SciFi network decisions

[Captain Smith]

MIght be an old topic but as Friday night approaches I have to ponder.

Why not continue SG-1's tale against the Ori - why go to two movies? Atlantis really doesn't cut it and the Wraith are not the Go'auld or Ori. I know that syndication is the way to go after so many episodes but Blah.

Battlestar Galatica - why is the story over so soon? Those are interesting folks.

Harry Dresden - that crap Flash Gordon is better ? Give me a break.

And so on with other crap shows vs. the ones above.

[jesse_custer]

The biggest problem is how they'll show cheap horror movies and pass them off as sci-fi. Sadly, you could probably look through the network's programming from the last year and maybe only see one instance of "Blade Runner" on the air.

[DonC]

MIght be an old topic but as Friday night approaches I have to ponder.

Why not continue SG-1's tale against the Ori - why go to two movies? Atlantis really doesn't cut it and the Wraith are not the Go'auld or Ori. I know that syndication is the way to go after so many episodes but Blah.

Ratings.


Battlestar Galatica - why is the story over so soon? Those are interesting folks.

Ratings.


Harry Dresden - that crap Flash Gordon is better ? Give me a break.

And so on with other crap shows vs. the ones above.

And... ratings.

[Pixie_Solanas]

They also passed on the US broadcast rights to Torchwood.

Someone oughta get fired up there, gross incompetence.

[Magneto_X]

Ratings.



Ratings.


Wouldn't they want more of these shows if all they wanted was money?

They can get more from a continued series of both then the occasional tv movie.

Agent:

I have no idea why they passed on Torchwood.

This is the channel that broadcasts the Species and Decoys movies, after all.

[noh-varr]

I thought Battlestar was being cut due to creator's choice. And really isn't a full story better then being cut off abruptly? I was never into Stargate, though once you start replacing cast it really is time for things to end.

Sci-Fi does have Eureka which keeps me happy and reruns Dr. Who. They are going to bring out a Tin Man series since it was such a huge success. I do wish they had more original programming that wasn't another crappy movie. Really with the budget of like two movies they could make a season worth of a tv show. Since so much has to go into getting a cast, costumes, sets, etc. A show can use the same costumes and sets. I keep hoping they go this kind of route. And pick up more anime too, their recent choice was pretty good and is a cheap way for "original" shows without doing another ghost hunters spin off.

[Magneto_X]

noh-varr:

It was a creators choice. I'm surprised that they will honor it. Normally a network will milk a successful tv show until it's a bad parody of its self purely for profit.

[noh-varr]

noh-varr:

It was a creators choice. I'm surprised that they will honor it. Normally a network will milk a successful tv show until it's a bad parody of its self purely for profit.

Well I'm glad they are honoring it (also glad I was right :P but I digress). I think the model the BBC, HBO, and anime (I can't speak for the rest of Japanese television) uses works the best. There is a story to be told, it gets told, and then it ends. There is still room for endless episodes of some shows, Dr. Who and a few other BBC shows come to mind, but the dramas typically have an overall plot and finish up. Look at Life On Mars, ran two seasons and then finished it's arc up. The American version, if successful will continue on forever until the ratings drop and then most likely just end with no closure.

Look at the thread "Shows that lasted too long", it's obvious there should be a more set cut off time when it comes to these kind of shows. Networks are supposed to be playing to adults, and I would hope that as more shows get to have a set ending time outside of HBO that the rest of Hollywood would learn to play along as well. This still gives plenty of room for endless episodes of some dramas, ER, CSI, House, but ones that are more directed at secrets and reveals, Lost, Heroes, can come to conclusions and be better for it. And this "model" also gives space for horrible sitcoms, and reality shows that keep coming so everyone can go home happy.

[Cyke]

I'll say this about Torchwood, though: they probably got more exposure from BBC America than they ever would have if Sci-Fi bought the rights.

[Magneto_X]

I'll say this about Torchwood, though: they probably got more exposure from BBC America than they ever would have if Sci-Fi bought the rights.

Can't Torchwood be on more then one channel in America?

[Karl J Barnes]

Can't Torchwood be on more then one channel in America?

I would think so,since Sci-Fi Channel shows reruns of Dr. Who.

[Stressfactor]

Not to mention the massively odd decision to pair the Doctor Who spin-off The Sarah Jane Adventures with Battlestar Galactica.

If the powers that be at Sci-Fi had brains in their heads they would use SJA to anchor a new, kid-friendly saturday morning line-up to compete with WB's Sat. Morn toonage and Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon.

[Magneto_X]

Stress:

Torchwood would be the perfect show to air in between Doctor Who and BSG. The network would slowly get darker in tone furthur into the night with that lineup on Fridays.

[Stressfactor]

I dunno. I haven't seen any Torchwood yet but I've seen other British dramas and I'm afraid that Sci-Fi (even though a cable station) would end up having to censor Torchwood quite a bit to put it in a prime-time slot.

Remember the American motto: All the violence you want but god forbid there be any sex or swearing.

[mattx110]

Stress:

Torchwood would be the perfect show to air in between Doctor Who and BSG. The network would slowly get darker in tone furthur into the night with that lineup on Fridays.
Well... I don't feel like watching TV 3 hours in a row.

Sorry.

[Magneto_X]

I dunno. I haven't seen any Torchwood yet but I've seen other British dramas and I'm afraid that Sci-Fi (even though a cable station) would end up having to censor Torchwood quite a bit to put it in a prime-time slot.

It's not like there's any nudity in it.

There's some kissing and occasional heavy petting but it slowly gets lower during the first season.

Sci-Fi never had a problem showing Lexx. Which is ten times worse with its sexual inuendo. lol

Must be new management. of course, even that isn't 100% proof its against sexual stuff on its channel. Species and Decoys are still aired on it. Much more explicit stuff then Torchwood.



Remember the American motto: All the violence you want but god forbid there be any sex or swearing.

Yeah. That's true.

[Mr. Croup]

Bonnie Hammer has been replaced.

Flash Gordon being picked up had nothing to do with the cancellation of the Dresden Files.

Check out http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php, there was a bit of a blow up, and one of the moderators clarified the situtation.

[DonC]

Wouldn't they want more of these shows if all they wanted was money?

They can get more from a continued series of both then the occasional tv movie.

When a show is replaced on any network, it is done in the hopes that the new show will get higher ratings than the old show.

In the case of Stargate: SG-1, Sci-Fi apparently thought that the show had peaked, or perhaps ratings had been in a steady decline. Either way, they felt it was time to try something different.

[Mr. Croup]

When a show is replaced on any network, it is done in the hopes that the new show will get higher ratings than the old show.

In the case of Stargate: SG-1, Sci-Fi apparently thought that the show had peaked, or perhaps ratings had been in a steady decline. Either way, they felt it was time to try something different.

Considering, with SG-1, every season from the 6th one on was supposed to be its last.

[Jared]

Sci-Fi probably passed on Torchwood because they figured that an adventure show about a bisexual time-traveler is a tough sell.

[Johnny_Luck]

Flash Gordon and Eureka are the only enjoyable things on that channel anyways so why does it matter?

[mattx110]

Sci-Fi probably passed on Torchwood because they figured that an adventure show about a bisexual time-traveler is a tough sell.
Wow, I guess I'm not as much the target audience as I thought.

[drwho]

Sci fi is a little network and cant afford to bring bad publicity that could be potentially caused by having torchwood and its bisexual themes. They would probably have to edit it out a good amount. I thought Battlestar Galactica was getting too expensive to make.

What I'd like scifi to try to is

1. get some reruns of old Superhero shows, Batman, Wonder Woman, Shazam, Isis
2. show more of their original programming in reruns like Invisible Man, Tremors
3. Try to get shows like Time Trax, Monsters, Mantis
4. Start showing super hero cartoons.i'd be all for that.

[DonC]

What I'd like scifi to try to is

1. get some reruns of old Superhero shows, Batman, Wonder Woman, Shazam, Isis
2. show more of their original programming in reruns like Invisible Man, Tremors
3. Try to get shows like Time Trax, Monsters, Mantis
4. Start showing super hero cartoons.i'd be all for that.


So what you'd like is for them to turn back the clock 15 years.

As long as I still get Eureka, Stargate: Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica, I'm cool with that.

[noh-varr]

I would like them to get the rights for Deep Space Nine away from Spike TV who never plays it or does show it at 1 in the morning infrequently. Or even better, get classic Dr. Who. There are lots of good shows from the past they could pick up to fill in the daytime or weekends.

But truly what I want to see is more new shows from them. Eureka is very good and Tin Man should be interesting as they continue that. I also hope they stop just remaking stuff though, NEW ideas people NEW ideas. It's part of what science fiction is all about.

[Magneto_X]

Sci-Fi probably passed on Torchwood because they figured that an adventure show about a bisexual time-traveler is a tough sell.

Is the channel that does have Torchwood in America getting any bad press for it?

I haven't heard any bad news from it.

That said controvercy can be a good thing. It means 1) free publicity and 2) more people will be inclined to watch it even just to see what the fuss is about.

[Stressfactor]

Well, the channel that is broadcasting "Torchwood" here in America is BBC America, which IS rather affiliated with the BBC for one thing so I think it gets away with a little bit more.

PLUS I'm not sure if this is LEGALLY true but there certainly seems to be something of a sliding scale of censorship based on economics. I'm old enough to remember when "cable" consisted of three channels, all of them showed nearly exclusively movies and they were able to show them uncut and uncensored because the thinking was that since people were PAYING for this service they did not fall under FCC rules. Plus, then, cable also didn't have commercials. Since all other broadcast channels were FREE they had to obey FCC rules and that meant censorship.

In those early days it was mostly those better off or those who wanted status who payed for cable but, as times changed, cable became a bit cheaper, there were more channels, more original programming, and more households got cable at some point censorship started. So did commercials. Also, you might note that those movie channels that essentially STARTED cable all of sudden stopped being included in a "basic" cable package and now you started having to pay more to get those. And then along came the satellite dish revolution.

At first dish was more expensive then cable and so more people had cable than dish but you could get more channels on dish but you were paying more for that more. Now prices are coing down again and the face of things are changing but really, when you look at it, it seems like the more expensive or exclusive something is the less it is censored while the more cheap or common something is the more it is censored.

Since sci-fi channel is available on nearly all "basic" cable packages it gets censored while BBC America is still only available in some markets and on some packages so it gets less censored.

[Robotech Master]

^Back when I had Comcast cable, a basic package came with International Channel, which showed full nudity, sex, violence, and every bad word including the F bombs. They were, of course, a very elusive channel, and only played foreign programming.

[DDM]

^Back when I had Comcast cable, a basic package came with International Channel, which showed full nudity, sex, violence, and every bad word including the F bombs. They were, of course, a very elusive channel, and only played foreign programming.

Foreign Sci-Fi sounds just like Cinemax & Showtime.

[Magneto_X]

Well, the channel that is broadcasting "Torchwood" here in America is BBC America, which IS rather affiliated with the BBC for one thing so I think it gets away with a little bit more.

PLUS I'm not sure if this is LEGALLY true but there certainly seems to be something of a sliding scale of censorship based on economics. I'm old enough to remember when "cable" consisted of three channels, all of them showed nearly exclusively movies and they were able to show them uncut and uncensored because the thinking was that since people were PAYING for this service they did not fall under FCC rules. Plus, then, cable also didn't have commercials. Since all other broadcast channels were FREE they had to obey FCC rules and that meant censorship.

In those early days it was mostly those better off or those who wanted status who payed for cable but, as times changed, cable became a bit cheaper, there were more channels, more original programming, and more households got cable at some point censorship started. So did commercials. Also, you might note that those movie channels that essentially STARTED cable all of sudden stopped being included in a "basic" cable package and now you started having to pay more to get those. And then along came the satellite dish revolution.

At first dish was more expensive then cable and so more people had cable than dish but you could get more channels on dish but you were paying more for that more. Now prices are coing down again and the face of things are changing but really, when you look at it, it seems like the more expensive or exclusive something is the less it is censored while the more cheap or common something is the more it is censored.

Since sci-fi channel is available on nearly all "basic" cable packages it gets censored while BBC America is still only available in some markets and on some packages so it gets less censored.

Has censorship really changed that much since Lexx was on the air?

MTV even has shows which show gay couples making out etc. Still nothing beyond what Torchwood has at its worst. It still gets on the air. Nor is there bad publicity most of the time. When they do get bad publicity (Shot of Love) they use it to their advantage not run from it.

Still, even with that Sci-Fi still shows explicit movies like Decoys and Species. They're edited (like Lexx was) but not to the extent that half the footage was thrown out.

[Jared]

Is the channel that does have Torchwood in America getting any bad press for it?

I haven't heard any bad news from it.

That said controvercy can be a good thing. It means 1) free publicity and 2) more people will be inclined to watch it even just to see what the fuss is about.

Honestly, I don't think the premise would even be all the controversial anymore, unless it were a show aimed at kids. However, a gay captain is still going to be seen as off-putting to most sci-fi viewers, or so I would strongly suspect.

BBC America isn't in a whole lot of basic cable packages, so it doesn't get all that much coverage, period. All I can recall is a TV Guide article about James Marsters guest starring.

Incidentally, I seem to recall when Torchwood started the only comments I'd see about it on the internet were almost all trashing it.

[Stressfactor]

Well, MTV was not without its controversy. Hell, Madonna and Britteny's Spear's kiss made the rounds for weeks and that was the MTV music awards IIRC.

But is also comes down to viewership. MTV's primary viewership is young adults and teenagers who have been raised in a bit more open society and oftentimes like to consider themselves "edgy" and "rebellious".

I was talking to a very good friend of mine recently. We were talking about TV shows on that occasion and she, knowing that I am something of a sci-fi geek, asked if I'd heard of this show called "Torchwood". I told her yes. She asked if I knew what it was about and I told her that, while I had not seen any episodes yet, I had read some synopses, some reviews, and seen the MB chatter about the series. Well, she had accidentally stumbled onto an epsiode on BBC America and, liking sci-fi as well, she had stopped to watch it. She had been quite surprised at the violence (and for the record, the episode she had watched was "Sleeper") but the thing that had surprised her most of all was to see the two male characters suddenly start kissing at the end of the episode. To her this came without warning and out of left field. This is a person who one of her best friends since high school is gay. She has other gay friends acquaintences, and co-workers and has no problems with it but even on cable television this still really shocked her.

And yes, she was going into it "cold" with no idea about the series or the characters and you might argue that in today's world most people would find out about a show before they sit down to watch but but the other DOES happen. I myself have started watching something with no idea what it was or what it was about first.

Now, she is not the type to go gather up an angry mob with torches and pitchforks to complain about this sort of thing but if someone with a fairly liberal and accepting viewpoint could be taken by surprise by "Torchwood" then think about how someone with a NOT so liberal viewpoint would see it.

You bring up Lexx fairly often and I never saw that series although another (male) friend told me about it and, form what I understand, that series may have had a lot of sexual innuendos but they were still of the HETEROsexual variety.

Is it a regrettable double standard? Hell yes, but it's still a fact that, when it comes to sex and relationships on TV the hetero variety is still more accepted and acceptable than the lesbian or homo variety. And when you get right down to it -- take a look at comic books. You see far, far, FAR more "shocking" comic book covers with two women kissing than two men. Two women together is somehow "hot" and therefore "cool" but two men are not. Another double standard and one that as a straight (but not narrow) female I have never had fully explained to me by a member of the male gender.

[Jared]

Another double standard and one that as a straight (but not narrow) female I have never had fully explained to me by a member of the male gender.

Perhaps there's some deep biological underpinnings for it, but I think the reason most guys like to see two girls is simple mathematics: if one hot chick in a sexual situation is stimulating, then two of them is even better, plus there's no guy to be jealous of.

[Magneto_X]

Perhaps there's some deep biological underpinnings for it, but I think the reason most guys like to see two girls is simple mathematics: if one hot chick in a sexual situation is stimulating, then two of them is even better, plus there's no guy to be jealous of.

You got it. :D

Stress:

You've got a solid argument there. Can't disagree with it at all.

[Stressfactor]

Perhaps there's some deep biological underpinnings for it, but I think the reason most guys like to see two girls is simple mathematics: if one hot chick in a sexual situation is stimulating, then two of them is even better, plus there's no guy to be jealous of.

Now see, I guess there is where male thinking diverges from female thinking. I've been in situations where I've seen a good looking guy and then seen him with another guy and my first thought is "Damn, well there goes MY chances."

[mattx110]

Now see, I guess there is where male thinking diverges from female thinking. I've been in situations where I've seen a good looking guy and then seen him with another guy and my first thought is "Damn, well there goes MY chances."
Ahhh... most men assume hopelessness before that time, so it doesn't really sting so much.

[IamtheRock3]

Well, MTV was not without its controversy. Hell, Madonna and Britteny's Spear's kiss made the rounds for weeks and that was the MTV music awards IIRC.

But is also comes down to viewership. MTV's primary viewership is young adults and teenagers who have been raised in a bit more open society and oftentimes like to consider themselves "edgy" and "rebellious".

I was talking to a very good friend of mine recently. We were talking about TV shows on that occasion and she, knowing that I am something of a sci-fi geek, asked if I'd heard of this show called "Torchwood". I told her yes. She asked if I knew what it was about and I told her that, while I had not seen any episodes yet, I had read some synopses, some reviews, and seen the MB chatter about the series. Well, she had accidentally stumbled onto an epsiode on BBC America and, liking sci-fi as well, she had stopped to watch it. She had been quite surprised at the violence (and for the record, the episode she had watched was "Sleeper") but the thing that had surprised her most of all was to see the two male characters suddenly start kissing at the end of the episode. To her this came without warning and out of left field. This is a person who one of her best friends since high school is gay. She has other gay friends acquaintences, and co-workers and has no problems with it but even on cable television this still really shocked her.

And yes, she was going into it "cold" with no idea about the series or the characters and you might argue that in today's world most people would find out about a show before they sit down to watch but but the other DOES happen. I myself have started watching something with no idea what it was or what it was about first.

Now, she is not the type to go gather up an angry mob with torches and pitchforks to complain about this sort of thing but if someone with a fairly liberal and accepting viewpoint could be taken by surprise by "Torchwood" then think about how someone with a NOT so liberal viewpoint would see it.

You bring up Lexx fairly often and I never saw that series although another (male) friend told me about it and, form what I understand, that series may have had a lot of sexual innuendos but they were still of the HETEROsexual variety.

Is it a regrettable double standard? Hell yes, but it's still a fact that, when it comes to sex and relationships on TV the hetero variety is still more accepted and acceptable than the lesbian or homo variety. And when you get right down to it -- take a look at comic books. You see far, far, FAR more "shocking" comic book covers with two women kissing than two men. Two women together is somehow "hot" and therefore "cool" but two men are not. Another double standard and one that as a straight (but not narrow) female I have never had fully explained to me by a member of the male gender.


Well sure if you go in not knowing what torchewood is, it surprise you

But with doctor Who was expecting jack to bang everything it sight, male or female

Same can be Said if you watch OZ, six Feet under, The Wire(With Marlo's character) or Will and Grace might catch you by surprise

But still good shows, Well the first 3 are


Granted thats Pay Cable. But not everyone has BBC America either. May have to request it with your package

[JCAll]

Man, I'm WAY behind the times on my Sci-Fi Channel hate.
I'm still ticked over the Man-Thing movie and cancelling Tremors the Series.

I'll have to cram in a few hours this week and come up with something to be pissed about.

[JDogindy]

Is it bad to say that you only watched Sci Fi for ECW and Doctor Who?

I still wish they kept showing reruns of the Sci Fi era of MST3K. I remember hearing that Kevin Murphy told people to stop watching the network in a live forum after the airing of "Danger: Diabolik".

[Jared]

Is it bad to say that you only watched Sci Fi for ECW and Doctor Who?


Have you for some reason been unable to watch Battlestar Galactica?


Anyway, it's a shame they can't or won't bring MST3K back. The scifi "originals" alone would keep them in new episodes forever. And it's not as if the Scifi actually pretends that most of these movies are any good. From the ads, it's clear they're in on the joke.

[Toreador]

With all the old sci-fi shows and movies around I don't understand why SFC doesn't do some kind of 'Nick-at-Nite' or 'TV-Land' type of thing and air the old shows and movies during the early morning hours. Or maybe a sci-fi 'Night Flight' showing different shows/movies for the night owls. I know I'd watch it (or at least tape it for later).

[Jmacq1]

The tend to (or at least used to) do that during the weekdays, though. They'll run "mini-marathons" of older sci-fi shows.

Or do they not do that anymore? It's been a long time since I was home on a weekday to see. :p :)

[Toreador]

They tend to do a block/marathon of one show from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. but usually the same series (X-files, Dark Angel, Stargate, their reality shows) but no old sci-fi movies at all. Those blocks can get boring after a few hours. They need to spice up the routine some. Show M.A.N.T.I.S. or Flash or Superforce or My Secret Identity or their own series (Invisible Man, The Chronicle, Farscape, Tremors). Something that hasn't been since for years.