Very little Scifi channel promotion

Frizzell · Jul 28, 2001

When I watch TV anymore, I generally watch the reruns of old shows that I liked. For instance, at 7:00 p.m., when I am home, I tune into Sci-fi. I may not actually watch the show everyday, but I have it playing in the background.

At the most, I watch about 4-5 hours of original programming a week, and only one hour of it is on a major network. I tend to watch A&E and Sci-fi.

My life as a movie-goer has come to a halt. I can sit at home for free and read a good book rather than squander my money on the swill being shown in theaters. My last few theater experiences were in no way enjoyable.

TV=Idiot Box

------------------
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him.
-Jonathan Swift

PsionTen · Jul 29, 2001

[QUOTE And you used that opinion to support your claim that the SciFi people are possibly too stupid to
commission the Rangers series. Joe pointed out that your claim was false since the disiction would be based on expected profits, and that quality (or lack there of) is largely irrelevant [/QUOTE]

Actually, my whole point (and the one that I have been making for some time) is that it seems like everybody has been jumping the gun. People are already talking about future episodes, when there hasn't even been an announcement of a series.

I never said that "the distinction" would not be based on profitability, I only pointed out the very distinct possibility that the sci-fi people are a bunch of buffons -- which may or may not be a part of the whole equation as well. Judging by some of their choices in programming, my opinion may not be that far off base.

As far as Joe pointing out that my claim was false, he did nothing of the sort. He merely provided reasons as to why sci-fi aired poor quality programming in the first place. The fact that they did air poor quality programming seemed to have been totally irrelevant to him.

In any case, the argument of whether the suits at sci-fi are buffons or not will be answered soon enough.

------------------
"Even I am not a Marxist" —— Karl Marx.

Joseph DeMartino · Jul 29, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They're called Nielson families and they are the ones to blame.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they're very carefully chosen to be as representative of the general audience as possible, since it is impractical to wire-up every home in America to record ratings information. If the Neilsen households weren't representative A. C. Neilsen and company would be out of business - because the advertising agencies and TV networks who are their customers would have found someone else who could provide accurate information. Neilsen itself has absolutely no stake in what programs do or don't do well, so they have no reason to distort the result. They only make money by providing accurate data that their customers can use. If they don't do that, they'll soon have no customers. So "blaming" the Neilsen families is meaningless. They're watching what the public at large watches, in similar proportions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I said nothing about the profitability or the risk factor of airing any of those shows .... I just said that they sucked ... and they did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your opinion. (People were watching those shows, so somebody must have liked them.) But your argument was stated as follows:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The sci-fi people are obvious buffons. The fact that they would air Black Scorpion proves that much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The word is "buffoons", by the way. If you're going to call people names you could at least spell those names correctly.

So:

Airing Black Scorpion="You are a buffoon."

I suggested that there are sound business reasons for running something like B.S., even if I agree the show was junk. Which means that the people running the Sci-Fi Channel aren't buffoons, they just do things for different reasons than you would. If B.S. had been a huge ratings hit they would be considered programming geniuses because their job is to put programs on the air that the network can make a profit on, not to cater to your indidvidual taste in entertainment. Everyone who does something that you don't agree with is not an idiot or a buffoon. This is a valuable life-lesson, you might want to write it down somewhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>People are already talking about future episodes, when there hasn't even been an announcement of a series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you have a point, and I've made the same point myself. OTOH without much in the way of real news, there isn't a lot of fodder for conversation on the Rangers board except for speculation on the possible series. So let us stipulate from now on the all discussion of a Rangers series is prefaced by the phrase, "In the event that The Sci-Fi Channel picks Rangers up as a series..."

Happy?

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

hypatia · Jul 29, 2001

No way, Joe. I prefer typing in my gossip and then a quick :"(assuming B5LR becomes a series)".

Much quicker, and makes the same point!

BTW, what are we doing being so sensitive about trivial junk, anyway?
------------------
"I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."-- Galileo

[This message has been edited by hypatia (edited July 29, 2001).]

crazybillyo · Jul 29, 2001

We should have a [series assumation] tag.

------------------
Sheridan: Are you trying to cheer me up?
Ivanova: No sir, wouldn't dream of it.
Sheridan: Good, I hate being cheered up. It's depressing.
Ivanova: So in that case we're all going to die horrible, painful, lingering deaths.
Sheridan: Thank you, I feel so much better now.

PsionTen · Jul 30, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The word is "buffoons", by the way. If you're going to call people names you could at least spell those names correctly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If anyone can name any of these "people" then several things become very clear: (a) you got way too much free time on your hands; (b)people call you "anal" behind your back; (c) you're the "life" of parties; (d) people beat you up in elementary school for playing "Dungeons and Dragons"

But if you feel that I have slighted any of the faceless masses at the sci-fi channel then I will endeavor to use the dictionary next time --- promise. (prefect grammer always made me feel better when I was "insulted!")

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I suggested that there are sound business reasons for running something like B.S., even if I agree the show was junk. Which means that the people running the Sci-Fi Channel aren't buffoons, they just do things for different reasons than you would. If B.S. had been a huge ratings hit they would be considered programming geniuses because their job is to put programs on the air that the network can make a profit on, not to cater to your indidvidual taste in entertainment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sound business reasons? Then I take it that airing B.S. was a profitable venture -- is that why its still on the air? You seem to think that there is a line that separates profitability from quality. I don't think so. BS was a "BUFFOONISH" move to make because it sucked in quality, which in turn led it to suck as a busineess venture. . Of course, there are shows that are huge ratings hits that people may argure about quality, but BS was way below the "if'y" mark. My six-year-old niece could have told the executives at sci-fi that it sucked. Stevie Wonder could have told them that it sucked. The dead bodies buried underneath my aunt's basement could have told them that.

But as I said before, I'm willing to wait and see if the level of their "BUFFOONERY" is on the increase or decrease.

------------------
"Even I am not a Marxist" —— Karl Marx.

Mondo Londo · Jul 30, 2001

Most of us have to do things we don't like in life. Whether doing what your boss says when you have tried to explain and know he/she is wrong, seeing a movie you don't want to see because that's what your date wants to see, or airing "Black Scorpion" because you can't afford the contract for The X-Files, My Favorite Martian, DS 9, or what have you (these examples are merely that, examples -- we need not get into the details of why or why not SciFi has these particular shows).

Like most of us, SciFi has budgets, and has to work within them. And as much as we may not like it, they are in the business of driving eyeballs and putting something on the air 24/7.

If I had my way, I'd watch the Orson Welles channel, the Orson Wells doing works of the Bard channel, the Bard channel, the Akira Kurasowa/David Lean channel, and the Charlie Parker/Dizzy Gillespie channel. Very few could argue the quality of the programming; but on the other hand, very few would watch.

So I get tapes/CDs.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we don't always know what will work. Michael Jordan didn't score 100 points every game; at his best, Ted Williams didn't get a hit almost six times out of ten...

So it is possible that a show about a young female running around in black underwear could be a hit. Whether it's good... well, can we say that experimenting with bad programming is part of the price we pay for experimenting with good programming? We must experiment, for without it, we stagnate.

Anyway, like I said, we all have to make compromises. In these kinds of cases, we vote with our eyeballs.

------------------
"What's up, Drakh?"

Michael Garibaldi

[This message has been edited by Mondo Londo (edited July 30, 2001).]

GKarsEye · Jul 30, 2001

Have you gone to the movies lately? Watched television? Turned on the radio?

Clearly, there is lots of profit to be had from low quality material. Supporting and promoting the good stuff is risky. Survivor 3 will always happen.

As far as Sci-fi channel is concerned, they have the guy that talks to dead people, every night at prime time. I think it's safe to say that this isn't he highest quality programming, but it makes a profit because it's cheap to make. It's just a guy talking to people.

Joe D's point was that the Sci-fi channel saw a way to make a quick buck. Black Star (I don't even know what that is) is cheap to air, so they figured they could make some cash if just a few people watched it. Apparently they were wrong, but it didn't cost them much to find out.

Look, networks still air Gilligan's Island, Facts of Life, and Full House. Who watches that? Enought people to make it profitable.

Sci-fi's original programming, on the other hand, is more expensive and is riskier, so demands a larger audience to be profitable.

A buffoon is someone who can't do things right. Sci-fi executive's jobs are to make money. They are succeeding, beyond what most people expected them too. Hardly buffoons.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

PsionTen · Jul 30, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So it is possible that a show about a young female running around in black underwear could be a hit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>.... Sci-fi channel saw a way to make a quick buck. Black Star (I don't even know what that is) is cheap to air, so they figured they could make some cash if just a few people watched it. Apparently they were wrong, but it didn't cost them much to find out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are we even having this discussion? A guy can't even get upset at a faceless and godless multi-million dollar corporation anymore? I still think there are a bunch of Buffoons there. Most of their orginal programming -- until recently -- has been panned by entertainment periodicals. They have made poor choices in programming and in marketing.

My point is simply thus:

I'm Mr. Joe Average ... why should I give a damn why a network is putting on stuff that sucks? All I know is that it isn't any good and I want to see better stuff... period. To me, you aren't "maximazing profit potential" ... you suck. And you aren't "gambling on a business venture" you're just airing more crap on my tv screen. To me, newtworks have been run by a bunch of buffoons ever since you preempted that football game for Heidi. You're all the same to me and I can barely tolerate you as it is.

------------------
"Even I am not a Marxist" —— Karl Marx.

GKarsEye · Jul 30, 2001

We were just picking on your terminology, Psion. If you read some of my other posts, you won't find me disagreeing with you. The problem is that programming is based on profit, not art.

Other than that, you have my full support in bashing faceless multi-billion dollar corporations and the state of television programming.

Mondo Londo, don't worry, the Parker/Gillespie channel would have a faithful viewer with this Narn.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

PsionTen · Jul 30, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>.... you have my full support in bashing faceless multi-billion dollar corporations and the state of television programming.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's all I ever wanted to do in my life. But I didn't mean to pick on Sci-Fi -- its just too easy to finger-point at the networks.

------------------
"Even I am not a Marxist" —— Karl Marx.

Wanderer · Jul 30, 2001

ok, let me get this strait,
the scifi channel get's the
greatest show on earth,and
they don't promot it, that
is pure !@#$%^& stupididy!

------------------
no surrender, no retreat

crazybillyo · Jul 31, 2001

Here's a thought: If you think a show is crap, DON'T WATCH IT.

------------------
Sheridan: Are you trying to cheer me up?
Ivanova: No sir, wouldn't dream of it.
Sheridan: Good, I hate being cheered up. It's depressing.
Ivanova: So in that case we're all going to die horrible, painful, lingering deaths.
Sheridan: Thank you, I feel so much better now.

Joseph DeMartino · Jul 31, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>ok, let me get this strait, the scifi channel get's the greatest show on earth,and
they don't promot it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you don't quite have it straight.

1) There is no show at this point, just a TV movie.

2) The movie doesn't air until January, so it is a little early for heavy promotion.

3) Despite this fact, the Sci-Fi Channel is promoting the movie in various ways. (The recent interviews in Dreamwatch and TV Guide are examples. These things don't "just happen." They are usually the result of lots of lobbying by studio and network publicity people vying to get their shows in front of the public.)

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

PsionTen · Jul 31, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well, you don't quite have it straight.

1) There is no show at this point, just a TV movie.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that was the very point crazy was making... they have this "project" in the palm of their hands and they aren't doing anything with it... no promotion, no announcements, no nothing... except a link to an old Bboard on the sci-fi site-- whoopie.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 2) The movie doesn't air until January, so it is a little early for heavy promotion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says who? And who says the promotion has to be "heavy?" I don't watch the sci-fi channel as much as some (I can find better sci-fi shows on cable), but I haven't really seen anything about LOTR except during the re-airing of the Dune mini-series. The biggest promotion yet probably came from the review on AICN, sci-fi hasn't really done much of anything -- at least that's the way it seems from the couch potato's position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Despite this fact, the Sci-Fi Channel is promoting the movie in various ways. (The recent interviews in Dreamwatch and TV Guide are examples. These things don't "just happen." They are usually the result of lots of lobbying by studio and network publicity people vying to get their shows in front of the public.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love sci-fi and all of my friends love sci-fi, but none of them has a clue as to what "dreamwatch" is -- chances are the common average viewer that might be open to watching LOTR doesn't have a clue either.

The TV guide article was nice, but was it the print version or TV guide on-line?

But then again, I think that crazy's point wasn't for the promotion to "just happen," I believe that he meant that there should be "lobbying by studio and network publicity people."

Personally, I'm not sure if I agree with crazy or not, but its a valid point.

---------------------------------------------
Here's a thought: If you think a show is crap, DON'T WATCH IT.
---------------------------------------------

Umm, good advice.

------------------
"Even I am not a Marxist" —— Karl Marx.

[This message has been edited by PsionTen (edited July 31, 2001).]

GKarsEye · Jul 31, 2001

Be careful what you wish for, folks.

Advertising for an event is always stepped up more the closer it gets to the event. If sci-fi starts hitting us with ads for a movie that airs in January, that means that by December every other commercial will be for the Rangers movie.

Anyone remember the hype for Godzilla 2000? Star Wars I? As much as I like the show, if I never see another commercial for "a very special Frasier," it will be too soon.

Also remember, the sci-fi channel isn't the Babylon 5 Channel. Promoting it too much would make them look like UPN.

Trust me, by November or December, you'll all be sick of Ranger ads.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

PsionTen · Jul 31, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Trust me, by November or December, you'll all be sick of Ranger ads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're right.

------------------
"Even I am not a Marxist" —— Karl Marx.

Wanderer · Jul 31, 2001

i ment they were not
promoting b5,
you guys really
read into that one

------------------
no surrender, no retreat

Chris Springob · Jul 31, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The TV guide article was nice, but was it the print version or TV guide on-line?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both. There was one article in the print version, and another article in TV guide on-line. Check the news announcements on this site from a couple of weeks ago.

------------------

PsionTen · Aug 1, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> i ment they were not
promoting b5,
you guys really
read into that one <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh that's great. Are you laughing at me now? Do I amuse you? Am I a clown to you, is that it? Am I here for your personal amusement? What the... Oh waitaminute, I was thinking about something else. Nevermind.

------------------
"Even I am not a Marxist" —— Karl Marx.

Very little Scifi channel promotion

Beyond the rim

Regular

Moderator

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Moderator

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Share this page

We value your privacy