As much as my egoYou nailed it. The cable landscape is vastly more competitive now than it was 10 years ago, when Sci-Fi was a relatively new network. You simply can't survive by appealing to a tiny market niche anymore. You need that niche plus the broad appeal in order to attract enough eyeballs to fund your programming.
would love to take credit for being the first to make this point, I am far from the first to do so, in this thread alone. Dennis has also pointed it out several times (and, IIRC, he was the first to do so in the post-cancellation threads), and I wouldn't be surprised if you have as well.Star Trek isn't remotely applicable to the debate, as the television landscape that we have today was likely unfathomable back in the late 1960s. As for the Syfy Original Movies, I recommend reading the NY Times article linked to in this thread. Without those productions, the Syfy Channel would have less money, not more, because they bring in the ratings the network needs.If SyFy quit playing those really chessy movies, they might have a bit more money, not all shows can hit home run just after 2 seasons. (TOS didn't)
I'll certainly agree that I'd love to see more serious, well-made science fiction productions on the channel, but science fiction is expensive, so I'm done getting upset at networks for adhering to business sense. I don't even have any ill-will towards FOX anymore for the way Firefly was treated, and I was a day-one fan of that show.


)