Why is the SyFy channel getting a cooking show?

[Temis the Vorta]

Why give up your distinct nitch, where you're gauaranteed a loyal following

Judging from the ratings for the "real" sci fi that they've tried, they aren't guaranteed a loyal following large enough to make a difference.

Case in point: Caprica. Sure, they should have gotten to the point quicker and focused the story better, but it was a rare attempt at a TV show that was sci fi at its core, rather than some other genre (cop show, military) in a sci fi context. I was willing to have more patience for a show like that than is usual for me, but not enough other people were willing to do the same.

If they put that much effort into a show that gets rejected just because it's a tad draggy, then I can't blame them for saying frak it, let's just do a cooking show.

Anyway, if you want a sci fi cooking show, how about this?

 

[Expo67]

First they show Braveheart, which didn't make any sense.

Then they showed the godawful remake of Battlestar Galactica and its not so spectacular spin-off Caprica.

Something which didn't make a WHOLE LOT of sense, period.

Now, the Sci-Fi Channel is showing a cooking show. That is far beyond understanding.


Paddy Chayefski was right. Networks will do anything foolish or insane just to boost ratings.

 

[Cutter John]

Probably a moot point for me anyway, as I all but gave up watching television after stations like History, Discovery, TLC, etc all mutated into things that were pretty much unwatchable.

 

[Christopher]

First they show Braveheart, which didn't make any sense.

Then they showed the godawful remake of Battlestar Galactica and its not so spectacular spin-off Caprica.

Something which didn't make a WHOLE LOT of sense, period.

Now, the Sci-Fi Channel is showing a cooking show. That is far beyond understanding.

You're the one who's not making sense. Just because you didn't personally enjoy BSG and Caprica, that doesn't mean they didn't qualify as science fiction.

And it's not beyond understanding at all if you grasp the very simple fact that television is a business. Networks don't exist to stay loyal to some abstract ideal, they exist to make money. If cable networks got, say, government funding like PBS or were funded by a nationwide license fee on TV owners like the BBC, then networks would have the luxury to be faithful to a niche regardless of economic concerns. But American commercial television networks can only remain in business if they broadcast shows that get high enough ratings to be profitable. So if the niche shows get low ratings, they get replaced with shows that have broader appeal and make more money. And if the network has to broaden or abandon its niche identity to make a profit, then that is what it will do, because if it doesn't, it will go out of business. It is actually very easy to understand.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Isn't Braveheart alternate history? That's Science Fiction!

 

[The Wormhole]

Isn't Braveheart alternate history? That's Science Fiction!

I never got how alternate history can be considered science fiction. If all it is is a what if story depicting a historical playing out differently, than shouldn't that be classified as historical fiction?

Or is that the joke you're trying to make?

 

[MANT!]

Probably a moot point for me anyway, as I all but gave up watching television after stations like History, Discovery, TLC, etc all mutated into things that were pretty much unwatchable.

We REACH brother...

History..has become "Ice Road Trucker Channel"


and please don't get me started on what now passes for late night TV...(Infomercials upon infomercials)...


Thank God for the invention of the DVD and Blu-Ray

 

[Expo67]

First they show Braveheart, which didn't make any sense.

Then they showed the godawful remake of Battlestar Galactica and its not so spectacular spin-off Caprica.

Something which didn't make a WHOLE LOT of sense, period.

Now, the Sci-Fi Channel is showing a cooking show. That is far beyond understanding.

You're the one who's not making sense. Just because you didn't personally enjoy BSG and Caprica, that doesn't mean they didn't qualify as science fiction.

And it's not beyond understanding at all if you grasp the very simple fact that television is a business. Networks don't exist to stay loyal to some abstract ideal, they exist to make money. If cable networks got, say, government funding like PBS or were funded by a nationwide license fee on TV owners like the BBC, then networks would have the luxury to be faithful to a niche regardless of economic concerns. But American commercial television networks can only remain in business if they broadcast shows that get high enough ratings to be profitable. So if the niche shows get low ratings, they get replaced with shows that have broader appeal and make more money. And if the network has to broaden or abandon its niche identity to make a profit, then that is what it will do, because if it doesn't, it will go out of business. It is actually very easy to understand.

Your point is well taken.

As far as the remake of Battlestar Galactica is concerned, it's like this. The story has been told. Why remake an original classic when you don't have to.

 

[Seven of Five]

Sure you don't have to. Nobody has to do anything in life.

Besides, how many truly original stories are there anyway? If there is a remake of something I'm much more concerned with whether it's entertaining. BSG definately did that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

As far as the remake of Battlestar Galactica is concerned, it's like this. The story has been told. Why remake an original classic when you don't have to.

No, it's not like that. Not really.

oldBSG was certainly an oldie. Whether it was a goodie is a matter of opinion. It's pretty damn near unwatchable to me today, expect I still love to hear the gold Cylon commanders speak. Too bad that can't carry the show.

Whether you dig it or not, with its injection of post-9/11 angst, nuBSG added a great deal to the original premise. Furthermore, it single-handedly elevated the whole space opera genre to a new plateau with respect to design, space combat, characterization, yada yada yada.

One man's adventure story is another man's chewing gum wrapper. What can we say?


To the OP: Why did the chicken cross the road? .... sorry I mean ...

Q: Why is the SyFy channel getting a cooking show?
A: So you can say, "What's cooking on SyFy?"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

oldBSG was very attractive visually, but the content was dumb junk, the "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs" of 70s sf. Moore and his people turned that effects-laden crap into something that reasonably intelligent adults could stand to watch without sacrificing their higher cerebral functions. Moore wins.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

oldBSG was very attractive visually

This was so obvious I forgot to mention it. For a TV show it was indeed visually groundbreaking. But then again, oldBSG by its nature all but capitalized on the success of Star Wars, didn't it? Part of the formula was to deliver Star Wars on a weekly basis.

Moore wins.

He wins the second round. I wonder what's in store for oldBSGv2?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Hopefully something cool. You know how many times Hollywood has remade A Star Is Born (and interestingly the second version was the best and won all the awards)?

Yeah, Larson's BSG was a pretty direct rip from Star Wars, though the show's fans have elaborate interpretations of legal evidence to use while insisting otherwise.

 

[Greg Cox]

As far as the remake of Battlestar Galactica is concerned, it's like this. The story has been told. Why remake an original classic when you don't have to.

1) Because old stories get retold all the time. Look at Sherlock Holmes or Dracula or The Thing. Remakes often serve to reintroduce an old story to a new generation.

2) I'm sure not sure many people consider the old BSG a "classic." I realize that it has nostalgic appeal for people who encountered it at the right age, but it was hardly an untouchable masterpiece. The new version was infinitely superior--and proof that remakes can sometimes transcend the original.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Isn't Braveheart alternate history? That's Science Fiction!

I never got how alternate history can be considered science fiction. If all it is is a what if story depicting a historical playing out differently, than shouldn't that be classified as historical fiction?

Or is that the joke you're trying to make?

The joke is that as history Braveheart is crap!

Alternate History has been a subset of SF for as long as I can remember. I guess the science it fictionalizes is the Many Worlds Interpretation?

 

[The Wormhole]

Isn't Braveheart alternate history? That's Science Fiction!

I never got how alternate history can be considered science fiction. If all it is is a what if story depicting a historical playing out differently, than shouldn't that be classified as historical fiction?

Or is that the joke you're trying to make?

The joke is that as history Braveheart is crap!

Alternate History has been a subset of SF for as long as I can remember. I guess the science it fictionalizes is the Many Worlds Interpretation?

Oh, I got the fact that you were saying Braveheart isn't historically accurate. My post was half joke and half genuine curiosity why alternate history is considered science fiction.

Hell, practically all of alternate history books are usually in the sci-fi section of book stores and libraries, even the ones that are just "what if" tales with no involvement of aliens or time travellers. It just bothers me. A story of how Lincoln's term would have continued had he not been assassinated is not what I consider sci-fi.

 

[Star Wolf]

As someone who spent the 70s watching 78 episodes over and over I am just amazed that unreality draws better ratings then potentially the entire library of the genre.

 

[Greg Cox]

Hell, practically all of alternate history books are usually in the sci-fi section of book stores and libraries, even the ones that are just "what if" tales with no involvement of aliens or time travellers. It just bothers me. A story of how Lincoln's term would have continued had he not been assassinated is not what I consider sci-fi,

Well, it's not set in the "real" world, so that makes it an imaginary realm (and thereby genre) by definition. Plus, it may just be that the thought-experiment aspect of alternate history appeals to the same audience that reads sf so it makes sense to sell it as sf.

I guess it helps if you think of "history" as a science . . . .

 

[Nerys Myk]

I never got how alternate history can be considered science fiction. If all it is is a what if story depicting a historical playing out differently, than shouldn't that be classified as historical fiction?

Or is that the joke you're trying to make?

The joke is that as history Braveheart is crap!

Alternate History has been a subset of SF for as long as I can remember. I guess the science it fictionalizes is the Many Worlds Interpretation?

Oh, I got the fact that you were saying Braveheart isn't historically accurate. My post was half joke and half genuine curiosity why alternate history is considered science fiction.

Hell, practically all of alternate history books are usually in the sci-fi section of book stores and libraries, even the ones that are just "what if" tales with no involvement of aliens or time travellers. It just bothers me. A story of how Lincoln's term would have continued had he not been assassinated is not what I consider sci-fi,

Limiting SF to aliens and time travel? No thanks.

 

[Kirby]

If Syfy doesn't show a cooking show, then who will? I mean seriously, cruise around the cable channels for a while, you can NEVER find a show where people are cooking. Thank god for Syfy for giving us 30 minutes of cooking every week! The executives should be praised for their forward thinking and high levels of intelligence and creativity.