And "The Real World" used to be the only reality show on MTV. You know, back when they showed music videos.
Article on SyFy Channel
- Thread starter 777
- Start date
Do you get the "this business is about turning a profit" part at all, or is that just too hard to mock in a superficial way?
I've been watching SyFy since day one - the first several years of the network were full of crap, reruns of lowest-common denominator skiffy shows and time devoted on weekend evenings to superstitious dreck like "Beyond The Other Dominion." The story of this station is not one of descent from great ambition to mediocrity...it's a history of mediocrity with a few bright spots here and there.
nuBSG is probably the only sf TV series SyFy produced itself that's worth noting - whatever other good programming they had was purchased after the fact from others.
Frankly the weirdest assertion of this article was the suggestion Sci-Fi Channel has ever had fans. In my ten years of intermittent membership of this board I've never heard a word of praise towards the channel as a brand.
I mean people were pretty venomous towards Sci-Fi channel in general and Bonnie Hammer in particular back when Ron Moore was planning Battlestar Galactica. There were angry assertions (based on leaked casting sheets and the like) that Laura Roslin was just a Bonnie's wish-fulfilment insert character.
Granted the cancellation of Farscape had sort of soured a lot of forum dwellers, but even so.
But their comments are still RETARDED. "Sci-fi is for geeks. Woman want fantasy, blah blah blah" all show how out of touch this channel is with what "Science Fiction" viewers want.
I'm fine with the mix of Sci-Fi,Fantasy, and Horror. I'm fine with a name change. Syfy is lame and stupid, find me anyone that thinks that was a great marketable brand image.
I don't watch wrestling. I don't watch ghost hunters or monster hunters or tracy morgan. I don't watch the SUPER LAME monster of the week trash they put out. I have not watched that channel in months.
Now I don't know what their overall channel ratings have been since they switched to Syfy from Sci-Fi. I'd be interested. I know I don't watch it.
And I also don't appreciate being called a "geek" by some moron executives that don't seem to be able to come up with a decent brand name, intelligent and/or interesting shows of any genre, and zero ability to market and profit from the few good shows they occasionally air.
Their fantasy-heavy programming has been successful in the ratings and I wouldn't be surprised if women made the difference there. Sure, there's an audience for space-based sci fi, heavy on the robots, mutants and aliens, but their numbers just haven't been there.
Is that because that audience hasn't been given shows worth watching? Stargate has been spiraling down the toilet for a long time now, and finally hit the point of no return. Maybe space opera fans are just tougher on shows than fantasy-show fans. I can't stand the fluffy fantasy shows Skiffy trots out, but people are watching, and that's all it takes.
If a zombie show can become the highest-rated cable show (beating Jersey Shore, ha ha!) on AMC of all places, simply by virtue of quality alone (I really cannot believe the existing AMC audience was all that interested in zombies), then I suspect a space opera show of similar quality could knock the socks off Skiffy. But they'd have to actually step up and make a show that good.
Is that because that audience hasn't been given shows worth watching? Stargate has been spiraling down the toilet for a long time now, and finally hit the point of no return. Maybe space opera fans are just tougher on shows than fantasy-show fans. I can't stand the fluffy fantasy shows Skiffy trots out, but people are watching, and that's all it takes.
If a zombie show can become the highest-rated cable show (beating Jersey Shore, ha ha!) on AMC of all places, simply by virtue of quality alone (I really cannot believe the existing AMC audience was all that interested in zombies), then I suspect a space opera show of similar quality could knock the socks off Skiffy. But they'd have to actually step up and make a show that good.
Can't find anything about the ratings, but I believe the name change is working out very well for them. The network is now valued at $6.3 billion, which is more than other NBC-Universal properties like MSNBC, Bravo, Universal Studios, and the actual NBC broadcast network.
Like I said earlier today in another thread (this was directed at Hollywood, but applies equally to TV and other mass media): The executives are incapable of drawing an audience that's smarter than they are, so they did the opposite: They managed to convince the viewing public that it's okay to be as stupid as they are.
Or maybe the truth is that the viewing public was really that stupid already, at least collectively. If you look at all the trends, brand names, programming blocks, reality shows, bands, and celebs that have come and gone over the last few decades (with an average duration that gets shorter and shorter), you can see that the collective viewing public has the intelligence and attention span of an idiot child. The media has made an entire industry out of waving funny toys and pretty colors in front of this child in order to keep its attention. And the child's attention span is getting shorter, so the media has to come up with more and more toys to wave in front of it. As long as they can do this, they make money.
I don't know the exact context where Warhol said in the future everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, but I wonder if he was envisioning something like this.
And the executives don't have to be particularly intelligent, or concerned with quality. They don't care if they manage to snare something that is quality, because it's an accident when they do. (That's why a studio will dick with a perfectly good show and ruin it.) The only thing they're good at is coming up with new and attractive toys. They've discovered they can make money off this, so they're milking it for all it's worth. And who cares about the consequences? What possible consequences could there be? What's wrong with hypnotizing the viewing public? It's just business!
It's the dumb leading the dumb. It would look like a prime conspiracy theory, if it wasn't so pathetic.
Just remember this the next time you decide to turn off your brain for an evening of "Sharktopus vs. Mansquito" or whatever it is. If you want to become part of the collective idiot child, do so with your eyes open.
Spike Tv Executive, "Fighting is for violent sociopaths. That's why we are going to change are name to Spud TV. Women cook, so it should help bring in new viewers."
Comedy Central Executive, "People who like comedies need them as an escape from reality. They are losers that cant deal with the real world. People that watch Daily Show and Colbert are just sheeple. That's why we are going to change are name to the Funny channel. That way we can bring in normal people and increase viewership."
G4 Executive, "Video games are for losers. We will now show Cops 24/7 to increase our viewership of policemen and criminals"
I guess this is the new way to market channels. Insult a portion of your target audience = gold.
Comedy Central Executive, "People who like comedies need them as an escape from reality. They are losers that cant deal with the real world. People that watch Daily Show and Colbert are just sheeple. That's why we are going to change are name to the Funny channel. That way we can bring in normal people and increase viewership."
G4 Executive, "Video games are for losers. We will now show Cops 24/7 to increase our viewership of policemen and criminals"
I guess this is the new way to market channels. Insult a portion of your target audience = gold.
Making shows that appeal to stupid people with no taste is much easier than making smart shows that appeal to smart people with taste, eg, us. 
Making shows that appeal to stupid people with no taste is much easier than making smart shows that appeal to smart people with taste, eg, us.
By smart you mean picky?
No, "taste" means picky! 
We are all doomed.
In the end, this is all about getting as much people as possible to watch the SyFy Channel. The days of basic cable channels catering to niche audiences are almost over, and SyFy is simply following what other cable networks like A&E, AMC, TLC, MTV, and even Cartoon Network have done by carrying programming that appeals beyond their original target audience when they first went online.
In this day and age, the line between broadcast networks and basic cable networks are beginning to blur, IMO.
In this day and age, the line between broadcast networks and basic cable networks are beginning to blur, IMO.
Actually, I read somewhere that one of the reasons AMC was so receptive to THE WALKING DEAD was because their annual "FearFest" horror marathons in October always got good ratings. They deduced, correctly, that horror was one of their big draws . . . .
My money's on the fish - his'n kind has three hundred million years experience on the bug.
If I feel like watching a show I'll watch it without a thought as to the station it's on. The assertion that WWE is "dumber" than, oh, Automan would be a hard one to defend.
Exactly so.
The claim that skiffy fans represent an intellectual elite is an old one and is simply a group defense against mockery and the fact that we represent a small segment of the population. The only thing that's certain is that most people don't care for our brand of entertainment on television.
Well, saying you don't think they have any intention of putting on another space show and then mentioning the back door pilot for a space show they have in the works seems contradictory. And if Blood and Chrome or another Syfy space show in the future turns out to have a multi-season run and gets good word of mouth would you really decline to watch because of issues you've had with Syfy? That would strike me as a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
In that writer's haste to build a case against the SyFy execs, he or she managed to neglect the role Hammer played in championing Moore's BSG.
They should change their name to "The Peter Principle Channel." Unfortunately, as was said above, this problem isn't confined to Sciffy; the concept of narrowcasting has been replaced by mainstreaming. Look at what's become of History Channel. About the only channel that has completely maintained its integrity is Turner Classic Movies.
The claim that SF fans represent an intellectual elite is based on literature, not TV and movies, and it's true. Also, in reference to your remarks to melancholymecha earlier, somebody your age should have learned how to be polite by now. Rudeness doesn't make you look kewl.
Moore's BSG was /predicated/ on making Bold Revolutionary SyFy that Wasn't Like That Geek Star Trek Crap.
As BSG went on, Moore did everything he could to backseat science fiction and the show's own mythology angle in favor of gritty human drama, sex, love polygons, and depression. He even wailed about being stuck with a name like Battlestar Galactica.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the SyFry executives.