JMS speaks..

GKarsEye · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm glad you were all around here through it all. (Even GKE, but that's just because I needed someone to pick on. *grins, ducks*)
<hr></blockquote>

Bitch /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm still a supporter of a Rangers series. Who knows - someone might pick it up. I want my Sarah Cantrell!
<hr></blockquote>

I also want her, but I think in a different way than you...

Check this: sci-fi says they are moving away from space stuff, and I believe they also said aliens. Leaving aside debates about what is technically sci-fi, it stands to reason that anything that calls itself a Science-Fiction channel will have lots of space and aliens involved.

In their effort to broaden their appeal and market to a wider audience, I hope they learn that catering entertainment and art to a pre-determined audience is failed tactic. Yes, I'm a bitter person who wishes harm on others, and I don't care. I absolutely despise that way of thinking: "Oh, jeez, let's figure out what we think more people would want, and if that doesn't work, let's tell them what we think they should want, and then give them a safe, harmless version of it." The result: disco music and bad movies getting worse sequels.

Hypatia, your concern regarding programming for intelligent non-teenage women, or lack thereof, is a valid one, and, for what it's worth, shared by the mighty GKarsEye. All typical chauvenistic and sexist ramblings aside, I am royally pissed that network execs think they have everyone pegged. The truth is, they think that you are more interested in Oprah and movies about "two women struggling with love, life, and their journey..." blah blah blah.

The sad fact is, you are not the audience that most advertisers and programmers are concerned with. I am: white male middle-class, 19-45, with expendable income. And as a member of their target audience, I have this to say to them: a big fat fuck you to you and yours for ripping any potential for quality, intelligent entertainment and even, *gasp*, art from television.

Rant over.

hypatia · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by GKarsEye
Hypatia, your concern regarding programming for intelligent non-teenage women, or lack thereof, is a valid one, and, for what it's worth, shared by the mighty GKarsEye. All typical chauvenistic and sexist ramblings aside, I am royally pissed that network execs think they have everyone pegged. The truth is, they think that you are more interested in Oprah and movies about "two women struggling with love, life, and their journey..." blah blah blah.

The sad fact is, you are not the audience that most advertisers and programmers are concerned with. I am: white male middle-class, 19-45, with expendable income. And as a member of their target audience, I have this to say to them: a big fat fuck you to you and yours for ripping any potential for quality, intelligent entertainment and even, *gasp*, art from television.

Rant over.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, I thought I heard way back in the letter writing for Crusade days that the Sci-Fi channel was specifically targeting my statistical group. Otherwise I would not mention it. I thought that was how they were going to expand their market, in my direction.

This weekend I'll take the time to write a polite letter to Bonnie Hammer. I'll simply say that their recent programming choices will mean I am tuning into their station a lot less. And if they stop showing B5 reruns, I might stop tuning in at all.

If they still want the adult female audience, maybe some letters to this effect will help if they decide we are a “target audience” in the future.

I am just so disappointed. And BTW whatever happened to “if Sci-Fi doesn’t want it we’ll shop it around”? I remember a thread awhile ago where some were saying “if Sci-Fi doesn’t want it [Rangers], who else would?” and some people did say there could be other markets for Rangers. So, where are these other networks? It seems that Joe D and the others were right: it really sounds like it was Sci-Fi channel or nothing.

O.K. back ‘atcha MGKE. And now my rant is over. I could have written the damned letter by this time!

/ubbthreads/images/icons/rolleyes.gif

Recoil · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by hypatia:
I am just so disappointed. And BTW whatever happened to “if Sci-Fi doesn’t want it we’ll shop it around”? I remember a thread awhile ago where some were saying “if Sci-Fi doesn’t want it [Rangers], who else would?” and some people did say there could be other markets for Rangers. So, where are these other networks? It seems that Joe D and the others were right: it really sounds like it was Sci-Fi channel or nothing.<hr></blockquote>
Hypatia,

I dont think people have been saying exactly that. Most of the threads, even Antony's news post "Endgame" said that Sci-Fi shunning Rangers makes the chance for a series VERY SMALL, and almost certainly non-existant for the near future. I have no doubt that Doug Nettles and company are shopping around, but lets be realistic, that will take time if it ever happens. By then we are looking at sometime next year at the earliest and who knows where the cast and crew will be by then. No one is saying there is no chance, and no one is saying they aren't shopping around, but the reality is that now the chances are very small, and if it happens at all, it will be quite a while down the road --- not what we all were hoping for.

PsionTen · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Would you please elaborate on that? <hr></blockquote>

No.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I see nothing unusual about calling Jeremiah science-fiction. Post-apocalypse is a standard science-fiction concept, dealing with the interaction and mutual influence of technology ("science") and society. <hr></blockquote>

Sure it is, as are robots, androids, cyborgs, rayguns, alternate dimensions, alternate realities, genetic experiments ... all of which are common elements of Buffy.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I think the important thing is to see beyond make-believe and optics and ask what the underlying premise is.
<hr></blockquote>

Which "underlying premise" are you talking about? You're presuming that there's only one. B5, for example, had a lot of "underlying premise." Is it really an "underlying premise" you're talking about here, or a setting? I agree that Jeremiah is set in a post-apocalyptic environment, but I have no clue what it's "underlying premise" is or isn't. I didn't know some of B5's "underlying premise" until I saw the whole series ... but I knew almost immediately that it was set on some sort of alien UN space station. You can call that an "underlying premise" if you want, but I think B5 was about something more than that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And yes, I would very much classify Star Wars as Fantasy, rather than SciFi. Dune, on the other hand, although having a way more fantasy-like setting, I'd definitely see as SciFi <hr></blockquote>

Hey, you can categorize Casablanca as SciFi if you want too, as long as you realize that some people don't.

GKarsEye · Apr 9, 2002

If they are indeed targeting female viewers, than they're probably assuming that women don't like space stuff. There is a valid rationale behind it, but it's still creating entertainment: focusing on the result than on the process.

I understand that TV is a business. That is not my complaint. I believe making shows the right way- that is, focusing on producing quality shows with strong stories and such, would profit the network in the long run by brining in a loyal viewership and spreading buzz. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that they didn't learn this from the numerous and humiliating failures of the record business in the past few years.

gangster · Apr 9, 2002

What we have in SciFi Channel's programing is a classic case of "can't see the forest for the trees." They, and program sponsors, see a certain target audience close at hand but can not see the much larger target audience that exists beyond this limited group.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Sure it is, as are robots, androids, cyborgs, rayguns, alternate dimensions, alternate realities, genetic experiments ... all of which are common elements of Buffy. <hr></blockquote>

Alternate dimensions aren't necessarily a Sci-Fi premise. (The D&D manual of the planes is hardly Sci-Fi fare). I must admit that I am not a Buffy regular, but the Sci-Fi character doesn't exactly strike you when watching it occasionally, whereas in Jeremiah, and in Babylon 5, it is fundamental to the series, and obvious in the general setting.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You're presuming that there's only one. <hr></blockquote> Um, no.

PsionTen · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If they are indeed targeting female viewers, than they're probably assuming that women don't like space stuff. <hr></blockquote>

Then good luck to them, because I haven't met a woman in my life that was into sci-fi -- whether it was about space or not. Yes, I'm sure if I was to go to a Trek Convention or a ComiCon I'd probably meet some women who were into sci-fi, but in "real life" I never have. I'd love to see some stats about this somewhere, if there are any.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Alternate dimensions aren't necessarily a Sci-Fi premise. <hr></blockquote>

My bad, I didn't know that you knew everything there was to know about sci-fi. Of course, if you want examples, I'll throw out "Sliders" "A Wrinkle in Time" (soon to be a mini-series) B5 ... I'm still not quite sure what your definitions of "premise" and "underlying premise" are, but if I see a movie and alternate dimensions are a part of it, there's a 100% chance that it's gonna fall into that sc-fi/fantasy category, which most people see as the same thing anyway.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I must admit that I am not a Buffy regular, but the Sci-Fi character doesn't exactly strike you when watching it occasionally, whereas in Jeremiah, and in Babylon 5 <hr></blockquote>

I have no idea if you're right or wrong. I finally got a friend to watch last week's episodes of Stargate and Jeremiah with me and one of the things she asked later was what "the show with all the dirty people" had to do with "Sci-Fi Friday." What can I say, everybody is wired differently.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Um, no. <hr></blockquote>

Um, good.

admiraldave · Apr 9, 2002

I know female sci-fi fans. My sister is the biggest Star Wars nut I know. This board, and a few others I frequent do have a significant female population.

Admiral Dave

hypatia · Apr 9, 2002

One "stat" I can give is that every female instructor in my college's Math/Science department is into some form of sci-fi (though not necessarily the same ones). It's a pretty small department on this campus, but that's one math teacher (me); one of our biology instructors, chemistry instructors and our physics instructor.

I have a friend who moved to Oregon recently, and she loves sci-fi. A former student of mine went to a sci-fi convention with me. My sister loves all space related sci fi.

You need to meet different women, Psi! There are more of us than you think. And my sister is not in the education business, and neither were the two friends I mention (just so you don't think it's all an educator phenomenon).

We're out there! We exist! /ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif

hypatia · Apr 9, 2002

Recoil, I see. The chances are very slim it will be picked up at all, and virtually 0 percent for retaining all of the original cast.

This is just a depressing week. /ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif

PsionTen · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I know female sci-fi fans. My sister is the biggest Star Wars nut I know. This board, and a few others I frequent do have a significant female population.
<hr></blockquote>

I never said that there weren't any female sci-fi fans out there, its just that I've never met any -- and I've known, been with, met a lot of women these past few decades. As far as this board having a significant number of women members, I have no idea. After being here for about a year, I'd say that the men overwhelmingly outnumber the women.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> You need to meet different women, Psi! <hr></blockquote>

It's already too late for me.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by hypatia:
Actually, I thought I heard way back in the letter writing for Crusade days that the Sci-Fi channel was specifically targeting my statistical group. Otherwise I would not mention it. I thought that was how they were going to expand their market, in my direction.

/ubbthreads/images/icons/rolleyes.gif<hr></blockquote>

You are kind of both right. To increase its ratings, the network has to appeal to young men *and* women of all ages. However, often that isn't with the same programming.

One of the reasons the network puts on horror is that horror does better with 18 to 34 year olds than straight SF.

The audience for space-based SF is predominantly baby boomers over 35. B5LR was extremely skewed to Men (67%) and further skewed to men between 45-54.

(Keep in mind what the meaning of the word "skew" is before you protest that you watched it and don't fall in that group)

Personally, I think that this limitation in the audience was a bigger problem for the pilot to become a series than the football game was.

One of the reasons Farscape has succeeded and grown is that its female audience has grown. As opposed to being 67% male, Farscape's audience is 55% male / 45% female.

If you examine the demographic skews of all SF and Fantasy shows, non-space stuff like Buffy and X-Files tends to get younger audiences, while traditional space opera gets older audiences.

If you want your network to do well with both young and old, you need both types of programming.

Recoil · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by SavantB5:
B5LR was extremely skewed to Men (67%) and further skewed to men between 45-54.

Personally, I think that this limitation in the audience was a bigger problem for the pilot to become a series than the football game was.<hr></blockquote>
Of course, a good reason for that may be because all the guys between the ages of 17-45 were out watching a Football Playoff Game, and their female significant others, in protest, declaired it a "girls night out." /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

Joseph DeMartino · Apr 9, 2002

All this hair splitting over what is and isn't Sci-Fi, and what belongs on the channel is pretty pointless anyway. Fans have been having these arguments for most of a century without ever coming to any universally recognized standards. There are always works that don't quite it any of the categories. Even someone like Stephen King, the "modern master of horror", is harder to pigeon-hole than people think. Of his first seven published novels, only one is an out-and-out supernatural horror story ('Salem's Lot) while one other is an epic fantasy with a few supernatural elements (The Stand) The others are arguably sicence fiction (Carrie, The Dead Zone, Firestarter, all of which deal with "wild talents" attributed to genetic mutations or other natural causes) or straight suspense stories (Cujo, which has no elements that aren't contemporary and purely natural. The dog Cujo is turned into a dangerous beast by rabies, not any supernatural agency.)

The plain fact is that all of these things, hard SF, alternate reality fantasy of the Tolkein school and horror from Mary Shelly to Stephen King are a sub-set of what can broadly be called "fantasy" and that there is a huge overlap in the audience for all of them. While some SF fans detest "fantasy" and vice versa, try spending time in the dealers' room at any genre convention. Whether it is billed as a Trek, Fantasy, SF or Comic Book con, you'll find many of the same dealers and the same wares at all of them. That's because the dealers are business people, and they know they're almost as likely to sell a vintage edition of The Fantastic Four at Horror or SF convention as they are at a con devoted specifically to comic books. (For that matter, look around at your fellow fans - you'll see many of the same faces, albeit in different costumes.) King himself has discussed this in his excellent survey of genre fiction in the first half of the twentieth century, Danse Macabre.

So the Sci-Fi Channel would be stupid to ignore these facts and limit itself to only pure SF. (There is also the fact that most of the SF committed to celluloid in the past hundred years has been crap, and that many of the classics of the genre are under exclusive contracts to other networks, and not available to Sci-Fi. There simply isn't enough worthwhile SF that they can air to fill their entire broadcast schedule.)

Having said all that, I will concede that you can draw some lines, in some places. Anything that at least tries to explain itself in terms of real-world science and physics belongs to the sub-set of fantasy called SF. Anything that permits magic and the supernatural is fantasy pure and simple, although it may fit into any number of sub-sets, from the horror of Stoker's Dracula or King's concious Stoker hommage, 'Salem's Lot to the sword and sorcery excesses of Robert E. Howard's Conan. That Buffy involves robots and the like no more makes it SF than the fact that it includes college makes it a mainstream young adult soap opera. If vampires and demons exist in its universe, it is definitely fantasy.

But, for the reasons noted above, it certainly has a place on a station that is devoted to the various subcultures of fantasy, as does another vampire show, Forever Knight. No one in their right mind would classify Knight with shows like Hill Street Blues or Homicide, despite the fact that the main character is a police detective in addition to being a vampire. If you've got vampires in your cast, you definitely fall into the horror category. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Regards,

Joe

PsionTen · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> That Buffy involves robots and the like no more makes it SF than the fact that it includes college makes it a mainstream young adult soap opera.
<hr></blockquote>

That Jeremiah involves an apocalyptic wasteland no more makes it SF than the fact it includes nudity makes it soft-core porn. Hey, I like this game! That Smallville involves a Lana/Clark/Chloe triangle no more makes it about a menage a trois than it includes a metorite makes it about geology. That the Simpsons involve a nuclear power plant no more makes it about renewable energy than it includes a saxaphone makes it about Charlie Parker. Damn, now it reminds me too much of the SATs.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If vampires and demons exist in its universe, it is definitely fantasy
<hr></blockquote>

Maybe in your framework that's true, but there are others out there who -- believe it or not -- might disagree with you. I have seen space vampire movies, sci-fi western movies, demon comedy movies and fantasy romance movies ... In my framework, there simply aren't any Bright Line Rules like "all things with vampires are fantasies." That's cool if that works for you, it doesn't for me.

Kribu · Apr 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by PsionTen:
As far as this board having a significant number of women members, I have no idea. After being here for about a year, I'd say that the men overwhelmingly outnumber the women.<hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't be so sure of the "overwhelmingly" part. Of course, I don't have stats as we don't have the M/F thing in profiles but I'd say the difference isn't that big. The guys here just tend to be more vocal, post more, argue more - and in some cases, unless you've noticed one post among many others where the poster had said she's female, it's easy to assume that the poster with a masculine-sounding or neutral nickname is male.

And if you take a look around the 'net, at all the B5 fan sites for example, it's quite surprising how many of them have been created by women. I'd even say that the overwhelming majority of all the numerous John/Delenn and Marcus/Ivanova sites belong to women. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

I personally know seven people who are scifi/Babylon 5 fans or who at least watched and liked it, and four of them are women.

hypatia · Apr 9, 2002

Savant B5: "(Keep in mind what the meaning of the word "skew" is before you protest that you watched it and don't fall in that group) "

Ah yes, I know what skew means. I may not teach statistics, but I do know what it means. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

Yes, until hypatia starts paying someone millions of dollars to show what she wants to see, the majority will rule in these decisions. But do you really think their new lineup will gain viewers? Other than maybe a miniseries here and there?

Who knows, but I'm personally hoping it does not. Then maybe they'll change some of their minds about moving away from space oriented sci-fi.

hypatia · Apr 9, 2002

I didn't phrase part of that last post in quite the way I wanted to.

Never mind, it is funny, so I'll leave it that way. /ubbthreads/images/icons/rolleyes.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

GKarsEye · Apr 9, 2002

There's nothing wrong with putting fantasy or adventure or horror on the sci-fi channel to mix things up a bit. But all bickering aside, let's get real here: sci-fi and space/aliens go hand in hand. I don't care what logic or documentation you have, this is how it is in pop culture, which is what TV is. For the sci-fi channel to "move away" from space and aliens is like ESPN moving away from showing live mainstream sporting competitions. If ESPN features curling competitions 70% of the time, it would still be a sports channel, technically. But it would loose viewership.

Comedy Central does things that aren't technically comedy, like game shows, but most of it's programming is stand-up, comedy movies, and original animated sitcoms and sketch comedy- all stuff that one associates with freakin' comedy.

Sci-fi channel = show us spaceships. This isn't rocket science (I know, bad pun).

JMS speaks..

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Moderator

Regular

Administrator

Regular

Regular

Regular

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE