SyFy response to the cancellation

[AJ86]

You could just as easily explain the failure of those shows this way: they were both boring. Caprica at least had a germ of an interesting idea and some very good actors, which is more than SGU had, so I cut it some slack but I don't expect everyone to do the same. Both deserved to fail on their own merits.

As for "proving" that they're boring, well, they bored me. They bored other people, who announced their boredom in the threads and then vanished. I think that's probably a sign of something.

Name a good show skiffy has done recently that was prematurely cancelled and didn't deserve it. This is a trick question because all their recent shows have sucked except BSG, and that one really needed to go after four seasons. Until skiffy actually airs a show that deserves to survive, it's impossible to say whether their bungling is hurting the shows at all.

The last show I can think of that definitely deserved to survive was Farscape, which was an unusual case, and after all, it did come back from premature cancellation for a very satisfying wrap-up. The quality on that show was very up and down, and by the last season there were more downs than ups. I'm not sure I'd have wanted another season from it, either.

I don't doubt that many people did find it boring, and I don't discount that as reason for fewer viewers, I just think there there are other reasons too, and were it not for those it could have survived.

All I know is, something was off. My friend who never watched a Stargate in his life was hooked on SGU. That was the mythical new viewer that SGU tried to reach, and in my experience did reach. Perhaps he was the only one? I don't know. I hope not, but the picture SyFy paints is a pretty sobering one.

I post on the IMDb forums and there are a lot of fans of SGU who were never fans of the other show, there are just not enough of them it seems.

 

[AJ86]

.

 

[Jax]

Viewers are capable of following a show around the schedule if they are motivated to do so

Viewers will always watch shows they like but the point is they have to watch it LIVE. You could take successful shows like The Big Bang Theory which pulls in 12 million put it on a crap Network slot like fridays and it would pull probably half that amount. Hell American Idol would probably lose 30-50% of its audience if moved to friday nights and Remember BSG when it moved to sundays the ratings tanked bad, what it became a bad show in 1 episode?

They took a show away from friday despite the fact that could ONLY survive on fridays. Timeslots are very important to most shows the wrong one will kill it despite quality

 

[OsmiumJohnnycake]

All I know is, something was off. My friend who never watched a Stargate in his life was hooked on SGU. That was the mythical new viewer that SGU tried to reach, and in my experience did reach. Perhaps he was the only one? I don't know. I hope not, but the picture SyFy paints is a pretty sobering one.

Not a new viewer, but I stuck with SGA for about two seasons and didn't enjoy it so I dropped it. I also gave up early on in s9 of SG1. And I enjoyed SGU, even season 1. But I'd rather look on the bright side. I got 40 episodes that were (mostly) good with an ending that works for me.

I hope someday there's another spaceship-based scifi show that I enjoy AND enough other people like to give it more than two seasons, but I am getting used to liking shows that don't last (I enjoyed Dollhouse and TSCC and am happy to have had two seasons of each rather than nothing at all).

 

[the_wildcard]

^^^ It's a disturbing trend. I feel sometimes that I don't want to get attached to a show so I am hestitant to watch it. Of course that's horrible because it results in reduced ratings! Dahhh!

 

[MacLeod]

I would say the only real mistake they made was not giving them enough notice or a chance to resolve the storyline. The more often you cancel shows withut giving them a chance to resolve the overall storyline, the less likely people will be to tune into new shows. After all why invest time in something if it's going to be cancelled without resolution?

 

[firehawk12]

Yeah, it's a bit of spin, but I can see why they'd kill it if the numbers continued to decline.

It's "spin" to the extent that anyone you don't agree with who explains their point of view without successfully persuading you can be interpreted as "spinning." There's really no part of the explanation that doesn't hold up to scrutiny from a business POV.

I was talking more about the stuff about how they still love SF and are committed to airing science fiction shows.

 

[Kaijima]

This whole mess is another example of why American long-form serialized programs need to follow the UK example of producing shows as discreet series (aka Doctor Who Series 5, or 10, or 12, etc etc) with a beginning, middle, and ending arc with a satisfying finale at the end of each series of 13, or 22, episodes.

Have a general plan if you like, for how say, five "seasons" would fit into a larger narration.

But the old saw of the end-of-season "cliffhanger" episode is a relic of another time. Cliffhangers were meant to string audiences along so they'd tune in next season, but they weaken the narrative strength of any given run of episodes. We come to expect not having any real payoff at the end of one year's series because the cliffhanger will leave things unresolved.

It's even more dangerous in this age when making secondary profits off DVD seasons has become part of the business. When you make a series designed to be broken with cliffhangers and too many unresolved plot threads, it makes for a less attractive package to sell on DVD.

 

[MacLeod]

With regards to DVD's sometimes the network that shows them doesn't own them. i.e. MGM produces Stargate (and gets the revnues from DVD sales) whilst Sci-Fi just airs it.

Perhaps though in some respects Kaijima is right, for more niche shows perhaps shorter seasons would be more benefical.

 

[AJ86]

The shorter the seasons, the less episodes they have to spread production costs across though, which is troublesome to say the least for a show with loads of sets that need to be set up for it.

 

[Danny99]

This whole mess is another example of why American long-form serialized programs need to follow the UK example of producing shows as discreet series (aka Doctor Who Series 5, or 10, or 12, etc etc) with a beginning, middle, and ending arc with a satisfying finale at the end of each series of 13, or 22, episodes.

Have a general plan if you like, for how say, five "seasons" would fit into a larger narration.

But the old saw of the end-of-season "cliffhanger" episode is a relic of another time. Cliffhangers were meant to string audiences along so they'd tune in next season, but they weaken the narrative strength of any given run of episodes. We come to expect not having any real payoff at the end of one year's series because the cliffhanger will leave things unresolved.

It's even more dangerous in this age when making secondary profits off DVD seasons has become part of the business. When you make a series designed to be broken with cliffhangers and too many unresolved plot threads, it makes for a less attractive package to sell on DVD.

I'm agreeing with all of the above. With the amount of shows that are being canned each summer, cliffhangers are just not smart.

Another disturbing trend is the amount of time shows are given to gain traction. I'll use the example of TNG Seasons 1&2 again. Does anyone believe that in this day and age, those two seasons would gain them a third? They were at least as poor if not worst then SGU. You only have to look at the NBC thread to see how many shows they chopped after only one season.

There is some absolutely stupid things on TV these days. And while it is to each their own, have we come to the point where shows are lame ducks if they don't wow us in the first ten seconds of their existence?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

This whole mess is another example of why American long-form serialized programs need to follow the UK example of producing shows as discreet series (aka Doctor Who Series 5, or 10, or 12, etc etc) with a beginning, middle, and ending arc with a satisfying finale at the end of each series of 13, or 22, episodes.

It's not financially feasible to turn real series into miniseries because there's no time to amortize the initial investment in the show, and for sf/f, the initial investment is going to be higher than for other genres. Just recently FOX was considering picking up Locke & Key as a miniseries but balked because they couldn't make the money work. (It's now being shopped to cable, where it would be a better fit anyway.)

If you mean just doing a regular series and safeguarding against cancellation by doing season finales that could double as series finales, Chuck's been doing that for a while. I doubt that it has any impact at all on the ratings. If a show gets cancelled, it's still cancelled regardless of whether the ending was a cliffhanger or could be construed as a real ending. If a show doesn't get cancelled, the false "series" ending can be a nuisance and at best, is just there. No impact on ratings either way. So what's the advantage to the network? (Just for the record, Chuck fans have been bitching about the false endings being a distraction and breaking up the narrative flow.)

Viewers will always watch shows they like but the point is they have to watch it LIVE.

DVR viewing counts to some extent, not as much as live viewing, but let's face it, that's the future trend so networks must learn to survive in a DVR'ed world.

have we come to the point where shows are lame ducks if they don't wow us in the first ten seconds of their existence?

There are shows that can wow you in ten seconds - Lost for instance. Why shouldn't we demand that be the standard for show survival? I hung in there for Caprica, but why should I have to? I don't like hanging around, suffering though a boring, unfocused story more than anyone else does. I waited and waited for Caprica to shape up, and it never did. What guarantee do we have that boring, unfocused show that doesn't get its act together in ten seconds is going to do it if given ten years? If the producers know how to entertain, they should be able to do it from the first frame.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

This whole mess is another example of why American long-form serialized programs need to follow the UK example of producing shows as discreet series (aka Doctor Who Series 5, or 10, or 12, etc etc) with a beginning, middle, and ending arc with a satisfying finale at the end of each series of 13, or 22, episodes.

Have a general plan if you like, for how say, five "seasons" would fit into a larger narration.

But the old saw of the end-of-season "cliffhanger" episode is a relic of another time. Cliffhangers were meant to string audiences along so they'd tune in next season, but they weaken the narrative strength of any given run of episodes. We come to expect not having any real payoff at the end of one year's series because the cliffhanger will leave things unresolved.

It's even more dangerous in this age when making secondary profits off DVD seasons has become part of the business. When you make a series designed to be broken with cliffhangers and too many unresolved plot threads, it makes for a less attractive package to sell on DVD.

Both Caprica and SG-U did a decent job wrapping up their seasons. Yeah, they couldn't answer everything but they didn't really end on a big cliffhanger (SG-U S1 did but according to the article Syfy had guaranteed two seasons).

 

[bigdaddy]

Yeah the first season being incredibly boring filled with characters that no one could ever care for doesn't help.

 

[MANT!]

I haven't forgiven Siffy since they canned MST3K...

 

[BlobVanDam]

This whole mess is another example of why American long-form serialized programs need to follow the UK example of producing shows as discreet series (aka Doctor Who Series 5, or 10, or 12, etc etc) with a beginning, middle, and ending arc with a satisfying finale at the end of each series of 13, or 22, episodes.

Have a general plan if you like, for how say, five "seasons" would fit into a larger narration.

But the old saw of the end-of-season "cliffhanger" episode is a relic of another time. Cliffhangers were meant to string audiences along so they'd tune in next season, but they weaken the narrative strength of any given run of episodes. We come to expect not having any real payoff at the end of one year's series because the cliffhanger will leave things unresolved.

It's even more dangerous in this age when making secondary profits off DVD seasons has become part of the business. When you make a series designed to be broken with cliffhangers and too many unresolved plot threads, it makes for a less attractive package to sell on DVD.

I'm agreeing with all of the above. With the amount of shows that are being canned each summer, cliffhangers are just not smart.

Another disturbing trend is the amount of time shows are given to gain traction. I'll use the example of TNG Seasons 1&2 again. Does anyone believe that in this day and age, those two seasons would gain them a third? They were at least as poor if not worst then SGU. You only have to look at the NBC thread to see how many shows they chopped after only one season.

There is some absolutely stupid things on TV these days. And while it is to each their own, have we come to the point where shows are lame ducks if they don't wow us in the first ten seconds of their existence?

I've actually mentioned TNG before to suggest the same point, so I'm definitely in agreement with you there. Scifi shows tend to take longer to find their style, and find their audience, so they're not at all suited to today's viewing habits.
I think because they knew they had two seasons guaranteed, they were playing the long game, and it was a bad approach. They lost their potential viewers in the early episodes when they were doing very little, then finally wound up when it was too late and they'd lost the new viewers, along with a chunk of the core SG audience.

Today's younger viewers are the ADD generation. Shows need to wow people in the first 10 seconds of their existence, unfortunately.

But I must disagree with you on the cliffhanger. I have come to expect a kickass cliffhanger from a good scifi show, especially Stargate which has made a habit of big cliffhangers. I see your point about knowing the episode won't resolve, but I actually like that aspect, because I know that they're going out with all guns blazing to create one hell of a situation for the characters to get out of. So I guess you can call me old fashioned.

 

[Dream]

Instead of wasting all our times with that post, they should have just done something like this.

SyFy response to the cancellation

 

[Harvey]

Today's younger viewers are the ADD generation. Shows need to wow people in the first 10 seconds of their existence, unfortunately.

Network executives might have a touch of impatience when it comes to deciding the fates of series these days (though a surprising number of lowly-rated shows are still given a thorough chance), but I don't think it's fair to blame "younger viewers [with] ADD."

 

[BlobVanDam]

Today's younger viewers are the ADD generation. Shows need to wow people in the first 10 seconds of their existence, unfortunately.

Network executives might have a touch of impatience when it comes to deciding the fates of series these days (though a surprising number of lowly-rated shows are still given a thorough chance), but I don't think it's fair to blame "younger viewers [with] ADD."

I don't mean to blame viewers for the cancellation of SGU, or to lump all younger viewers together as having ADD (especially since I'm in the younger group myself). It was a vague generalization, or perhaps more accurately, it's a generalization of how network executives think of viewers, as they're the ones who control the shows. I think it takes more to grab people's attention these days, with so many channels available, and so many different mediums now. It seems to me that scifi shows suffer the worst from this kind of network point of view.
Anyway, I didn't mean to imply anything, I was oversimplifying. SGU was given two seasons, which was a decent chance given its sliding ratings. As much as I felt SGU deserved at least another season, I can't blame SyFy for their business decision in this case.

 

[Harvey]

Today's younger viewers are the ADD generation. Shows need to wow people in the first 10 seconds of their existence, unfortunately.

Network executives might have a touch of impatience when it comes to deciding the fates of series these days (though a surprising number of lowly-rated shows are still given a thorough chance), but I don't think it's fair to blame "younger viewers [with] ADD."

I don't mean to blame viewers for the cancellation of SGU, or to lump all younger viewers together as having ADD (especially since I'm in the younger group myself). It was a vague generalization, or perhaps more accurately, it's a generalization of how network executives think of viewers, as they're the ones who control the shows. I think it takes more to grab people's attention these days, with so many channels available, and so many different mediums now. It seems to me that scifi shows suffer the worst from this kind of network point of view.
Anyway, I didn't mean to imply anything, I was oversimplifying. SGU was given two seasons, which was a decent chance given its sliding ratings. As much as I felt SGU deserved at least another season, I can't blame SyFy for their business decision in this case.

Quite right. My mistake for mis-interpreting in the first place.