a Zombie Channel? Now there's something I could sink my necrotic teeth into!

Maybe a mini-series where the SyFy staff and execs are holed up in their office building, fending off attacks by a world gone zombie.

That makes the zombies the good guys, right? I'm OK with that, but it would have to be a milieu where zombies don't suck brains, for obvious reasons.

Re:Sure, why not?

[DrEnter]

It already exists. It's called "Chiller". I know DirecTV carries it.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Captain Chaos]

The Being Human aired on SyFy is a US remake of the BBC's Being Human. The first season of the remake just finished airing here. I enjoyed what I saw of the original on BBC America, but I didn't really watch this new remake enough to see how it compares.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Bloodwine77]

I have not seen the original British version, but I have read that season 1 of the U.S. remake closely follows season 1 of the original British version. I think season 2 onward is going to diverge from the original British storyline, though. I was surprised that I'd like the show, because I feared it was another Vampire Diaries / Twilight type soap opera drama show aimed at young girls. I was very pleasantly surprised and it has enough humor to offset the serious bits.

Re:Sure, why not?

[rsmith-mac]

The problem with Eureka is that their schedule is a mess. They haven't done a full 13 episode season since what, 2007? And this is in comparison to shows like Stargate that have 20 episode seasons. Basically it's on for two months and then off the air the other 10.

Re:Sure, why not?

[RoccamOccam]

I was surprised. I have not seen the original version, but the US version rapidly became my favorite show on TV.

Re:Sure, why not?

[Macrat]

About 4 of the 9 Caprica episodes were good (by most standards...)

Only by really LOW standards.

Re:Sure, why not?

[penguinchris]

Watching Doctor Who on BBC America is incredibly annoying anyway... at each commercial break they put in "behind the scenes" stuff from the very episode that you're watching. It makes it quite difficult to follow what's actually happening in the show (especially with the ridiculously convoluted storyline in the first two episodes of this season). Plus, there are *tons* of commercials, in addition to the behind the scenes stuff! I watched the first episode of this season there (having downloaded all previous seasons of the 2005-onward series) and almost turned it off in disgust. Needless to say the second and third episodes were downloaded. I do applaud them for airing it on the same day as in the UK; other shows like Top Gear are delayed for as much as a week.

In the UK they apparently show the behind the scenes stuff as a separate program that is about as long as the actual episode, and includes more interviews with the cast and so on... but they show it *after* the actual show airs, on another station (this information is based on the voiceover from the end credits in downloaded Doctor Who episodes announcing the behind the scenes Doctor Who Confidential show coming up next on BBC 3).

Re:Sure, why not?

[grub]

... and you can download Doctor Who Confidential as well :)

Seriously?

[scotts13]

I lobbied hard to get my local cable company to add SciFi; and was markedly disappointed when they did. The actual science fiction content has only declined since then. I no longer see a reason to watch it at all; there's zero chance I'd pay to do so. OTOH, making it a pay channel would hasten their bankruptcy, freeing up bandwidth for something else.

Re:Seriously?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Really... they stopped being a network for the fans when they dropped MST3k for more "mainstream" audiences. That was a good indicator that the executives of the channel stopped caring about people like me.

They've had some good stuff on occasion since then, but that's where it really started to die for me. Having a network where you could watch "Lost In Space" in the middle of the day as well as *thoughtful* new content was cool, but they don't run their network like that any more.

Re:Seriously?

[Rolgar]

I'd long wanted access to it, and was surprised to find it on my basic cable. I then found the only things worth watching were X-Files reruns and the new Galactica. When they stopped running X-Files, I resorted to checking out the X-Files from the library, and didn't feel like I'd lost anything when they were dropped from my basic cable package.

I never got into the Stargate spinoffs because I didn't have access to SciFi when the first ones started. I might go through the effort of checking them out from the library and seeing if they are worth it. After I check out Babylon 5. After I do some other things more important than entertainment.

Re:Seriously?

[ImprovOmega]

They jumped the shark when their named change to "SyFy" it was the final confirmation that they'd abandoned anything to do with real science fiction.

Re:Seriously?

[michrech]

If you have Netflix, all of Stargate SG1 and Stargate Atlantis are available for streaming. No need to actually leave the house! ;)

Re:Seriously?

[crow_t_robot]

Are you saying that you are dissatisfied with such stellar (read: shit) programming choices as WWE SMACKDOWN?!?!

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36698985/ns/today-today_tech/t/so-long-nerds-syfy-doesnt-need-you/

Re:Seriously?

[Black Parrot]

That was a good indicator that the executives of the channel stopped caring about people like me.

How many other companies have executives that care about people like your? Or anyone else.

Re:Seriously?

[JWSmythe]

    I never did understand why the hell they ever did that wrestling crap? I always assumed it was some executive there liked wrestling, so he filled the end of the day with it. To me, it's worse than putting up the test pattern and tone. The test pattern would be more entertaining.

Re:Seriously?

[JMZero]

Yeah. Some executive did an interview at BoingBoing a while back. He was joking about how people give these suggestions but "they just don't get it". Apparently, people don't understand that the way SYFIE is currently being run is literally the only possible way to run it, that the revenue streams they have now are the only revenue streams they could ever possibly have, that there must be no variance from how things have always been done, that people who want different shows actually, uh, don't, etc...

It was terribly sad - guy was clearly intent on business as usual until business as failure (which I assume he'll blame on everyone/anyone else).

Re:Seriously?

[AmiMoJo]

This is the problem with having shareholders. All they want is more money, so you can't just say "hay we are not one of the mainstream channels but do okay from it". You are forced to show wrestling and other popular crap because it makes a bigger return than original sci-fi programming and there is very little risk involved.

Re:Seriously?

[I'm not really here]

Yeah, my wife and I stopped watching the SciFi channel altogether when it became SyFy. We found that anything which was good and SciFi ended up on BBC America, so we've switched to that. X-Files reruns, the Dr. Who series on Saturday nights at 9pm, the upcoming BBC Original "Outcasts", Star Trek TNG, Battlestar Galactica... sounds to me like they're the new channel for all us actual SciFi lovers.

Re:Seriously?

[EQ]

Same reason TechTV died - when the cable operators bought it out, they moved it to LA, it became G4, they killed much of its original programming, and they picked up crap reality shows like Cops, Campus PD, Cheaters, a pile of Japanese humiliation game shows, and endless reruns of Ninja Warrior.

Re:Seriously?

[delinear]

They care in so far as they want you to buy their products or watch their shows, but a science fiction channel that doesn't care about science fiction fans is doomed to failure. Nobody but science fiction fans are likely to tune in in the first place (it's not really casual viewing for most people) so you don't want to alienate the few people who you can expect to tune in, that's just sheer idiocy.

Re:Seriously?

[RMingin]

Yeah, I'll pass watching something named "Siffie".

Re:Seriously?

[Nylathotep]

They changed it to SyFy because they wanted to be able to trademark the name. They tried to trademark Sci-Fi but it was too generic.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-18603_1-10197108-73.html

So yeah, that's why.

Re:Seriously?

[SomePgmr]

They were ballsy about it too when they made the change. Everyone saw it as a giant red flag, that they were trying to escape the shackles of their Sci Fi roots in favor of their more profitable ghosts and wrestling line-up. They just didn't care... which made it a not-so-subtle "f'you" to their existing viewers.

I used to think independently funded and produced content was a pipe dream, but I'm starting to think that's the only way anyone is going to risk producing for the genre anymore.

Re:Seriously?

[Pfhorrest]

In cable television, SyFy channel jumps shark; but in Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, shark jumps YOU!

Re:Seriously?

[nurb432]

It happened long before they changed the name.

Re:Seriously?

[xhrit]

Perhaps they figure that since the Science Channel only plays fiction now, had to find their own niche?

Re:Seriously?

[SETIGuy]

That's the problem with any for profit corporation. The courts don't recognize any purpose to a corporation but profit, and the shareholders will sue the corporation and the management for not maximizing profits. For example, grocery stores have very low profit margins, it's part of the grocery business. Because of that, Safeway shareholders could sue Safeway and its board for not starting an iTunes competitor and buying an oil company. And they'd probably win, because staying in the grocery business is not a good way to maximize profits.

Well, in the TV business the way to maximize profits is to buy cheap shows that morons will watch and stuff them with advertising. A night vision camera and some old props from the shows you cancelled and you've got a reality show about ghosts. Creating new series targeted at a small but relatively wealthy demographic is not that profitable.

It's time that we recognized that corporations can have a purpose besides profit, and it's time to allow founders of corporations to create an irrevocable charter that lists those purposes. (With, of course, criminal penalties for someone who transfers assets to another corporation in the same industry).

Re:Seriously?

[jbolden]

Here is the interview you are talking about:

http://boingboing.net/2010/05/04/tv-economics-101-why.html

The entire sci-fi market has been shrinking

[j0keralpha]

The public appetite for space travel, battles, and true sci-fi (as opposed to War of the Worlds: LA) has been shrinking for years. It's not just syfy, but every true space opera franchise has been slowly dying for the past decade or so, to be replaced by garbage like the "V" reboot. Even is syfy transitioned to a premium model, they may not get enough subscribers without the ghost chasers and such (I won't walk about wrestling).

Re:The entire sci-fi market has been shrinking

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

science fiction is not just about space operas and space battles. There are many sub genres within science fiction: alternate reality, alternate history, cyber-punk, bio-punk, etc...just to name a few. Plus, there are many concepts not yet explored in sci-fi TV shows as is evident from the hundreds and hundreds of good science fiction novels written in the past century that were never adapted to the screen or TV. Then of course, there were some that were adapted to the screen or TV, albeit poorly (ex: BattleField Earth, RiverWorld).

Re:The entire sci-fi market has been shrinking

[RogerWilco]

I haven't seen the V reboot, but the original was quite good, if my memory from 25 years ago is anything to go by. It wasn't space opera, but it was good SF for it's day.

And I don't think that the public's appetite for SF is low. Well made titles on the big screen are usually among the biggest blockbusters. Mix in some Fantasy and I think a SF&Fantasy channel could do very well, between reruns of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Wars, ET, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, M.I.B., The Matrix, and series like X-files, the Star Treks, Buffy, Charmed, Dr.Who, BSG, Fringe, SG, Supernatural, etc. Add in some superhero stuff like Spiderman and the Dark Knight, SmallVille, Heroes.

And you've got 50% of the biggest grossing movies of all time (adjusted for inflation or not), and quite a few of the top 10 most popular TV series of the last years.

The potential is there.

I don't have SyFy, or the old Sci-Fi where I live (The Netherlands), so for most of this content I need to wait if they decide to release it to Region 2 DVD, or "find" it online.

Re:The entire sci-fi market has been shrinking

[kehren77]

science fiction is not just about space operas and space battles. There are many sub genres within science fiction: alternate reality, alternate history, cyber-punk, bio-punk, etc...just to name a few...

I loved the first few seasons of Sliders (before the cro-mag crap). I think alternate reality and alternate history is a vastly undeveloped subset of Sci-Fi.

Re:The entire sci-fi market has been shrinking

[danlock4]

(I won't walk about wrestling).

I will! Only if I'm walking AWAY from it, though!

Re:The entire sci-fi market has been shrinking

[nabsltd]

There are many sub genres within science fiction: alternate reality, alternate history, cyber-punk, bio-punk, etc...just to name a few.

Some shows that maybe would be considered "fantasy" or "superhero" would also fit on a "sci-fi" channel far better than wrestling.

As an example, despite the "legions of fans", shows like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Supernatural", and "Smallville" all had/have viewing audiences that were tiny by any network standards, but would be fine for a cable channel. In addition, these shows ran at least 6 seasons, so there would be plenty of episodes as reruns. None of these shows are "great sci-fi", but all are decent shows, and SyFy could get into producing their own shows and stick with them long enough to get them to that point, which also would give them DVD/Netflix/etc. revenue.

The audience you want don't want cable

[Albanach]

Who wants to pay a few more bucks a month for another channel? I think most folk want to pay fewer bucks per month and have a smaller number of higher quality channels. Cable has no interest in delivering that, so folk are moving away in droves. The audience that reads sites like /. are likely to be amongst the first switchers.

It could just be the economy, but subscriber numbers for cable declined in Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2010. Personally I think it's a trend and one that will continue for quite some time.

Broadcast television is so 20th century. If you want access to quality older issues, your best hope is from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[Albanach]

For some reason I forgot to add good old Google to the list of providers. Given that they have announced that they are offering movie rentals via YouTube, I'd expect to see a lot more content and a paid subscription model from them in the near future.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is that each episode costs a couple of million to make and the only people interested in paying that up front for a show are TV channels. I'd happily pay to download new episodes of SGU but no investor will take my word for it.

What we need is a rich billionaire who is also a nerd to pay for another season in the hopes of recouping the cost via downloads and DVD sales. Someone has to be first and a quality show like SGU seems like the ideal candidate.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[stms]

Broadcast television is so 20th century. If you want access to quality older issues, your best hope is from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.

And if not one of them then Piracy will continue.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[Lumpy]

But it doesn't. They are paying far too much to film the episodes... and that is ALSO a problem... they are FILMING THEM. 35mm film using, 1,000,000 Arriflex lenses and film production crews. AVCHD cameras shoot video good enough for TV shows, hell cheap ass Canon D7's do as well and gives them the "artsey film lense look" if they want it. Otherwise they could significantly cut production costs by doing multi camera shooting instead of one Film camera and the 8 people that go with it.

Also the sets can be cheaper. the stuff that is not the regular locations can be green screen or do the "star trek" trick and have generic hallway sections that can always be assembled to make 20 miles of corridors. Honestly set making is cheap and easy and can all be foam board like they did on Enterprise.

The expense is the current actors all getting SAG rate scale pay. fire the whole crew and replace with non SAG actors and non union writers and crew. Restart SGU as a band of the ancestors kids on a seed ship. A nice reboot of the series with all new cast that will accept a street urchin beggers pay scale of only $65,000 a year.

Oh also shoot in a old factory in Iowa instead of overpriced land of movies.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[Eponymous Coward]

Working on fixing real problems.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[Eponymous Coward]

Problem is that each episode costs a couple of million to make

That's the entire problem right there. Only the entertainment industry can make the government look lean and efficient in comparison.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[captjc]

Hell, I just buy DVD movies and TV Shows. One season lasts me over a month, plus I usually have a two or three shows going simultaneously. Mix that up with some podcasts and I have entertainment that is on my terms and is only ~$20 - $60 per month depending on what I get.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[fermion]

I would take it another way. Cable, due to the number of channels, has the possibility of providing much more targeted programming. The question is if half a million viewers can fund the production of costs of a science fictions show with high production values. This is the thing with SGU and Atlantis. Mostly the shooting can be done on sound stages with only occasional location shooting. SG1 had a lot of location shooting. Could something like SG1 be done on a small cable budget? Probably not. Richard Dean Anderson probably would not be there on a small cable budget, and in this climate Michael Shanks may have stayed gone.

But the lower production values is not really the big problem. Caprica, for instance was trying to be smallville or 90210 or the OC, but instead was hellcats. Pure and simple. SGU was too serious, too many random plot devices meant to push forth a incoherent story. Recall at the end of season 1 SG1 basically made fun of itself and the incoherent incomprehensible situations.

I don't watch cable, only the shows that are online, and I think that SyFy is producing some affordable and reasonable scripted products. Sanctuary, Eureka, Haven, Warehouse 13. Obviously they need syndicated and unscripted product for filler. If I had any complaints it is I would much rather see more or less original products rather than extension of existing franchises, like SGU and Sarah Conner. The later probably has higher costs due to licensing. If expensive products and high ratings is the goal, then syfy and cable in general is not the solution. But we can have some good products that might be covered with small audiences.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[daveywest]

Most of the articles I read show cable continues to grow despite pressure from "cord cutting" and Netflix. The Hollywood Reporter puts cable sub counts at an all-time high after the first quarter of 2011: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/analyst-pay-tv-subs-hit-185858

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[AmiMoJo]

The guys behind SGU are used to working on a tight budget thanks to the treatment they got during SG1 and Atlantis' runs. I'm sure they don't waste that much money. Charlie Brooker did a programme about the cost of production and he covered the available cameras. The reason he gave for using film instead of AVCHD was that AVCHD looks a bit cheap and amateurish, good for reality TV but not what you want on a realistic sci-fi show like SGU.

Mad Men apparently has a budget of $2.7m per episode and the actors are all on fairly low pay (according to Wikipedia). Slick TV costs a lot of money to make, especially props and sets have to be HD standard.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[RogerWilco]

Broadcast television is so 20th century. If you want access to quality older issues, your best hope is from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.

I wish that those were available outside the USA. even iTunes still doesn't sell TV series or movies where I live (The Netherlands).

Most stuff isn't available here legally, apparently the content owners still hope to some day sell it to one of the local cable networks and are in the mean time just happy to sit on it.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[RogerWilco]

What I understand is that the most expensive thing for most SF and Fantasy series is actually the special effects. Probably mostly hiring guys that can make it look good, instead of like a Youtube after-effects vids or 1960's batman.

That's why you often see them minimizing scenes that need such things.

The other option is to go ST:NG and do mostly talking about virtual problems.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[nabsltd]

The expense is the current actors all getting SAG rate scale pay. fire the whole crew and replace with non SAG actors and non union writers and crew.

Do you seriously think that less than $3,000/episode per "principle performer" is what makes a TV episode cost a lot? That's the top end of "scale" for a TV show with first run on a basic cable channel.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[mjwalshe]

hmm so working that out for a full 20 week season the SAG scale is about what I get (and arguably I am underpaid) and they don't get company pension and 29 days leave you do realize that $65,000 is a round the mean for household income in the USA - not exactly a gold plated salary.

oh try telling your suggestion to James Bamford (AKA Bam Bam) the fight arranger for a lot of the stargate shows.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[mjwalshe]

really you going to shoot broadcast quality on your fracking iphone.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[Eponymous Coward]

Not on an iPhone, but there are some DSLRs that can do it. Cameras are not expensive to buy and can even be leased.

Dr. Horrible was financed for $200,000, featured a great cast and fantastic production values and it was profitable (eventually).

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[mjwalshe]

up to a point - Yes a RED is dirtcheap at 20k but you still need to have the lenses and then know how to shoot a script in 7 days a and maintain a distinct look and feel. Listen to the comentery on the SGA episode Sateda - teh DP and the other techs discuss how they got the particular look - they used a hand cranked vintage camera from the 30's for some sequences.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[syukton]

You don't need a RED. The season 6 finale of House was shot entirely with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR, a camera body which these days can be had for under $3K. Admittedly lenses will set you back a bit, but you could probably still set up a high-def capable recording studio for less than $50,000 including a couple camera bodies, lenses and motion stabilizing rigs.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[Darinbob]

I agree here. There's a bit of disconnect in the original question I think. Some people assume that because they would pay for something that most others would too. If it were premium even with quality shows it would die out anyway. There's just not enough people willing to pay it. Sure you may find some people willing to pay for HBO and Showtime for a few hyped original series, but the vast majority of subscribers are there for the movies. The original series are only used as a differentiator so that you subscribe to their channel instead of the competition (extremely few people subscribe to more than one premium channel). Note that SG-1 did not become popular until after it got off of a premium channel.

I see a lot of early adopters with the same disconnect: they're confused that their favorite technology is not more popular with the masses, or they try to correlate the interest that their local clique has with mass market interest.

Most content is going to be basic cable or major broadcasters first. So even netflix/hulu/whatever are going to lag in quality if the mass market quality goes down. You won't get good programs from your weekly DVD in the mail or via lengthy download if there's no content for it to start with. The masses are still going to want to see new content, and the new content will generally be crap, so nothing will change until there's a mass trend towards only watching older shows.

The ultimate problem I think is that it's too expensive to make shows that the masses want (they want special effects, graphics, action, big name stars, etc). Cable is splitting the dollars into too many channels. The internet won't help this, it will only exacerbate it. That's why there's reality TV and wrestling - cheap to produce and lots of consumers (just like youtube).

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[SETIGuy]

Oh also shoot in a old factory in Iowa instead of overpriced land of movies.

Up until the dollar dropped, Vancouver wasn't the "overpriced land of movies." Or did you think all those SG1 planets that look like the pacific northwest are located somewhere in southern california?

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[SETIGuy]

Next time your favorite show ends, count the names. Check out Star Trek Phase II for doing it on the cheap. Two episodes a year if you're lucky.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[SETIGuy]

Cable, due to the number of channels, has the possibility of providing much more targeted programming.

Every channel will eventually decide that bigger audience means more money, and then you get "Punkin Chunkin II: Revenge of the Punkin"

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[buybuydandavis]

Who wants to pay a few more bucks a month for another channel?

People who don't buy cable at all. And I don't want a channel - I just want a few shows.

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[jbolden]

B movies don't work with the under 15 audience at all or the over 25 audience. To hit the 15-25 niche they like nudity and sexual themes. Which means you are talking an R rated TV series and that's what Cinemax is playing with for example http://www.cinemax.com/forbiddenscience/

Re:The audience you want don't want cable

[jbolden]

Actually the shows are huge draws. But you are talking an entirely different price range. Rome was running HBO $100m per season.

Just start a new sci fi network

[syousef]

Sci-fi not Sy-phy-lis, like the current one. There's nothing to salvage after what they've done.

Re:Just start a new sci fi network

[I'm not really here]

Someone already has... it's just called BBC America.

There is no hope

[NRP128]

There is no hope for SyFy. I was hoping another cable network might recognize the gold mine that is Stargate and other true Sci-Fi franchises and tempt them away from SyFy. When you put shows on a proper schedule, and don't air them randomly with nobody knowing WTF is going on, with huge hiatus breaks so you can sell half a season of DVDs for the price of a full season, you could develop loyal fan bases. Airing 10 episodes of SGU then killing it for 6 months then bringing it back and expecting people to care? Yeah, you can't do that. A month of hiatus for a new show is pushing it. you're trying to hook an audience, don't give them reason to forget you exist. When you get to Season 6 you can start taking huge breaks.

Re:There is no hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Stargate should have ended... um... as the movie.

Re:There is no hope

[Andy Dodd]

Midseason hiatus is pretty standard for SyFy shows nowadays. I think it may have to do more with international syndication/cooperation - In foreign countries, seasons are typically half as long as in the United States.

So one season for us = two seasons internationally on SyFy's partner networks outside of the USA.

Re:There is no hope

[Quiet_Desperation]

Actually, Stargate should have ended... um... as the movie.

Roland Emmerich? I didn't know you had a Slashdot account! Or is that you, Devlin?

Re:There is no hope

[Legion303]

The movie sucked almost as bad as all the TV spinoffs, except the movie had very slightly better acting.

Re:There is no hope

[NRP128]

See: any of the other dozens of shows that were canceled before storylines were established. SGU got two seasons, which was a season more than i expected, even though I really liked the show from the beginning. I was sick of the formulaic approach SG-1 and Atlantis took. They were great shows, it had just started to get repetitive. I was ecstatic to see a different, more serious take, a more grown up show, but people wanted more of the same drivel.

Networks want flash-in-the-pot, make-a-lot-of-money-with-no-budget shows. Sadly, scripted dramas in general have fallen by the wayside in favor of shit that will sell whatever they're hocking. I'm 2 series away from canceling my cable altogether and focusing on Netflix/DVD/Blu-Ray releases.

Re:There is no hope

[demonbug]

The movie sucked almost as bad as all the TV spinoffs, except the movie had very slightly better acting.

Also, it was over within a couple of hours instead of dragging on and on and on and on and on and on. And on and on and on and on. And on.

Re:There is no hope

[RogerWilco]

I don't know any country where 10-11 episodes is a season, it's usually 25-30. Can you give some example?

What I usually see in my country (the Netherlands), is shows running for about 9 months, every week, with a 2 week break around christmas, and a 2.5 months summer break.

Re:There is no hope

[SBFCOblivion]

Blasphemy!

Re:There is no hope

[nabsltd]

Airing 10 episodes of SGU then killing it for 6 months then bringing it back and expecting people to care? Yeah, you can't do that.

Well, you could if you planned it correctly.

Most of the TNT original shows have "seasons" of 13-16 episodes, and so that time slot gets two usually related genre shows per year, along with reruns.

Many of these shows are doing very well precisely because of the limited number of episodes (only the best scripts get produced), and the gaps between seasons don't seem to be a problem.

Re:There is no hope

[Repossessed]

Britain. The only British show I've ever watched that hit that long of a season was the old Dr Who. The new one is only 13 episodes a season, a lot of other shows were 6.

As to the GP, the new Dr Who is getting a midseason hiatus this year, even with only 13 episodes planned, so I think its something else driving it.

Re:There is no hope

[Nyder]

Actually, Stargate should have ended... um... as the movie.

Naw, the First Stargate TV Show run was decent.

The second Stargate show (Atlantis) was so so. Could of been better, could of been way worse.

Now SGU, that was a cluster fuck in the making. For a year and a half, you thought they just wanted to go home, and then they dump the real mission the ship has. cool. Was down with that. But the time travel, the other SGU ship and people, the droid thingys always attacking them, etc. is just too fucking much. Yes, I know you need a story, but lets stick with a story, not throw every scifi cliche into the series before it ends. I mean, really now.

Anyways, if a series isn't making the channel millions of dollars in ad revenue, then it's going to be canceled. Or if it's a popular show, on a smaller network and it's taking viewers from another show on a bigger network? It's going to either be canceled, or it's time moved (then canceled).

Isn't that backwards?

[rjejr]

Shouldn't a sci-fi based channel be going the open internet route like Netflix rather than the "we hate HBOgo b/c you have to be a subscriber" route? The only channels that should be pay are porn, only to keep the kids out. Whoever suggested this must have missed the last 2 years worth of "cut the cord" articles.

Re:Isn't that backwards?

[delinear]

You might think that. You might also think that a sci-fi based channel should be showing sci-fi based shows. I guess they like to challenge popular conceptions.

Under what assumptions?

[RazzleFrog]

Are you assuming that these shows wouldn't have been canceled if they weren't on an ad/ratings driven channel? I hate to tell you but premium channels care about ratings, too. Ratings mean subscribers.

And I highly doubt they have enough quality content to be a premium channel.

Re:Under what assumptions?

[SETIGuy]

I hate to tell you but premium channels care about ratings, too.

Not as much as the free channels do. Nobody cancels their Showtime subscription because Showtime made a TV series out of "This American Life". In the age of DVRs premium channels are mostly dead air. Check the Showtime and HBO schedules... They're 20 hours a day of movies you've already seen or never want to see. They no longer need to broadcast the new movies twice a day for a month. It's cheaper for them to broadcast it once a day and fill the dead space with "Porkys II", and even that's overkill. So the premiums have schedule space and the subscriber base to experiment. And they need to experiment because online movie rentals are going to kill their market if they don't have new and unique content.

But that doesn't work for SyFy. They'd need to have something on that would attract subscribers. And they've cancelled all of the shows that had enough of a rabid fan base that they would be willing to pay $10/month to get more episodes. You have to make that swap when you have those niche shows, not when you have wrestling and fake ghosts.

The content is out there

[softWare3ngineer]

if they constantly replayed Star Trek, Firefly, BSG, and Dr Who I'd be down. there is more than enough good scifi content out there to fill the air time. i just cost $ that the network doesn't have.

Re:The content is out there

[i kan reed]

Here's a hint: everything has a license fee, even stuff they produced themselves because they have to pay the actors per credit. They moved away from science fiction for pro-wrestling because intellectuals are too diverse and critical an audience to reduce to a simple demographic to advertise to. If there were a premium package from my cable company that focused on real documentaries, non-action oriented science fiction, and absolutely no ads that belittle my intelligence, I'd pay 3-5 times as much as people pay for their sports packages. I get miffed because absolutely every single television channel assumes I'm a blubbering moron or blubbering moron compatible.

The following were good, but are now blubbering moron bait:
Discovery Channel(trucks driving on ice? REALLY?)
History Channel(we're 100% certain that this piece of rock was portal to alien jesus, here's an "expert")
Sci Fi(Covered in depth here, but REALLY bad. Hasn't touched the ideas of real speculative fiction in a decade)
Animal Planet(Nature documentaries? Screw that, pet reality shows!!!)
TLC(babies are all anyone ever wants to see!!!! We're SURE!!!)

The following still make some attempt an any real depth
BBC America
PBS

I don't inherently loathe television as a medium, I loath spoonfed bullshit supportded by psychologically manipulative bullshit.

Re:The content is out there

[softWare3ngineer]

it not i. sry for the typo.

Re:The content is out there

[The Moof]

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by what I find on PBS these days. Hustle, the original Life on Mars, and Spooks were entertaining, not to mention semi-new Dr. Who. Granted, this is literally just BBC programming from a the past few years, but it's still new to me.

Re:The content is out there

[lordmage]

Science Channel is running Firefly. Funny isn't it?

Re:The content is out there

[Black Parrot]

History Channel(we're 100% certain that this piece of rock was portal to alien jesus, here's an "expert")

Yeah, nobody even calls it the Hitler Channel anymore.

Re:The content is out there

[FirstNoel]

You have to go to History International for hitler now....

Reality-based TV is cheap and easy, and must make them a ton of money.

It's sad, when you turn on the History channel and the only thing they show that I learn something from has Larry the Cable guy on it. He at least deals with some of everyday history.

What a world...what a world...

Re:The content is out there

[RogerWilco]

Discovery Channel(trucks driving on ice? REALLY?)

What I find funny is that if I visit the USA, the Discovery Channel there has a lot more stuff like that than Discovery Europe.

Re:The content is out there

[delinear]

Honestly, I have cable TV here in the UK and I don't even know why (actually I do, I have cable internet and the package I'm on practically gives me the cable TV for free) - 95% of what I watch is BBC, and a good chunk of the rest are just Simpsons reruns on Sky. Maybe I'm just lucky that there's sufficient viewing in the BBC's offering to keep me amused, or maybe it indicates that a license-fee model can actually be pretty effective, even if it sounds a bit communist (I'm sure all the people who never watch BBC but still have to pay the fee have a different opnion).

Re:The content is out there

[SomePgmr]

I don't inherently loathe television as a medium, I loath spoonfed bullshit supportded by psychologically manipulative bullshit.

Yeah it's not the medium, it's the dollars. And dollars follow the common viewer. It's sad really... we have all these channels that should be serving a niche, but they all eventually gravitate back to the same thing while chasing the revenue. I guess to serve a niche, you have to aim small... which doesn't work well for large cable networks.

As production costs decrease and distribution costs near zero, I'm hoping to see more independently developed, subscribed and distributed content on the tubes. It seems like the only way.

Re:The content is out there

[PRMan]

History Channel(we're 100% certain that this piece of rock was portal to alien jesus, here's an "expert")

Yeah, nobody even calls it the Hitler Channel anymore.

I see that as an improvement...

Re:The content is out there

[Pfhorrest]

I recently had a long chat with some friends of mine about how you could fill 24/7 worth of TV with classic sci-fi reruns, and it would be better than what's on the SyFy channel now. It still wouldn't be free (networks have to pay per airing like my sibling poster mentions), but it would certainly be a lot cheaper than making new stuff, even shaky-cam infrared-vision shoestring-budget ghost-busters.

Mornings: Old scifi like Lost In Space, original Dr. Who (and spin-offs), original BSG, and ST:TOS.

Afternoons: Newer sci-fi like TNG, DS9, and Voyager. I'm struggling to think of anything non-Trek (and worth watching) that aired contemporary with these.

Evenings: Even newer sci-fi like Enterprise, SG1 and Atlantis, Firefly, the new Dr. Who and BSG, etc.

Nights: Spooky things like X-files and Millennium, Outer Limits and Twilight Zone (the new ones and then the old ones to segue into morning schedule), maybe even shows like Unsolved Mysteries. Possibly also irreverent/silly things like MST3K, which could compete well with Adult Swim for midnight zaniness.

Weekends: Non-stop movie marathons. Of actual sci-fi movies, not Megashark VS Crocosaurus or Attack Of The 50ft Africanized Honeybee.

If and when anyone starts making new and worthwhile sci-fi TV again, you can plug that into the prime-time slot, pushing the progressively older stuff back and dropping the less popular of the old shows to make room.

Everyone I've asked has said that they would rather watch such a Sci-Fi Rerun Channel than anything currently on SyFy, and I just filled up at least a 20hr schedule off the top of my head right here. Come on network execs, you get paid for this shit, surely you can do better?

Re:The content is out there

[assertation]

They started out like that many years ago. Trust me, there are only so many times you watch the reruns.

Re:The content is out there

[TheQuantumShift]

Really? BBC America? They have 3-4 once weekly shows from the actual BBC, and 96 hours of "stuff". I mean their prime time draw every night is Star Trek: TNG. Because Patrick Stewart talks with an English accent while playing a Frenchman, that makes it "BBC America"... The movie of the week a while back was Robin Hood: Prince of thieves. Seriously.

Brace yourself: Law & fscking Order: UK...

And the best part? I still have to download Doctor Who every week to get watchable quality (thanks Comcast). And If I do watch anything on there, I have to sit through the same geriatric themed ads I see on SyFy.

Yeah, my days as a Comcast customer are numbered.

Re:The content is out there

[Darinbob]

The problem is that if you're willing to pay extra for the quality stuff, you end up paying _extra_! It's already expensive enough. The shows even worth watching tend to be only offered with the mid-range offering from cable/satellite (ie, basic service doesn't get you BBC or USA and may not even get you Syfy or FX). If you're already paying $50-65 that's too much already, and to add another $15 for a premium channel on top is excessive.

Re:The content is out there

[Shadow99_1]

I don't have cable and so in the US can't see the BBC normally... but I tend to instead download and watch when I want a large amount of BBC programming... combined by a few worth Discovery pieces that still retain quality... But the best part is I get to pick what I chose to watch.

I did however watch SGU, which got fairly good for modern sci-fi in season 2... Though many series start slow and need a season 2 to ever get good...

Re:The content is out there

[Nyder]

if they constantly replayed Star Trek, Firefly, BSG, and Dr Who I'd be down. there is more than enough good scifi content out there to fill the air time. i just cost $ that the network doesn't have.

You know what plays those shows? Whenever i want?

My computer. ya, see, I downloaded those shows, and I get to watch them, when I want, commerical free.

I used to watch Doctor Who every saturday, on some local channels. But they no longer show.

I can watch new (2005+) Doctor Who on a BBC channel, but, i'd rather watch older Doctor Who, thank you.

If the networks don't give me what i want. I won't watch them and still watch what I want, on my own schedule.

How are small networks going to compete with that? Mainly if they don't have a record of keeping new series ongoing?

Re:The content is out there

[unitron]

Sounds like you have a much better PBS affiliate than here in NC.

Not sure you understand supply and demand

[Hydian]

If nobody wanted to watch those shows for free, I don't see how charging people to watch them would have improved the audience. It isn't like SyFy is Apple or something.

Re:Not sure you understand supply and demand

[SomePgmr]

I think the idea is that viewing numbers, correlated with ad dollars, will always be less appealing than those of wrestling and ghost chasers. But the lesser numbers of scifi fans might be more willing to pay for a genuine scifi channel, which in theory, might offset lesser ad revenue and prove beneficial to everyone.

There will always be more oatmeal-brained pro wrestling fans out there, but scifi fans are passionate... and they might very well pay. I don't know if it'd work, but seems like an interesting thought anyways.

Re:Not sure you understand supply and demand

[Spyder]

It's a question of price discrimination. In a broadcast free-to-view environment that is ad supported, you are required to seek as many viewers as possible. If your high desire viewers (the ones that will pay) are willing to pay 10x the rate of ad dollars, you only need to attract 10% of the audience. That might even be better than break even, first because your audience will likely be more loyal, and second with a shift toward quality the income from rebroadcast licensing may increase (you can sell DVDs or get Netflix/Amazon to pay you to stream BSG, but not The Jumping of Sharktopus (in 3D)).

It would be a high risk strategy in today's world. We are just beginning to test what people will pay for long tail content, and how it needs to be distributed.

Re:Not sure you understand supply and demand

[AmiMoJo]

They should have just started a second SciFi channel and put the good stuff on it, and then kept the first one for wrestling. My understanding is that shows like SGU and Terminator made money, just not as much as wresting and ghost hunting. Surely there is room for both.

Re:Not sure you understand supply and demand

[jbolden]

Scifi fans are also ultra picky. They only like their particular types of scifi.

SyFy would need to become Sci-Fi

[LandoCalrizzian]

That channel lost much respect with the name change and adding WWE was the shit-icing on the cake. I would definitely pay a premium for good quality Sci-Fi like BSG, Fargate, Firefly, Dollhouse, SG:U.... but not on the SyFy channel. If they restore the quality of the channel as a whole then we can talk. Hell it a Sci-Fi channel, they could lead the way in providing a premium channel online or partner with Netflix for distribution with SciFi branding. Imo opinion they should change their name to the Fy channel because there is more reality fodder than Sy in Ghost Hunters.

How about they just go away

[Shivetya]

The showed their hand when they renamed their channel. As in, they were more interested in being hip than being a place to be for science fiction.

If I want premium shows I will watch HBO (usually on DVD - used to on Netflix till HBO yanked what I wanted from them - BOOO!). Considering the quality or should I say lack there of when it came to in house stuff are we losing much that they show wrestling? At least with wrestling the costumes and special effects are better.

I will admit being a fan of Children of Dune (did not care much for their Dune remake - but the follow up was great to watch and had an awesome soundtrack) and I also found Tin Man to be great. FWIW, I thought it was NBC who did BSG and SyFy who did only the follow ups which really were muddled messes.

Re:How about they just go away

[Talderas]

As much as I hate to admit this.... the best Stargate SG-1 episodes were from when the show was still on Showtime (Seasons 1-5).

I didn't like the addition of Jonas Quinn in Season 6.
Season 7/8 were good.
Season 9/10 was Fargate and was them trying to breath life into something that should have ended.

SG-1 should have ended with Season 8 and Atlantis taking on the mantle of Stargate. Instead they ran two productions at once which I feel degraded both of them.

Re:How about they just go away

[lpp]

Nemec was brought in as a regular cast member (as Quinn) solely to hold down the 'intellectual' role while Michael Shanks was sitting out. I preferred Shanks' Jackson to Nemec's Quinn but I have mixed feelings about Shanks sitting out season 6. I understand wanting to make a point if you believe your character is underutilized, but to be honest I felt that wasn't the case especially at the end of season 5 leading up to 6.

An interesting point

[HikingStick]

You raised an interesting point. Unfortunately, it's too hard to say what might have been. Personally, I would have been interested in SciFi (full disclosure: I despise "SyFy") if it were a premium channel. In fact, it might have been the only premium channel I would have purchased.

Therein lies the rub. If set up as a premium channel, it would likely end up in a premium bundle rather than as an a la carte offering. I don't know that enough people would have paid (would yet pay) for the service.

The fact remains that they've already set and sailed on a course that alienated many of their (formerly) loyal viewers. After such a disastrous decision, it would be hard for any network to come back.

Being Human

[Goboxer]

I know that Being Human was a British show first, but the American one that is showing on SciFi/SyFy is actually pretty good. It may not be original, but the content is there and worthwhile. I'm not saying they can carry a network on one show, but the ability for them to create shows that don't suck is still there. They just need to exercise it once in a while.

Re:Being Human

[indecks]

Ive heard some good things about the US version of BH. I watched a few episodes of the original before and I wasn't into it.

How is the American version better?

BTW I'm not challenging that, I'm genuinely asking.

Re:Being Human

[jedidiah]

Why bother re-doing something badly. Just air the original, or take your own stab at the genre. The market doesn't really need more copies of the same stuff. All that does is just waste money and dilute the marketplace.

Although the original seems to be jumping the shark at the moment...

Re:Being Human

[demonbug]

Why bother re-doing something badly. Just air the original, or take your own stab at the genre. The market doesn't really need more copies of the same stuff. All that does is just waste money and dilute the marketplace.

Although the original seems to be jumping the shark at the moment...

Another perfect example of this idiocy is the American pilot of IT Crowd. They basically changed most of the actors, then did their best to copy EXACTLY the first episode, pretty much shot for shot. It boggles the mind that someone gave the go-ahead for that; utterly pointless.

Re:Being Human

[grapeape]

Watch the british version on BBC America a couple times then try going back to the American version...it blows.

How about we get a Sci Fi channel?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

I haven't actually followed the channel that much, living in Norway for about 99% of my life. But I have enjoyed several of its shows, and I would like to see more of them that fit the sci fi genre.

Syfy has lost its way

[Bloodwine77]

Wrestling, ghost shows, and now a cooking show. It is obvious that Syfy has fallen and I don't think science-fiction is a big enough draw to be a premium channel (too much of a niche).

no, not a chance

[BitwiseX]

I'm sorry but they screwed up. I'm not going to pay $70 to $100 a month, have to watch a ton of commercials I'm not interested in, and THEN have to pay extra to get the content I want. Not gonna happen. Besides, if we did that, you don't think other channels would do the same? Next thing you know Cartoon Network will start charging for cartoons.

No I've been much happier with Netflix/Hulu, and been able to watch some actual Science Fiction (Farscape, BSG, Dr. Who.. ALL of Star Trek is coming to Netflix this summer). I just wish the cable/satellite company would wise up and realize where our TV is going to come from now.

Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem?

[AmiMoJo]

It seems like Science Fiction shows struggle to avoid cancellation on any channel, not just SyFy. Apparently there just are not enough of us tuning in. The fact that premium channels avoid sci-fi shows too should tell you something about that idea.

Re:Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem?

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Well, Futurama was canceled because executes at Fox didn't like it. So, they moved it to obscure timeslots which lowered the ratings and justified a cancellation. Futurama is sci-fi and it did eventually make a return on Comedy Central due to all the fan letters. That lends some evidence to suggest Science Fiction is NOT a sub-genre with a small, insignificant audience as the network executives believe.

Re:Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem?

[satch89450]

There is a long history of science-fictions shows having to struggle to stay on the air. Look at the effort the fans had to take to keep Star Trek on the air way back when. Irwin Allan (The Time Tunnel, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Land of the Giants, and other B-grade shows) fought the ratings fight which reduced the "science" in the show for something that the crud-brained masses would enjoy. The other part of the equation is that science-fiction is expensive to produce; not too many locations ready-made to act as a background. The budget is the thing.

TV was, and is, a game of numbers -- those who get more, win. M*A*S*H wasn't about the Korean war, it was about a group of people coping in an impossible environment, once that the TV watcher can watch without being threatened. Dallas was a prime-time soap opera about the rich and famous -- a topic always good for ratings. The Fugative was another soap opera of a different kind, one where the people became important to the viewers. How about Bewitched and Tabatha, which were prime-time soap operas with an enduring twist? And so on.

Where's the market for thought-provoking programming? The Twilight Zone (and its follow-on, Night Gallery) were the last live-actioon programs in my recollection that were smart that avoided the curse of being dumbed down for ratings. (Not to mention remembering William Shatner completely losing his cool on that airplane.) By the way, some would add The Outer Limits to the list -- I wouldn't argue.

It's not just television programs. I think you'll find the same situation in motion pictures. The difference here is that one can budget a production so that it can play successfully, and profitably, to a smaller audience and be attractive for a studio, or an independent, to do.

Re:Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem?

[zelbinion]

What about Fringe? It isn't spaceships and aliens, but I'd call it sci-fi a la X-Files. It's a decent show, and seems to be doing okay in the ratings. There are a number of special effects (again, not spaceships) but it certainly must be more expensive to produce than some reality TV crap. I agree that higher budgets make it harder to make sci fi shows profitable, but it CAN be done. BSG did it, Babylon 5 mostly did it (the 5th season was in doubt, so they kind of wrapped things up in season 4, so that season 5 felt like an afterthought.) X-Files had a long run, and look how long all the Star Trek spin-offs lasted. SG1 went 10 seasons, which is longer than a lot of sitcoms.

Anyway, I think it is certainly possible to make decent, well scripted sci fi programs, even these days. However, very few networks are trying it, and I don't think any network could pull off a full line up of expensive-to-produce sci fi shows and remain profitable as a network. Maybe if syfy turned into a virtual channel, that only released for-pay content on-line (via netflix, hulu, or direct) and just did one or two shows a season, and/or licensed their shows to other networks they could produce some decent sci fi. Will they? Probably not. I expect the "new" model to be what netflix is doing. My guess is that in 20 years there will be very few actual networks anymore. Instead, you'll have a collection of TV studios producing a handful of shows and licensing them individually to online distribution channels. A few TV channels will probably remain, but the only content they will produce is live national/local news programs. Everything else they'll license from some other production company. My 2 cents, anyway... I would hope will result in better quality programing, but in truth we'll still probably have a lot of crap, simply because it is cheap to produce and there is a willing low-brow audience willing to pay for it.

Re:Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem?

[xhrit]

>What about Fringe?

I am pretty sure I saw an arti on /. about how fringe was struggling / and or on its deathbed. Oh, and I am not sure if you can really call Fringe science fiction as it did not contain any actual science.

Re:Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem?

[buybuydandavis]

It seems like Science Fiction shows struggle to avoid cancellation on any channel, not just SyFy.

I think they're just not monetizing properly. Show episodes in theaters. Make it directly available online. Use cable for mass distribution and background noise, but when you have a hit, monetize it. Have subscriber only web sites. Let the peasants watch shows on tv and cable with commercials. After bit torrent, I can't go back to that bullshit.

I'll support a show I like with money, instead of downloading. Just give me the same quality online from your site as I can get from bt. Make it available without me having to buy a thousand cable channels. I don't want a thousand cable channels in the house, any more than I want a thousand boxes of cookies in the house.

Re:Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem?

[jbolden]

They do that. They sell DVDs of lots of shows. How many shows do you buy the DVD collections for per year. 5, 10, 20. A full cable subscription with premium channels can be $2000 per year so unless you are doing abound 50 you aren't even doing as much as cable subscribers. And that certainly isn't the norm.

Ultra picky customers are simply too complex and small a niche to be worth exploiting.

Premium + Ads???

[webbiedave]

Do we have to wash the executives' cars, too?

Why is this on Ask Slashdot?

[misof]

Why is this on Ask Slashdot? The question does not contain *any* indication that SyFy actually considers this, so at the moment it's just one person's speculation, nothing more. And anyway, (almost?) nobody here has the data or experience to make a qualified answer to the question in the post title.

Ask Slashdot should IMHO be limited to questions where our collective *experience* can actually help.

Re:Why is this on Ask Slashdot?

[savanik]

I would wager the questioner works for SyFy's marketing department and wants to test the waters for additional fees. Hopefully the response on here will be a huge wake-up call for their executives. I stopped watching about the time I dropped cable entirely - it wasn't worth me paying $30 a month for the two channels I actually watched, SciFi (before the name change) and Cartoon Network (Adult Swim).

To quote another great Sci-Fi show: "They are a dying people. We should let them pass."

Re:I don't think so...

[RussR42]

I was just reading about them a few weeks ago. Apparently they are intentionally engaging in channel drift in an attempt to capture more market share. That is one of the reasons they went to SyFy (others cited were spelling and punctuation confusion, yeah right). This is also where the very non-sci-fi programming is coming from (ghost hunting reality shows? wtf?).
Seems to me that this is the end for them. They decided to dump their niche market viewers to try to compete for the larger mainstream audience. I doubt they will capture enough of it. See also: TLC - formerly know as the learning channel.

Taking a collection...

[LordStormes]

Seriously, the biggest problem with the channel is that they're trying to do all original sci-fi content, which, for quality stuff, is EXPENSIVE to produce. Each episode of SG-1 had the budget of a small movie. They're bringing in the Ghost Hunters and that other BS because it's cheap. Buying the rights to failed series from other networks (for example, what they did with Sarah Connor Chronicles) will enable them to stop spending money on production of mediocre crap, pooling resources onto a few shows that they can then put some quality into. I'd much rather see the channel divest itself of the wrestling crap and continue to cater to the original geek culture it was marketed for - buy and air re-runs of things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Legend of the Seeker (hell, restart that one!), Witchblade, Dark Angel, and maybe some anime.

Re:Taking a collection...

[LordStormes]

Hell, some Star Trek wouldn't even suck for daytime space-filler.

Re:Taking a collection...

[Bloodwine77]

I was excited when they started to air TSCC on Thursday nights, but that only lasted a few weeks and it has disappeared from the schedule. They said the ratings weren't very good. The fact that a show like TSCC can't pull good ratings on Syfy confirms to me that the core channel demographic has shifted away from the original market.

Re:Taking a collection...

[KermodeBear]

I disagree that quality sci-fi material is expensive to produce. The quality of a show is based on the writing and the production. I have found that SciFi fans are very, very forgiving when it comes to special effects and acting. We're okay with bad acting and cheesy special effects as long as the story is a good one and told well.

Example: The original Dr. Who series, produced by the BBC, on a shoestring budget. The stories were interesting, with plenty of social commentary, a lot of "what if", things that made you think and wonder.

What about The Twilight Zone? Although it wasn't all strictly science fiction, there was enough of that, and the show was a remarkable success. That show barely used special effects at all and hell, sometimes it only had one or two actors for an episode.

While better acting and special effects might have made those shows a bit better, I'm not entirely convinced. The concepts presented in those stories were, and always will be, the most important and vital part.

Re:Taking a collection...

[LordStormes]

And this likely because the channel has gone to absolute poop. I watched SG:U until the midseason break of Season 1, after having been a rabid SG-1 and SG-A fan for years, and by the midseason, SG:U just didn't grip me. I haven't turned SyFy back on since. My wife occasionally watches Sanctuary (one of the few shows worth keeping), but usually watches it on Netflix.

SyFy, if they have any hope of surviving, needs to re-name itself back to Sci-Fi (or perhaps something like "The Geek Channel", ditch all but the top-notch shows on its current roster, and fill in the rest of the space with things their original core demographic actually like. I mean really, how many white and nerdy guys (think: Stargate audience) watch WWE, really? What's next, NASCAR?

Re:Taking a collection...

[dunezone]

Ghost Hunters was a decent show for the first season. As with most of these shows like Ghost Hunters as time goes on they start adding drama and all this side crap that has nothing to do with the original intent of the show and it starts to lose its charm. This happened to American Chopper and Mythbusters also, and two other shows that are showing this trend are American Pickers (Shatner episode) and Pawn Stars.

For Pawn Stars it was the episode where some guy tries selling The Who Woodstock contract for like $3000, and the son barters him down to $50 because he really wants this for his dad and the seller agrees because the son convinces him it might not be legit. So the seller agrees to go from a $3000 to a $50 price tag. Personally I think this scene was staged because why would anyone just drop down their asking price by 98%? Then of course the son buys it and the father explains how this contract was a reprint issued with Who albums. It was an added comical scene that was not needed and made the son look like an idiot when he knows his stuff.

Re:Taking a collection...

[Lumpy]

http://www.pioneerone.tv/ proof that you do not need big budgets...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexx also was low budget and was decent until the last year when they had their budget cut in 1/2 by Syfy in an attempt to kill it.

Also everyone forgets that Mad Max was made on a shoestring budget, they could only afford ONE leather jacket.

Primer in 2004 was also very low budget and a great film.

Moon made in 2009 was also very low budget and good.

Only people that know nothing at all about TV and movie production think it's all very expensive to make anything quality. It's not.

Re:Taking a collection...

[Samalie]

Your "The Geek Channel" got me thinking...

How about a merger between SciFi (I refuse to even recognize the SyFy bullshit) and G4/Tech TV.? Dump the non-geek bullshit, load up on some syndication of geek shows, and invest in some original SciFi programming. Keep the gamer/gaming stuff from G4, add in some cheapass coverage of major E-Sports from around the globe.

Between the two channels, and some vision, you would think we could pull off ONE channel that doesn't suck ass.

(Of course, here in Soviet Kanukistan, we have "Space", which is what the Sci-Fi channel should be)

Re:Taking a collection...

[LordStormes]

That could be great - G4 is another channel that doesn't have enough content to satisfy its core audience. Another thing this merged company could do would be to air its pilots as webisodes - have 10 pilots, and then let fans view them all and vote on which ones get made into real shows.

Re:Taking a collection...

[Talderas]

It's not as if SciFi doesn't have a history of buying shows from other networks and making them successful. Farscape and Stargate SG-1 both come to mind as shows that did not originate on SciFi. Farscape season one was shot and aired on an Australian channel. The first five seasons of SG-1 were aired on Showtime.

The new BSG is the only show that I can think of that has been hugely popular that was started on the SciFi channel. They've had some pretty good mini-series (Tinman), but their shows have been lacking for the most part.

Re:Taking a collection...

[LordStormes]

But that's buying and continuing production. There's a few shows they could definitely do that with, that died recently (Sarah Connor, and Legend of the Seeker... maybe Dollhouse) but other than that, buy dead shows and just show them as re-runs to save production budget for a handful of quality shows. Yes. low-budget shows can be decent, but big-budget shows like Stargate draw the "wow factor" that brings people to the channel. Once they tune in for Stargate, they might watch BSG that comes on after, or whatnot. I used to watch a crapload of "Painkiller Jane", even though it sucked, because I'd catch it in the hour between SG-1 and Atlantis.

Re:Taking a collection...

[camperdave]

It wouldn't necessarily even suck for some prime-time space filler.

Re:Taking a collection...

[hazydave]

Here's the problem... a show called "Ghost Hunters" on a "science fiction" channel. Yeah, we know it's all fake, but it's too reality to be on a sci-fi channel, and not fake enough to find actual ghosts and be even slightly entertaining. Watching a bunch of dunderheads poke around in the dark and jump at every sound and shadow is not entertaining.

As for wrestling.. that actually is science fiction. If the quality were not so bad that it makes "Dinoshark vs. Ultragator" look like Kubrick or Spielberg, more geeks might tune in. Or people in general. Why (weakly) try to convince people it's real, when everyone knows it's not? How about some deadly weapons, cyborgs, arms and legs being hacked off ("I'm not dead yet!"), etc.

Re:Taking a collection...

[jbolden]

Compare Twilight Zone to game shows, or soap operas from the 1950s in terms of budget. All dramas are expensive content. Sci fi is more expensive than most dramas because you need things like specialized sets.

FINE!

[Anonymous Coward]

FINE! I'll just go start my own Sci-Fi channel! With Blackjack! And Hookers!

In fact, forget the Sci-Fi and Blackjack!

Re:FINE!

[Carewolf]

In fact, forget the Sci-Fi and Blackjack!

Which incidentally is the exact same thing the producers on Sci-Fi thought when they made SyFy.

It depends

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it bring Firefly back?

Re:It depends

[Black Parrot]

Would it bring Firefly back?

Yes... in the same way the prequels brought Star Wars back.

Premium... as in "Paying for Linear"? Seriously??

[RobotRunAmok]

The entire industry is shifting AWAY from linear, "TONIGHT AT EIGHT PM/ SEVEN CENTRAL!!" linear, in-your-quaint-lil-living-room networks and over to multi-screen VOD offerings. PVR devices have killed "time" and tablets and mobile devices are in the process of destroying "space" as considerations for cable programmers. No kind of content -- not The Naked Ladies with Chainsaws Channel, certainly not The Quality Science Fiction Channel, could possibly influence the launch of a premium linear network in today's fractured, VOD, multi-screen, cord-cutting environment.

Remember when (elitist post)

[indecks]

Remember when Sci-Fi used to have that "Adventures in Japanese Animation" block on Sunday nights (IIRC)? It's where I first heard of Lensman, Vampire Hunter D (the first one, not the terrible sequel) and several others.

I was really bummed when Sci-Fi changed its name to siffee, and irritated when it started showing burley men hugging eachother into submission. I liked the TinMan remake as well, and I was really into SG:U until I heard it was canceled, and I haven't watched an episode since it went on hiatus. Now that I know it ended, I'll torrent the episodes and watch it then. Also pretty miffed about Caprica. Alessandra Torresani was soooo hot to me, especially in that little dress she always wore that showed off her legs.

Damn.

ANYWAY - maybe it's time for another channel to step up to the plate and rename themselves "Sci-Fi" and start showing Sci-Fi! I never got to see all of Farscape, and apparently it's still waiting for its conclusion, so how about it? Any rich /.ers up for starting a new premium channel called Sci-Fi? I don't have any capital to start it but I'll be a seat polisher or a janitor or something.

Lets talk to Joss - maybe he'll be down! We'll make him president of the Universe!

Re:Remember when (elitist post)

[indecks]

That's because current anime *is* crap. Adventures in Japanese Animation was probably 1993 or 1995? I can't remember, unfortunatley. Back then Anime was actually about robots (Robotech), or stuff like Akira (1988). The current pokemon/cardcaptor/bleach/trigun era of Anime is total garbage.

Watch stuff by Studio Ghibli. That's Anime. Howl's Moving Castle, Spirited Away, Nausicaa (an "OG" anime) and the like. There's also stuff like Akira, BubbleGum Crisis (not 2040), AD Police, Gunbuster, Dangaio, etc.

THAT is anime.

Re:Remember when (elitist post)

[Quiet_Desperation]

I never got to see all of Farscape, and apparently it's still waiting for its conclusion,

They have these little discs called DVDs... ;-)

And they did do a concluding movie to wrap up the series cliffhanger.

Re:Remember when (elitist post)

[smooth wombat]

StarBlazers. You forgot StarBlazers.

As I have said many a time, I still turn up the volume and watch the confrontation episode on Gamilon at night just so the explosions are more pronounced. Nothing like nearly 30 seconds of all out (simulated) combat. Dropping bombs, guns blazing, missiles shooting. What could be better?

Re:Remember when (elitist post)

[The Moof]

Saying "I watch anime" is like saying "I watch television" - it's a medium, not genre.

Re:Remember when (elitist post)

[indecks]

:) I can't even count how many times I built the Yamato out of legos as a kid, lol.

What?

[LWATCDR]

" Plus, with a paying audience, the ad space would become much more lucrative and SyFy could lose some of the seedier ads it has been saddled with lately, and better fund new original content.""

You want me to pay and watch ads?
No really imagine if TV was free. I mean what if you could just stick a wire into the air and like magic suck the shows right out of the air for free! The people could pay for the shows by just running ads. I know it is just a dream but just imagine if it could work.
Actually if you live in any good sized metro area you really should go buy a cheap antenna and plug it in to your HDTV. The picture quality OTA is so much better than what you get over cable. If you can get the major networks and if there are not other shows you really like then drop the cable people. Think about how much you are paying a year for your Cable TV. If you have internet than you can get a ROKU box and stream NetFlix. It is insane that the TV business has gotten this messed up. You shouldn't have to pay for a channel and watch ads! People forget that CATV means Community Antenna TV. The way it was supposed to work is if you live in a town with crappy TV reception someone would put up a tower and amps and everyone would share the Antenna. You paid a fee to support the infrastructure. Now that local stations want the cable company to pay for the right show them even when the customers could just use rabbit ears and get them for free.
The cable companies then compress the crap out of the signal and put on a bunch of channels some of which very few people want and then charge you for packages! Why can't I just pay for the channels I want?
The whole system is out of control and completely broken.
 

Re:What?

[jbolden]

Why can't I just pay for the channels I want?

Because you would spend too little. Why else would you want less channels than to save money?

"Is It Time For SyFy To Go Premium?"

[Legion303]

No. They lost all credibility the second they aired their first wrestling broadcast. I fail to see how throwing more money at the network will make it stop sucking at this point.

You give them more money, you'll get Sharktopus sequels. Guaranteed.

Re:"Is It Time For SyFy To Go Premium?"

[cashman73]

You give them more money, you'll get Sharktopus sequels. Guaranteed.

That's no joke. They recently announced their new season will feature such gems like Jersey Shore Shark Attack and Snowmageddon . Add that to the wresting, and this new cooking show they just added, and yes, it's not too hard to see their death around the corner,. . . Combine that with the fact that most of Sci-Fi's (excuse me, SyFy's) demographic is in the process of ditching cable in favor of internet distribution, and Dr. McCoy will soon be saying, "It's Dead, Jim." Even if they did manage to have live footage of Snooki being devoured by a Great White, that still wouldn't be enough to save the network.

I'd personally rather see Syfy take a riskier approach and get out of the cable distribution arena entirely. Focus on producing good, quality science fiction, and either sell it to other networks to air, or Netflix, or put it on their own website. Without having to waste time on the cruft that the cable industry has forced them to waste time with, they would be able to get back to their original mission.

Syfy must die.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Syfy is irredeemably blackened by its association with WWE and made-for-TV movies that were so shitty that they made Roger Corman spin in his grave. I gave up cable TV when I moved out of my parents' attic. Syfy as a paid channel, even if cable moved to a la carte pricing, isn't reason enough to get cable again. For the good of science fiction and fantasy as art forms, Syfy must die.

Re:Syfy must die.

[KYPackrat]

> made-for-TV movies that were so shitty that they made Roger Corman spin in his grave.

Considering that Roger is still alive, that's a great accomplishment.

Even worse, to quote Wikipedia about Roger:

Corman most recently produced the 2010 films Dinoshark and Dinocroc vs. Supergator for the Syfy cable television channel. Dinoshark premiered on March 13, 2010. Sharktopus, his latest Syfy production, had premiered in September 2010.

Re:Syfy must die.

[tnk1]

Roger Corman isn't dead.

Having said that, perhaps we have a new SF channel director of programming....

Re:Syfy must die.

[WizarDru]

Unless someone buried Roger Corman alive, he's still very much NOT in his grave.

Re:Syfy must die.

[Talderas]

Syfy is irredeemably blackened by its association with WWE and made-for-TV movies that were so shitty that they made Roger Corman spin in his grave. I gave up cable TV when I moved out of my parents' attic. Syfy as a paid channel, even if cable moved to a la carte pricing, isn't reason enough to get cable again. For the good of science fiction and fantasy as art forms, Syfy must die.

At this point, Uwe Boll films are better to watch than the crap made-for-tv movies they keep churning on SyFy.

I might actually tolerate the channel if they turned themselves in a MST3K channel where all they do is show bad films. Top the line up with Uwe Boll and Troma pictures.

Netherlands agrees. :)

[Barryke]

I know the Slashdot audience would probably trade a few dollars a month if it meant replacing wrestling and ghost-chasing shows with relicensed classics and more appropriate treatment of original content.

I agree. Greetings from the Netherlands.

No

[christurkel]

SyFy is run by morons and has been for ages. You can't fix stupid.

Story submitter here

[Cutriss]

So, I didn't want to cram up the submission block, so here's what I really wanted to say.

A lot of you already sound jaded beyond the point of wanting Syfy to continue existing. Fair enough. It could be someone else doing things properly. I mean, right now the Science Channel seems to have more going for it than Syfy. BBC America is *increasing* its science fiction lineup where it already had more content than Syfy did. I don't know how the figures are working for Discovery, but BBCA has to see something if it's able to keep this stuff going. It's not like BBCA gets to use the UK TV franchise fee.

I'm not proposing an ad-free network like HBO. The market is niche but it's still not tiny. I mean, a MILLION people watched SGU last night, and that's with a whole bunch of Atlantis fans up-in-arms over it. Let's say that 1M is the audience. At $3 a month, that's $36M a year alone for SGU. Plus, as I mentioned in the summary, their ad revenue will go up because the spots become more valuable. Let's figure four TV tiers - nationwide network OTA (IE - free), local OTA (free), cable (paid), premium (paid AND personally invested). On a premium niche network, these are people that are specifically interested in a narrow segment of content that the network is carrying and not just putting that channel on because Son of Sharktopus is on. You know more about these people and can spend more money marketing to them because they have the money to spend not only on cable but on a premium channel.

And while I personally don't have a strong taste for the cheesy monster movies that they've shown lately, I was amused by the terrible disaster flicks. Not everyone's sci-fi tastes are the same, but they're close enough that I think if they weren't tainted with wrestling and other assorted crap, we'd have a really good network on our hands.

Let's not forget that SG1 started on Showtime, and Game of Thrones is doing *quite* well on HBO. The market is there. Maybe Syfy can't do it, but someone can, and I hope they do.

Re:Story submitter here

[dcollins]

"I mean, a MILLION people watched SGU last night, and that's with a whole bunch of Atlantis fans up-in-arms over it. Let's say that 1M is the audience. At $3 a month, that's $36M a year alone for SGU."

This is the same fallacy the MAFIAA use when calculating damages from alleged piracy. The percentage of viewers currently watching SGU, who are willing to pay $3 a month, is not 100%. When websites switch from free to for-pay the conversion rate is typically, what, around 5% or less?

Re:Story submitter here

[Cassini2]

Content delivery is changing. People are not going to pay for Cable TV anymore. The cool kids are moving to other mediums: You Tube and NetFlix. In the Internet age, why would I watch TV on someone else's schedule? The new TV shows will be delivered over the internet, likely as short micro-broadcasts.

People may still be willing to pay for good sci-fi. In a few years, when the results of the transition are more obvious, then people will be able to watch the shows they want. Money from the audience will flow directly to the production companies. People will be able to directly influence new content in a way they currently cannot.

Until then, with NBC owning SyFy, forget about good new sci-fi. NBC has never been able to manage sci-fi programming, and never will. NBC that canceled Star Trek in 1969, and they haven't changed since then.

Re:Story submitter here

[internerdj]

I have watched shows on SyFy. I'm not willing to pay $1 extra for SyFy. In fact if my cable subscription wasn't subsidizing a substantial chunk of my internet subscription I'd probably find that it wasn't worth paying what I do for television at all.

Re:Story submitter here

[oneiros27]

$3/month for 1M users = $36M per year?

Um ... no. First off, the $3 goes to the cable company, and odds are, they're not paying that full amount to the channel owner, and there's overhead in managing who gets what channel that the cable companies insist is the reason that they can't provide general alacarte channels.

And if I'm paying extra for a single channel, I'm not sure that I'd want to be putting up with commercials on top of that. Hell, if I were only interested in a single TV show, I'd be better off just buying the individual ones on iTunes, or waiting for it to come out on DVD.

Re:Story submitter here

[itsdapead]

BBC America is *increasing* its science fiction lineup where it already had more content than Syfy did.

Well, BBC UK has recently had several successful SF/Fantasy shows (Dr Who, Being Human, Torchwood, Life on Mars) - which is a pretty unusual state of affairs for them (what I suspect is happening is that the kids who grew up on Dr Who, Blake's 7, Quatermass, Thunderbirds etc. in the 60s and 70s are now old enough to start cropping up in important roles in the BBC). In the UK, 'Who is not just a successful SF show, its a successful mainstream TV show that goes out on a major channel, early evening, on a Saturday, and gets decent ratings against talent & quiz shows on other channels. Torchwood and Being Human have been bumped from the small-beer BBC3 digital-only channel to the more prestigious BBC1 & BBC2 (respectively). So its not surprising that they see SF as a potential market for the US.

The latest series of 'Who is clearly pitched more at the US. The 2-part opener was set in the US and featured that international hero of the American Way - President Nixon - and a distinctly darker, more adult feel plus a "wibbly wobbly timey-wimey" plot (with added memory-wiping and fractured narrative brainfrack). Not sure how that will play long-term in the UK where it's always been a 'family' show (i.e. partly pitched at kids). I had to explain it to my dad :-)

It may be that it has finally dawned on BBC that if Dr Who can be the biggest SF franchise brand in the UK then maybe they ought to be able to persuade a few Americans to watch it.

Of course, UK shows have the advantage of short "seasons" (usually 6-13 episodes) : a better length, IMHO, for story arcs that avoids the BSG syndrome of 2-3 great episodes at the start a good 2-3 episode season climax and 12 episodes of tedious padding in the middle. I also suspect this helps shows find an audience: there's usually a whole series "in the can" before the show starts airing - so a show has to tank bigtime to be cancelled mid-series. Writers/producers even finish shows for creative reasons rather than cancellation - Its amusing to note that the original Life on Mars (a huge success) only runs to the same number of episodes as the US remake (which flopped and was cancelled) - although there was also a successful spinoff.

Re:Story submitter here

[tgd]

I mean, a MILLION people watched SGU last night, and that's with a whole bunch of Atlantis fans up-in-arms over it. Let's say that 1M is the audience. At $3 a month, that's $36M a year alone for SGU.

And how much does SGU cost per episode? The intartubes suggests its about $3m an episode to make. So the production cost is somewhere on the order of $70m a year, not $36M a year. At a million people watching, they'd need to be paying nearly $3 *per episode* to cover the cost. And the real problem is, SGU rarely got a million people to watch. IMO, it was my favorite of the SG series (and I *loved* SG1), but it didn't have the pop sci-fi feel of the originals and clearly missed the market.

You can't have much of a show with only a million viewers. There's a reason shows like that get canceled, and why they don't shift production to internet sales -- the viewers just aren't there for it. The only answer for SGU would've been a massive reduction in production values and cutting the very large cast down and getting the cost per episode down by 75%.

Why do you think reality shows are so big? Not because a crapton of people watch them, but because they are *dirt cheap* to make. SyFy's problem (and reason they go with junk B-movieS) is simple: The market isn't big enough to support the costs of making a good sci-fi show. It sucks, but that's the reality.

Re:Story submitter here

[vanyel]

I don't want to pay for a channel where there are only a few good shows, and I don't really want a channel full of good shows (I don't have time to watch them anyhow). What I want is a subscription torrent rss feed so I can pay for the shows I want to watch. It's the easiest and most reliable way to get them and I can support specifically the shows I like.

Re:Story submitter here

[darkwing_bmf]

Make original shows and sell them to Netflix, Hulu and DVD customers. Cable Television is yesterday's technology.

Re:Story submitter here

[Mhrmnhrm]

On a premium niche network, these are people that are specifically interested in a narrow segment of content that the network is carrying and not just putting that channel on because Son of Sharktopus is on. You know more about these people and can spend more money marketing to them because they have the money to spend not only on cable but on a premium channel.

Let's not forget that SG1 started on Showtime, and Game of Thrones is doing *quite* well on HBO. The market is there. Maybe Syfy can't do it, but someone can, and I hope they do.

EVE Online trailers in the middle of Battlestar Galactica. Can't target your advertising any better than that.
End of line.

Re:Story submitter here

[kb7oeb]

if SyFy had been a paid cable network

SyFy is and SciFi was a paid cable network. Every customer who has SyFy in their lineup is paying somewhere between 20 cents to a dollar a month for the channel. The problem with any niche channel is once they get broad distribution it is more profitable to show generic garbage that gets more viewers than the niche content that started the channel. The fact that the Science Channel is showing science fiction content is another example of a niche channel going for a broader audience.

Re:Story submitter here

[lewiscr]

I was somewhat upset when SyFy started airing Sanctuary. The Sanctuary team was testing out an online model. IIRC, the HD version of the show cost $1, the SD version was free, and the previous week's HD version was free too. I guess they did well enough with it that they got picked up.

Is anybody else out there testing out a direct to online consumer model? I'd like to support it.

Re:Story submitter here

[Pretzalzz]

A season should only be ~13 episodes. Virtually every quality television show not on the major broadcast networks follows this rule of thumb. So a season of SGU only gets you 3 months or $9 million by your estimation[this is ignoring the fact that some of the audience was only watching it because it was on and won't actually pay extra for it]. If Syfy is still attempting 22 episodes a season perhaps that is part of the problem, it ensures that 10 of the episodes are crap filler bringing down the average quality of the product and people's perceptions of it.

As for BBC America, I can't believe everyone is lauding it. It does no original programming. Are you counting reruns of X-files/ST:TNG as part of BBCA sci-fi programming? I hope not cause I view that as part and parcel with jumping the shark. Or just Dr Who/Primeval/Being Human? Remember when I said 13 episodes is ideal? Being Human has had 3 seasons for a total of 20 episodes. Primeval after the upcoming season will have had 36 episodes over 5 seasons. Doctor Who hits the 13 episode sweetspot, but inexplicably failed to produce a season for 2009.

Re:Story submitter here

[archivis]

They were doing extensive facility remodeling in 2009, that's why the weird season for everything produced there immediately before/during, such as Doctor Who.

Re:Story submitter here

[Shadowmist]

BBCAmerica hasn't created a SciFi network. What they've done is identified a few key shows which appeal to American fans, a.k.a. Doctor Who, Top Gear, Battlestar Galactica, Ramsey's Kitchen Shouting show, and Star Trek, and have used them as anchor points for some other shows to fill in the network. In fact it looks like it's getting to the point where time devoted to Star Trek and American produced shows may actually outweigh the Brit content as far as air time goes. It's essentially a network driven by previously established fan content.

SyFy isn't a sci-fi channel

[jameson71]

It may be a good idea to have a premium sci-fi channel, but syfy isn't it.

Premium channel? Not a chance...

[Lumpy]

As a service I can subscribe to on a roku Box? YES. itunes? YES,

Sorry but Cable TV is dead, it's body just has not stopped flailing. Why would a company be silly and continue a dying business model.

Also they can cut back on production costs and still out out a fantastic show. SGU did not need to cost that much to produce.

SyFy vs SciFi

[VortexCortex]

Note: The shit programming is there because they wanted to attract a broader audience -- Hence them dropping the "nerd's only" Science Fiction abbreviation and adopting some syphilis sounding name... SyFy

Even the SciFi shows themselves have been dumbed down (little to no hard sci-fi; It's mostly just fantasy-fi in my book), romantic interludes and who's mating with who drama are inserted for no apparent reason other than to attract the "wider" audience (those with narrower minds who can't pay attention unless erotica is involved -- hence "wrestling" shows for those wrestling with their latent sexual tendencies...).

Shows that get dropped are dropped because SyFy doesn't care about SciFi, they care about viewer-ship. Let's face it, there just isn't enough interest from intellectuals to generate the numbers needed to convince the Nealson hypnotized execs that SciFi is worth anything, esp. not at this late stage in the game.

Perhaps if they transitioned to support media consumption technologies that the geeks get excited about (instead of TV), they could re-claim their niche. As it stands, they see the niche dwindling and say: "Add More Tard TV, the geeks have left the building"

AMC

[Anonymous Coward]

AMC is able to produce Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, The Killing, etc. in the basic cable space. I don't think that going premium is the cure for what's ailing SyFy.

They Make More Money as Basic

[Kagato]

Very few channels can hack it in the premium space. Disney did the math in the 90's and figured out it was way more profitable to get small amount of money from everyone as a basic channel rather than a lot of money from a few people as a premium channel. The money is so much better that Disney started playing hard ball with the cable operators. You want to carry the local ABC affiliate on your system, you're going to put Disney in the basic tier.

SyFy's issue is that they are owned and operated by NBC Universal. The same no talent ass clowns that took NBC from number One to Number Four were in charge of the network. Things aren't going to get any better for the network once Comcast takes them over. Competing cable companies aren't that keen to pad Comcast's bottom line.

Not sure about "Going Premium"

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

If the cable companies could get enough subscribers for a Premium Service, then making SyFy premium might be a good idea. I too am sick of the wrestling, ghost-chasing shows and low-grade sci-fi shows. Sadly however, the media network executives seem to regard science fiction as a sub-genre with a small audience made up mostly of children and 40 year old virgins who live in their mother's basement. So, I don't think SyFy will ever go premium. I see a problem with the History Channel too. The History Channel has become over-run with Ice-Road Truckers, Ax-Men, Swamp-Men, and Larry the Cable Guy featuring obscure elements of American society (like rodeo clowning)...That's not history. I'm also sick of the plethora of pawnshop shows such as PawnStars and American Pickers. I would pay for History Channel as a premium service if they would do away with all that cr*p but again, I see a problem similar to that of the SyFy channel: too small an audience.

BBC America is the new SciFi

[theinvisibleguy]

They have Star Trek TNG, Doctor Who, X Files. Syfy is a lost cause but maybe we can encourage other channels to show more sci-fi.

SyFy is not SciFi Anymore

[MTTechSector]

There is much that I agree with here. Yesterday, I was terribly dissatisfied with the SG:U series finale. I think SyFy took a big turn for the worse when they elected to change their branding from SciFi and target audience to a non-scifi crowd. Their news release states as much. The network has definitely left is roots. Notice that even Eureka and Warehouse 13 have changed their target audience. Even the low budget movies and mini-series are lacking. I can remember two in last year that I made sure to watch - through commercials and all.

They would NEED to go back to Sci-Fi

[cdpage]

they would need to change the name back to Sci-Fi and have Sci-Fi Content again. Why would anyone pay for sy-fy content?

Unless they emulate HBO and have movie like shows...

all a cart cable can do the same

[Joe The Dragon]

all a cart cable can do the same

Who cares?

[Quiet_Desperation]

They certainly don't. People are being put in charge of these channels to turn them into profit centers. That really struck me when I turned on G4 a while back to watch X-Play, and saw something called "Cheaters" on after it. I kept watching, thinking it was another gaming show with hints and cheats, and it turned out to be a "reality" show about videotaping people cheating on spouses. o.O

The broadcast model is dead. Let it die. You watch to watch Firefly? The boxed sets are $15 used on amazon. Got a hankering for some Gerry Anderson fun? The remastered and lovingly put together UFO megaset- all 26 episodes- is less than $30 brand new.

Want some new SF? Hey, here's a crazy thought: READ A BOOK!

Re:Who cares?

[MimeticLie]

You watch to watch Firefly? The boxed sets are $15 used on amazon.

It's also available to stream on Netflix. So are Babylon 5, the various Stargate series, Doctor Who, Torchwood, Farscape, and Battlestar Galactica (and probably a few others I missed).

Great Idea!

[Crypto123]

As a certified Nerd, all I watch on TV is SyFy, PBS, Discovery Channel and Big Bang Theory. I pay a hundred dollars or so for cable every month - I woudl gladly pay all that money to SyFy if I coudl get just their quality shows (Eureka, Haven, Warehouse 13, Caprica, Batllestar, Stargate).... AND I woudl pay more if I coudl get back other killed before their time SyFy like Firefly, and pick and Trek Universe show. Too many stupid reality shows and XYZ whatever stupid crime shows on regular TV.

Re:Great Idea!

[markhb]

I wondered when I was going to find a comment that mentioned Haven! That show (returning in July) was excellent, particularly if you watched the entire season as it transformed from "freak of the week" to a WTF cliffhanger that hopefully made SK himself proud! That's actually the last thing I still watch on Syfy... I never got into BG (new formula) or SG, and I've finally given up on the Ghost Hunters franchise as they've gotten more farcical, if not corrupt.

Invalid Summary

[kitsunewarlock]

SyFy is not basic. Therefore it is cable. You know: those premium channels that were lauded in their early days for higher production values, lower censorship regulations and zero ads (as you had to pay extra for them)?

This is science fiction, let's BE futuristic

[Gnaythan1]

Its time for the shows we love to start giving the finger to distribution channels on tv, and post their shows once a week to a website directly, with either a monthly charge, all you can watch... or a premium charge to watch it the week it is first posted, less charge for the first month... and free of charge after that. Throw a bunch of content around the shows to enhance things maybe... but we want the shows. We don't need SYFY. at all.

Hope they do...

[CFBMoo1]

That way the dead horse that was once a science fiction channel can finally be put to rest.

Without good leadership, any project is doomed

[Plekto]

This is the real issue at work here. The idiots in charge of SyFy are astoundingly inept and lack a real focus. When the network first started, they had about half of their entire schedule filled with repeats of old science fiction shows and so on and a few new things. But lately, it's been them spending stupid amounts of money on made for TV rubbish and failed series that have worse writing than sitcoms and pulp science fiction from the 80s. Honestly, the guys from Fox can churn out better stuff at this point, and that's not saying much.

With their last big franchise that drew in viewers gone, and no serials from the 70s, 80s, or 90s to act as filler,(even old MST3K episodes would suffice to draw in a consistent crowd of retro-viewers, let alone old Dr. Who or similar) it's dead in the water. They simple need to die off at this point. I hope that Stargate gets picked up by someone who has the vision to make it live again. But I doubt it at this point. I think it'll die off a slow and agonizing death (or has at this point, most likely) like Star Trek did. And at the hands of many of the same idiots - big surprise!

The stations demise was set...

[RLU486983]

as soon as they changed the station name to SyFy... the person that first thought that idea up and then the one that made the decision to let it happen should both be stuffed into a space capsule and shot off into the bowels of space!

I'm so over sYfY

[rickb928]

Snake moves are boring. Reptilian movies are boring. Ghost movies are boring. Vampire/undead movies are boring.

Seriously, vampire shows are just vehicles for skinny girls and sexual content. The plot is 'save the girl, sweep her off her feet, live undead happily forever and ever and ever'. Thin soup.

HBO figured out that as a premium channel, they could command an even more loyal subscriber base by producing exclusive content. So we got Sex and the City and The Sopranos. And they kept on producing series. While you might complain that you got a few weeks of Sopranos, you got 60 minutes, no ads, and real good work.

sYfY could take a lesson here and consider establishing the series they have available. SG doesn't have much life in it unless you want to do an Indiana Jones treatment and go back to the 1920s or further and work on the arrival of stargates. I, for one, would like to know why a System Lord would abandon Earth. Something in the water? Or finish Caprica. Or get the band back together and make a Firefly extension. Personally, I would like to see the Dune series done right, or Asimov's I, Robot fleshed out for the first time on film, or the Foundation series. If you like vampires, the Crystal Singer series is close enough to keep you entertained, maybe. HBO is doing Game of Thrones, which is what sYfY should be doing. The Event is better than anything on sYfY, faint praise, and the new 'V' was just unsnake enough for me to sit through it. We live in a golden age of video production, and it isn't that damned expensive. You don't even have to build sets like you used to. Hell, you don't even have to buy film.

It's just a matter of time before there is enough out there on YouTube to blow sYfY off the map. Actually, YouTube may eventually blow half of cable off the map.

sYfY has lost its way. I doubt they can find it again so long as they can't figure out how to make money doing what they used to.

Decision making.

[Viewsonic]

AMC has been hitting home runs as much as HBO lately. You look over at SyFy and they greenlight stupid movies like MegaMonster vs MegaAnimal, Mosquitranasaur, and other stupid inane movies that no one will ever watch. They've been doing this for years, just throwing money away. I'm sure budding directors are happy to cut their teeth on this stuff, but for the actual viewers, and the sponsors that bring in money it is painfully obvious no one wants to see any of them. They used to have amazing shows like Farscape, Lexx, and now SGU.

Everything AMC has been putting out has been really great. I especially love The Killing and The Walking Dead.

Blame Sound Bite Bonnie

[FlipperPA]

SciFi/SyFy has being going downhill since Bonnie Hammer took over over CEO in 2001. They never gave a Babylon 5 series a real chance, interfering with the one pilot they did attempt. Add on to that the whole fiasco of promising two seasons to Farscape before pulling a bait and switch, followed up by bringing in Shannon Frickin' Doherty to do that godawful Scare Tactics, and the writing has been on the wall for some time.

Now she's on to killing NBC Universal. How people like this keep getting more chances after abject failures is beyond me.

Time to kill it, not fund it.

Economics FAIL in OP

[random coward]

So lets see. Not enough people watch SyFy. So you want them to raise the cost of it so that the demand will increase.

You should work for congress!

Probably wouldn't work.

[digitig]

They'd just keep the wrestling and ghost-chasing shows and pocket the subscriptions.

Re:No

[Black Parrot]

You can't fix stupid.

Evolution usually fixes it, sooner or later.

Good Money after Bad

[npsimons]

There's a saying that you "shouldn't throw good money after bad." When someone keeps reducing their quality and their product consistently disappoints, DON"T GIVE THEM MORE MONEY.

Are you serious?

[cyberchondriac]

Pay extra for the crap that is SyFy? Not in this universe.
I've never liked their original shows very much, and their movies are absolutely laughable garbage. (well.. Grendel was watchable) They remind me of B-rated monster movies from the 60s, and there's usually not a shred of originality in them either, they just rip off the plot of much better SciFi/Fantasy movies that are currently in circulation either at the theatre or on DVD.

I was never a Battlestar fan, nor did I watch Caprica, or Farscape. You'll never catch me watching any of the Stargates on a faithful basis either, I just never got that into them. I have caught Sanctuary from time to time, mostly out of boredom, although Warehouse13 and Eureka are half decent shows, granted, and given that 98% of television sucks anyway.. what else is there to watch?
The only thing I really watch on SyFy now though is "Merlin" since NBC dropped it. SyFy didn't even have the decency to pick up Legend of the Seeker.

They've been the biggest disappointment. I was really psyched when they first came out. Instead of being the "go to" channel for Star Wars, Star Trek, Blade Runner, Dr. Who, Terminator, Predator, Aliens, Buffy, et all.. though, the vast majority of their programming is home brewed camp and schlock. I guess it's not all that shocking though.. TV's track record isn't the best when it comes to SciFi, but with a few exceptions..
It's not that I want to see them gone or anything, I just keep hoping they'll better someday... and hoping.. and hoping..

Sorry but SyFy would just fuck it up

[Chas]

For a good chunk of the last decade now, the tattered remnants of the SciFi Channel have been badly BADLY mismanaged in an utterly wrongheaded attempt to "appeal to a wider audience and pull itself out of the niche it had so firmly defined itself as. It's programming director simply "didn't get" SciFi.

Hence the prevalence of "ghost hunter" shows with boobs standing around going "I imagined I saw something there! ITSAGHOST!" and John Edwards "I can talk to dead people" faux psychics. as well as *GAG* "rasslin".

The fact that they picked up and ran with some rather fine SciFi series, even as late as this year is a source of unending awe to me.

Simply throwing more money at them and going premium is NOT an option for them now though. They've gone on to define themselves as just another general content channel that happens to have a SLIGHTLY higher quotient of science fiction stuff. As such, they have nothing that makes them a worthwhile, marketable premium channel. And I mean NOTHING.

It's time...

[TheSpoom]

...for someone else to rescue SyFy from its current management. Until we achieve that, nothing else will work.

BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[Picass0]

Why do I need BSG on BBC America? I don't want them to show American series. I want interesting British programming that I might not have seen otherwise. I thought that was the whole point to the channel.

I can turn on Spike or any number of cable channels that are re-run mills.

SyFy blows. WWE and Ghost Hunters crap. I'd love to see a new station with content like it's Science Fiction Channel days.

Re:ESPN should be a premium channel as well disney

[Kagato]

ESPN is one of more extreme example of why media consolidation is a bad thing. It's one of the most expensive basic tier stations out there and they use the local ABC affiliate as leverage. And that was before they moved Monday Night Football over.

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[captjc]

I agree. It blew my mind that BBC America does reruns of Star Trek TNG and the X-Files and not actual BBC shows.

Truth in Advertising. . .

[JSBiff]

SciFi implied that the station focused on showing Science Fiction content. They abandoned that premise, so calling the network SciFi was false advertising. SyFy, on the other hand, as a word with no meaning, suits a network with no focus.

They are the network that's not about anything.

I'd gladly pay

[trparky]

I'd gladly pay for the right to be able to watch it, even if it was on cable TV; that is if they get some good original programming and not those cheesy D-rated movies that they normally show.

As for the people who say that it should be an online channel, I still say that there's just something to be said for being able to watch your favorite show on a big 52-inch television at 720p instead of on a small computer screen with YouTube picture quality. I know YouTube says they have 1080p content but it still looks like crap according to the HD service I get on my cable service.

If it becomes a channel I have to pay for like people have to pay for HBO, I don't care. Give me good science fiction shows with compelling plots and stories and I will be more than glad to pay for the right to watch those shows. And no, I will not torrent them because I know that if the producers don't get paid they don't make new shows for me to enjoy.

Re:I'd pay!

[JSBiff]

Is that sarcasm?

  SGU showed some promise in the early episodes, but really failed to ever deliver on those promises. Pretty much the same story with Caprica. The writers of both shows had premises which seemed like good foundations to build interesting shows on, but ended up coming up with horrible plotlines and characters which ranged from awful to merely boring.

Not For Me.

[dcollins]

"I know the Slashdot audience would probably trade a few dollars a month if it meant replacing wrestling and ghost-chasing shows with relicensed classics and more appropriate treatment of original content."

Uh, not only would I not do that, but:
- I don't even want to watch SyFy for free, or any of those shows that you mention.
- And I don't even bother to have cable of any sort.
- And in fact I don't bother to own a TV anymore at all.

Re:Not For Me.

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

- And in fact I don't bother to own a TV anymore at all.
Do you live in Chapel Hill?

Maybe it is time for a merger

[skyraker]

I know it has been mentioned, but maybe a merger needs to happen. The networks screw up most SciFi, and anything good gets cancelled typically because it will never get the audience needed for a network show. We shouldn't need to worry every year that a show such as Fringe may not get renewed. But a merger needs to make sense. G4 : Already mentioned. This would seem to be the likely candidate. Half the shows on G4 are barely watchable. The station is directed towards the same type of crowd, etc. They even sometimes get the rights to air repeats of the network SciFi shows. A combined channel will have SciFi content, technology content, and AOTS :) Spike : Man's station, so audience is very direct. However, SciFi watchers tend to lean towards the same demographic (not claiming this is an absolute obviously). Fewer shows though that would be commonly watched. Mega-merger (SyFy, G4, Spike) : Now this would be the channel, with content of each type being the 'primary' set for the night. You do not need to worry about continuously coming up with new content (like SyFy has to), you aren't focused too much on geeks (like G4), and you draw in those who like the manly shows. Yes, you'd still have wrestling (since both SyFy and Spike have that). But you don't need to fill 7 days of SciFi, and no need to make 'Cheesy Monster Movie of the Week' for every week. The problem, though, is that you still need something that will be shown during the day, when most people aren't home. This is where specialty stations have the most problems.

Uhm, who cares?

[Benfea]

Most of their original content is pure crap, and they've obviously decided to switch to a format showing something other than science fiction (hence the name change). They don't need to be a premium channel to show wrestling and "ghost hunter" shows to mentally disabled people. Can you tell I've stopped watching?

I too would part with some money for that

[GeekyMonkey]

I have been saddened by the loss of Caprica, and Stargate (SG1, Atlantis, and Universe) before (long before in some cases) they're stories had been told. I look to pioneer-one (http://www.pioneerone.tv/) for the way forward. They have proven, in my mind, that we the geeky will spend our own money to support quality science fiction. (I have no affiliation with pioneer-one, other than that I have donated some money to their cause).

YES for the love of all that is Fandom

[Darcojin]

Yes please, there is so little on theses days that i miss the content that SCI-FI used to have (thats right i intentionally spelled it that way) before the dumbing down of the programs. Just like when G4 bought TechTV. Seems that theses days everything is pointed at the lowest common denominator. I would gladly py a couple extra dollars a month if it meat having some thing decent to watch again. Sigh......

It's called Netflix.

[Picass0]

>> "Any episode of these TV shows: Star Trek (all series), Doctor Who, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Stargate (I liked 'em all), BSG (sure both eras, why not), Firefly, etc.
Movies: Star Wars (all 6), Star Trek (40 now?), Blade Runner, Serenity, The Day the Earth Stood Still (original please), old Japanese monster movies, all the comic based flicks, etc."

Most of what you've listed is on Netflix or in the case of Trek it soon will be. 8 bucks a month. Look into it.

Re:It's called Netflix.

[pr0t0]

I have Netflix. Most of what I listed is not available for streaming. Thanks though!

Re:It's called Netflix.

[Picass0]

Netflix has just signed a deal to stream all Star Trek episodes from the five different TV series soon. They stream a lot of Doctor Who, all episodes of Firefly (and Serentity), every Ep. of BSG, anime, Comic book flicks....

That's not everything you listed, but it's close.

You probably had Star Wars on DVD already so that shouldn't be an issue. If you don't own Star Wars on DVD you lose your geek stripes.

Buy Blade Runner on Blu if you haven't yet. The five disk set is 30 bucks and it's the best looking Blu set I own. The documentaries alone are worth the cost.

Not likely

[TheQuantumShift]

As far as I'm concerned it is a paid network. That also shows me ads for the hoveround and the sunsetter retractable awning... Because you know a lot of boomers are getting their Sharktopus fix...

I don't think anything could save SyFy from the marketroids, reminds me of G4 which I stopped watching when they described their target audience as "Males 12-45 years of age" with a straight face (that and they seem to have no actual programming). Maybe as revenue continues to drop we'll see some consolidation. Get the 2-3 decent shows from each channel and build one channel actually worth watching. G4, Spike, SyFy on one channel, all the discovery owned channels on another, a&e channels on another, etc. Then do some actual research on your viewers and target Ads accordingly (or get cable to open up and do alacarte and do away with ads all together).

Or they'll just blame pirates and sue a bunch of people...

Re:Not likely

[Stormy Dragon]

Ala Carte actually could end up reducing the market for niche channels even further. Suppose you have 69 channels and are choosing what to put on channel 70. If cable is all or nothing, you're likely to pick something that is going to attract people that aren't already customers. So if sci-fi fans aren't buying cable at all, you may put on a sci-fi channel, even if they're a small market.

If people are purchasing each channel is individually, you're going to want channel 70 to be something you can get your existing customers to add onto their service. All that matters is how big its share is, even if it's duplicating something already served by numerous other channels. So you're probably going to go with yet another sports channel over a sci-fi channel.

This won't work with SyFy

[MobyDisk]

You can't switch to being a premium channel based on the promise that once you do so, you will offer good content. You need to offer good content, get people hooked, then go premium. As-is, I have no faith that any new series produced by SyFy would be decent. Their "original movies" are horrible with bad writing and cheap special effects. Once they offer something serious, then they could try to go premium. If they really want to do this, they need to go with a new name so that people don't associate it with SyFy.

I think your assumption about "The Slashdot audience" is wrong since Slashdot readers are notoriously anti-TV and very internet savvy. In addition, making basic channels into a premium channel is driving customers away from cable television. When I had Comcast, every other month I got a notice that some channel was being moved to the next level of service. I think I had 70 channels and it 60 of them were showing one show 12 hours a day. I had all day cooking, all day gardening, all day house hunters, all day America's Funniest Home Videos, all day Ghost Hunter, all day Spongebob, etc.

SyFy is a guilty pleasure

[greymond]

I often have either the SyFy or Discovery channels always on in the background as I'm on my computer, lately the Discovery channel has taken over...While I admit I chuckle at the Mutant versus Monster and psuedo-remake of current movies (like 2012, but not the real 2012 that was released in theaters) I can't imagine actually having to pay for this channel. It's a collection of not very good things.

IMO the shows mentioned in the blurb here were terribad. Caprica (no thanks), SG:U (puke), SG:A (space vampires weee), SG (was good for the first few seasons then went downhill). Eureka - campy, but alright, it is a good fit on a free nerdy network. Sanctuary - meh, it's not a great show, not really good, but it's cheap and easy to make so it's not going anywhere. Warehouse 13 - similar to Eureka (and set in the same world as they do cross-overs) but it's not like an "omg this show is great".

Occasionally the SyFy channel will get a decent show, like BSG, but it doesn't market it well and ultimately it does little to actually benefit the network, because they don't know what to do with good shows. Hell if they knew what to do with a good show, they would have played Firefly in order and it'd done well.

Let's just be honest, SyFy is the place for misfit toys that nobody wants and to think it'd actually be able to get people to pay for it is wishful thinking at best.

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[RDW]

"I want interesting British programming that I might not have seen otherwise."

Well, then we'd actually have to make some, which seems to be too much trouble these days. Dr Who is still OK, but here's the programme they run immediately before it in the UK:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010w1y2

'Dont Scare the Hare - Jason Bradbury presents an innovative family game show packed with humour and jeopardy, and featuring a 4-foot animatronic robot hare...Episode 4/9. Two teams of contestants battle angry frogs and laser-beamed carrots to win 15,000 pounds.'

It's probably 'interesting' after serious LSD intake, but then so is watching the clothes go round in the Economy Wash cycle on laundry day.

women make the purchasing decisions

[ProfBooty]

I would agree, yet the marketing mantra seems to be that women make the majority of purchasing decisions in households.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2005/nf20050214_9413_db_082.htm

and from elsewhere:

Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care:

91% of New Homes
66% PCs
92% Vacations
80% Healthcare
65% New Cars
89% Bank Accounts
93% Food
93 % OTC PharmaceuticalsAmerican women spend about $5 trillion annually
Over half the U.S. GDP

Apparently this is part of the reason why you don't see 70s/80's action programming now, and why outside of sports, most broadcast network programming is female oriented. It probably accounts for why more men are spending their time playing games than watching TV as the broadcast networks have little scripted programming to offer. The female oriented purchasing premise however seems outdated since fewer people are getting married, and that more and more households are single parent households. This leaves a fairly large body of men who are shopping on their own independent of women. Syfy would seem to be a place to show plenty of ads for games, action/comic book movies, DVD box sets, cars etc, yet the ads shown don't always seem to match that demographic.

Re:women make the purchasing decisions

[negRo_slim]

Apparently this is part of the reason why you don't see 70s/80's action programming now

Good news my friend! Thanks to the OTA digial transition we now have weird .2 channels, in my area 2.2 and 12.2 are devoted entirely to shows that aired sometime between the beginning of television and the mid 80's (with a few exceptions most notably ST:TNG).

Re:women make the purchasing decisions

[negRo_slim]

Awesome /. fucked up my message the 2.2 was suppose to link to this: http://www.myretrotv.com/

SyFy Struggles

[forrie]

SyFy has seen several GOOD shows come and go; some, like Caprica, were canceled rather nonchalantly and without much comment from SyFy. My sense is they are struggling, like many other media, with where to get funding along with reliance on an antiquated (IMHO) "ratings" system.

As with music, the cable/movie/television industry is going to have to jump on board with new technology and explore alternative content delivery and revenue mechanisms. These are already evolving out there. I would personally pay a premium if it meant shows like BSG or Caprica would (and could) continue to be produced. It could be that the sheer production costs of these ventures is so high, but they're going to have to figure out how to make it work -- just like everyone else.

I have pretty much stopped watching SyFy. Though I miss BSG and the other shows, to me "out of sight is out of mind" and I've long since moved on. They are marginalizing themselves. It's really disappointing.

"Imagine greater"? Yeah.... gotta work on that one ;-)

Syfy

[Cable]

Star Trek TOS didn't do too well until it ran as re-runs on other networks. Later it got more popular and man TV networks tried a Sci Fi series. This has become a trend with SpikeTV, and the like to pick up the old TV rerun shows.

              Syfy if they were smart would make a Syfy Movies channel for a premium service included with new movies and reruns of their old shows on it for the fans. Syfy Movies and maybe a Spanish version of Syfy Movies as well, then expand into International cable and satelite as translated to other languages and subtitles. Then maybe movies for the big screen to bring in more money or/and the shows that ended to be a rerun on other networks or released as DVDs, Blueray disks, Netflix/iTunes/Hulu etc video shows, and so on.

I would pay a premium for SciFi

[rogerdugans]

If there was such a channel available in the US.
The closest we have, unfortunately, is BBC-America although that is pretty good.

There used to be a SciFi channel in the US but it went out of business or something.
Now there is one that tried to capitalize on that large albeit niche market by calling themselves SyFy (pronounced "siffy" I think. I basically look at that as the syphilis channel. There are a couple of decent programs on it accidentally but most of the programming seems oriented towards the same lowest common denominator types who watch "American Idol" and such shows.
Wrestling??
GHOST HUNTERS???
You have got to be kidding me.

If that is the channel you mean- hell, I would pay a couple of bucks to have it removed from my channel listing!

There IS good SciFi around and when you include the Fantasy genre as is most commonly done, even more.
Plenty of content for a 24/7 channel with some new stuff and the classics.
I wish we had one.

more than likely...

[roc97007]

....skiffy would cost to watch *and* the quality of most of their programming would remain shite. The best of both worlds....

I don't consider skiffy (I'll go back to pronouncing it "scifi" when they fix the spelling) a channel worth watching. Rather, I consider a couple programs worth watching, that happen to reside on skiffy. It's very liberating, and a lot less frustrating, to think in terms of content rather than content providers. I don't care that skiffy shows wrestling or ghost busting or horrible shite "original programming" because I don't watch same.

And... c'mon. Caprica was carp. Not on the scale of "megaoctopus vs giant razor clam" but nevertheless. Had it not a connection to BSG it would have sunk without a trace. It tried to appeal to the soap opera crowd by having too many characters and unnecessary plot lines, and was about as fun and satisfying to watch as laundry drying in the rain. SGU started out carp and finally got good in the last few episodes when the writers realized the clock was ticking and they needed to get off their collective butts and quit stalling the plot hoping to reach the magic 72 episode threshold. (I got out of breath just writing that.) I tell newcomers to watch episode 1-3 and then skip the rest of the first season.

SyFy

[SanityInAnarchy]

It was pretty much over for me the moment they changed their name.

Re:I don't bother anymore...

[delinear]

I think a lot of the Sci-Fi demographic aren't the "tune it at X time on Y day to watch" types, I know I personally like to drop in and out of channels and it's only a handful of shows I will actually make the effort to be there for (it used to be that you had to be there to be able to talk about the latest shows with your friends, but it's just too easy these days to catch up if you miss anything). The Sci-Fi channel used to be my go to channel when I had nothing to do because I knew I'd have a good chance of seeing something I was interested in. It was around about the time the name changed that the balance shifted so that, more often than not, when I flicked to the channel it would be something I didn't care about. Eventually I stopped even including it in my rotation of "skip through these known channels in case there's something decent on". Now I barely even bother to check it as a last resort when there's nothing else on - which means if they ever do show something decent, there's a very good chance I'll never encounter it.

Absolutely

[quoll]

I couldn't agree more with the original post.

After moving to the USA I got cable specifically to get SciFi (as it was at the time), but over time I've been wondering why. Most of the good sci-fi shows are on other channels, and the majority of SyFy today doesn't come close to science fiction. Reality TV is not fiction, even if the word "reality" is being used loosely. Monster movies really don't do it for me (though I guess they fall into the sci-fi/fantasy genre), but I just never understood why SyFy would take on wrestling. So what they're saying is that they don't care about their demographic at all?

I'd happily pay for access to a premium sci-fi channel, even to the extent that I would consider dropping most of my other current TV subscription. If the shows were good enough, I'd even be happy with a production company that produced content that went straight to the ITMS (which is a *much* more expensive way to get a show).

But alas, apparently sci-fi fans are doomed to never being able to hand over their money to producers whom they really want to give it to. Curse you Roddenberry, for the influence you had on my formative years!

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[J_Darnley]

Why can't the BBC do that in Britain? It would be much better than their 20 antiques and property shows they broadcast a week.

SyFy is an abortion.

[JustNiz]

SyFy needs to die, to get out of the way for an actual Sci-Fi channel.

As long as SyFy is around, it sends to wrong message to the clueless cable execs that "proper" SciFi isn't popular.

I mean which moron exec decided lame ghost-chasing and horror have any place on a Sci-Fi channel? I want names/email addresses.

Re:SyFy is an abortion.

[geekoid]

the exec you said "hmmm, we are dying with just sci fi, we better widen our base".

plus, I love the'r 'B' movies. not TAHT"S classic sci-fi

Let's do this

[TrentTheThief]

I'm in. Dump the crap shows and start showing some classics and new content.

If you want a good sci fi channel

[Der Huhn Teufel]

Find a chief executive who actually likes sci-fi, rather than one who admits he hates it.

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[tm2b]

BSG was also a British series - it was cofunded by the Sci-Fi Channel and the british channel SkyOne. For much of its run episodes were aired in the UK well before they were aired in the US, until they figured out that this just made US fans download it from UK caps.

Speaking of SGU

[scharkalvin]

The ending SUCKED! I'm thinking that by putting everyone in hibernation for three years they thing that the show might get picked up again in a few years. Also they sorta implied that Eli isn't going to make it. Why didn't they just put TWO people in one of the hibernation chambers?

Re:Speaking of SGU

[geekoid]

Becasue there not designed to support two people?

OTOH, if THAT the technical 'mistake' that bothers you I have no idea how you managed to suffer through all the other ones.

"Imagine Greater"

[unil_1005]

much too easy.

yes

[geekoid]

" find myself asking if the fate of Atlantis and SG:U might have gone differently if SyFy had been a paid cable network."

it would have ended much sooner. Please, is't quality is no where near the quality of shows on HBO et al. At it's quality it would need a much, much, wider interest base.

Are there any fans of Syfy left anywhere?

[spun]

Seriously, I thought they had driven off all their more intelligent fans when they started catering to the developmentally challenged. I found this turn of events very disappointing until I realized, the Syfy channel isn't just for the learning disabled, it is run by the learning disabled as well. I mean look at them, they sent a marketing bot to slashdot to do some market research and try to find out why real geeks don't watch Syfy anymore.

Wll, Mr. Retarded Marketing Bot, please take this back to your superiors: premium channels require premium content first, not last. You don't get to create literally the dumbest channel on television anywhere in the world and then complain that you could make it better if only you had some more money. You don't have money because you are doing it all wrong. You won't get more money until you start doing it right. You don't get to skip over the "getting it right" part. We are not a captive audience. We have other choices.

Until I realized that Syfy is actually a retard employment program, the idea of having to explain any of this to grown adults would have blown my mind.

Re:Are there any fans of Syfy left anywhere?

[forrie]

Well said! :-) LOL

Funny thing...

[ATMosby]

Caprica and Stargate Universe are part of the reason I dropped cable entirely. I can't see myself paying for any of the stuff that they currently produce.

How about they stop being a channel at all

[drinkypoo]

Instead, they could just produce stuff straight-to-video, except in the off chance they came up with something good enough for a theatrical release.

I personally would pay up front for upcoming science fiction from names I actually trusted, like say JMS. So I think that's a valid model for at least the first interest with enough money to make it happen that gives it a serious go.

Maybe this could be what Netflix does to continue to exist into the future as ISPs and content creators merge further to bone them.

I hope they don't change one bit

[X86Daddy]

I want to see Syfy continue right along its current trajectory. Same goes for all the cable channels. Here's why: The entire business model is a failure. The business is the selling of eyeballs to advertisers... quality, small-brain-behind-the-eyeballs eyeballs belonging to humans who buy the advertised products and services. When that business model delivers high quality art that's only appreciated by those with sufficient depth of mind... that is an accident, and they remedy such accidents with a quickness.

Subscription channels without ads still don't get it right... We live in a totally new age compared to a couple decades ago. We can have direct financial relationships with artists, artistic teams... content producers. Middlemen who "manage" and arrange and stream content are dinosaurs, and their time is up.

Let's take another look at an ancient method of funding the arts: the patronage system. Wealthy nobles, at the dawn of the middle class, would fund a favorite artist, commissioning works, keeping the artist on a retainer of sorts. Well, now we have a world of PayPal and BitCoin, and a larger middle class. We have the Internet. If an artist solicits funds so he or she can pursue his or her craft... to fund a specific project or just to do more work... They'll get paid in pennys, dollars, and other fractionals... from a ton of fans. The more impressed the consumers are with the art they've already seen by that artist (for free), the more likely they will be to pay to feed their craving for more. And if not, not. This revolution is already underway. When mainstream artists of the prior business models start switching over, this will get even more pronounced. Distribution, funding, filtering... we, the viewers, the listeners, et al have replaced the middlemen with much better, little robots.

Goodbye Syfy. Hello Iron Sky.

What do you mean by a few dollars?

[gravis777]

I have been saying for years that I would like to get my channels al la carte. If I can get channels for between $2-$5 each, and not have to get a stupid package, yeah, sure, I would pay for SyFy. Lets see,
1) SyFy
2) BBC America
3) History
4) History Channel International
5) Discovery
6) HDNet
7) TLC
8) Travel
9) Science channel
10) HDNet Movies

Multiply by, oh, a few bucks, say, $3 a channel, and, wow, look at that, $30! Add in Taxes and box rental, I am at $50. That is half of what I am paying now, and those are the only channels I watch. Yeah, I would pay a few bucks a month for these.

Re:What do you mean by a few dollars?

[Nyder]

I have been saying for years that I would like to get my channels al la carte. If I can get channels for between $2-$5 each, and not have to get a stupid package, yeah, sure, I would pay for SyFy. Lets see, ...
6) HDNet ...

Can't miss Guys Night In huh?

marines show

[ProfBooty]

You were thinking of Space Above and Beyond which ran on fox for one season before being canceled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_above_and_beyond

Relicensed classics?

[MBGMorden]

Who the hell wants "relicensed classics"? I'm not going to pay a monthly premium to a channel to rehash old material that I can easily get elsewhere.

Now, I WOULD be willing to pay for a channel for access to shows. I pay for HBO pretty much solely for True Blood and Game of Thrones. I'd gladly do it for science-fiction centric shows on a dedicated channel, but honestly, at this point I'm convinced that SyFy ain't the channel to do that. They'd probably go premium and use that new cash to get an even BETTER selection of wrestling.

Personally, I'd rather see a new channel pop up and offer something like this. Better yet, not even a cable channel - put it online. If someone could work out the deals with Netflix, iTunes, Xbox Live, and Amazon, I'd like to see a "direct to download" TV series take off. No ads, no middlemen - just straight sales to the consumers. Felecia Day has done great work with her "The Guild" web series working on tight budgets - I'm sure with just a bit more funding someone else could do good science fiction in a similar manner.

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[Bert64]

Some of their kids shows actually make you think someone has slipped you some LSD without you realising... Teletubbies, "in the night garden", and waybulloo among others...

Re:Premium channel? Not a chance...

[Eravnrekaree]

Cable TV is dead? Only because of the networks incompetance. From a technical perspective cable tv is quite sound. For this reason, it is impossible to stream millions of individual streams of HD video over TCP/IP to millions of users. Cable TV does provide a selection of HD video feeds in a relatively efficient way by having many, many users tune into the same feed. . Also, because of the fact there is not enough bandwidth to carry millions of HD streams to users in a city, the quality of streaming video can be quite bad, and network congestion problems become acute.

Cable TV programming is crap but this does not mean the technical concept is. Its really the only way to bring many, many HD feeds to a large number of people without maxing out bandwidth. I would say, as far as the management and content of the network, why not let users democratically decide what is shown rather than leave it in the hands of corrupt network executives that try to force their preferences for wrestling and cooking shows, celebrity gossip and so on on everyone.

Still love'n the SyFy..

[modi123]

Wow.. the OP makes it sound like there is nothing else left on SyFy with all the space opera gone. What about Eureka and Warehouse 13 starting up another season? Both enjoyable shows. Sanctuary's been pretty fun as well. Kudos to all three shows!

Sure the wrestling and the ghost shows are annoying, but I can work around it. I finally caught a few episodes of 'Sarah Conner Chronicles' because it seems SyFy has picked up the license. Awesome! what about all the other classic shows they dredge up: Sliders, StNG, First Wave, Earth 2, and so on?

Regarding what BBC America is doing - I could care less. I don't have the channel, never was a fan of Dr. Who, and I am a well adjusted person.

All I hear is a large squawk from the Stargate fans. Is that what this is all about?

SiFi or whatever they are no is dead to me...

[grapeape]

Can't say I would really care what they did with the channel, why in the world would anyone want to reward their owners and investors by buying into a "premium" service...they chose to chase other markets with their programming scheme and can ride that horse to bankruptcy as far as i'm concerned. Support the channels that support your viewing habits, if you like wresting and ghost hunter shows by all means continue to enjoy syfy, the rest of us will and have long since gone elsewhere for entertainment. Hell I never bothered with SGU because of where it was...

BBC America has actually done a great job of catering to former SciFi viewers, their Saturday night lineup is fantastic with Supernatural, Being Human, Doctor Who and soon to be Outcasts. BBCA even has STTNG and Battlestar Galactica now.

No!!!

[manlygeek]

That was easy!

Agree wholeheartedly!

[ilec_geek]

Actually, IMHO, ever since BSG went off the air, I've had no reason to watch that channel. What's it called??? "SyFy" ???? What the FRAK is that supposed to mean? It doesn't mean anything. It is totally meaningless. It was a colossal insult to the audience in thinking "If we call it 'SyFy" instead of "SciFi" then "normal" people will watch instead of just the geeks. Typical pointy-headed, micro-managing, bureaucrat, idiotic thinking. Well, now you have wrestling and ghost chasers that "normal" people AND geeks go out of their way to avoid watching. Caprica could have been successful if they didn't botch it up with scheduling like they always do. I say blow SyFy out the airlock like the fake, skin-job Cylons that they are and bring back the original!

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[St.Creed]

We had a song over here about a little rabbit that made nr. 1 I believe, and you could hear it was made by two guys heavily under the influence of something a lot stronger than mere alcohol or marihuana (which they admitted to :)). I think that would be a wonderful tune with this show :)

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[quacking duck]

We also downloaded it because the American version (in season 1 anyway) had really shitty title music, courtesy of meddling by the head of Sci-Fi Channel at the time.

Thankfully Sci-Fi Channel wised up, because season 2 onwards it used the UK version.

Someone must've thought....

[metalmaster]

Sci-fi is really bad television!

I might get modded into oblivion, but when you look at the numbers truth rears its ugly head. When WWE wrestling programming first appeared on SyFy it gave them the highest ratings in the network's history. The same probably goes for Ghosthunters and the like. They attract a mainstream crowd that advertisers can cater to. TN networks(even those owned by NBC) need money to run. How do you earn money? Run shows that bring viewers to your channel.

It might have something to do with genre oriented networks as well. MTV once played straight music..... now they're all about reality with music as an after thought. The only genre-oriented network I know that stayed on top for a long time was Spice; it was premium. With the explosion of internet porn i wouldnt be surprise if that crashed and burned

I want to skip tv altogether, I want to download

[BlueCoder]

Epiphany moment. Forget the boxed sets. Let's set it up so that people are permanently buying the content and can burn or record their own on their hard drives and are fully licensed to transfer ownership. That last part is important because it's the difference between illegal downloading and supporting a show. You buy into a show you can watch all the episodes at low quality live on the net. And depending on how much in total you have bought into the show you can download so many full resolution episodes. People casually downloading don't watch full resolution most of the time. Make episodes outrageously cheap like a $10 buy in and $3 a show. That's 10+22*3=$76 dollars an episode. And $15 more for the extras that would be on a boxed set. So call it $90 for a show I actively watch. I call that a deal and being a fan of the show I feel like I'm contributing to it's continuation and I essentially own the boxed set. And if you follow this model you don't necessarily have to conform to TV formats of so many episodes. Also if money falls short you can slow down the release of new content or even speed it up. Slowing it down potentially increases it quality which will bring in more subscription money.

Syphi

[mrmeval]

I quit watching it after the name change and the direct put down of science fiction fans by them. It's become a purveyor of putrid shows pandering to mundane pustules of human flesh.

It is the Syphilis channel.

Won't work...

[jonwil]

Going premium would just make even MORE people turn to BitTorrent and P2P to obtain the shows.

The #1 problem with TV Sci-Fi is that its core fan base is also likely to be the kind of people who know how to obtain content without paying for it.

Not a premium channel, but subscription to shows

[buybuydandavis]

I watch very few shows. I'd pay money to be able to access them on the web, and maybe get some premium contents and forums. That would have been perfect for Caprica.

Hulu the shows when they start to build an audience, or put them on a standard cable channel. Then convert the successful ones to premium subscription internet access, with some extras. Let you see the shows earlier, see them longer, see them in higher resolution, and maybe have rights to view them for years. Create search capabilities for scenes, characters, etc.

I wish the NFL would do that in the US too. Let me subscribe to my team. Be able to do video searches for all targets to a specific player in a game, season, etc. Let me look at the contents of all cameras. See all the plays with one player on the field. I want the content, and I'll pay for access and increased functionality. Just show a little creativity and make it available.

Re:Somebody actually watched Caprica?

[archivis]

Same here. After the BSG finale I flat-out ruled out even thinking about spin-offs. Clearly they had no idea what the hell they were doing.

You don't get it- they make more money on wrestlin

[Maxo-Texas]

They could make money on sci-fi.

But they could make more money with reality, ghost, and wrestling shows.

Look across the universe of cable shows and this is widely true.

I was shocked to tune to "network" TV recently and at 1pm to 4pm on a saturday-- infomercials.

That's the modern business model-- if you can make $99 showing sci-fi but make $100 showing 18 hours of non-sci-fi and 6 hours of sci-fi, then you do it.

It's not just TV stations either. It's everything.

Only black items-- because 70% of customers bought black-- 30 % bought 6 other colors. So just drop the 6 other colors and only sell black.

It's horrific- the incredible loss of choice we are experiencing in every arena for marginal improvements in profitability.

Re:Premium channel? Not a chance...

[Lumpy]

You dont realize how digital cable works do you....

IT's all ip based for the most part. right now it's a mpeg2 broadcast stream that you "tune into" but it does not need to be that way, they are doing it that way because they are live feeds of video. if they were not live feeds than it can all be On demand without any changes to how the digital cable TV distribution works.

It's specific streams ONLY because the channels are "live streams".

And CableTV is dead because they dont want to change their business model. Comcast 10 years ago should have focused on the internet side first, they would be kind right now... (also get rid of the "we hate the customer" attitude, but that has been there for decades)

Re:BBC America showing American stuff = suck

[ginbot462]

You have a naive belief that ALL cable channels don't slowly migrate towards the same generic dark beige colored pig slop. The trough forged from the charred bones of MTV's carrion; the putrid smell of decaying encephalon; the insidious jocularity upon grinning undead peddlers. NOM NOM NOM indeed.

What i would pay for

[blackair]

SyFy went down hill when they started getting cute with the name. I don't blame any of the Stargate shows largely because they were going the way of Star Trek (in need of new blood and bold ideas). But this nuclear poliferation of reality shows runs away a lof of intelligent viewers (and consumers). More original shows like Eureka, warehouse, being human get me to tune in. silly stuff like ghost hunters or stan lee superhero show make me tune out. why is every original movie campy and dumb. give me miniseries like taken, tin man and river world. pipe dream I know but that the kind of channel I would pay for.

Mtv != Grey Pig Slop

[Picass0]

It is an insult to both pigs and slop to be compared to Jersey Shore.

The sad thing is not only are you right, but I watch several channels wondering in the back of my head "Hey, this is pretty good. How long before someone screws it up?"

Mtv has a sister station called Palladia that actually shows music and concerts. There's no on air personalities or abrasive VJ's. No off subject documentaries, game shows, Real World, Jersey Shore, or any of the other stupid crap Mtv has done on it's flagship channel. They aren't perfect (too many re-runs) but it's light years better than Mtv.

So I guess the clock is ticking on "how long can it last?"

TLC (remember when it was called The Learning Channel?) shows nothing but Kate Plus Eight and Cake Boss crap. "Learning"?

A&E used to show high-brow Art content. Now it's "Dog the Bounty Hunter"

In 5 years many of these channels will be dead as people are canceling cable in favor of streaming services like Hulu and Netflix.

>>"You have a naive belief.."
no, I simply voice my frustrations. I'm certain BBC:A is showing BSG because it was an affordable piece of syndication to fill a programming slot. But I would still prefer if they were to show syndicated content or reruns that they would be British.

Let's put it this way: The original "The A-Team" TV series was extremely successful ratings wise in the UK. Perhaps even more than it was in America. But I don't want to see it on BBC America. Same for "Baywatch" - more successful internationally than in the US. But I also don't want it on BBC:A

Why would I pay for more LCD crap?

[Mike Van Pelt]

(LCD as in Lowest Common Denominator)

I would love to see some channels aimed at intelligent niche markets. Unfortunately, every channel tries to go for the same lowest common denominator market as every other channel. I was really excited when I heard that there was going to be a Sci Fi Channel. The reality was ... disappointing, but there was good stuff on it occasionally. At first. But they cancelled everything good to make more room for brain-rotting abominations like wrestling and psychics. Actual science fiction is on other channels.

If they go pay, they would have to put some real science fiction on it that generated a lot of positive buzz before I'd even consider looking into what they're offering. I think the odds of that happening are as close to zero as makes no difference. "Ca

The audience is there it just isnt big

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

Its true that the number of viewer for sci -fi type shows doesn't compare to the viewers of other genres but even a small % of dedicated viewers could represent thousands and then the people who like some sci-fi shows as there second choice could be millions.

Now that isn't enough for all the main channels to share but there aren't really any other channels going after sci-fi type shows. If SyFy cleaned up there channel it would become the only place for sci-fi lovers to turn to. It used to be a channel I would turn to when surfing for something to watch because there was maybe a 25% chance it had something interesting on. Now the only time I ever tuned in was for a couple specific shows because everything else I felt was a making fun of their viewers.

  As it stands though with the end of SGU there is absolutely nothing that interests me on SyFy any more, and they can complain its because they don't have enough viewers or funding but thats their fault. As stated first you have to produce something of quality, that will draw the viewers, and in turn your funding will rise, you don't get to reverse the order.

IT IS a paid cable station (for garbage, like WWF)

[lpq]

It's not free, over the air.

If I want to receive the broadcast as they send it out, I have to pay about $105/month. That's with no 'premium' content'. I would hardly call anything but a 'paid' option.

Comcast, in my area, charges a basic $49 for a downgraded analog version of all digital stations for those who don't want to pony up an extra $50 to receive stations in the digital form that they are broadcast in.

Actually, that's not entirely true, I'm told, since in order to make more space for more channels and compete with satellite and fiber offerings, they further compress their digital signals fit 50% more stations into the same space (fitting 6 into the space normally taken up by 4).

Scifi has sucked heavily for some time with the BSG remake being their last partial success. Really, things have gone downhill since they ended the original Stargate series, with Atlantis being not quite as good, and SG-U really sucking.

Caprica? Was that scifi? Looked like a poorly done soap with special effects with glacial pacing that lost me within the first few weeks.

When they added things like ghost-hunting and Tim-Edwards 'guesses' -- a series that might have impressed audiences back in the 1800's when they first did such shams it was obvious they were looking for anything stupid to catch audiences.

Then they started censoring japanese anime (like a 'butt' shot of 'Ghost in the Machine' among others -- "butt cracks were considered too adult!) -- but when they dumped their night of anime completely and replaced it with WWF wrestling, that was the final straw.

What a load of garbage!

Re:I don't think so...

[jbolden]

They can get their core back anytime they want. They license old scifi shows and movies, maybe even run a scifi talk show about books / movies / shows / websites and pick up market share in their niche. Given how many channels there are I'm not sure what's wrong with having a niche.

Re:SGU should be on Netflix

[jbolden]

Most TV shows have video rentals. Netflix can read the buy rent numbers. They aren't seeing the sales / rentals in huge numbers either.

Re:Premium channel? Not a chance...

[jbolden]

why not let users democratically decide what is shown rather than leave it in the hands of corrupt network executives

That's pretty much what happens. Modulo differences in the dollar value of various viewers an election is held with the winners staying on the air. The more people like particular programming, especially cheap to produce programming the more of it that exists.