Sci-Fi Channel

Taki

DTVUSA Member
#1
No sub forum for the sci-fi channel and that is one of the only channels on sat I watch. shame on you Admin :p Sic-fi used to be pretty good, but they need more new content.
 

acwriter

DTVUSA Member
#2
I'm sure that if there is enough interest in any channel that is not currently listed, then they could end up being one of the main links. I would imagine it is difficult to list every major channel when there are so many to choose from. In listing popular channels you would have to take into consideration what the majority of people are watching and posting about.
 

aclowers

DTVUSA Member
#3
I would like to see Taken and The 4400 have a comeback and continuation. They were interesting and had a good following. But, I think they ended too abruptly. We also enjoyed the Andromeda series with Captain Dylan Hunt. What about you?
 

iluvtv

DTVUSA Member
#4
Yeah, we like those shows too. We also like the original Battlestar Galactica. The newer one was just too weird, especially after watching the older one for years. We couldn't believe they made Starbuck into a woman. We also miss the old Buck Rogers series, too.
 

Mattrick

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#5
I can usually watch a lot of things on the sci-fi channel. Though these days The X Files is what I really like. I used to watch it for the four hours it was on, when it was on TNT from midnight to 4am.
 

sbsqrpnts

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#6
I love watching Ghost Hunters on Wednesday's! I have been watching this show since it first aired just over 3 years ago and haven't missed an episode yet. I don't know I'm interested in the paranormal but I just love it. Do I think they make some of the stuff up, I'm sure they do since it's a tv show. Do I think they make it all up, NO.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#9
Sci-Fi, soon to be Syfy, has lost its focus, and I think that's a shame. I miss the original version of it. This wrestling business is ridiculous. The programming will change again. They owe SG-1 a bunch, and now they treat it like dirt, which is a shame.
 
#10
Sci-Fi, soon to be Syfy, has lost its focus, and I think that's a shame. I miss the original version of it. This wrestling business is ridiculous. The programming will change again. They owe SG-1 a bunch, and now they treat it like dirt, which is a shame.
When did this happen?? SyFy channel????? Where have I been??

I just googled it and found this:

Sci Fi is coming off the best year in its history. In primetime it ranked 13th in total viewers among ad-supported cable networks in 2008. It’s a top-10 network in both adults 18 to 49 (up 4%) and adults 25 to 54 (up 6%).
In some universe, the name “Syfy” is less geeky than the name “Sci Fi.” Dave Howe, president of the Sci Fi Channel, is betting it’s this one.

To that end, the 16-year-old network—owned by NBC Universal—plans to announce that Syfy is its new name March 16 at its upfront presentation to advertisers in New York.
Sci Fi Channel Aims to Shed Geeky Image With New Name - TVWeek - News

Ever heard of the rule, if it isn't broke, don't fix it!
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#11
Sci-Fi, soon to be Syfy, has lost its focus, and I think that's a shame. I miss the original version of it. This wrestling business is ridiculous. The programming will change again. They owe SG-1 a bunch, and now they treat it like dirt, which is a shame.
I could not agree more, but knowing they drive shows by ratings it's their viewers that have lost their focus.

I used to reserve Friday night for them, nothing planned. Me and the wife watched it from 6 pm to midnight a lot of the times on Friday night. She watched other shows on it like Ghost Hunters that I didn't like.

But soon they killed all what I call SciFi and started putting up what I call horror shows like Snakes, Anaconda. Then Wrestling.

But it's the viewers that lost their taste or did the station change and bring in a new crop of viewers?

SciFi over my life has come and gone, in books, comic books, cartoons on TV, you name it.

But a lot of it is the dumbing down of the public. The Star Trek only made 3 seasons. It wasn't until reruns did it become big, once many new viewers like the fact it played off previous earth civilizations, classic works, commentaries on prejudice in society, etc.

People today prefer Dancing with the Stars. Not going to the stars. Entertainment is dropping pretty people in a jungle and hoping they find their way out, not deeply complex plots that happen to be set in a science fiction theme.

Sorry but I think was are going into a lull in the interest of real Sci Fi again. I know the US is going into a lull of people's education, so it matches I think.

After all they say SciFi is too techy or geeky of a name. Well hello, when you show real Sci Fi geeks, nerds and techies watch the channel. Because it's the stuff they like.

However our country while lowering the social level of such geeky people as nerds, depends on them to invent their cool stuff. To run their TV stations. Yet these people are considered a lower form of life.

And sadly and worse, the US is putting fewer nerds out of it's schools. That is scarier than anything the SyFy channel could ever air.
 

Jason Fritz

Administrator
Staff member
#12
I could not agree more, but knowing they drive shows by ratings it's their viewers that have lost their focus.

I used to reserve Friday night for them, nothing planned. Me and the wife watched it from 6 pm to midnight a lot of the times on Friday night. She watched other shows on it like Ghost Hunters that I didn't like.

But soon they killed all what I call SciFi and started putting up what I call horror shows like Snakes, Anaconda. Then Wrestling.

But it's the viewers that lost their taste or did the station change and bring in a new crop of viewers?

SciFi over my life has come and gone, in books, comic books, cartoons on TV, you name it.

But a lot of it is the dumbing down of the public. The Star Trek only made 3 seasons. It wasn't until reruns did it become big, once many new viewers like the fact it played off previous earth civilizations, classic works, commentaries on prejudice in society, etc.

People today prefer Dancing with the Stars. Not going to the stars. Entertainment is dropping pretty people in a jungle and hoping they find their way out, not deeply complex plots that happen to be set in a science fiction theme.

Sorry but I think was are going into a lull in the interest of real Sci Fi again. I know the US is going into a lull of people's education, so it matches I think.

After all they say SciFi is too techy or geeky of a name. Well hello, when you show real Sci Fi geeks, nerds and techies watch the channel. Because it's the stuff they like.

And sadly and worse, the US is putting fewer nerds out of it's schools. That is scarier than anything the SyFy channel could ever air.

Sci Fi is too geeky, so lets change it to SyFy. :thumb:

However our country while lowering the social level of such geeky people as nerds, depends on them to invent their cool stuff. To run their TV stations. Yet these people are considered a lower form of life.
So true. I tried pitching my idea a while back for a CPA Reality show, but needless to say, I couldn't find any takers. ;)
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#13
Actually, part of the change at Sci Fi is necessitated because of their association with Spike or the owners thereof, and that's when the wrestling started.

I do know that Sci Fi's success and failures do hinge on their fans, both in positive and negative ways. There's a lot going on here but just to touch upon two things. With Stargate SG-1, things went south when they lost Richard Dean Anderson. A huge fan following abandoned the show. Then when they made certain decisions involving the Claudia Black character (particularly in her relationship with the Daniel Jackson character), they alienated a ton of folks who had stuck around. Though the show was still doing decent ratings after 10 years, the devotion was half-hearted because of the alienation.

Then with Battlestar Galactica, while the show created a lot of buzz, they also alienated another half of sci-fi fans by doing a complete rethink of the show instead of an updated version. It was so bad initially that Edward James Olmos actually told fans of the original show not to watch them. What I'm saying is that nothing they've done has really added to the base because they've shot themselves in the foot by the choices made.

Sci Fi used to show the classics and quite honestly, that's what people still want to see. Instead, they are trying to compete with all the other networks. Geez, they even have their own reality show (Stan Lee's comic thing).

Viewers have changed, yes, but it's the networks making decisions that are changing the direction so completely. Sci Fi will end up being Spike in a couple of years.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#14
Actually, part of the change at Sci Fi is necessitated because of their association with Spike or the owners thereof, and that's when the wrestling started.

I do know that Sci Fi's success and failures do hinge on their fans, both in positive and negative ways. There's a lot going on here but just to touch upon two things. With Stargate SG-1, things went south when they lost Richard Dean Anderson. A huge fan following abandoned the show. Then when they made certain decisions involving the Claudia Black character (particularly in her relationship with the Daniel Jackson character), they alienated a ton of folks who had stuck around. Though the show was still doing decent ratings after 10 years, the devotion was half-hearted because of the alienation.

Then with Battlestar Galactica, while the show created a lot of buzz, they also alienated another half of sci-fi fans by doing a complete rethink of the show instead of an updated version. It was so bad initially that Edward James Olmos actually told fans of the original show not to watch them. What I'm saying is that nothing they've done has really added to the base because they've shot themselves in the foot by the choices made.

Sci Fi used to show the classics and quite honestly, that's what people still want to see. Instead, they are trying to compete with all the other networks. Geez, they even have their own reality show (Stan Lee's comic thing).

Viewers have changed, yes, but it's the networks making decisions that are changing the direction so completely. Sci Fi will end up being Spike in a couple of years.
Yeah, we McGyver left the fans that followed him to stargate left I guess. Which way did the Claudia Black and Daniel Jackson thing go wrong?

Well I agree with you, the network is trying to change what they think people want more than the people are changing. Now I represent a geeky demographic, but my friends are from many persuasions. They all say Sci Fi has gone way way down hill. The shows they canceled from low ratings were better from the people I know than the ones that replaced them.

I have seen the network ebb and flow, but this is the worst ebb by orders of magnitude.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#15
Let me stress, it's not Claudia Black, who by all reports is a very nice, funny lady, but her character of Vala was, pardon me, a tramp with a foul mouth who liked to show off her assets. She didn't belong on the show, at the SGC, as a *member* of the SGC, and most especially *not* on SG-1. The whole story was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever seen. But -- they committed an unpardonable sin when they had her flirting unceasingly with Daniel and then having Daniel becoming so infatuated with her. Daniel Jackson would NEVER IN A BILLION years like that woman. Not to mention that the final show of Season 10, Unending, was such junk that most of the people I know still have not watched it, and the half of the others I know who did have vowed never to watch it again. They barely made it through S9 and S10 as it was, and they did it only for Michael Shanks, who plays Daniel. Shanks had argued against Daniel being involved with anyone for years. He backed off that stance during the last two years. I love Michael, but he was dead wrong on how he played Daniel. Actually, he's admitted that in the last two seasons, Daniel is really him, and that's the truest most calming thing I'd heard about the last two seasons of the show. It's Michael, not Daniel. There's some peace in that.

Whew! Can you feel I'm very excitable on this subject? It's just Daniel was such a good character and Michael took an easy way out of being bored with the character and made him more like his own persona, which explains numerous changes in attitude and verbiage. In fact, Daniel sounds very Jack-like the last two years. He makes jokes and quips at others that Daniel never would have done. Plus, the Daniel and Sam friendship was sent to the garbage to make room for Daniel and that ... woman. I knew that would happen the moment Black was added to the cast. They barely had time in an hour for four characters, but five? Someone was going to have to pay the price, and that was Sam.

I could go on, but I'll spare you. LOL -- I am passionate about this because SG-1 had been a lifesaver for me for many years while my mother was sick and dying. To have it change so horribly and to have Daniel just stop being Daniel was upsetting. The producers alienated thousands of people. It was pathetic and sad.

Long live that fish! :}

Did I answer your question? LOL
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#16
I could go on, but I'll spare you. LOL -- I am passionate about this because SG-1 had been a lifesaver for me for many years while my mother was sick and dying. To have it change so horribly and to have Daniel just stop being Daniel was upsetting. The producers alienated thousands of people. It was pathetic and sad.

Long live that fish! :}

Did I answer your question? LOL
Spare me not, that was brilliant analysis that I saw going on but ignored as I liked the show. You answered my question and more. Thank you.

The part I noticed was Vala the tramp. I often thought her there with the 5 was too much but not at your level of passion (your level is fine and valid to me). Black played the really hot alien in Farscape also, but hard to get. As well as Ben Browder not attacking her constantly in a hormone rage. It was a much more classic worker type attraction.

Such relationships are more common (like her's and Crichton's on FS). Pretty much anyone that worked in any kind of coed work environment has had one. It can be anything from just exchanging knowing looks with a co-worker of the opposite sex, maybe even lunch dates at restaurants, not even a kiss. Both of you call it a friendship, but between you there is a spark that never gets to light. It may not light because both of you have a significant other and it's a way to go past a casual flirt without cheating under most legal standards, or just something isn't right to develop a relationship but it doesn't diminish the stars you see in the other's eyes but can't touch.

Anyway my point is that relationship Black and Browder had on Farscape yielded more drama than them acting on it. More good drama tension to things that might have happened than things that did happen. It's an age old debate amongst story writers.

If you are following my logic here the opposite of that almost relationship in drama opposite would be porno. Porno (if it's not totally made to be sexual) is a very light drama that quickly breaks to fruition.

And if you survey people over time. The long drawn out love affair that never happens nor is even covered in every scene of a play, episode of a TV show, than wanes, ebbs, is forgotten to flow a tiny bit only to jerk back keeps more of the audience watching on the edge of their seats than a quick leap to an affair that either is blatantly sexual or implies sexual affairs.

Thanks for details in your post. I was refreshing to see someone appreciate a drama with that much passion. Thank goodness I grew up in a household where the arts were as important as the sciences to understanding and enjoying life. Thanks again.

One each Pig! :mad:)
 

Similar threads

Top