I'm just experimenting. I hate the word "blog" and am fascinated with how the net seems to nurture *everyone's* vanity.

So this network still pronounces its name sci-fi even though they felt a need to change the spelling to gibberish that reads "siffy." ECW remains on their lineup, along with a stupid 'reality' series that seems to be spawning spinoffs, so maybe they really shouldn't call themselves SciFi any more, but still...

How can folks who've milked the Stargate franchise to the max and gleefully ridden the success wave of Moore and Eick's Battlestar Galactica not consider it their fiduciary and aesthetic duty to rescue a show like the Sarah Connor Chronicles from the clutches of even greater idiots like the execs at The WB? Do they only have room for one show led by a strong woman? Are they afraid of a show that subordinates excellent action sequences to a real sci-fi plotline that makes viewers think, and even pulls in folks like me who generally hate things involving time travel? WTF?


Comments (Page 1)
on Dec 17, 2009

As I understand it, FOX likes to sit on the rights to the shows it kills. And you can't buy what's not for sale.

on Dec 17, 2009

Well, Fox did let Universal make a movie out of Firefly, to be fair.

on Dec 17, 2009

Teucrian
Well, Fox did let Universal make a movie out of Firefly, to be fair.

 

Yeah- because after cancelling the show they actually noticed people liked it- depsite not being like any other show..too original I suppose...

on Dec 17, 2009

Well, it seems the lowest common denominator has won yet again...... when, oh when will we ever get something actually decent to watch....... WH13 was pretty good if you like wierd, campy, and cerebral(which I do) but that's now gone....... I've been watching stuff from before I was even born via Netflix (RIP: DS9....) but I'm going to run out eventually........

on Dec 17, 2009

My theory with sci-fi shows is that their fans are miles ahead in the piracy stakes so why waste time making shows for them to pinch of torrent sites. Baby Boomers on the other hand...bit thin I know, but I think TV piracy is srsly rampant.

In Aus, our tv is 90 percent deterrence fiction, people can't get enough of super science cops and sickos killing people. I can't for the life of me figure that one out, but it makes me a very sad panda.

on Dec 17, 2009

Scoutdog
Well, it seems the lowest common denominator has won yet again...... when, oh when will we ever get something actually decent to watch....... WH13 was pretty good if you like wierd, campy, and cerebral(which I do) but that's now gone....... I've been watching stuff from before I was even born via Netflix (RIP: DS9....) but I'm going to run out eventually........

 

Oh man, DS9 's a sweet serie

Chief O'Brian rulez

 

on Dec 17, 2009

I'm rather fond of Odo myself...... but I fear we won't be getting anything approaching DS9-level (or even Enterprise level!) for an inordinant amount of time.

on Dec 17, 2009

I like my version better.

 

SyFy(may the rot in hell for the name change too) can't save good shows because they need air time for WWE or whichever craptastic one they're running.

on Dec 17, 2009

Because Sci-Fi needs the space for shows closer to it's original purpose. Like Wrestlemania.

on Dec 25, 2009

SyFy is CHEAP.  They don't like shows that cost money.

 

In addition FOX is like the Anti-Sci Fi network.  Someone there is convinced that Sci Fi is the devil and all Scifi shows need to die.

 

If we could just find those at that network and kill them all would be well...(I kid)

on Dec 26, 2009

OK, I guess my OP was slightly at cross-purposes. So the best thing seems to be to completely derail my own thread with a digression about the Netflix UI starting to get spooky-smart.

I've been using them since early 2002 and on a whim decided to exempt them from my normal conservatism about giving real info on my interests to an online corporation. I think I might have rated a few thousand titles by now, and that, combined with Netflix's steady work on their customer-taste algorithms, led them to hit me recently with a row of suggestions based on my interest in "strong female leads." (It went away quickly because I mostly ignore that part of their UI and just work from my queue, but it was interesting).

So I revise my OP question to "Why is it that there only seems to be room for one strong female lead on the Siffy Network?"

Ms. Tapping's character was (not cooincidently, I suppose) my favorite in the SG-1 series (it would have been the Daniel Jackson character, but Shanks is just nothing like Spader, so the writers had to ditch smart-and-oddly-sexy in favor of blandly-sexy-despite-being-smart). But my real ire against the murederes of young SF shows with real potential is Dollhouse.

Yes, I've totally been Joss Whedon's bitch since the first episode of Buffy. But it isn't *simply* the lasting impact that Molly Millions had on me as a 20-year-old gay boy who found her by looking for something fresh on the SF shelf at my locally-owned-soon-to-die bookstore. It's because shows like Firefly and Dollhouse have been part of the bare handful of titles 'in the genre' that have done the real job of SF, which is to make you think while you've got a page-turning/no-not-another-commercial consumption experience going on. Not to mention how hot Eliza Dushko is, even after 'all these years...'

on Dec 26, 2009

Lughsan
In addition FOX is like the Anti-Sci Fi network.  Someone there is convinced that Sci Fi is the devil and all Scifi shows need to die.

 

You do know that fox is fully funding at least 1 more season of Futurama don't you? So revivals are rare but happen, even for Sci-Fi on Fox.

 

Siffy is a very cheap channel, and will go with whatever will bring it the most viewers. Many more people watch those crap shows (crap to those who think like us) than would watch reruns of old licenses, and they can't afford to pay star actors on multiple big shows. Everyone would have to take a bug pay cut.

on Dec 26, 2009

Well, in defense of SyFy (God, how they have butchered, botched, and mangled "SciFi"), they do have at least 1 shining gold piece.

"Sanctuary". I love that show. It just keeps me riveted. I have seen both 1st+most of 2nd seasons (2nd is still running ATM), and I just got the 1st season on DVD. The show (GW Swicord, you'll probably like it for the fact that it has Miss Tapping ) is about a group of people who study, capture, and protect "abnormals", beings (they aren't always "human") with unusual abilities/powers/gifts/what-have-you.

It does also have re-runs of old ST, and occasionally such jewels like "Dead Like Me" (a discontinued show; only aired 3 seasons, and likely planned for a 4th, since they had to do a "movie" version for the end. Still lots unexplained though).

on Jan 07, 2010

They mangled it for others reasons I gathered.  I think they intend to publish games and stuff, that aren't necessarily all scifi.

I don't care enough to think it stupid, myself.

on Jan 07, 2010

Well, in defense of SyFy (God, how they have butchered, botched, and mangled "SciFi"), they do have at least 1 shining gold piece. "Sanctuary".

Sanctuary is why I mentioned Tapping above. I caught series 1 on DVD and will probably give series 2 a try when it comes out, but the show is still a bit too heavy on action/effects and light on writing for me to really love it. For me, it's thin gruel compared to the decent meals offered by SCC and Dollhouse. Siffy's 'real SF rerun' blocks are a nice idea, but they seem to be declining in the schedule rotations in favor of making more weekdays look like the useless-to-me Saturday programming (weren't they trying for some "Most Dangerous Night on TV" or some shit like that?).

I'm bitching about the branding mess for two, sorta-conflicting reasons. 1) I believe advertising as we currently practice it is immoral and branding is for cattle. 2) Brands represent a horrifyingly large chunk of what the world still seems to believe is the wealth of the US, and if we start cocking that up as badly as we've done with our material production systems, it's gonna get ugly at a very ugly pace. If the Siffy people seriously believe their original decision to focus on an SF audience isn't good, what possible good does it do for them to try to make the oral-language term 'scifi' mean nothing in particular at all? They should have revised their niche audience goals or stopped pretending that they want to serve a niche audience. As-is, they kinda have me feeling like a non-worldly straight man who finally decided to try paying a hooker and ended up with a tranny by mistake.

Meta
Views
» 5141
Comments
» 22
Category
Sponsored Links