10 Things SyFy isn't telling you about Caprica
The Coca Cola Kid
2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it’s
first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
renewed: Mad Men – .9 million. Spartacus: Blood & Sand – .98 million.
Syfy’s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files – 1.037 million at half
season.
3. The ratings for False Labor (.843 million) increased by 17.4% after
the previous episode, Things We Lock Away (.718 million).
4. Two and a half weeks after the end of Season 1.0, Syfy announced
Caprica’s move to Tuesday nights. 3 1/2 months later, Syfy announced
Caprica would return in January of 2011. 1 1/2 months after that in
September, Syfy switched the return of Caprica to October with less
than 1 months notice. What was shown of Season 1.5 averaged .823
million viewers – 31% less than Season 1.0. See timeline below.
5. Syfy’s Press Release calls Season 1.0 successful in the second
paragraph. Season 1.0 aired on Friday nights.
6. Caprica’s average ratings fell 31% in the move from Friday to
Tuesday night from Season 1.0 to Season 1.5. Stargate Universe’s
average ratings fell 36% from 1.685 million in Season 1 on Friday to
1.071 so far in Season 2 on Tuesday.
7. Caprica has 104,800 facebook fans. This is 60% of Syfy’s 175,500
fans. The Nielson numbers used to determine ratings in 2011 will
measure viewing habits of 37,000 of 115,900,000 households. That
equates to .0319% of total viewers – leaving 99.9681% of viewers with
no influence on ratings. Many of those who watch don’t count.
8. Caprica cut off one episode to stay on budget. Visual effects were
done in-house to save. Mark Stern (EVP of Programming) directly
affected budget decisions regarding transitional VFX shots.
9. November is a sweeps month. Networks charge advertisers based on
ratings in November. Accordingly, TV shows display their best episodes
at this time. Caprica was pulled right before sweeps when its best
performing episodes were about to air.
10. The move to not show the final Caprica episodes until after the
DVD release is about generating more sales of the DVD. Why else would,
in sweeps month, a network pull a show reaching about 1M viewers for
reruns of older shows that will not perform as well? Mind you, the DVD
will be out just before Christmas.
The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD, there will
be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
Artisan
"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc0a65d5-205e-4d24...@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
<depressing top-10 list snipped>
"HAMMERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!"
Ms Hammer has a lot of 'splaining to do.
cloud dreamer
> 1. Syfy Never Planned To Air �Caprica,� �Blood& Chrome� Together
If you believe rumours.
>
> 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it�s
> first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
> renewed: Mad Men � .9 million. Spartacus: Blood& Sand � .98 million.
> Syfy�s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files � 1.037 million at half
> season.
No comparison. Caprica costs more.
>
> 3. The ratings for False Labor (.843 million) increased by 17.4% after
> the previous episode, Things We Lock Away (.718 million).
They needed a lot more than .8
>
> 7. Caprica has 104,800 facebook fans. This is 60% of Syfy�s 175,500
> fans. The Nielson numbers used to determine ratings in 2011 will
> measure viewing habits of 37,000 of 115,900,000 households. That
> equates to .0319% of total viewers � leaving 99.9681% of viewers with
> no influence on ratings. Many of those who watch don�t count.
That's assuming that all Caprica fans are Syfy fans. Sorry. Not the
case. Caprica has a global reach that Syfy doesn't.
>
> 8. Caprica cut off one episode to stay on budget. Visual effects were
> done in-house to save. Mark Stern (EVP of Programming) directly
> affected budget decisions regarding transitional VFX shots.
Irrelevant. It was still expensive.
> 10. The move to not show the final Caprica episodes until after the
> DVD release is about generating more sales of the DVD. Why else would,
> in sweeps month, a network pull a show reaching about 1M viewers for
> reruns of older shows that will not perform as well? Mind you, the DVD
> will be out just before Christmas.
But it wasn't reaching 1 million viewers. It reached 800,000. Dismally
bad numbers.
> The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD, there will
> be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
> the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
> series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
>
The series is already dead. The ratings of the final five episodes are
completely and utterly irrelevant. The money they make off the DVD is
very relevant.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
Your Name
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
news:_4Cdnfl92Zdje0PR...@supernews.com...
> On 13/11/2010 3:50 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> >
> > fans. The Nielson numbers used to determine ratings in 2011 will
> > measure viewing habits of 37,000 of 115,900,000 households. That
> > no influence on ratings. Many of those who watch don’t count.
>
>
> That's assuming that all Caprica fans are Syfy fans. Sorry. Not the
> case. Caprica has a global reach that Syfy doesn't.
Only if you include those who are illegally downloading it, which means they
aren't "paying" in any way and therefore don't count in any way.
cloud dreamer
The number of fans on Facebook has nothing to do with people who are
downloading it. They're still fans of Caprica without being fans of Syfy.
And the US isn't the only country that has seen Caprica. The unaired
episodes are being seen in Canada now.
Rob Jensen
<thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
[A lengthy 10-item list aka a lot of snippage]
>The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD, there will
>be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
>the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
>series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
You could have just said that Bonnie Hammer hates the show.
-- Rob
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
news:_4Cdnfl92Zdje0PR...@supernews.com...
>
> If you believe rumours.
>
>
>>
>> 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it’s
>> first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
>> Syfy’s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files – 1.037 million at half
>> season.
>
>
> No comparison. Caprica costs more.
>
>
>>
>> 3. The ratings for False Labor (.843 million) increased by 17.4% after
>> the previous episode, Things We Lock Away (.718 million).
>
>
> They needed a lot more than .8
But the other examples of series mentioned, had comparable averages to the
Caprica averages, so they should all be failing too. I don't get that.
Yet.
cloud dreamer
It costs more to produce hence it needs better ratings to justify it. It
needed to be in the one and a half million range, not the 800,000 range.
Heck, just 1.1 would have made the decision much harder for them.
Yes, they shot themselves in the foot with the switch to Tuesday, but it
didn't work. Now we just have to look forward to BAC.
Ubiquitous
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
cloud dreamer
> Caprica is still on the air?
>
>
In Canada, yes.
The Coca Cola Kid
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:10-0800 (PST), The Coca Cola Kid
>
> <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [A lengthy10-item list aka a lot of snippage]
>
> >The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD, there will
> >be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
> >the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
> >series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
>
> You could have just said that Bonnie Hammer hates the show.
Who is Bonnie Hammer?
Dano
"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:119e2ba7-7eae-45c7...@n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Head honcho @ SyFy.
Artisan
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ibp2vb$t5t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Bonnie Hammer is the jackass who thinks that "World Wide Rassling" and
"Paranormal Reality TV" have more of a place on the station than all the
good shows she cancels.
cloud dreamer
Someone else needs to start up a Sci-fi channel.
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
I just hope something like that wouldn't further fragment the SF audience,
which would only draw down the ratings for programming on both stations by
splitting them in half.
The Coca Cola Kid
> On 13/11/2010 6:32 PM, Artisan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:_4Cdnfl92Zdje0PR...@supernews.com...
> >> On 13/11/2010 3:50 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> >>> 1. Syfy Never Planned To Air ‘Caprica,’ ‘Blood& Chrome’ Together
>
> >> If you believe rumours.
>
> >>> 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it’s
> >>> first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
> >>> renewed: Mad Men – .9 million. Spartacus: Blood& Sand – .98 million.
> >>> Syfy’s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files – 1.037 million at half
> >>> season.
>
> >> No comparison. Caprica costs more.
>
> >>> 3. The ratings for False Labor (.843 million) increased by 17.4% after
> >>> the previous episode, Things We Lock Away (.718 million).
>
> >> They needed a lot more than .8
>
> > But the other examples of series mentioned, had comparable averages to
> > the Caprica averages, so they should all be failing too. I don't get
> > that. Yet.
>
> It costs more to produce hence it needs better ratings to justify it. It
> needed to be in the one and a half million range, not the 800,000 range.
> Heck, just 1.1 would have made the decision much harder for them.
>
> Yes, they shot themselves in the foot with the switch to Tuesday, but it
> didn't work.
They shot themselves in the foot with that, as well as by not
promoting the show, as well as having the unrealistic expectation that
the new episodes would sustain the rating of the season 1.0 finale in
spite of those things. But i guess that it is much more convenient to
blame the ratings on the show itself than to own up to the huge and
numerous mistakes on the part of the network.
Also, is that 800,000 range not the raw overnight ratings, not taking
into account DVR, web and time shift viewings?
Given that the ratings were on the rebound just as they yanked it from
the schedule (again), and given the action and quality of the episodes
that have aired so far in Canada, I think that the ratings would have
likely increased greatly if they had left it on the air to run its
course.
>Now we just have to look forward to BAC.
I am sure that a lot of Caprica viewers will think to themselves why
bother investing their time in it, when the network will just run it
into the ground and cancel it. 'Fool me once...' and all that.
cloud dreamer
> On Nov 13, 4:19 pm, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
>> On 13/11/2010 6:32 PM, Artisan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "cloud dreamer"<S...@Resources.now> wrote in message
>>> news:_4Cdnfl92Zdje0PR...@supernews.com...
>>>> On 13/11/2010 3:50 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>
>>>> If you believe rumours.
>>
>>>>> 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it�s
>>>>> first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
>>>>> Syfy�s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files � 1.037 million at half
Like they ran SG1, SGA, SGU, Farscape, BSG, Eureka, W13, Sanctuary etc
into the ground???
<sigh>
You won't admit it now, but you'll watch BAC.
cloud dreamer
More than enough sci-fi out there to justify another channel.
Obveeus
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
Exactly the point. Syfy puts on Science Fiction shows. If the TV viewers
watch those shows, then those shows will get more seasons/episodes. If the
TV viewers do not watch the shows, they will get cancelled. Caprica got
cancelled because hardly anyone was watching the show. Meanwhile, if TV
viewers are willing to watch a bunch of science fiction shows, then Syfy
will thrive by airing them. If, however, people do not watch enough of the
science fiction shows, then Syfy will need to air something else, like
wrestling, to help pay the bills. If Syfy cannot pay its bills with science
fiction shows, they will find other programming to supplement as needed. If
Syfy were to only show science fiction shows and that resulted in them not
being able to pay the bills, then the channel would go bankrupt and there
would be no science fiction outlet at all on cable TV. People should be
thankful for what they have and if they want more science fiction, they need
to watch it when it becomes available on the channel.
The Coca Cola Kid
My impression is that Syfy is on a trend of running science fiction in
general into the ground, in the same way MTV ran music videos into the
ground.
> <sigh>
>
> You won't admit it now, but you'll watch BAC.
The only reason that I would have to even check it out is if a
significant number of characters from Caprica (besides William Adama)
were carried over to it. If the writing is not as intelligent and
bold as Caprica was then it will not interest me, and it if it is then
I will be wary of caring about it because I was already burned once.
cloud dreamer
> On Nov 14, 11:14 am, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2010 1:28 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>> I am sure that a lot of Caprica viewers will think to themselves why
>>> bother investing their time in it, when the network will just run it
>>> into the ground and cancel it. 'Fool me once...' and all that.
>>
>> Like they ran SG1, SGA, SGU, Farscape, BSG, Eureka, W13, Sanctuary etc
>> into the ground???
>
> My impression is that Syfy is on a trend of running science fiction in
> general into the ground, in the same way MTV ran music videos into the
> ground.
>
Then that would set the conditions for the introduction of another
sci-fi channel.
>> <sigh>
>>
>> You won't admit it now, but you'll watch BAC.
>
> The only reason that I would have to even check it out is if a
> significant number of characters from Caprica (besides William Adama)
> were carried over to it. If the writing is not as intelligent and
> bold as Caprica was then it will not interest me, and it if it is then
> I will be wary of caring about it because I was already burned once.
BAC will take place 16 years into the future. I doubt they'll actually
bring over many characters, if at all. Though you'll likely hear about them.
Personally, I have no wish to see Stoltz or Morales in a fat suit.
The Coca Cola Kid
> On 14/11/2010 2:50 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
> > My impression is that Syfy is on a trend of running science fiction in
> > general into the ground, in the same way MTV ran music videos into the
> > ground.
>
> Then that would set the conditions for the introduction of another
> sci-fi channel.
That could take years, and even then it would likely be relegated to
the premium or semi-premium channels of expanded cable..
.
> >> <sigh>
>
> >> You won't admit it now, but you'll watch BAC.
>
> > The only reason that I would have to even check it out is if a
> > significant number of characters from Caprica (besides William Adama)
> > were carried over to it. If the writing is not as intelligent and
> > bold as Caprica was then it will not interest me, and it if it is then
> > I will be wary of caring about it because I was already burned once.
>
> BAC will take place 16 years into the future. I doubt they'll actually
> bring over many characters, if at all. Though you'll likely hear about them.
>
> Personally, I have no wish to see Stoltz or Morales in a fat suit.
Would not most of these characters have been killed and become avatars
by then?
They could also integrate flashbacks to post-Caprica events into the
plot of the show.
Of couse, they probably will not.
cloud dreamer
We don't know that yet. There's three episodes left.
> They could also integrate flashbacks to post-Caprica events into the
> plot of the show.
>
> Of couse, they probably will not.
They will likely answer questions given how integral the events of
Caprica are to BAC, but I don't see them keeping the cast to make
flashbacks. After all, they consider Caprica a failure. Why would they
link it to BAC to any great extent. They will connect it to BSG more likely.
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
>
> It costs more to produce hence it needs better ratings to justify it. It
> needed to be in the one and a half million range, not the 800,000 range.
Well I watched it every week. I hope it wasn't too dumb of me to like it.
And on a separate note, I wonder if they even counted me in the 800,000... I
don't have a two-way box so they probably didn't even know I was a fan and
didn't count me in their totals.
cloud dreamer
That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of
meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and
extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
Yikes!! Well there's the problem then, you can't extrapolate the worth of a
sci-fi program from a random set of "normies"! Under such a system, the
highest quality programming on the PBS stations (viewer supported public
broadcasting in the Americas) would fail, because normies (normal
undereducated people) don't watch heavy programming, they watch the
equivalent of comfort food. Neilsen needs to step aside and stick with the
major networks. The niche cable channels need to be represented by the
niche audiences for which the channel is intended for. This would put
wrestling at the very low end of the list, paranormal "reality tv" somewhere
in the middle, and the quality expensive heavy programs on top.
Zeb Carter
though therey had the go-ahead for a season 5. This was done when Sci Fi
Channel acquired the rights to show reurns of Stargate SG-1. she decided
that by cancelling Farscape, new episodes of SG-1 could be made despite
the fact that Farscape was highly popular and was a Sci fi original
series vice SG-1 which did not originate on Sci Fi but elsewhere.
Your Name
"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:119e2ba7-7eae-45c7...@n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
> Who is Bonnie Hammer?
MC's sister. ;-)
The Coca Cola Kid
> On 14/11/2010 3:08 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 12:23 pm, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
> > Would not most of these characters have been killed and become avatars
> > by then?
>
> We don't know that yet. There's three episodes left.
They could die at any time after the end of the season too. Also, they
do not have to be dead to have avatars created of them.
> > They could also integrate flashbacks to post-Caprica events into the
> > plot of the show.
>
> > Of couse, they probably will not.
>
> They will likely answer questions given how integral the events of
> Caprica are to BAC, but I don't see them keeping the cast to make
> flashbacks. After all, they consider Caprica a failure. Why would they
> link it to BAC to any great extent. They will connect it to BSG more likely.
They could keep many of the characters without explicitly linking it
to Caprica. If they went the flashback route, then newer viewers would
just see it as a different narrative style that switches between
different time periods, and be none the wiser because the style would
differ from Caprica season 1 and be in line with the style they will
be going for in BAC.
Why should they do this? Because Caprica obviously has a significant
following of viewers who did not see the show as a 'failure',
especially those of us for whom Caprica was our first introduction to
the BSG universe, and they would have nothing to lose by doing it as
long as they tweaked the style.
Your Name
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
>
> That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of
> meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and
> extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.
Translation:
Neilsen has a dozen meters out there in home that were vetoed by Neilsen to
fit their own specifications. They base their numbers on them and guessimate
total viewreship from the ridiculously small sample set. Neilsen then
pretend that such results mean anything useful, and the numbnuts in the
management of networks blindly believe that and / or manipulate that to get
what they want.
cloud dreamer
> On Nov 14, 12:43 pm, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2010 3:08 PM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 12:23 pm, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I have no wish to see Stoltz or Morales in a fat suit.
>>> Would not most of these characters have been killed and become avatars
>>> by then?
>>
>> We don't know that yet. There's three episodes left.
>
> They could die at any time after the end of the season too. Also, they
> do not have to be dead to have avatars created of them.
Irrelevant. See below.
>>> They could also integrate flashbacks to post-Caprica events into the
>>> plot of the show.
>>
>>> Of couse, they probably will not.
>>
>> They will likely answer questions given how integral the events of
>> Caprica are to BAC, but I don't see them keeping the cast to make
>> flashbacks. After all, they consider Caprica a failure. Why would they
>> link it to BAC to any great extent. They will connect it to BSG more likely.
>
> They could keep many of the characters without explicitly linking it
> to Caprica. If they went the flashback route, then newer viewers would
> just see it as a different narrative style that switches between
> different time periods, and be none the wiser because the style would
> differ from Caprica season 1 and be in line with the style they will
> be going for in BAC.
>
> Why should they do this? Because Caprica obviously has a significant
> following of viewers who did not see the show as a 'failure',
> especially those of us for whom Caprica was our first introduction to
> the BSG universe, and they would have nothing to lose by doing it as
> long as they tweaked the style.
800,000 viewers are not a significant following. The show is seen as a
failure in the popular press and by those that gave up on it. If Syfy
connects BAC to it, newer viewers won't tune in cause they tried Caprica
and didn't like it or have learned that it failed from the media.
It will have to break significantly with Caprica to be successful.
cloud dreamer
If that were the case, you'd think someone would have figured it out by
now...after how many decades??????
Irrelevent anyway. Won't be long before they'll be harvesting live
accurate data from DVRs.
cloud dreamer
That's not how it works. Neilsens can extrapolate statistically how many
people are watching a particular show at a particular time. It isn't
biased towards any one demographic - normie or geek or whatever.
Just as a poll of 1000 or 2000 people can, statistically, predict the
outcome of an election fairly accurately, Neilsens uses the same idea.
So, if 8 people out of an average sample of 1000 are watching Caprica,
they can estimate that 800,000 out of so many are watching it nationwide
(don't quote me on the numbers...I'm just using them as an analogy to
illustrate the process).
They've been using this process for decades. It works. We don't always
agree, but it works.
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
Public Broadcasting seems to indicate otherwise, but I'm not able to perform
a double-blind study on how their programming would change if they abandoned
the PBS model and went with an advertising/slash/Neilsen model. I don't
know if being a PBS junkie disqualifies my opinion, so maybe I will be
required to recuse myself from discussing it on that basis, but I'll go with
your decision on whether I should or not.
cloud dreamer
Not sure what PBS has to do with it. They rely on public money, not
advertising. The ratings wouldn't apply to them.
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
Not exactly public, more like viewer pledges mixed in as opposed to
government run. So it gives non-governmental citizens as close to a direct
say in programming as is likely to occur anywhere. And it appears to work
very well... Masterpiece Theatre, lots of good arts, advanced science
programming without the silly info-tainment twists. Heck, PBS was the very
first place I ever saw Monty Python's Flying Circus!!! All of these to me
are good arguments for a viewer-pledge-driven model to be tried for narrow
niche stations; since it has been proven to work so well for
"broad"-casting, it might work for "narrowcasting" too. But who knows.
Maybe an Internet/Web based model will make all of these ideas obsolete,
making it possible for viewers and programmers to be directly on the same
page and removing the guesswork of market sampling.
cloud dreamer
Government money is public money.
The point is, it relies on public money NOT on advertising.
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
I know that advertisers don't play a role. What I'm not getting is this
emphasis on government money as opposed to viewer pledge drive money. Is
catpandaddy still around? I haven't seen him in awhile in my newsgroups but
he seemed on top of these things from a structural sense.
cloud dreamer
Huh? Neither has anything to do with the original point. Both are public
money.
Jim Gysin
cloud dreamer sent the following on 11/14/2010 11:17 AM:
And competition is good. Having two channels fighting each other to
offer quality SF to us viewers can only be a Good Thing for us viewers.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Artisan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
>>
>> I know that advertisers don't play a role. What I'm not getting is this
>> emphasis on government money as opposed to viewer pledge drive money.
>
>
> Huh? Neither has anything to do with the original point. Both are public
> money.
I see the crux of the problem now. Well my only point is that I don't think
advertising-driven ratings are as accurate as we think they are. If they
were, then my sense is that there wouldn't be such a stark contrast between
viewer-supported programming and advertiser supported programming. Even
with commercial talk radio vs NPR.... The latter gives us Talk of the Nation
and Science Friday and Art Hounds, the latter gives us Rush Limbaugh and the
rest of his ilk.
Well I just want to apologize for getting so far off point, I'm not
typically all that great at integrating my ideas into the discussion at
hand, and maybe it was a tangent, but I still thought it was at least a
partially salient point. I am sorry for the interruption, and I'll leave
the thread alone now.
> --
> We must change the way we live
> Or the climate will do it for us
I like your sig line by the way.
Artisan
"Artisan" <ar...@nospamplease.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ibpm0i$av9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
>>
>> money.
>
> I see the crux of the problem now. Well my only point is that I don't
> think
> advertising-driven ratings are as accurate as we think they are. If they
> > with commercial talk radio vs NPR.... The latter gives us Talk of the
> > Nation
> and Science Friday and Art Hounds, the latter gives us Rush Limbaugh and
> the
> rest of his ilk.
Oops, obviously I meant latter and former, not two latters. I'm going to
get some shuteye, I obviously need it.
Tony Calguire
news:ibpl57$7gc$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I know that advertisers don't play a role. What I'm not getting is
> this emphasis on government money as opposed to viewer pledge drive
> money. Is catpandaddy still around? I haven't seen him in awhile in
> my newsgroups but he seemed on top of these things from a structural
> sense.
>
Catpandaddy announced a few months ago that he was quiting Usenet.
Artisan
"Tony Calguire" <calg...@tcfreenet.invalid> wrote in message
news:ibpmp7$8b8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Oh yeah, the hacked account thing.
Your Name
<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
> On 14/11/2010 4:26 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
> > news:qK2dndZVm4t1q33R...@supernews.com...
> >>
> >> That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of
> >> meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and
> >> extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.
> >
> > Translation:
> > Neilsen has a dozen meters out there in home that were vetoed by Neilsen to
> > fit their own specifications. They base their numbers on them and guessimate
> > total viewreship from the ridiculously small sample set. Neilsen then
> > pretend that such results mean anything useful, and the numbnuts in the
> > management of networks blindly believe that and / or manipulate that to get
> > what they want.
>
> If that were the case, you'd think someone would have figured it out by
> now...after how many decades??????
Those with intleeigence and common sense already know it. Those making
money out of it don't give a damn. Those too stupid or naive to won't ever
know it.
> Irrelevent anyway. Won't be long before they'll be harvesting live
> accurate data from DVRs.
Not if the "Big Brother is watching you" conspiracy nutters get their way,
like they usually do.
DVRs are irrelevant anyway. TV and movie companies will simply count the
number of downloads ... which again gives misleading and inaccurate
numbers since one download could equal any amount of viewers.
Your Name
<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
It works when done properly with a large random sample ... it doesn't work
with ridiculoulsy small hand-picked samples.
Your Name
<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
That's a marketing fallacy.
It doesn't work in selling products since bothe "competitiors" eventually
agree on a minimum price they're willing to sell at. Yes, that may be less
than the public are paying with only one seller, but is still higher than
true competition would allow.
It doesn't work with TV networks either because the idiots simply put the
good shows on at exactly the same time, and even with recording equipment
of some sort there is still only a limited amount of time someone can or
wants to watch TV.
Here in New Zealand "competition" is highly inaccurate. There are half a
dozen "different" supermarket brands, but in reality they're owned by only
two parent companies. The same happens with book / stationery stores,
electronic stores, etc. The public get an even worse illusion of
"competition" that does really exist. :-(
cloud dreamer
Their samples are not small and are picked to represent the demographic.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ibp2vb$t5t$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:119e2ba7-7eae-45c7...@n24g2000prj.googlegroup
> s.com...
>> On Nov 13, 3:41 pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:10-0800 (PST), The Coca Cola Kid
>>>
>>> <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [A lengthy10-item list aka a lot of snippage]
>>>
>>> >The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD,
>>> >there will be no need to watch the airing of the episodes,
>>> >thus the ratings for the final shows will be further reduced,
>>> >thus ensuring death to the series, and leaving doubt in other
>>> >networks executives.
>>>
>>> You could have just said that Bonnie Hammer hates the show.
>>
>> Who is Bonnie Hammer?
>>
>
> Head honcho @ SyFy.
>
Not any more. She runs NBC Universal now (which owns SciFi). Notable
for making statements - while running SciFi - that she hates science
fiction and replacing Farscape with Fear Factor.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
RT
http://www.capricatimes.com/what-syfy-isnt-telling-you-about-caprica
The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
> 1. Syfy Never Planned To Air ‘Caprica,’ ‘Blood & Chrome’ Together
>
> 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it’s
> first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
> renewed: Mad Men – .9 million. Spartacus: Blood & Sand – .98 million.
> Syfy’s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files – 1.037 million at half
> season.
>
> 3. The ratings for False Labor (.843 million) increased by 17.4% after
> the previous episode, Things We Lock Away (.718 million).
>
> 4. Two and a half weeks after the end of Season 1.0, Syfy announced
> Caprica’s move to Tuesday nights. 3 1/2 months later, Syfy announced
> Caprica would return in January of 2011. 1 1/2 months after that in
> September, Syfy switched the return of Caprica to October with less
> than 1 months notice. What was shown of Season 1.5 averaged .823
> million viewers – 31% less than Season 1.0. See timeline below.
>
> 5. Syfy’s Press Release calls Season 1.0 successful in the second
> paragraph. Season 1.0 aired on Friday nights.
>
> 6. Caprica’s average ratings fell 31% in the move from Friday to
> Tuesday night from Season 1.0 to Season 1.5. Stargate Universe’s
> average ratings fell 36% from 1.685 million in Season 1 on Friday to
> 1.071 so far in Season 2 on Tuesday.
>
> 7. Caprica has 104,800 facebook fans. This is 60% of Syfy’s 175,500
> fans. The Nielson numbers used to determine ratings in 2011 will
> measure viewing habits of 37,000 of 115,900,000 households. That
> equates to .0319% of total viewers – leaving 99.9681% of viewers with
> no influence on ratings. Many of those who watch don’t count.
>
> 8. Caprica cut off one episode to stay on budget. Visual effects were
> done in-house to save. Mark Stern (EVP of Programming) directly
> affected budget decisions regarding transitional VFX shots.
>
> 9. November is a sweeps month. Networks charge advertisers based on
> ratings in November. Accordingly, TV shows display their best episodes
> at this time. Caprica was pulled right before sweeps when its best
> performing episodes were about to air.
>
> 10. The move to not show the final Caprica episodes until after the
> DVD release is about generating more sales of the DVD. Why else would,
> in sweeps month, a network pull a show reaching about 1M viewers for
> reruns of older shows that will not perform as well? Mind you, the DVD
> will be out just before Christmas.
RT
> On 14/11/2010 1:24 PM, Artisan wrote:
> > "cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
> >>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:10-0800 (PST), The Coca Cola Kid
> >>>>>> <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> [A lengthy10-item list aka a lot of snippage]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
> >>>>>> >the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
> >>>>>> >series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who is Bonnie Hammer?
> >>>>
> >>>> Head honcho @ SyFy.
> >>>
> >>> "Paranormal Reality TV" have more of a place on the station than all the
> >>> good shows she cancels.
> >>
> >> Someone else needs to start up a Sci-fi channel.
> >
> > I just hope something like that wouldn't further fragment the SF
> > audience, which would only draw down the ratings for programming on both
> > stations by splitting them in half.
>
> More than enough sci-fi out there to justify another channel.
Yup. I'd like to see scifi classics. Dig out those old tv shows and movies.
"This Island Earth" anyone?
RT
>
> >
> > > My impression is that Syfy is on a trend of running science fiction in
> > > general into the ground, in the same way MTV ran music videos into the
> > > ground.
> >
> > Then that would set the conditions for the introduction of another
> > sci-fi channel.
>
> That could take years, and even then it would likely be relegated to
> the premium or semi-premium channels of expanded cable..
Well, the scifi channel is not network tv anyways...
David Milligan
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
But do they include On Demand viewing?
At least half of what I watch is On Demand since I don't have a DVR
and there are too many shows that are on at the same time I want to watch.
cloud dreamer
I think OnDemand has roughly the same weight as recorded DVR viewings
and Hulu numbers.
..
The Coca Cola Kid
> 800,000 viewers are not a significant following.
800,000 are the hardcore viewers who tuned in even when Syfy yanked
its return from this fall to 2011 and back again to confuse people
about when it would be on, and then barely bothered to promote it.
Caprica actually has a much larger following than that, and it would
be foolish take those viewers for granted, basically telling at least
a million viewers to piss off,
> The show is seen as a
> failure in the popular press and by those that gave up on it. If Syfy
> connects BAC to it, newer viewers won't tune in cause they tried Caprica
> and didn't like it or have learned that it failed from the media.
That is nonsense. People already know that Caprica takes place in the
same universe as Blood and Chrome and Battlestar Galactica, and you
yourself said that the events of Caprica will likely be touched upon
in BAC. *Newer* viewers will not care whether either Caprica or BSG
were a so-called success/failure or whether some characters overlap
with either series, because they will either be attracted to or turned
off by Blood and Chrome based on its own merits.
The number of people so mentally fragile that they would not tune in
just because they did not like Caprica and some of those characters
might turn up is certainly a much less significant following than
800,000.
> It will have to break significantly with Caprica to be successful.
In style, perhaps, but they are still supposed to be set in the same
universe.
The Coca Cola Kid
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:ibp2vb$t5t$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> > "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:119e2ba7-7eae-45c7...@n24g2000prj.googlegroup
> > s.com...
> >> On Nov 13, 3:41 pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:10-0800 (PST), The Coca Cola Kid
>
> >> Who is Bonnie Hammer?
>
> > Head honcho @ SyFy.
>
> Not any more. She runs NBC Universal now (which owns SciFi). Notable
> for making statements - while running SciFi - that she hates science
> fiction and replacing Farscape with Fear Factor.
That explains a lot. In fact, it explained everything as soon I got
the the letters NBC.
cloud dreamer
> On Nov 14, 2:02 pm, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
>> 800,000 viewers are not a significant following.
>
> 800,000 are the hardcore viewers who tuned in even when Syfy yanked
> its return from this fall to 2011 and back again to confuse people
> about when it would be on, and then barely bothered to promote it.
> Caprica actually has a much larger following than that, and it would
> be foolish take those viewers for granted, basically telling at least
> a million viewers to piss off,
Irrelevant. The show has to have so many viewers to survive. It failed
to make the grade. Firefly got cancelled with 4 million die hard fans.
>
>> The show is seen as a
>> failure in the popular press and by those that gave up on it. If Syfy
>> connects BAC to it, newer viewers won't tune in cause they tried Caprica
>> and didn't like it or have learned that it failed from the media.
>
> That is nonsense. People already know that Caprica takes place in the
> same universe as Blood and Chrome and Battlestar Galactica, and you
> yourself said that the events of Caprica will likely be touched upon
> in BAC. *Newer* viewers will not care whether either Caprica or BSG
> were a so-called success/failure or whether some characters overlap
> with either series, because they will either be attracted to or turned
> off by Blood and Chrome based on its own merits.
>
> The number of people so mentally fragile that they would not tune in
> just because they did not like Caprica and some of those characters
> might turn up is certainly a much less significant following than
> 800,000.
Well, that point went over your head.
>
>> It will have to break significantly with Caprica to be successful.
>
> In style, perhaps, but they are still supposed to be set in the same
> universe.
And leave behind the cast and characters. If it retains them, it will be
connected with a series that a lot of people had stopped watching or
never bothered tuning into. Not a way to get a new series off to a good
start.
..
The Coca Cola Kid
No, but like MTV, the former Sci-Fi channel is on the first tier of
expanded basic cable, When VH-1 tried to compete with them, MTV bought
them out and put non-music video content on their channel too. MTV2,
Fuse, etc were all on the premium package channels, at least the last
time I checked, and I am not even sure if those play music videos
anymore either.
Your Name
<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
Their samples are small when compared to the total possible viewers.
Surveying 100 or even 1000 out of millions of people is ridiculous. It's
also ridiculous that they pick and choose those few people they do
survey.
Even more ridiculous is that so many people blindly believe their
guessimates as some sort of real fact.
cloud dreamer
>
> Their samples are small when compared to the total possible viewers.
> Surveying 100 or even 1000 out of millions of people is ridiculous. It's
> also ridiculous that they pick and choose those few people they do
> survey.
You obviously don't understand anything about statistics. A sample size
of only a few thousand can reliably predict the mood of millions. Gallop
does it every day within a couple percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
> Even more ridiculous is that so many people blindly believe their
> guessimates as some sort of real fact.
Just because you don't understand the process doesn't mean its flawed.
..
The Coca Cola Kid
> On 15/11/2010 12:15 AM, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2:02 pm, cloud dreamer<S...@Resources.now> wrote:
> >> 800,000 viewers are not a significant following.
>
> > 800,000 are the hardcore viewers who tuned in even when Syfy yanked
> > its return from this fall to 2011 and back again to confuse people
> > about when it would be on, and then barely bothered to promote it.
> > Caprica actually has a much larger following than that, and it would
> > be foolish take those viewers for granted, basically telling at least
> > a million viewers to piss off,
>
> Irrelevant. The show has to have so many viewers to survive. It failed
> to make the grade. Firefly got cancelled with 4 million die hard fans.
If you think that a million viewers are 'irrelevant' and Blood and
Chrome can do without them, then you are just as shortsighted as the
assclowns at NBC/Syfy,
> >> The show is seen as a
> >> failure in the popular press and by those that gave up on it. If Syfy
> >> connects BAC to it, newer viewers won't tune in cause they tried Caprica
> >> and didn't like it or have learned that it failed from the media.
>
> > That is nonsense. People already know that Caprica takes place in the
> > same universe as Blood and Chrome and Battlestar Galactica, and you
> > yourself said that the events of Caprica will likely be touched upon
> > in BAC. *Newer* viewers will not care whether either Caprica or BSG
> > were a so-called success/failure or whether some characters overlap
> > with either series, because they will either be attracted to or turned
> > off by Blood and Chrome based on its own merits.
>
> > The number of people so mentally fragile that they would not tune in
> > just because they did not like Caprica and some of those characters
> > might turn up is certainly a much less significant following than
> > 800,000.
>
> Well, that point went over your head.
If I missed your point, then you likely failed to articulate it,
> >> It will have to break significantly with Caprica to be successful.
>
> > In style, perhaps, but they are still supposed to be set in the same
> > universe.
>
> And leave behind the cast and characters. If it retains them, it will be
> connected with a series that a lot of people had stopped watching or
> never bothered tuning into. Not a way to get a new series off to a good
> start.
Quick, they had better take William Adama out of the script!
cloud dreamer
It's straight forward. You choose not to see it. Caprica failed. Moving
over any significant chunk of the series to BAC will taint it.
It's not a hard concept to understand.
>
>
>>>> It will have to break significantly with Caprica to be successful.
>>
>>> In style, perhaps, but they are still supposed to be set in the same
>>> universe.
>>
>> And leave behind the cast and characters. If it retains them, it will be
>> connected with a series that a lot of people had stopped watching or
>> never bothered tuning into. Not a way to get a new series off to a good
>> start.
>
> Quick, they had better take William Adama out of the script!
You see. You don't get it. Bill Adama is integral to the BSG universe,
not just Caprica.
<sigh>
..
The Coca Cola Kid
But William Adama is obviously 'tainted' now just from being in
Caprica. Therefore, he needs to be removed from the equation and the
focus should be placed on totally new characters, with some wrestling
thrown into the mix. Get with the programme.
> <sigh>
Like it or not, the events and characters from Caprica are all an
integral part of the BSG universe. No one is saying that they should
use characters from Caprica as a selling point for BAC, but there is
no logical or rational reason why other characters could or should not
cross over.
Other than the fact that it may be a reminder to the network execs
that *they* failed when it came to Caprica, and that if anything is
'tainted' it is because it is associated with *them*..
Your Name
"cloud dreamer" <dont....@the.messenger> wrote in message
news:W76dnTFBGrMuL33R...@supernews.com...
Believe me, I've done Statistics right through to University level (and
passed). I do know all the methods and flaws, as well as the flaws in the
way results are reported.
Flip a coin 10 times, and lets say you get the true results of 7 heads and 3
tails.
Now according to Neilsen (and other stupid survey / polls companies), that
means that if you flip the coin 1000 times you will definitely get 700 heads
and 300 tails ... which is complete and utter nonsense, and little better
than simply guessing.
Then of course many of those companies try to hid their lies behind
statsically manpipulated percentages by saying "70% of coins are heads" ...
again, complete and utter nonsense. In reality, they mean "70% of the 10
coins we bothered to test were heads", but by falsely and inaccurately
stating their results in a misleading way they can confuse the naive public.
Neilsen and many other companies compound their stupidity by hand-picking
who they do and don't ask.
In many cases such stupid and inaccurate surveys are nothing but meaningless
and useles drivel ... but in some case idiots base their decisions on these
misleading numbers, and in the case of "medical studies" it can be down
right dangerous when reported by morons in the "don't let facts get in the
way of a being first with a story" journalists.
Neil Rieck
> be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
> the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
> series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
Kind of reminds us how the network suits killed other programs like
Fire Fly, Babylon-5, ST:TOS, the Sarah Connor Chronicles to only name
four. These people demand big buck for "their genius business skills"
but it turns out that flipping a coin might produce better results.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener / Waterloo / Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/Asimov-sent-me-a-message.html
Neil Rieck
>
> > 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it s
> > first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
> > Syfy s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files 1.037 million at half
> > season.
>
>
[...snip...]
>
> > 8. Caprica cut off one episode to stay on budget. Visual effects were
> > done in-house to save. Mark Stern (EVP of Programming) directly
> > affected budget decisions regarding transitional VFX shots.
>
>
Compare any good sci-fi program (writers) to a reality program
(little, to no, writing). On a good sci-fi program you will be able to
make much more money by:
1) selling DVD + Blu-ray sets (Babylon-5 has brought in $500 million
to Warner Bros.)
2) putting the program into syndication (ST:TOS has been in
syndication since it was canceled in 1969)
references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5#DVD_releases
QUOTE: According to producer J. Michael Straczynski as of mid-2006,
"The DVD sales have raised over 500 million in revenue." The financial
success of the DVD box sets has led to a renewed interest in further
Babylon 5 work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series_episodes
Fewer people are going to buy DVDs of "Wrestling" (the program which
replaced Caprica on SyFy the first Friday night)
cloud dreamer
The "events" are integral. The characters existed but are not essential
in anything except historical references. Moving them en masse to BAC
would be a monumental mistake. Just because you want it doesn't make it
a good idea. The network needs to make money. It can't do that by
telling people they're getting a continuation of a failed show.
It's a simple concept. Imagine Greater.
<sheesh>
cloud dreamer
If you're so smart, tell them. I await to see the email they send you
back with a giant LOL splashed across the screen.
It's worked for them for decades. If it were a problem, producers,
executives and actors etc would have been up in arms long ago.
cloud dreamer
> On Nov 13, 2:20 pm, The Coca Cola Kid<thecocacola...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it’s
>> first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
They didn't kill B5. JMS only intended the show to run five years.
cloud dreamer
> [...snip...]
>>
>>> 2. Caprica averaged 1.084 million viewers before cancellation in it s
>>> first season. Shows with lower ratings in their first season that were
>>> renewed: Mad Men .9 million. Spartacus: Blood& Sand .98 million.
>>> Syfy s own Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files 1.037 million at half
>>> season.
>>
>> No comparison. Caprica costs more.
>>
> [...snip...]
>>
>>> 8. Caprica cut off one episode to stay on budget. Visual effects were
>>> done in-house to save. Mark Stern (EVP of Programming) directly
>>> affected budget decisions regarding transitional VFX shots.
>>
>> Irrelevant. It was still expensive.
>>
>
> Compare any good sci-fi program (writers) to a reality program
> (little, to no, writing). On a good sci-fi program you will be able to
> make much more money by:
> 1) selling DVD + Blu-ray sets (Babylon-5 has brought in $500 million
> to Warner Bros.)
> 2) putting the program into syndication (ST:TOS has been in
> syndication since it was canceled in 1969)
>
Reality shows are in syndication and have DVD sales.
Caprica got 800,000 viewers or LESS over three episodes. You can't
squeeze cash out of turnip.
It failed. Move on.
Anim8rFSK
Zeb Carter <zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Artisan wrote:
> >
> > "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ibp2vb$t5t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>
> >> "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:119e2ba7-7eae-45c7...@n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Nov 13, 3:41 pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:10-0800 (PST), The Coca Cola Kid
> >>>>
> >>>> <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [A lengthy10-item list aka a lot of snippage]
> >>>>
> >>>> >The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD, there will
> >>>> >be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
> >>>> >the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
> >>>> >series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
> >>>>
> >>>> You could have just said that Bonnie Hammer hates the show.
> >>>
> >>> Who is Bonnie Hammer?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Head honcho @ SyFy.
> >
> > Bonnie Hammer is the jackass who thinks that "World Wide Rassling" and
> > "Paranormal Reality TV" have more of a place on the station than all the
> > good shows she cancels.
> She's also the one who cancelled Farscape at the end of season 4 even
> though therey had the go-ahead for a season 5. This was done when Sci Fi
> Channel acquired the rights to show reurns of Stargate SG-1. she decided
> that by cancelling Farscape, new episodes of SG-1 could be made despite
> the fact that Farscape was highly popular and was a Sci fi original
> series vice SG-1 which did not originate on Sci Fi but elsewhere.
Somebody probably mentions this downstream, but let's not forget that
she's stated, for the record, that she wasn't showing science fiction
because it was, and I quoted, "too science fictiony"
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
jack
A BAC that referenced Caprica frequently may be the best way to go.
I liked Caprica, but frankly by the time we got to the last episode
shown in the US the arc had really not been that far advanced beyond
what we saw in the pilot if the point of the story was to set up what
the audience knew was coming: the first cylon war.
I think many people were turned off in that the war was not foreseen
in Caprica, that the writers were attempting to set their story in a
world where no one knew a war would come of what was developing out of
the manipulations of one scientist and the Caprica branch of the Picon
mafia.
It was a nice gamble but it has not appeared to work, although perhaps
the suits should have taken a longer view and waited a few years for
the DVD sales to start coming in on the whole series. [Anyone know
how much BSG DVDs have taken in?]
cloud dreamer
>
> A BAC that referenced Caprica frequently may be the best way to go.
Referencing a show "frequently" with anything more than sweeping
generalizations risks alienating more than half the audience you want to
attract.
They want to attract 1.6 to 2 million + with BAC. Mentioning that Daniel
Graystone created the cylons is one thing. Talking about an STO recruit
named Lacy would leave them wondering what-the-frak.
Other than using Caprica as a base for its history, they'll leave it all
behind except for Adama.
Your Name
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
Despite what idiot managers and naive public like to believe, it doesn't
"work", it has never "worked" and it will never "work".
The only way it "works" is that some greedy big business company can con
other people into paying for their dodgey services and whoever is paying for
the "results" can have them statistically manipulated to show whatever they
want them to show.
cloud dreamer
> Despite what idiot managers and naive public like to believe, it doesn't
> "work", it has never "worked" and it will never "work".
Obviously it does. It has for decades.
<sigh>
The Coca Cola Kid
> On 15/11/2010 1:36 PM, jack wrote:
> > A BAC that referenced Caprica frequently may be the best way to go.
>
> Referencing a show "frequently" with anything more than sweeping
> generalizations risks alienating more than half the audience you want to
> attract.
>
> They want to attract 1.6 to 2 million + with BAC. Mentioning that Daniel
> Graystone created the cylons is one thing. Talking about an STO recruit
> named Lacy would leave them wondering what-the-frak.
In the most recent Caprica episode that aired in Canada, we saw
flashbacks to when both Joseph and Samuel Adama were children on
Tauron. Do you seriously believe that any significant number of
viewers were left bewildered and wondering what-the-frak at the other
characters from the past? If so, then what evidence do you have for
this, and if not, then explain why it would not work for Caprican
characters to be presented in the same way in BAC.
You are forbidden from using the word taint..
The Coca Cola Kid
Everyone knows that BAC will be set in the same universe after
Caprica, so by virtue everyone already knows that BAC will be a
continuation of a 'failed' show. The characters were not the reason
why Caprica failed. Discarding all of them and the potential that
they had will be a classic example of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
cloud dreamer
Not the same thing and you know it.
The producers have commented on integrating Caprica into BAC and while
they said anything is possible, they essentially said it would just be
background to BAC.
cloud dreamer
<sigh> Like talking to a brick wall.
Jim Gysin
Your Name sent the following on 11/14/2010 6:14 PM:
> In article<ibplaj$9b2$4...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jim Gysin
> <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> cloud dreamer sent the following on 11/14/2010 11:17 AM:
>>> On 14/11/2010 1:24 PM, Artisan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "cloud dreamer"<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
>>>>> On 14/11/2010 1:12 PM, Artisan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dano"<janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ibp2vb$t5t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Coca Cola Kid"<thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
> news:119e2ba7-7eae-45c7...@n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 3:41 pm, Rob Jensen<ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:10-0800 (PST), The Coca Cola Kid
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [A lengthy10-item list aka a lot of snippage]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The net effect is that once people in the US buy the DVD, there will
>>>>>>>>>> be no need to watch the airing of the episodes, thus the ratings for
>>>>>>>>>> the final shows will be further reduced, thus ensuring death to the
>>>>>>>>>> series, and leaving doubt in other networks executives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You could have just said that Bonnie Hammer hates the show.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who is Bonnie Hammer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Head honcho @ SyFy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bonnie Hammer is the jackass who thinks that "World Wide Rassling" and
>>>>>> "Paranormal Reality TV" have more of a place on the station than all the
>>>>>> good shows she cancels.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just hope something like that wouldn't further fragment the SF
>>>> audience, which would only draw down the ratings for programming on both
>>>> stations by splitting them in half.
>>>
>>> More than enough sci-fi out there to justify another channel.
>>
>> And competition is good. Having two channels fighting each other to
>> offer quality SF to us viewers can only be a Good Thing for us viewers.
>
> That's a marketing fallacy.
It's not marketing; it's economics, and basic economics, at that.
> It doesn't work in selling products since bothe "competitiors" eventually
> agree on a minimum price they're willing to sell at.
And without at least one competitor, the company with the monopoly will
*never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at a minimum price of any
kind.
> Yes, that may be less
> than the public are paying with only one seller, but is still higher than
> true competition would allow.
Two separate entities producing comparable widgets *is* "true
competition." This is macro 101 stuff.
> It doesn't work with TV networks either because the idiots simply put the
> good shows on at exactly the same time, and even with recording equipment
> of some sort there is still only a limited amount of time someone can or
> wants to watch TV.
>
> Here in New Zealand "competition" is highly inaccurate. There are half a
> dozen "different" supermarket brands, but in reality they're owned by only
> two parent companies.
Which is still better than one.
> The same happens with book / stationery stores,
> electronic stores, etc. The public get an even worse illusion of
> "competition" that does really exist. :-(
*Some* competition is better than *no* competition.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Your Name
<Sa...@Resources.now> wrote:
> On 15/11/2010 5:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > Despite what idiot managers and naive public like to believe, it doesn't
> > "work", it has never "worked" and it will never "work".
>
>
> Obviously it does. It has for decades.
>
> <sigh>
If that's what you want to blindly believe. :-\
cloud dreamer
Me and millions of others - including those who work in the industry and
obviously don't have a problem with a system in place for decades.
<sigh> You probably think there were explosives in the towers too...
..
Obveeus
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> And without at least one competitor, the company with the monopoly will
> *never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at a minimum price of any
> kind.
In the case of TV, competition might improve the quality of the shows (since
that is the only way to drasw more viewers), but...
> Two separate entities producing comparable widgets *is* "true
> competition." This is macro 101 stuff.
If there are X sci-fi fans then two channels producing comparable stuff will
mean that each gets X/2 audience. That isn't a good thing in a current TV
environment that indicates that even the whole X isn't enough people to keep
the channel going. X/2 audience will just mean a quicker transition to
additional shows about ghosts and wrestling.
You economics of getting a cheaper widget for the end user equates in this
case with what might simply be a cheaper TV show (as in lower production
costs) for the viewer. Lower production costs likely means the opposite of
'higher quality' in most cases.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ibsfn3$git$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
And in marketing 102, you might learn about market saturation. If
there is a limited audience (and there is), and one channel fills
that market, introducting a second channel will simply cut the
audience in half, leaving both channels underfunded by half.
Sometimes, introducing competition is a good thing, but not always.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ibsjmt$vk6$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> And without at least one competitor, the company with the
>> monopoly will *never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at
>> a minimum price of any kind.
>
> In the case of TV, competition might improve the quality of the
> shows (since that is the only way to drasw more viewers), but...
>
>> Two separate entities producing comparable widgets *is* "true
>> competition." This is macro 101 stuff.
>
> If there are X sci-fi fans then two channels producing
> comparable stuff will mean that each gets X/2 audience. That
> isn't a good thing in a current TV environment that indicates
> that even the whole X isn't enough people to keep the channel
> going. X/2 audience will just mean a quicker transition to
> additional shows about ghosts and wrestling.
And, in fact, the history of the television industry since the
introduction of cable has been a story of fractured markets and
dwindling revenues for established companies, as the market is
divided in to ever more - and smaller - segments.
>
> You economics of getting a cheaper widget for the end user
> equates in this case with what might simply be a cheaper TV show
> (as in lower production costs) for the viewer. Lower production
> costs likely means the opposite of 'higher quality' in most
> cases.
>
Lower production costs means more "reality" television, like Fear
Factor and Jackass. Yeah, that's an improvement for sf fans.
Your Name
<dont....@the.messenger> wrote:
Whatever you want to fool yourself into believing. :-\
Neil Rieck
[...snip...]
>
> > Kind of reminds us how the network suits killed other programs like
> > Fire Fly, Babylon-5, ST:TOS, the Sarah Connor Chronicles to only name
> > four. These people demand big buck for "their genius business skills"
> > but it turns out that flipping a coin might produce better results.
>
> They didn't kill B5. JMS only intended the show to run five years.
>
It amazes me how people can wrap up a germ of truth in a huge
corporate lie.
You are partially correct. JMS only created a 5-year story arc for
Babylon-5.
But the 5-years would not have been completed if it were not for the
efforts of fans who wrote letters to networks to keep it going along
with a lot of back room dealings. IIRC, B5 was aired on various
independent networks including Fox, UPN., WB, TNT, as well as
independent stations around the world (like CITY in Toronto). Many
participating networks wanted B5 killed and JMS had to move it to TNT
(from PTEN) to properly complete the final 27 episodes.
But remember that this was in the days before every country had one,
or more, dedicated sci-fi channels (which could do things like:
1) provide a ready sci-fi market for new content
2) could pool their money to create new content (this is how "Frank
Herbert's Dune" was financed; money came from the US, Canada, UK, and
Germany)
###
So now you've got to ask yourself what was going through the minds of
NBC/SyFy when they replaced any sci-fi programming with "wrestling".
Neil Rieck
>
> That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of
> meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and
> extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.
>
The measurement boxes are expensive so they (Nielson) still support a
larger paper diary system which allows people to lie (network bias).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Criticism_of_ratings_systems
BTW, Nielson was forced into home meters by radio networks when they
(the networks) tested People Meters and proved their was a huge
difference between Nielson diaries and people meters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_meter
But I think that everyone here would agree that small sample sizes
would allow smaller genres (like sci-fi) to drop though the cracks.
The extrapolation thing has to be the main reason why networks carry
so much reality crap because none of my friends, relatives, or co-
workers watch this stuff.
###
But this is all academic. We live in a free-market world so if people
think wrestling on SyFy is going too far then those subscribers need
to cancel their SyFy subscriptions. Then, hopefully, someone else
would create a better Sci-fi network.
NSR
cloud dreamer
> In article<k7adnYzJDf2EU3zR...@supernews.com>, cloud dreamer
Thought as much.
cloud dreamer
> [...snip...]
>
>>
>> That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of
>> meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and
>> extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.
>>
>
> The measurement boxes are expensive so they (Nielson) still support a
> larger paper diary system which allows people to lie (network bias).
They would statistically lie in equal numbers so the difference would be
negligible.
So, tell me. What else are they supposed to do???
Until they can start collecting data live from DVRs, what other system
are they supposed to use???
If they can't rely on people to tell the truth in the diary portion of
their polling, they have to rely on the meters. If they're that
expensive, they have to rely on extrapolated data and conclusions.
Your Name seems to think they need to go out there and poll all 115
million households in the US.
Not gonna happen till DVRs are widespread enough to make the data reliable.
cloud dreamer
>
> [...snip...]
>>
>>> Kind of reminds us how the network suits killed other programs like
>>> Fire Fly, Babylon-5, ST:TOS, the Sarah Connor Chronicles to only name
>>> four. These people demand big buck for "their genius business skills"
>>> but it turns out that flipping a coin might produce better results.
>>
>> They didn't kill B5. JMS only intended the show to run five years.
>>
>
> It amazes me how people can wrap up a germ of truth in a huge
> corporate lie.
It amazes me how people think everything is a conspiracy and can't
accept that networks need to make money too. If a show isn't, it gets
axed. Simple.
It's capitalism at its finest. You don't seem to have a problem with it
when the banks sell loans to people who can't afford them.
Your Name
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
> On 16/11/2010 9:09 AM, Neil Rieck wrote:
> > [...snip...]
> >>
> >> That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of
> >> meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and
> >> extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.
> >
> > The measurement boxes are expensive so they (Nielson) still support a
> > larger paper diary system which allows people to lie (network bias).
>
> They would statistically lie in equal numbers so the difference would be
> negligible.
>
> So, tell me. What else are they supposed to do???
>
> Until they can start collecting data live from DVRs, what other system
> are they supposed to use???
>
> If they can't rely on people to tell the truth in the diary portion of
> their polling, they have to rely on the meters. If they're that
> expensive, they have to rely on extrapolated data and conclusions.
Meters are no better than diaries. You would have to have a meter attached
to every TV in the house, as well as recording devices and download sites.
You would also have to determine whether anyone is actually watching the TV
or simply tuning in to some "news" show because they think thye should, but
in reality are in another room eating dinner or whatever.
> Your Name seems to think they need to go out there and poll all 115
> million households in the US.
Nope. Try the few billion households, worldwide. Despite what most Americans
think, there are other countries on this planet.
> Not gonna happen till DVRs are widespread enough to make the data
reliable.
Not gonna heppen thanks to the "big brother" conspiracy nutters, and even
then that still isn't a fully reliable option.
Your Name
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
If you want to bleieve the guesswork crap and misinformation such companies
churn out to make money, then go right ahead. The simple coin toss
experiement has already proven that it's faked, meaningless garbage believed
by greedy idiots and naive fools.
cloud dreamer
Get your head out of your ass.
What you're advocating is simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Extrapolating data works. Just because you can't understand it doesn't
make it useless.
cloud dreamer
Just because you can understand how extrapolated data works and have
your head up some conspiracy nut's ass, doesn't make what they do wrong.
catpandaddy
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:ibunfc$e9o$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
YN, this next question is not meant sarcastically, I promise. Granting that
meters and diaries and all that don't work, can you give me a thorough idea
how you would set up your ideal system to work, assuming resources were no
object and you had the entire say-so about the project?
Jim Gysin
Obveeus sent the following on 11/15/2010 6:36 PM:
> "Jim Gysin"<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> And without at least one competitor, the company with the monopoly will
>> *never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at a minimum price of any
>> kind.
>
> In the case of TV, competition might improve the quality of the shows (since
> that is the only way to drasw more viewers), but...
Might? It absolutely will, unless one of the channels/shows doesn't
want to survive for long.
>> Two separate entities producing comparable widgets *is* "true
>> competition." This is macro 101 stuff.
>
> If there are X sci-fi fans then two channels producing comparable stuff will
> mean that each gets X/2 audience.
*If* they produce comparable stuff. And since the stuff that the
audience is gonna tend to be drawn to is quality stuff, then the
competition will lead to more quality stuff, because having X/2 audience
is better than only having X/4 or X/6 of the audience.
In the short term, one channel could get 95% of the audience while a
certain show from its lineup is playing, while the other channel could
get 95% an hour later for one of *its* shows. And over time, out of a
desire to get 100% of the audience 100% of the time, both channels would
be producing the sort of programming that the audience wants to see,
based on the ratings for various shows.
> That isn't a good thing in a current TV
> environment that indicates that even the whole X isn't enough people to keep
> the channel going. X/2 audience will just mean a quicker transition to
> additional shows about ghosts and wrestling.
Based on the success of SF movies, I believe that a large part of the
reason why there isn't a larger demand for SF on television is a lack of
quality options. And again, with competition comes more quality
options. Either that, or competitors quit trying altogether. And if a
channel isn't committed to competing, I'd just as soon see it go away
now, rather than later.
> You economics of getting a cheaper widget for the end user equates in this
> case with what might simply be a cheaper TV show (as in lower production
> costs) for the viewer. Lower production costs likely means the opposite of
> 'higher quality' in most cases.
When I have problems with a SF show, it's almost always over the
writing, rather than production (especially effects) issues. Similarly,
when I *like* a SF show, it's almost always because of the writing,
rather than production issues. What draws me to SF is the issues that
it addresses and the geek possibilities that get explored; it has little
or nothing to do with who has the latest FX bells and whistles.
And I don't think that I'm alone in that. Yes, I like a cool effect as
much as the next person, but I can't remember the last time I had an
ongoing discussion with another SF fan over an effect from a movie or a
television show. You experience it, go "Wow!" and move on. It's the
characters and the plotlines that end up getting the ongoing discussion
treatment, because (IMO) that's what matters most to most SF fans.
One example: I've had countless discussions with others over how well
(or poorly) the new Trek cast did in their roles and interactions, and
I've *never* exchanged more than a passing comment with anyone over the
movie's special effects. Nothing ongoing about whether the drill was
realistic, but lots about how Pine portrayed Kirk. Nothing ongoing
about the technical merits of the initial space fight sequence that took
the life of Kirk's father, but much about how well the actors/characters
handled the scene. And it's not just Trek; it's that way with pretty
much every SF show or movie I've talked about. A second and current
example is the many WALKING DEAD threads here in the past few weeks. In
them, I think that there have been a handful of references to the makeup
effects and the like. Everything else has been about the story lines,
the characters, their motivations, their choices, etc.
In short, when it comes to SF, effects seem to get a one-time (or at
least very modest) bit of acknowledgment, if any, but the writing and
the acting and the themes get looked at in much more depth. And since
that's the case, I don't agree with your suggestion that lower
production costs equates to lower quality. Most people who liked Trek
liked it because of the story and the actors and the characters, not
because the new Enterprise was (or wasn't) up to snuff. Most people who
like WALKING DEAD like it because of the story, not because the zombies
look particularly cool. And so on and so on.
Okay
> stuff that the audience is gonna tend to be drawn to is quality stuff,
Any reason to think this? The highest-rated shows on SyFy
are wrestling and Ghost Hunters. When the network does show
science fiction, numbers show few watch them. If people
have the TV on, they're choosing non-scifi.
> desire to get 100% of the audience 100% of the time, both
> channels would be producing the sort of programming that
> the audience wants to see, based on the ratings for various shows.
I don't see any reason to expect that, and plenty to expect
otherwise. There's only so much audience to go around. If
I don't watch westerns, you can have two networks showing
the best the genre has to offer, and it still won't appeal
to me. TV scifi is a genre that plenty of people simply
won't watch, and no matter how good the stuff is *for its
genre* it's not a genre all that many people choose.
> Based on the success of SF movies, I believe that a large
> part of the reason why there isn't a larger demand for SF
> on television is a lack of quality options.
Totally different thing, movies and TV. If a
twenty-something straight couple goes to the cinema, the man
might choose a scifi movie, and the woman might go along for
two hours. There's a lot less "go-along" when you're
talking weeks and weeks of a show. Further, while a fan
might not care about special effects, that's what makes most
scifi films: "the plot was confusing or trite, the setting
unbelievable, but it sure looked good".
While I might hope for a better science-fiction network, I
think it's the nature of the genre that such a TV network
can never pull huge numbers. Nor is it something enough
people will pay for enough to become something like HBO. I
don't see the situation getting better in traditional TV
ways. Possibly small, good, cheap, profitable shows could
come out of a web background.
cloud dreamer
> Jim Gysin<jimg...@geemail.com> ::
>> stuff that the audience is gonna tend to be drawn to is quality stuff,
>
> Any reason to think this? The highest-rated shows on SyFy
> are wrestling and Ghost Hunters. When the network does show
> science fiction, numbers show few watch them. If people
> have the TV on, they're choosing non-scifi.
The Space Station in Canada isn't having a problem drawing a good
audience with a concentration on sci-fi/fantasy and the like.
Obveeus
"Jim Gysin" <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on 11/15/2010 6:36 PM:
>> "Jim Gysin"<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And without at least one competitor, the company with the monopoly will
>>> *never* have an incentive to sell his widgets at a minimum price of any
>>> kind.
>>
>> In the case of TV, competition might improve the quality of the shows
>> (since
>> that is the only way to drasw more viewers), but...
>
> Might? It absolutely will,
No, the word 'might' is much more likely acurate. After all, if a network
only has half as much audience, they will likely only have half as much
income to spend on the programming...and half as much money is not something
that 'absolutely will' lead to better programming.
>> If there are X sci-fi fans then two channels producing comparable stuff
>> will
>> mean that each gets X/2 audience.
>
> *If* they produce comparable stuff. And since the stuff that the audience
> is gonna tend to be drawn to is quality stuff, then the competition will
> lead to more quality stuff, because having X/2 audience is better than
> only having X/4 or X/6 of the audience.
1 sci-fi channel has X number of viewers. 2 Sci-fi channels will have X/2
viewers.
> In the short term, one channel could get 95% of the audience while a
> certain show from its lineup is playing, while the other channel could get
> 95% an hour later for one of *its* shows. And over time, out of a desire
> to get 100% of the audience 100% of the time, both channels would be
> producing the sort of programming that the audience wants to see, based on
> the ratings for various shows.
You have watched TV before, right? If each Sci-fi channel only has one good
program, there is about a 75% chance that the two channels will air their
programs in the same timeslot. Meanwhile, even as they strive to make
better programs and capture more audience, they have less money to work with
because they have half the viewership they had before a second sci-fi
channel joined the mix.
>> That isn't a good thing in a current TV
>> environment that indicates that even the whole X isn't enough people to
>> keep
>> the channel going. X/2 audience will just mean a quicker transition to
>> additional shows about ghosts and wrestling.
>
> Based on the success of SF movies, I believe that a large part of the
> reason why there isn't a larger demand for SF on television is a lack of
> quality options.
People are willing to go see a big piece of crap at the theater, but they
aren't going to sit through it every single week. That is why something
like Transformers or Terminator can be a big hit in the theater, but not on
TV.
> And again, with competition comes more quality options. Either that, or
> competitors quit trying altogether.
Yes, the latter will happen and the 'sci-fi' channels will start programming
wrestling, ghost stories, cheap reruns of crappy 'sci-fi' shows from the
50s, etc... and infomercials or whatever else will draw an audience they
need to survive.
> And if a channel isn't committed to competing, I'd just as soon see it go
> away now, rather than later.
No one makes you watch Syfy. If you would rather have no 'sci-fi' than what
they offer, use the remote.
>> You economics of getting a cheaper widget for the end user equates in
>> this
>> case with what might simply be a cheaper TV show (as in lower production
>> costs) for the viewer. Lower production costs likely means the opposite
>> of
>> 'higher quality' in most cases.
>
> When I have problems with a SF show, it's almost always over the writing,
> rather than production (especially effects) issues. Similarly, when I
> *like* a SF show, it's almost always because of the writing, rather than
> production issues. What draws me to SF is the issues that it addresses
> and the geek possibilities that get explored; it has little or nothing to
> do with who has the latest FX bells and whistles.
Me too, but that runs to the polar opposite of what draws people to 'sci-fi'
in thre movie theater.
> It's the characters and the plotlines that end up getting the ongoing
> discussion treatment, because (IMO) that's what matters most to most SF
> fans.
Then the people watching 'sci-fi' at the theater are not sci-fi fans...which
goes back to the idea that sci-fi has a limited fanbase and no matter how
good the shows are there isn't enough sci-fi viewership to support multiple
channels.
> A second and current example is the many WALKING DEAD threads here in the
> past few weeks. In them, I think that there have been a handful of
> references to the makeup effects and the like. Everything else has been
> about the story lines, the characters, their motivations, their choices,
> etc.
...or mostly the discussion has been about how stupid the characters are,
how illogical the plotline is, and how campy the entire comic book result is
on screen.