TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.



Pages:1


Where has all the sci-fi gone?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: lordargent

I've noticed that there's hardly any Sci-Fi being recorded by my Tivo anymore. I guess the majority of the Sci-Fi type shows that I recorded have decayed.

What are some of the shows you folks have been watching, so I can hopefully repopulate my season pass list with some good shows.


Posted by: Random Terrain

The only recent Sci-Fi show that I liked was Firefly and Fox canceled that. I'm glad the DVD will be out in December.


Posted by: dmdeane

Firefly, and Farscape. At least Farscape got four good seasons, but the way the fifth season was authorized by Sci Fi and then removed at the last possible moment leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

There's Star Gate SG1, I've set up a season pass, but I just can't get into it. Too much to catch up on, no motivation to sit down and watch, now that Angel is in syndication and I can catch up on that. And 24 is back. And there's the Daily Show. I just can't watch that much TV; wake me up when there's a good, original, new TV SF show on the air again.


Posted by: drew2k

Stargate is still good, but on break until January I think. Don't forget Sci-Fi will start the Battlestar Galactica mini-series in December. Othere than that, I haven't seen any interesting new Sci-Fi in a while.

PS - Did you know you can sing the title of this tread to Paula Cole's "Where have all the cowboys gone"?


Posted by: Graymalkin

Also to Pete Seeger's "Where have all the flowers gone?"

(Boy, that dates me, doesn't it?)


Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

I think a big problem with science fiction is that the really good stuff tends to be too insular and brainy for a wide audience, so it doesn't get very good ratings, but science fiction (at least on TV) is associated with big special-effects extravaganzas, which cost a lot of money and thus can't survive on low ratings.

I think what's needed is something that's based more on ideas than explosions and alien planets, and thus could be cheap to produce...kind of like Tremors, only with a brain. If it were smart enough to be good sci-fi, it still wouldn't get much of an audience, but if it were cheap enough, it should at least capture enough of a niche to survive...

Either that, or something really dumb, with lots of explosions and alien planets and women with large breasts, and a clever writing staff to keep it interesting. I hate to say it, but I think if Farscape had about half the brains, it might still be with us.


Posted by: bidger

quote:
Originally posted by Graymalkin
Also to Pete Seeger's "Where have all the flowers gone?"

(Boy, that dates me, doesn't it?)
Actually, I thought of The Kinks' "Where Have All The Good Times Gone?", which gives you an indication of my age. :D


Posted by: Random Terrain

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
Either that, or something really dumb, with lots of explosions and alien planets and women with large breasts, and a clever writing staff to keep it interesting.

I think they did that already, but it only lasted 3 years. It was called Star Trek (the original series). :D


Posted by: JPriller

quote:
Originally posted by Random Terrain
I think they did that already, but it only lasted 3 years. It was called Star Trek (the original series). :D
Well, that had some clever writing for the first two years anyway. :)


Posted by: murgatroyd

Note that some of the best classic Trek episodes were written by real science fiction writers. Harlan Ellison, Theodore Sturgeon, and Jerome Bixby -- probably three of the best Trek episodes of all time. Norman Spinrad's episode was fun, too, even though it's not one of my absolute faves. Count in David Gerrold's episode, too, and you've got five really solid episodes.

And don't forget the other show notable for having great SF writers turning in episodes -- The Twilight Zone.

At any rate, I'm really enjoying Stargate SG-1. If you haven't seen it, wait for Season 1 to roll around again, and go for it. Very witty and fun.

Jan


Posted by: drew2k

Stargate-SG1 will be around for at least another year and a half, too, so that's one more reason to get in now on the repeats, because this is a very enjoyable show.


Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

...although be warned, the current season of Stargate has been pretty much a holding pattern. (A sequel series, set up by the end of last season, has been delayed a year, so they can't actually move forward this season.) It hasn't had the narrative drive this year that it has enjoyed in the past.


Posted by: dmdeane

Come to think of it, Duck Dodgers is pretty good "parody SF". I just started watching recently, and the latest episode had a number of good Star Wars and Star Trek parodies, and probably some other stuff I didn't notice or am not recalling at the moment.

Watching Duck Dodgers opening credits, I'm always reminded of Babylon 5, and Garibaldi's infatuation with 20th century cartoon character Daffy Duck, the "ancient Egyptian god of frustration".


Posted by: dmdeane

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
I think a big problem with science fiction is that the really good stuff tends to be too insular and brainy for a wide audience, so it doesn't get very good ratings, but science fiction (at least on TV) is associated with big special-effects extravaganzas, which cost a lot of money and thus can't survive on low ratings.
I don't know; special effects don't cost anywhere near as much as they used to, what with cheaper and faster computers. I suppose anything using a lot of physical special effects, puppets, costumes, facial prosthetic makeup, etc., can't be made cheaper, but anything that can be done as CGI isn't that expensive and is getting cheaper.
quote:

I think what's needed is something that's based more on ideas than explosions and alien planets, and thus could be cheap to produce...kind of like Tremors, only with a brain. If it were smart enough to be good sci-fi, it still wouldn't get much of an audience, but if it were cheap enough, it should at least capture enough of a niche to survive...

Either that, or something really dumb, with lots of explosions and alien planets and women with large breasts, and a clever writing staff to keep it interesting. I hate to say it, but I think if Farscape had about half the brains, it might still be with us.
Maybe. But Farscape was limited to being a cable-only TV show, with hardly any reruns even on the Sci Fi Channel. It never had the advantage of being able to build up an audience via reruns and syndication on regular broadcast networks. That's an advantage Star Gate has that Farscape did not.


Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by dmdeane
Maybe. But Farscape was limited to being a cable-only TV show, with hardly any reruns even on the Sci Fi Channel. It never had the advantage of being able to build up an audience via reruns and syndication on regular broadcast networks. That's an advantage Star Gate has that Farscape did not.
True, but for all its intelligence, Stargate is a very conventional, accesible show, and Farscape was wildly out there. I don't think Farscape would have attracted a wide audience had it been on NBC, in the same time slot for four years. It was just too weird for most people to handle.

(There is also, of course, the fact that Stargate is cheaper to make and [more importantly] has additional revenue streams, especially syndication, which Farscape's contract did not allow, making Stargate more profitable without having to draw a much larger audience.)


Posted by: drew2k

Last season saw a few sci-fi/supernatural shows (Firefly, John Doe, the one with Matthew Fox on UPN where he saw dead people), but none lasted out the season. I think the nets are afraid to try again because sci-fi is really such a niche audience. It's going to be left to syndication, sci-fi channel, and Showtime (with Jeremiah and Dead Like Me (in the supernatural category)) to satisfy fans of these genres. I guess there's also Angel, but who knows how long that will last, and possibly Jake 2.0, but that feels more like a spy show than a sci-fi show.

I'm not saying it's a role model, but Stargate really was successful for a couple of other reasons not already mentioned:

1) It was a spin-off of a moderately successful major motion picture, so it already had an audience of fans of the movie
2) It has a well-known lead, Richard Dean Anderson, who brought his own fans from MacGyver to check it out.
3) It was introduced on Showtime, a premium channel that could take some risks with nudity, language, etc.

Unfortunately, Farscape had no well-known actors (to the US audience, at least), and as already mentioned, relied heavily on puppeteers and heavy makeup artists, raising the cost per episode. The biggest factor for SG's success, as Rob mentioned, is that the Stargate dialog and plots are far more accessible to casual viewers than Farscape, which relied heavily on long-term character development and themes of good and bad.

Farscape was an intelligent show that sadly died long before it's time. (Frelling idiots at Sci-Fi!)


Posted by: cheerdude

quote:
Originally posted by drew2k
Farscape was an intelligent show that sadly died long before it's time. (Frelling idiots at Sci-Fi!)


Especially with the way that it ended - I am just watching the last couple of episodes of Season 4... but I've already seen the last 5-10 minutes of the final show. D'Argo's cry was such a chilling ending... especially knowing that the show was "finished".


Posted by: ZikZak

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
I think a big problem with science fiction is that the really good stuff tends to be too insular and brainy for a wide audience, so it doesn't get very good ratings, but science fiction (at least on TV) is associated with big special-effects extravaganzas, which cost a lot of money and thus can't survive on low ratings.


The solution to this problem, of course, being a cable station dedicated to science fiction run by people who are familiar with the genre and able to produce imaginative programming while keeping budgets in line. It could be argued that such a channel once existed, but now all we are left with is Skiffy.

Of course, good SF doesn't require expensive special effects, only a little bit of imagination, a quality severly lacking in many parts of the entertainment world. The British seem to understand this better than we do. Ref: Doctor Who, Blake's 7, Red Dwarf, The Prisoner, etc.

The really good "insular, brainy" SF in this country appeals to a smaller audience, yes, but at least among my friends, it's an audience willing to pay. My friends and I would be willing, on average, to pay about $100 per season directly to the producers of Farscape or Firefly to keep the series going. If that is typical of the general SF audience, and I think it is, the producers wouldn't even have to sell advertising to make the program work.

Therefore I think the solution is for the fans to support quality SF directly. Either via a dedicated pay tv channel, or via some type of public SF TV foundation. The first solution appears not to work too well--- ref. Showtime original SF programming and the cancellation of Odyssey 5, etc. I'd be happy to start a public foundation for the purposes of taking "membership donations" from SF fans and awarding grants to producers of quality SF.... but I haven't a nugget of business sense. :(


Posted by: ccwf

quote:
Originally posted by lordargent
What are some of the shows you folks have been watching, so I can hopefully repopulate my season pass list with some good shows.
Currently showing, SFish (as close as TV tends to come to SF nowadays) shows from my Season Pass Manager: There are few non-animated series with SF elements being made nowadays, unfortunately.

I've never watched Stargate SG-1—is it worth the time?


Posted by: JPriller

quote:
Originally posted by ccwf
I've never watched Stargate SG-1�is it worth the time?
That depends. A lot of people adore it, some people think it stinks on ice.

Right now SciFi is re-running the end of season 1 (or maybe they're up to the beginning of season 2) on Monday nights (4 episodes every Monday), reruns of season 5 MTWTF (1 episode/night) and reruns of season 7 on Friday (also 1 episode). I think. My ABC affiliate is re-running season 6 Sunday nights when basketball or something doesn't run long.

Anyway it's on a LOT, watch a few and see if you can stand it. I just started last spring and am hooked. Even the really bad episodes aren't as horrible as bad episodes of other sci-fi shows (say the third season of ST(TOS) or the first season of ST:TNG).


Posted by: JPriller

quote:
Originally posted by ccwf
Trick 2 (probably doesn't count�a duo campily tries to expose people claiming to have occult powers)
I went looking for that and couldn't find it. What channel is it on?


Posted by: ccwf

JPriller, does your browser not show the em-dashes, or do they only get screwed up when they are included in quotes by your browser? (Underlying cause is that the forum doesn't indicate the character set in its HTTP response headers.)

Trick 2 is a Japanese show (subtitled) available on various stations and often labelled simply "Japanese Drama" or some such. I took a look at the DirecTV schedule; and, although I do see some "Japanese Drama" blocks, I don't think any of them are this show (but that's just a guess).


Posted by: Random Terrain

quote:
Originally posted by ccwf
I've never watched Stargate SG-1—is it worth the time?

Although your question has been answered, here's my version. I think some episodes of Stargate SG-1 are great and other episodes suck French fried monkey feet. But even the crap episodes are much better than anything they have done on Star Trek: Enterprise. That show makes me cringe.


Posted by: VinceA

quote:
Originally posted by ccwf
Currently showing, SFish (as close as TV tends to come to SF nowadays) shows from my Season Pass Manager: There are few non-animated series with SF elements being made nowadays, unfortunately.

I've never watched Stargate SG-1—is it worth the time?

Amongst the subset of viewers that are sci-fi fans there's even a smaller set that will watch animated shows so that lops seven shows off the list (I either own or watch most of those, though).

I think the other translation of "Banner of the Stars" would be "Battle Flag of the Stars" which seems ackward (at least to me - although my son & I complain back & forth about it for fun). Either way, it's good SciFi :)


Posted by: JPriller

quote:
Originally posted by ccwf
JPriller, does your browser not show the em-dashes, or do they only get screwed up when they are included in quotes by your browser? (Underlying cause is that the forum doesn't indicate the character set in its HTTP response headers.)
Don't know, I've never noticed it before. I'm using Mozilla Firebird 0.7 for Windows. That's a "non standard" browser in some places. :(

Trying a test: — (it looks fine in the reply edit window)

(and it looks fine in the message. huh.)

quoted test:
quote:
—



Posted by: ccwf

quote:
Originally posted by VinceA
I think the other translation of "Banner of the Stars" would be "Battle Flag of the Stars" which seems ackward (at least to me - although my son & I complain back & forth about it for fun).
Well, it is, in my non-expert opinion, literally something like stars', world of, battle flag(s). I would translate the last bit as battle standard(s), which sounds more poetic. Without it being very awkward, I admit I have no idea how to work in the world of part (in the non-literal sense used in phrases like the world of Hollywood, the world of business, the world of prostitution, … and not meaning planet as in phrases like the world of the Asparagus people).


Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

Perhaps "realm" rather than "world"..? To distinguish stars as a place from stars as physical objects...


Posted by: ccwf

Realm isn't bad at all, although I think it would still sound slightly awkward all put together. :up:


Posted by: bevinst

quote:
Originally posted by ccwf
Well, it is, in my non-expert opinion, literally something like stars', world of, battle flag(s).


They probably wanted to make sure it was close to the first show "Crest of the Stars" in english translation so people would recognize that it is a sequel of sorts.

Most of the other shows on TechTV's Anime Unleashed segments are science fiction. I actually enjoyed watching Dual and Betterman.

Too add to the animation list: "Fooly Cooly" is just restarting a run again tonight - if someone sees this they have a couple of hours to catch the west coast repeat. It's definitely got some SFish elements but is really just this very weird "coming of age" story. It's been the most enjoyable set of Anime since BubbleGum Crisis.

Also, Blue Gender is a strong SF show. It goes a little too much over to the bunny-hugger side at the end, but overall it's a good show.

.hack//sign is techinically SF, but it really plays as a Fantasy. Damn good show, but it's kinda like McCaffreys Pern series of books in that it feels like a fantasy story.

".hack//sign", "Blue Gender" and "Fooly Cooly" are on Cartoon Network.

-Tommy


Posted by: mizterd99

I've set up a season pass for this sindicated show called Starhunter, unfortuntely it's not all that great (at least compared to Farscape, which I enjoyed like no other scifi).

I also make sure to catch The Dead Zone, but that's currently in repeats. (Was it just me or did that have a really short season of new eps earlier this year?)


Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by mizterd99
I also make sure to catch The Dead Zone, but that's currently in repeats. (Was it just me or did that have a really short season of new eps earlier this year?)
They had an add-on series of seven episodes, which they called "Season 2 1/2"; they were basically stand-alone eps that didn't really further the storyline very much, but got the point across to potential new viewers. Officially (according to the production numbers), they were an extension of the second season.


Posted by: ccwf

By the way, Episode One of Doctor Who: Scream of the Shalka should be available on-line Thursday. For now, you can view and listen to trailers at the linked BBC page.


Posted by: lordargent

quote:
Originally posted by ccwf
Currently showing,
* .hack//SIGN (showing reruns)
* Angel
* 星界の戦旗 (oddly translated as “Banner of the Stars”)
* El Hazard: The Alternative World
* Jeremiah
* Justice League
* Lost Universe (which TMS thinks is in Spanish but is really in English)
* Smallville
* Star Trek: Enterprise
* Star Wars: Clone Wars
* Tenchi
* Trick 2 (probably doesn't count—a duo campily tries to expose people claiming to have occult powers)


Yeah, the problem is that I'm not a big anime fan so that whacks a bunch off that list. I've tried time and time again to watch em, but something always grates me so that anime that I actually like enough to watch regularly is few and far between.

Although Angel falls into the sci-fi category (I started watching last season) I prefer to subcat it into the "vampires with pointy teeth" category.

I'm also not big on the "superhero" type genre. (I have history in the comic industry, looooong story).

I need something with spaceships and laser guns, or at least, laser guns. And above all else, continuity.

I've seen every episode of stargate. Episodes of that are hit or miss :) Some are really good (anything involving Anubis, Sokar, Aphopis). And others are bad (particularly shows where they never go offworld ew) though Wormhole Extreme is an episode that I thought would be bad, but somehow came out rather interesting.

As stated, this current season is a cross between a "holding pattern" and a "Daniel Jackson" fest.

As for Enterprise, I gave up on that after the first two weeks :rolleyes:

quote:
Also to Pete Seeger's "Where have all the flowers gone?"


And that is the one I was thinking of ;)

P.S. : I think this is all due to Farscape Withdrawl


Posted by: drew2k

I loved all of the in-jokes in Wormhole Extreme! Especially seeing real-life director Peter Deluise playing such an obnoxius over-the-top reel-life director. :D


Posted by: purple6816

I miss good SF also.

Maybe we can get them to bring back Odessey 5.

http://o5.b5tv.com/

I canceled showtime when they canceled o5. It was the last thing worth watching on showtime.


Posted by: bicker

Well, I cannot agree with that. Out of Order and Dead Like Me were both far, far better than O5, AFAIC (YMMV), and I've heard that Jeremiah is very good as well.

I like science fiction, but it isn't clear to me that there are enough of us who do to support lots of offerings in that genre. We may seem like a decently-sized audience when we're altogether in a forum thread, but as compared to the general public, and in light of the higher cost associated with quality science fiction, I think we're a very small niche. To have Enterprise being broadcast and Stargate SG-1 in production seems to be a significant amount of programming aimed at this audience.


Posted by: ZikZak

quote:
Originally posted by bicker
but as compared to the general public, and in light of the higher cost associated with quality science fiction, I think we're a very small niche. To have Enterprise being broadcast and Stargate SG-1 in production seems to be a significant amount of programming aimed at this audience.


Are you seriously referring to Enterprise as "quality science fiction?" :) Did you forget to mention "Jake 2.0" and "Mutant X"? Frankly, I'd rather be set on fire.

SG-1 is better than a poke in the eye, I suppose, and Jeremiah is pretty good. They don't compare to O5, though.

And "Out of Order" and "Dead Like Me" aren't SF. :)


Posted by: Sirius Black

quote:
Originally posted by dmdeane
...And there's the Daily Show...


When did The Daily Show start it's Sci-Fi run? :D


Posted by: drew2k

After following this thread for awhile, I think it's pretty interesting that no one even mentioned "Andromeda". I guess I don't fault that, since the discuession turned to "quality" Sci-Fi, and this show was good for awhile but degenerated into a formulaic shoot-em-up. I stopped watching after the third episode this season, and no longer care what Trance's "secret" is or whether or not Dylan will "save us all".


Posted by: cheesesteak

My capsule review of Stargate SG-1: O'Neill is way too dumb and Carter is way too smart.

It's an old show, but I never watched it until this year so they're all pretty much new episodes to me. Start Trek: DS9 is the best sci fi show I've seen. The richness of the characters and the relationship dynamics is what makes it so great.


Posted by: lordargent

quote:
My capsule review of Stargate SG-1: O'Neill is way too dumb and Carter is way too smart.


Hey, he just likes blowing things up :)

As far as Sam being too smart, well, she did have a symbiote once. Who knows how much of Jolinar rubbed off.

quote:
but it isn't clear to me that there are enough of us who do to support lots of offerings in that genre. We may seem like a decently-sized audience when we're altogether in a forum thread, but as compared to the general public


I don't know, ST-TNG seemed to do well enough. Then again, maybe these days, technology has advanced so far that "sci-fi" costs too much to make. I mean, would a talking car named Kitt be considered sci-fi these days? And for that all you needed was some flashy lights and an explosion now and then.

Michael: "You know, you're about as much fun as a divorce ... which is not a bad idea."

KITT: "I want custody of me."


Posted by: drew2k

I will agree with you about DS9 being the best ST series. This is actually the first ST box set I'm planning to buy (7 seasons at $85 per set = expensive!) Of all the ST series, this was the most character driven, and it pretty much had to be because the premise of the show locked the characters in a stationary orbit, so they couldn't go off across the galaxy "exploring" like every other ST show.

On to SG1: Sure, Carter is smart. But that's why she's in SG-"1", the team that's supposed to have the best and brightest. As for O"Neill, his bravado and bluster is only to hide the fact he is also shrewd and cunning, and really does know more than he lets on. He just likes to hide it. He has definitely had his "d'oh!" moments, but to me that just makes the show more enjoyable, because at one moment he is both the action hero and the comic relief!


Posted by: bonscott87

Stargate SG-1 is one of my favorite series of all time. My wife loves it to. Originally aired we missed a lot of season 2-4. Got our first Tivo during season 4 I think and haven't missed an episode since. We have bought each DVD set as they have come out and season 5 is due on DVD in a couple months.

If you can afford it, I highly recommend the DVD sets. All in Anamorphic Widescreen and DDD 5.1 from season 3 (maybe 2) on.

So far season 7 has been a little bit of a holding pattern but then they wrapped up a lot of stuff in season 6 since it was supposed to be the last. Many of this years episodes have been more stand alone (loved the race episode). According to Gateworld at http://www.gateworld.net season 8 is a go for June 2004 and the spin-off, Stargate: Atlantis, is also a go and may also start airing in the summer of 04.

It suprises me that Sci-Fi hasn't killed it yet like they do everything else. Probably because RDA wouldn't let them. It's about to become one of the longest running Sci-Fi shows ever.


Posted by: JPriller

Stargate SG-1 must get (relatively) fantastic ratings for the SciFi channel even in re-runs, as it runs 5 times on Monday and once on TWT and then 3 times on Friday.

You're right, with SciFi's record I can't imagine why they haven't cancelled it.


Posted by: ZikZak

quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
You're right, with SciFi's record I can't imagine why they haven't cancelled it.


The only reason Skiffy doesn't cancel it is that it's not terribly expensive to produce. Much of the action takes place on Earth or Earth-like planets. There are fewer special effects than in most SF. Those that are needed are made up for monetarily by the occasional "conference room" episode. :rolleyes:


Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by ZikZak
The only reason Skiffy doesn't cancel it is that it's not terribly expensive to produce. Much of the action takes place on Earth or Earth-like planets. There are fewer special effects than in most SF. Those that are needed are made up for monetarily by the occasional "conference room" episode. :rolleyes:
The show also generates additional revenue from syndication...


Posted by: ZikZak

I think the important question to ask about Skiffy is why they seem to prioritize original made-for-TV pictures. I really can't imagine that anyone watches that B-movie gack, but for what they spend on producing a new movie every month, they could easily fund entire seasons of (for instance) Farscape.


Posted by: HTH

quote:
Originally posted by drew2k
I will agree with you about DS9 being the best ST series. This is actually the first ST box set I'm planning to buy
I'm actually waiting for the animated series to come out on DVD. Or a box set of all-special-editions of the movies.


Posted by: HTH

quote:
Originally posted by ZikZak
I think the important question to ask about Skiffy is why they seem to prioritize original made-for-TV pictures.
From which they still need to censor dialogue. :confused:


Posted by: bicker

quote:
Originally posted by ZikZak
Are you seriously referring to Enterprise as "quality science fiction?" :)
Like it or not, it is: To consider it not would be to relegate your perspective to that of a member of an even smaller niche than what I was referring to with respect to the audience for science fiction.
quote:
Frankly, I'd rather be set on fire.
Your choice. :)
quote:
SG-1 is better than a poke in the eye, I suppose, and Jeremiah is pretty good. They don't compare to O5, though.
I haven't seen Jeremiah. I believe every episode of SG-1 has been better than the best episode of O5. That's how varied perspectives are on this issue.
quote:
And "Out of Order" and "Dead Like Me" aren't SF. :)
Purple had said, "I canceled showtime when they canceled o5. It was the last thing worth watching on showtime." My reference to "Out of Order" and "Dead Like Me" were in response to that statement. Science fiction is not the only thing worth watching. Furthermore, Dead Like Me qualifies as genre programming. It isn't hard-core science fiction (which an even smaller niche is interested in), but does fall into the more general genre of science fiction, fantasy and horror, which is the narrowest definition of the genre that has a snowball's chance in heck of providing a large enough audience to support any significant amount of programming.


Posted by: bicker

quote:
Originally posted by lordargent
I don't know, ST-TNG seemed to do well enough.
TNG was pretty-much unopposed in the genre. It would be interested to see what kind of ratings SG-1 would get if it was truly the only genre show being broadcast.


Posted by: bicker

quote:
Originally posted by ZikZak
I really can't imagine that anyone watches that B-movie gack, but for what they spend on producing a new movie every month, they could easily fund entire seasons of (for instance) Farscape.
I believe you're mistaken.


Posted by: drew2k

I don't see a problem with Sci-Fi producing movies. However, I would love it if Sci-Fi found some serious money and committed to producing original movies, say once a month, developed from well-known, classic, popular or even new Science Fiction short stories or novels. It would require a serious investment on their part, but I think the rewards would be well worth it. They would gain huge audience share from fans of the written works, could promote new authors, and build a loyal audience knowing they are committed to quality. When the movie airs, they can promote their regular series on commercial breaks, trying to attract the casual viewers who were only tuning into the movie. If we got really lucky, Sci-Fi could even find corporate sponsors and present some movies without commercial interruptions.

Will any of this happen? Doubtful, but as a fan of fiction, I can always imagine, eh? :rolleyes:


Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

Sci-Fi doesn't produce a movie every month; far, far from it. The vast majority of "Sci-Fi Originals" are would-be theatrical films that couldn't even hack it as straight-to-video.


Posted by: aaronw

I dunno, I kinda enjoyed 'riverworld' on Sci-Fi... I didn't have any high hopes for it, and I wasn't dissapointed in that respect either.


Posted by: drew2k

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
The vast majority of "Sci-Fi Originals" are would-be theatrical films that couldn't even hack it as straight-to-video.
I agree. That's why I want Sci-Fi to collaborate with noted Sci-Fi authors and develop existing short stories or novels into movies. Hell, I'd even accept quarterly, not monthly movies, because this could be very expensive. To lessen the costs (because I'm so helpful!), I suggest Sci-Fi find a prestigious corporate sponsor and create a "brand" for their original movies, like CBS, which has "Hallmark Hall of Fame" presentations. That's all I'm asking ... I don't want much!

Any corporate sponsors out there lurking, looking to increase name recognition? Apple? Red Hat? Microsoft? Popular Mechanics? Ooh, I got it: Sun or Solaris Sci-Fi Theater.... Yeah! :D


Posted by: dmdeane

quote:
Originally posted by Sirius Black
When did The Daily Show start it's Sci-Fi run? :D
Context, context, context.

Not all of us watch SF and nothing but SF.

I was explaining why I don't have time to watch more SF; because there are better shows on TV, that I prefer to watch instead of second rate SF.

Although many of the Bush administration claims about Iraq, Saddam, WMD, and Al Qaeda do come pretty close to SF, so maybe The Daily Show counts as SF parody.

For real SF parody, though, we have Futurama and Duck Dodgers.


Posted by: HTH

Sci-fi did wonderfully with Firestarter: Rekindled didn't they?

I wouldn't trust sci-fi not to do a second-rate movie with first-rate source material.


Posted by: bonscott87

As per the ratings, Stargate SG-1 gets the highest ratings of any show on the Sci-Fi network, thus another reason why they love it. It's also one of the higher rated "cable" shows overall and the syndication re-runs also do fantastic in the ratings.

I think one major reason for it's popularity so late in the series is that before when it was on Showtime only, that really limited it's audience. Once it hit syndication, you now have millions of new fans that either never heard of it or couldn't/wouldn't pay for Showtime to see it. Now in syndication you have even more that have never seen it. A friend of mine never saw SG-1 until it first started it's syndication reruns. He knew about the show, but couldn't get Showtime. He is now a huge fan and has also bought up all the DVD's. SG-1 really is adicting.




vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser Modified by Adam J. de Jaray