• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

The "SCI-FI" Channel

ElScorcho

Regular
The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Okay, I know this is a tired topic on this site, but when I watched TLaDiS the other day, I remembered that the main reason it was not picked up as a series was because SCI-FI wasn't interested in doing any new shows with aliens in them.

This got me thinking - what kind of channel would produce such a show? Shows with aliens in them are usually science fiction, if I'm not mistaken, and I can't think of any other channels devoted to science fiction - except the SCI-FI Channel .

You don't see Civil War documentaries on the Cartoon Network. You don't see cooking shows on CourtTV. They don't air the WWF on Lifetime. And you can't learn to fix your leaky faucet on vh1.

So why would a channel devoted to the science fiction genre wish to direct its programming toward an audience that watched channels with more general content? "The Dead Zone" was originally intended for USA, after all.

Meanwhile, they ARE producing a second "Dune" miniseries (because of the book's success, and prior obligations no doubt) and "Taken" (because, ahem, Steven Spielberg). They air Babylon5 and its movies regularly, but opt against LoTR even knowing the ready fanbase.

Perhaps the executives at SCI-FI used to work for MTV (which used to air music-based programming) or Comedy Central (which used to air shows that were funny) and wish to completely rearrange the format of the channel under the same monicker.

Personally, I watch SCI-FI for sci-fi. If I wanted to watch a horror movie or a thriller, I'd watch one of the dozen other channels that air them. Any channel will air "Star Wars" or an Arnold Schwarzennegar (sp) movie, but who's left to show the imaginitive, intelligent programmes that are aimed a little higher than the lowest common denominator?
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Meanwhile, they ARE producing a second "Dune" miniseries (because of the book's success, and prior obligations no doubt)

[/quote]

My goodness, how utterly uninformed I was.

And I thought that Sci-Fi's Dune miniseries was the ratings blockbuster in their history. /forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Dune was boring.

Sci-fi is not "Pythons 2."

And read Redux if you want Rangers, because it's all we're ever going to get. Snif.
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

ElScorcho's point is this: The other day I saw a commercial for a new SCI-FI TV movie.

This is what they want to air insted of Rangers of Crusade?!


/forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

/forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

/forums/images/icons/devil.gif
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Whether you liked the Dune miniseries or not, it did give Sci-Fi a ratings blockbuster, IIRC. I thought it was ok, but nothing THAT great.

And I can't believe what sssssssssssss*** that Sci-fi is considering these days. It's as if they are trying to become a B-level cable channel.
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

A "blockbuster" by their terms or everyone else's? I can't say I loved David Lynch's version, but it was better than the SCI-FI version. I got the same feeling watching it that I got when I saw the ABC version of "The Shining" (recasting Jack Nicholson with that dweeb from Wings - c'mon).

But you're right about the B-level angle. I mean they hype movies I wouldn't watch without commercial interruptions. Like so many cable channels, it's diluting itself to the point where the identity is lost.

"Fox turned into a hard core sex channel so gradually that I hadn't even noticed." - Marge Simpson
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

To do list:

Get stinking rich.

Buy Sci-Fi.

Sell Sci fi.(keeping B5 rights)

Make decent company.

Hold B5s future to ransom!
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
So why would a channel devoted to the science fiction genre wish to direct its programming toward an audience that watched channels with more general content?

[/quote]

Ahh, there's your mistake, "devoted to the science fiction genre." They no longer want to be devoted to the science fiction genre, but instead want to be generalists, reaching out to the lowest common denominator.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
Personally, I watch SCI-FI for sci-fi.

[/quote]

Then you (and I) will be watching less and less of The "Sci-Fi" Channel as time goes on. I wouldn't mind so much if they'd just be honest and rename the damned thing.

Last night I was watching the trailer for "Sci-Fi Pictures" Pythons 2, and it struck me that "Sci-Fi Pictures" equates to low-budget MST3K fodder. /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by hypatia: </font color>
..that Sci-fi is considering these days. It's as if they are trying to become a B-level cable channel.

[/quote]

B-level? You're giving them too much credit. "Z-level" is more like it. That's the level to which they're aspiring. /forums/images/icons/mad.gif
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Just got my copy of sci fi magazine and there's a two-page self congratulatory article on everything cool that the channel has done over the past decade. Interestingly enough, they sight The Legend of the Rangers premiere in its timeline of great accomplishments, as well as their botched introduction of the letterbox edition of Babylon5.

Also included is a list of the "Top 10 Shows SCI FI Saved". The only thing worthy of note on this list is Stargate , which is number one. Other shows, such as Sightings , Good vs. Evil , MST3K (which is long overdue to parody itself), and Poltergeist: The Legacy hardly required saving.

The funniest thing about this lackluster list is that it cops out at 7 1/2 instead of ten, noting number eight as unaired episodes of series and nine and ten as: "Keep watching! We can't save every good series in danger of cancellation, but we always keep an eye [or two... or three!] on what's out there." How hilarious. The glaring ommission, of course, was Crusade , but we all know that Sightings is much more entertaining.

I turned the page, but did not see the top ten shows that they axed, which would include Sliders (which happened to be on the list of shows they "saved"), First Wave , and of course, Legend of the Rangers .

So, congratulations, SCI FI. My life is so much fuller having been able to enjoy Dark Shadows and John Edward.
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

I was very curious about Sci fi's Fall lineup, so I did some research.

I think things are neither as bad as I feared nor as good as I hoped.

If you're interested, check out my column in the August Edition of Dark Moon Rising Ezine .

Column's called "Shapes in Light and Shadow". If you have suggestions for future topics, let me know. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Ro
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Your article was very informative and I can see that we have like opinions in many areas. While these miniseries all sound interesting, what they're offering on a weekly basis seems hardly worth the effort of finding the remote. Everyone knows that "Reality TV" is an oxymoron, and lightning won't strike twice with the likes of John Edward-esque talk shows. The animated series sounds interesting but... Richard Belzer?

(btw - I was editing my last entry while you posted, sorry.)
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Everyone knows that "Reality TV" is an oxymoron, and lightning won't strike twice with the likes of John Edward-esque talk shows. The animated series sounds interesting but... Richard Belzer?

[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment, and yes, it appears we view these developments similarly.

The thing about the AltReality approach is that it is bargain basement programming. Doesn't have to make much money in order to be profitable.

I can appreciate the business dilemma, but BLECCHHH!!!

Enjoyed your comments above. Tripping the Rift may turn out to be the only new show of theirs I actually watch, aside from the minis.

Ro
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Well, I kinda liked Pythons 2. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fah, I had a whole rant ready to post, but I can't get it put into typable words anymore. /forums/images/icons/mad.gif Anyways, I'll try my best to voice my opinions. WARNING! The following stuff may come off as strange at times, with me probably skipping from one topic to another without warning. Gyah, let's just put it this way: It's 5 in the morning, and I'm starting to lose it. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

First of all, I'm just as upset as everyone else about what's happened with LotR and Crusade and all that. I wanted to see them go on (Crusade more than LotR, now that I think about it).

Next, I'm not terribly excited with the future of Sci-Fi's programming, but I'm not about to run off to their HQ with a torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other. Some people have said that that movie thingy with William Shatner was a really bad idea. I can't say that I agree with that anymore. I watched it last night, and rather enjoyed it. Then again, I really like the stuff Full Moon does. And what about Richard Belzer? Richard Belzer is DA MAN. 'Nuff said.

Hrmmm...... what next? Perhaps a little about the recent Sci-Fi Pictures stuff we've gotten. Since 2002 started, I think we've gotten LotR, Project: Viper (or whatever it was called), Dog Soldiers, Shadow Realm, and Pythons 2. Perhaps I missed one or more, but that's all I can remember. LotR was, of course, pretty good. Upon further contemplation, however, I discovered that I was not as impressed with it as I had initially thought I was. It wasn't bad, but some things began to strike me as "bleh" the more I thought about it.

Project: Viper? I dunno, I didn't really pay attention when it aired, although I DID watch it. It wasn't too bad.

Now, out of all of these, I think Dog Soldiers was the best. Call me crazy, but I think I may have enjoyed it more than LotR! It was just cool to me.

Shadow Realm was alright, but I was expecting something more along the lines of a whole movie, and not 4 stand-alone tales. It DID have Malcolm McDowell, and he's a personal favorite of mine. Overall, it was okay.

Pythons 2, the newest movie to feel the wrath of my fellow B5TVers..... /forums/images/icons/grin.gif Anyways, I think I might've enjoyed it a little more if I had seen the first one. Also, the beginning was hard to follow for a while, although I might be able to attribute that to my inattentiveness. Overall, I felt like it was worth watching.

And that's all I wrote, folks. This is G'Kar of the Kha'Ri signing off at 5:27 AM.
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
Just got my copy of sci fi magazine and there's a two-page self congratulatory article on everything cool that the channel has done over the past decade.

[/quote]

Well, what did you expect? It is "Sci-Fi Magazine." They are going to be blowing their own horn alot. Strange, they didn't use more than 2 pages.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
Interestingly enough, they sight The Legend of the Rangers premiere in its timeline of great accomplishments,


[/quote]

The mind boggles. /forums/images/icons/devil.gif They must have been really reaching (padding the resumé), or just trying to mention "Babylon 5" in something (which , in and of itself, isn't bad). To me, one 90 minute pilot, with some painfully bad areas and not much of a plot, is nothing to brag about. Also, how can you brag about something, and then NOT pick it up for a series??? /forums/images/icons/confused.gif It's either good, you can brag about it, and you pick it up, OR it's bad, you don't brag about it, and you don't pick it up. They can't have it both ways. To argue both sides is insanity.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
...as well as their botched introduction of the letterbox edition of Babylon5.

[/quote]

They aren't going to mention any mistakes they've made, so that's understandable. I'd have more faith in the magazine if they fessed up. At least that way they would not look completely biased. If only, in their Widescreen edition, instead of cropping the CGI they would have let it have black bars on the left and right. /forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
Also included is a list of the "Top 10 Shows SCI FI Saved". The only thing worthy of note on this list is Stargate, which is number one. Other shows, such as Sightings, Good vs. Evil, MST3K (which is long overdue to parody itself), and Poltergeist: The Legacy hardly required saving.

[/quote]

I liked Good vs. Evil.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
The funniest thing about this lackluster list is that it cops out at 7 1/2 instead of ten, noting number eight as unaired episodes of series and nine and ten as: "Keep watching! We can't save every good series in danger of cancellation, but we always keep an eye [or two... or three!] on what's out there." How hilarious. The glaring omission, of course, was Crusade, but we all know that Sightings is much more entertaining.

[/quote]

Crusade, Brimstone and Special Unit 2 are a glaring omissions of shows that the should have saved. All were loaded with with interesting characters. Mitch Pileggi must be hurting for a paycheck, because otherwise, I can't see him doing a cheesy show like Sightings.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
I turned the page, but did not see the top ten shows that they axed, which would include Sliders (which happened to be on the list of shows they "saved"), First Wave, and of course, Legend of the Rangers.

[/quote]

Well, they never really "axed" Legend of the Rangers, they just didn't pick it up after airing it's pilot. As for Sliders, it was tailing off after losing some stars. First Wave, was OK, but they ended that one, didn't they (i.e. an ending, not a pure truncation like we got with Crusade and Brimstone)?


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by ElScorcho: </font color>
So, congratulations, SCI FI. My life is so much fuller having been able to enjoy Dark Shadows and John Edward.

[/quote]

Now that's odd. Personally, I can't stand either show, and don't see what anybody else sees in them. However, one of the people I know who watches John Edward religiously (and who I've unsuccessfully been trying to get started on Babylon 5 and Crusade), also watches Dark Shadows religiously. She also liked ST:TOS but dislikes all new Treks (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT).
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by G Kar of the Kha Ri: </font color>
Some people have said that that movie thingy with William Shatner was a really bad idea. I can't say that I agree with that anymore. I watched it last night, and rather enjoyed it.

[/quote]


You liked that slimey mutant with six eyes? /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/frown.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif I tuned in, but turned the channel quickly because it just looked so cheap and "Z-Movie-like." Nothing good was on last night when I got home at 11:30PM, so I just started to get caught up on my Monk tapes (watched the Carnival episode, and half of the Asylum episode before nodding off. I was very tired.).

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by G Kar of the Kha Ri: </font color>
And what about Richard Belzer? Richard Belzer is DA MAN. 'Nuff said.


[/quote]


It'd be awfully nice to see some QUALITY sci-fi or fantasy series like Crusade or Brimstone balance out all this cheap schlock which does nothing but worsen the reputation of sci-fi.
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Well, at least it hasn't yet become the Black Scorpion network... yet... /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

Give 'em time. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

KoshN wrote: "Well, what did you expect? It is "Sci-Fi Magazine." They are going to be blowing their own horn alot. Strange, they didn't use more than 2 pages."

Most likely because 2 pages covered all they could really blow about without making the article a total lie.
 
Re: The \"SCI-FI\" Channel

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

nice one gangster!
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top