SyFy exec answers name-change questions
David
Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
by James Hibberd
Sci Fi digital exec Craig Engler has taken to Twitter to try and pour
some soothing network logic onto the inflamed geek fandom regarding
the company's name change to Syfy (which is tomorrow, btw). Here's
some of Engler's Tweets (@syfy) from the past week where he gamely
restates and answers hand-picked fan questions (basically, variations
on "Whhhhhhy!?"). The Tweets have been edited here into a Q&A format
(oh, and here's SyFy's new two-minute brand change expensive-looking
promotional video).
Q) Does SyFy's new branding mean less science fiction/fantasy
programming?
A) No, we are not changing our programming mix
Q) How do you pronounce SyFy? When I see it I want to pronounce it so
it rhymes with 'jiffy'
A) Just like "sci-fi"
Q) Why do you insist on trying to pretend your demographic isn't what
it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?
A) Demos vary greatly by show, so there is not a single demo that
watches us. Many different kinds of people enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, etc.
Q) [Not stated]
A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we never
would have made Battlestar Galactica.
Q) Anyone else get the feeling that the @SyFy change is far too
similar to the TechTV/G4 blend?
A) Hmmm....nope!
Q) Help me understand. Name one new project you can do as Syfy that
wouldn't have felt right as Sci Fi.
A) Syfy is about catching up to where our programming mix is, not
about changing it.
Q) Your programming mix has poor spelling and grammar? That isn't
catching up Craig, that's dumbing down.
A) Syfy is a made-up name, not a word, so it's spelled correctly as
is. Like Wii. Or Twitter ;)
Q) It's not so much the name change as it is the "getting away from
the geeks" rationale.... I think it's the "oh we've got to get new
people" tone - it sort of comes across as leaving us, no matter how
much u say it isn't
A) That's not at all our rationale. A TV historian named Tim Brooks
said that and it's unfortunately been misattributed to us.
Q) Well, I like the new name Syfy... but I don't like the new logo..
dunno way, perhaps is a bit colorless...
A) The Syfy logo was designed to be something of an empty vessel that
we can play with. You'll see some cool stuff happening to it soon :)
Q) How is it working at SyFy? Fun or stressful?
A) Fun! Great channel, great colleagues and the most amazing viewers
ever.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f016987f-b4c2-46df...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>
> Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
> by James Hibberd
Is James Hibbard really as much of a retarded jerkoff as this interview made
the questioner look?
Adam H. Kerman
>Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
>by James Hibberd
What angst? Who the fuck cares what it's called?
I find the channel annoying as all hell and watch it only when there's a
specific new show that I like. I won't watch their made for tv movies.
Actually, if the episode is available On Demand, I'll watch it there as
it's usually less horridigenized with promos. Unfortunately, a few
channels like FX are now obliterating closing credits even in episodes
prepared for on demand.
I'd be willing to watch old shows if they weren't cut, if the
commercials were in the original commercial breaks, didn't do animated
promos of other shows I don't want to watch over the picture, and if I
can hear the closing theme.
I won't watch TVLand either. I like reruns. I'd watch them. But I want
them to air something like new network shows in the '70's.
A Watcher
The best way to watch reruns is to check your local public library and
see if they have the DVDs. My local library is well stocked and I can
request them online. Such a deal, and the price is right! Even the
overdue fee is really cheap. They should change that so people don't
hog them.
Ian J. Ball
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I think those were questions sent in by random webheads - Hibberd
wasn't asking them, he was just relating them and Engler's answers to
them.
Ian (Personally, I thought the "Why do you insist on trying to
pretend your demographic isn't what
it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?" question was
spot on...)
Dimensional Traveler
> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>
> Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
> by James Hibberd
>
> Sci Fi digital exec Craig Engler has taken to Twitter to try and pour
If he's a digital exec, will my virus checker delete him if I can just
figure out how to run in on my TV?
> some soothing network logic onto the inflamed geek fandom regarding
> the company's name change to Syfy (which is tomorrow, btw). Here's
> some of Engler's Tweets (@syfy) from the past week where he gamely
> restates and answers hand-picked fan questions (basically, variations
> on "Whhhhhhy!?"). The Tweets have been edited here into a Q&A format
> (oh, and here's SyFy's new two-minute brand change expensive-looking
> promotional video).
>
> Q) Does SyFy's new branding mean less science fiction/fantasy
> programming?
>
> A) No, we are not changing our programming mix
>
Because we already did that long ago.
> Q) How do you pronounce SyFy? When I see it I want to pronounce it so
> it rhymes with 'jiffy'
>
> A) Just like "sci-fi"
>
And we couldn't pronounce that correctly in the first place either.
> Q) Why do you insist on trying to pretend your demographic isn't what
> it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?
>
> A) Demos vary greatly by show, so there is not a single demo that
> watches us. Many different kinds of people enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, etc.
>
And we don't like any of them and wish they'd just go away so we can
make some real money!
> Q) [Not stated]
>
> A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we never
> would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>
Besides, its easier for us to make up feedback in other venues.
> Q) Anyone else get the feeling that the @SyFy change is far too
> similar to the TechTV/G4 blend?
>
> A) Hmmm....nope!
>
Neither of which he's ever heard of before.
> Q) Help me understand. Name one new project you can do as Syfy that
> wouldn't have felt right as Sci Fi.
>
> A) Syfy is about catching up to where our programming mix is, not
> about changing it.
>
In other words, we're just making the first step in acknowledging that
we haven't been a science fiction oriented channel in a long time.
> Q) Your programming mix has poor spelling and grammar? That isn't
> catching up Craig, that's dumbing down.
>
> A) Syfy is a made-up name, not a word, so it's spelled correctly as
> is. Like Wii. Or Twitter ;)
>
aka "Yes".
> Q) It's not so much the name change as it is the "getting away from
> the geeks" rationale.... I think it's the "oh we've got to get new
> people" tone - it sort of comes across as leaving us, no matter how
> much u say it isn't
>
> A) That's not at all our rationale. A TV historian named Tim Brooks
> said that and it's unfortunately been misattributed to us.
>
We just don't want to admit that he's spot on with that analysis.
> Q) Well, I like the new name Syfy... but I don't like the new logo..
> dunno way, perhaps is a bit colorless...
>
> A) The Syfy logo was designed to be something of an empty vessel that
> we can play with. You'll see some cool stuff happening to it soon :)
>
aka "I agree and we've hired a new PR firm to screw with it even more."
> Q) How is it working at SyFy? Fun or stressful?
>
> A) Fun! Great channel, great colleagues and the most amazing viewers
> ever.
>
That is, it will be a great channel once we've gotten rid of all those
sci-fi geeks, I have to kiss Bonnie Hammer's ass and we're looking for
the most amazingly gullible viewers ever.
--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.
Ian J. Ball
> David wrote:
> >http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>
> > Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
> > by James Hibberd
>
>
> > A) Fun! Great channel, great colleagues and the most amazing viewers
> > ever.
>
> That is, it will be a great channel once we've gotten rid of all those
> sci-fi geeks, I have to kiss Bonnie Hammer's ass and we're looking for
> the most amazingly gullible viewers ever.
They need to raid Bravo then.
Ian (And the viewers of Psy-Phi's very own "Ghost Hunters"!!)
Mac Breck
> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>
> Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
> by James Hibberd
>
> Sci Fi digital exec Craig Engler has taken to Twitter to try and pour
> some soothing network logic onto the inflamed geek fandom regarding
> the company's name change to Syfy (which is tomorrow, btw). Here's
> some of Engler's Tweets (@syfy) from the past week where he gamely
> restates and answers hand-picked fan questions (basically, variations
> on "Whhhhhhy!?"). The Tweets have been edited here into a Q&A format
> (oh, and here's SyFy's new two-minute brand change expensive-looking
> promotional video).
>
> Q) Does SyFy's new branding mean less science fiction/fantasy
> programming?
>
> A) No, we are not changing our programming mix
Yet, but it's a slippery slope, and this will make it easier to move
further and further away from sci-fi programming.
> Q) Why do you insist on trying to pretend your demographic isn't what
> it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?
>
> A) Demos vary greatly by show, so there is not a single demo that
> watches us. Many different kinds of people enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, etc.
Yes, the demo that watches sci-fi and fantasy is different from the demo
that watches wrestling and Scare Tactics. Different audiences. Oil &
Water.
>> Q) Help me understand. Name one new project you can do as Syfy that
> wouldn't have felt right as Sci Fi.
>
> A) Syfy is about catching up to where our programming mix is, not
> about changing it.
It *will* *be* about changing it.
> Q) It's not so much the name change as it is the "getting away from
> the geeks" rationale.... I think it's the "oh we've got to get new
> people" tone - it sort of comes across as leaving us, no matter how
> much u say it isn't
>
> A) That's not at all our rationale. A TV historian named Tim Brooks
> said that and it's unfortunately been misattributed to us.
Yeah, and The Sci-Fi Channel never passed on a show because it was "too
science-fictiony" either. <rolleyes>
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Mac Breck
>> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>
>> Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
>> by James Hibberd
>
> What angst? Who the fuck cares what it's called?
>
> I find the channel annoying as all hell and watch it only when
> there's a specific new show that I like. I won't watch their made for
> tv movies.
>
> Actually, if the episode is available On Demand, I'll watch it there
> as it's usually less horridigenized with promos. Unfortunately, a few
> channels like FX are now obliterating closing credits even in episodes
> prepared for on demand.
>
> I'd be willing to watch old shows if they weren't cut, if the
> commercials were in the original commercial breaks, didn't do animated
> promos of other shows I don't want to watch over the picture, and if I
> can hear the closing theme.
...and be able to read the closing credits, instead of trying to read
stuff that's been shrunk to the point of illegibility, or obliterated.
Mac Breck
> David wrote:
>> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>>
>> Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
>> by James Hibberd
>>
>> Sci Fi digital exec Craig Engler has taken to Twitter to try and
>> pour
>
> If he's a digital exec, will my virus checker delete him if I can just
> figure out how to run in on my TV?
>
>> some soothing network logic onto the inflamed geek fandom regarding
>> the company's name change to Syfy (which is tomorrow, btw). Here's
>> some of Engler's Tweets (@syfy) from the past week where he gamely
>> restates and answers hand-picked fan questions (basically, variations
>> on "Whhhhhhy!?"). The Tweets have been edited here into a Q&A format
>> (oh, and here's SyFy's new two-minute brand change expensive-looking
>> promotional video).
>>
>> Q) Does SyFy's new branding mean less science fiction/fantasy
>> programming?
>>
>> A) No, we are not changing our programming mix
>>
> Because we already did that long ago.
Well, it's a continuing process. That they've already made lots of
changes to the mix doesn't mean that they're *finished* making changes.
When he says "No, we are not changing our programming mix." he means
right now, in association with this name change, not that they're going
to stay with the current (worst in the channel's history) mix forever.
>> Q) Why do you insist on trying to pretend your demographic isn't what
>> it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?
>>
>> A) Demos vary greatly by show, so there is not a single demo that
>> watches us. Many different kinds of people enjoy sci-fi, fantasy,
>> etc.
>>
> And we don't like any of them and wish they'd just go away so we can
> make some real money!
...being generalists, i.e. The Misc. Channel.
>> Q) Help me understand. Name one new project you can do as Syfy that
>> wouldn't have felt right as Sci Fi.
>>
>> A) Syfy is about catching up to where our programming mix is, not
>> about changing it.
>>
> In other words, we're just making the first step in acknowledging that
> we haven't been a science fiction oriented channel in a long time.
Yes.
>> Q) It's not so much the name change as it is the "getting away from
>> the geeks" rationale.... I think it's the "oh we've got to get new
>> people" tone - it sort of comes across as leaving us, no matter how
>> much u say it isn't
>>
>> A) That's not at all our rationale. A TV historian named Tim Brooks
>> said that and it's unfortunately been misattributed to us.
>>
> We just don't want to admit that he's spot on with that analysis.
...because we don't want to lose any of the existing fans right now.
>> Q) How is it working at SyFy? Fun or stressful?
>>
>> A) Fun! Great channel, great colleagues and the most amazing viewers
>> ever.
>>
> That is, it will be a great channel once we've gotten rid of all those
> sci-fi geeks, I have to kiss Bonnie Hammer's ass and we're looking for
> the most amazingly gullible viewers ever.
BINGO!
shawn
I don't understand why they don't just say what it is. It's all about
money. With the new name they can commercialize the name just like
they are probably planning on doing with that dvices (I think that was
the name) website they are setting up to discuss new technology. It's
just a way to stay close to names people already know but still be
unique and trademark'able.
shawn
They will never address. Just like they won't admit that the
programming mix is going to change. It already started to change back
a few years ago when they stated that there was too much real science
fiction/spacey type of stuff on the SciFi channel.
shawn
Yes, because if they really really try they can make the programming
mix even worse. That's the way the will measure success.
>
>
>>> Q) Why do you insist on trying to pretend your demographic isn't what
>>> it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?
>>>
>>> A) Demos vary greatly by show, so there is not a single demo that
>>> watches us. Many different kinds of people enjoy sci-fi, fantasy,
>>> etc.
>>>
>> And we don't like any of them and wish they'd just go away so we can
>> make some real money!
>
>...being generalists, i.e. The Misc. Channel.
Well, given the success of the USA channel it's no surprise they would
want to try and emulate that success. Of course if all of the
specialist channels turn into a copy of USA or TNT then none of them
will end up drawing that many viewers what with so many channels
showing the same type of programming.
>>> Q) It's not so much the name change as it is the "getting away from
>>> the geeks" rationale.... I think it's the "oh we've got to get new
>>> people" tone - it sort of comes across as leaving us, no matter how
>>> much u say it isn't
>>>
>>> A) That's not at all our rationale. A TV historian named Tim Brooks
>>> said that and it's unfortunately been misattributed to us.
>>>
>> We just don't want to admit that he's spot on with that analysis.
>
>...because we don't want to lose any of the existing fans right now.
We want to wait until our new programming mix drives them away.
Obveeus
"Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:79317d30-1f78-4c1d...@o18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>On Jul 6, 4:00 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f016987f-b4c2-46df...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>>
>> > Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
>> > by James Hibberd
>>
>> Is James Hibbard really as much of a retarded jerkoff as this interview
>> made
>> the questioner look?
>
>I think those were questions sent in by random webheads - Hibberd
>wasn't asking them, he was just relating them and Engler's answers to
>them.
Hibbard should do a better job of screening out the useless crap
questions...or simply don't bother doing an 'article' like this in the first
place. It isn't rocket science. Sci-Fi or SyFy as a name makes no
difference to what can be programmed. Neither one requires the channel to
air science fiction reruns from the 50s and 60s. The new name is something
the channel can control more (proprietary). Maybe that exclusivity control
over the name can lead to more marketing opportunity/profit? The old
channel aired stuff that wasn't science fiction already (like wrestling).
Either way, the channel has to be profitable, which means finding a way to
attract enough viewers to pay the bills. All these questions look to have
been sent in by morons (old ones at that) that are living in denial down in
their mom's basement. Sure, it would be nice if SyFy was more 'hard'
science fiction oriented, but lets not kid outselves. Shlock like My
Favorite Martian or even Twilight Zone isn't exactly 'hard' science fiction,
either. Its almost always been pablum for the masses. When the channel
does step out and do something better with science fiction (like the new
BSG), half the fanbase for the network snivels anyway. Hibbard should turn
those inane questions around on the web audience and ask them how they
really expect the channel to survive. No doubt the couple dozen headcases
asking those questions would all have vastly different claims about what
would work and every last one of them would be more wrong than what the SyFy
execs will do.
>Ian (Personally, I thought the "Why do you insist on trying to
>pretend your demographic isn't what
>it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?" question was
>spot on...)
In what way was it spot on? If the claim is simply that only a few useless
old geeks will ever watch the channel no matter what it is named or what
kind of programming it airs, then the real question is: why not shut down
now and save themselves the trouble?
Zombie Elvis
<macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Q) Why do you insist on trying to pretend your demographic isn't what
>> it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?
>>
>> A) Demos vary greatly by show, so there is not a single demo that
>> watches us. Many different kinds of people enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, etc.
>
>Yes, the demo that watches sci-fi and fantasy is different from the demo
>that watches wrestling and Scare Tactics. Different audiences. Oil &
>Water.
>
I wouldn't say that; at one point I watched both skiffy and wrastlin'
(until I got bored with the latter). I never did watch Scare Tactics.
What I'd really like to see is a reality show about NASA astronauts or
about engineers competing for the Ansari X-Prize.
--
"I recall a time not long ago when a bullet in the chest meant a
sucking chest wound, not a quick bandage job and a climactic
final confrontation with a criminal mastermind atop an unfinished
skyscraper."
- Seen on The Onion
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://mind-grapes.blogspot.com/
http://zombie-gulch.myminicity.com/
Dimensional Traveler
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/07/sci-fi-fans-syfy-twitter.html
>>> Sci Fi exec mollifies Syfy angst on Twitter
>>> by James Hibberd
>> What angst? Who the fuck cares what it's called?
>>
>> I find the channel annoying as all hell and watch it only when
>> there's a specific new show that I like. I won't watch their made for
>> tv movies.
>>
>> Actually, if the episode is available On Demand, I'll watch it there
>> as it's usually less horridigenized with promos. Unfortunately, a few
>> channels like FX are now obliterating closing credits even in episodes
>> prepared for on demand.
>>
>> I'd be willing to watch old shows if they weren't cut, if the
>> commercials were in the original commercial breaks, didn't do animated
>> promos of other shows I don't want to watch over the picture, and if I
>> can hear the closing theme.
>
> ...and be able to read the closing credits, instead of trying to read
> stuff that's been shrunk to the point of illegibility, or obliterated.
>
speed...
Obveeus
Exactly...and yet none of the questions acknowledged that, which is why I
called out Hibbard on the nature of the questions.
Mac Breck
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:54:04 -0400, "Mac Breck"
> <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Q) Why do you insist on trying to pretend your demographic isn't
>>> what it is and pandering to people who will never watch you?
>>>
>>> A) Demos vary greatly by show, so there is not a single demo that
>>> watches us. Many different kinds of people enjoy sci-fi, fantasy,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Yes, the demo that watches sci-fi and fantasy is different from the
>> demo that watches wrestling and Scare Tactics. Different audiences.
>> Oil & Water.
>>
> I wouldn't say that; at one point I watched both skiffy and wrastlin'
> (until I got bored with the latter).
I'd watch sci-fi (e.g. Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis,
Farscape, The Invisible Man, etc.) or fantasy (e.g. Brimstone or The
Dresden Files) but wouldn't be caught dead watching wrestling or Scare
Tactics or Ghost Hunters or Dream Team with Annabelle & Michael or
Crossing Over with John Edward.
> I never did watch Scare Tactics.
> What I'd really like to see is a reality show about NASA astronauts or
> about engineers competing for the Ansari X-Prize.
What I'd really like to see is MST3K back, only using Sci-Fi Originals
as fodder. I'd like to see 'em air *all* of the original Twilight Zone
episodes in order, before repeating any of them, ditto for 80's Twilight
Zone, ditto for original Outer limits, ditto for new Outer Limits. I'd
like to see the little interview shows back, with interviews of
sci-fi/fantasy authors and screenwriters. I'd like to see "The Dresden
Files" redone, as faithful to the books as possible. I'd like to see
Babylon 5 and Crusade reruns back. I'd like to see Brimstone reruns
back. I'd like to see 'em air good ol' 50's/60's/70's sci-fi movies
like The Blob, The Thing, War of the Worlds, Forbidden Planet, The
Incredible Shrinking Man, Tarantula, Monolith Monsters, Invasion of the
Body Snatchers, etc. along with good newer stuff like Eight Legged
Freaks and John Carpenter's The Thing, on weekends. I'd like to see all
Reality TV and Wrestling gone from the channel.
Adam H. Kerman
>What I'd really like to see is MST3K back, only using Sci-Fi Originals
>as fodder.
Hah! I'd watch that.
Invid Fan
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Maybe the MST3K guys will do Rifftrax of some of them :)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Turk
>
> - Show quoted text -
That channel was cancelled a long time ago. Not enough people watched
it or, more people watch this odd hodgepodge of a channel. I so
rarely watch this channel that I think it is time to dump it from
favorite channel status as I channel hop. Then it will no longer
exist in my universe.
Turk
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > Q) It's not so much the name change as it is the "getting away from
> > the geeks" rationale.... I think it's the "oh we've got to get new
> > people" tone - it sort of comes across as leaving us, no matter how
> > much u say it isn't
> >
> > A) That's not at all our rationale. A TV historian named Tim Brooks
> > said that and it's unfortunately been misattributed to us.
> >
> We just don't want to admit that he's spot on with that analysis.
Tim Brooks works for them. It's not misattributed at all.
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Anim8rFSK
> > A) Syfy is a made-up name, not a word, so it's spelled correctly as
> > is. Like Wii. Or Twitter ;)
> >
> aka "Yes".
but but but
Twitter isn't a made up name.
Ian J. Ball
> "Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:79317d30-1f78-4c1d...@o18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Your entire rant assumes the channel isn't profitable right now (or
wasn't 5 or 10 years ago). As I've heard nothing to indicate the
contrary, I'll assume they've been profitable all along, and the
current nonsense is just some of their idiot marketing people talking
them in to being greedy.
No matter - it won't work: the Top 10 cable networks have been pretty
much the exact same 10 networks for something like a decade. Psy-Phi's
abandoning its audience is going to do nothing to change that fact -
it'll just add YA mediocre cable channel to a spectrum that's already
full of mediocre and ignorable 'also ran' cable networks.
It'll simply become another cable channel we can all ignore, a la
Bravo, A&E, Versus, etc.
Taylor
There's still a chance to get in on the ground floor on EppickFale.
Obveeus
"Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Your entire rant assumes the channel isn't profitable right now (or
>wasn't 5 or 10 years ago). As I've heard nothing to indicate the
>contrary, I'll assume they've been profitable all along, and the
>current nonsense is just some of their idiot marketing people talking
>them in to being greedy.
If they were making piles of money rerunning old Twilight Zone episodes over
and over year after year, they wouldn't be adding crap like wrestling and
ghost hunting to the network.
>No matter - it won't work: the Top 10 cable networks have been pretty
>much the exact same 10 networks for something like a decade. Psy-Phi's
>abandoning its audience is going to do nothing to change that fact -
>it'll just add YA mediocre cable channel to a spectrum that's already
>full of mediocre and ignorable 'also ran' cable networks.
Nothing about changing the name from 'Sci-Fi' to 'SyFy' has abandoned the
audience...or are you saying that the channel's fans are too stupid to find
the shows now that the channel has a new name?
>It'll simply become another cable channel we can all ignore, a la
>Bravo, A&E, Versus, etc.
Sci-Fi was already a channel that went almost completely ignored by the
entire TV viewing population.
shawn
>
>"Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>Your entire rant assumes the channel isn't profitable right now (or
>>wasn't 5 or 10 years ago). As I've heard nothing to indicate the
>>contrary, I'll assume they've been profitable all along, and the
>>current nonsense is just some of their idiot marketing people talking
>>them in to being greedy.
>
>If they were making piles of money rerunning old Twilight Zone episodes over
>and over year after year, they wouldn't be adding crap like wrestling and
>ghost hunting to the network.
Actually they would. Now, I don't believe they were making tons of
money but the fact is no matter how much they are making the
stockholders will demand the people in charge spend there time finding
ways to make more money. Changing the programming mix is the only way
they can really do that.
>>No matter - it won't work: the Top 10 cable networks have been pretty
>>much the exact same 10 networks for something like a decade. Psy-Phi's
>>abandoning its audience is going to do nothing to change that fact -
>>it'll just add YA mediocre cable channel to a spectrum that's already
>>full of mediocre and ignorable 'also ran' cable networks.
>
>Nothing about changing the name from 'Sci-Fi' to 'SyFy' has abandoned the
>audience...or are you saying that the channel's fans are too stupid to find
>the shows now that the channel has a new name?
It has ticked off some of the viewers though I doubt any will tune out
because of the name change.
>
>>It'll simply become another cable channel we can all ignore, a la
>>Bravo, A&E, Versus, etc.
>
>Sci-Fi was already a channel that went almost completely ignored by the
>entire TV viewing population.
So maybe they can complete the process with the name change? ;)
Mac Breck
No, but they will tune out as the programming mix gets progressively
worse (less sci-fi/fantasy).
Jack Bohn
>Well, given the success of the USA channel it's no surprise they would
>want to try and emulate that success. Of course if all of the
>specialist channels turn into a copy of USA or TNT then none of them
>will end up drawing that many viewers what with so many channels
>showing the same type of programming.
Now on to the next question: Why? Why go from a specialist
channel to a generalist channel?
Inspired by news in the paper that The Saturday Evening Post is
still publishing, I'm going to compare cable channels to
magazines: For every "general" magazine like the SEP or even Time
or Newsweek, you could probably point to two specialist magazines
competing in the same niche.
Now, why the difference? All because of the cable system setup?
(Note that to get a niche magazine, you don't have to buy a
package of 57 other magazines that you may or may not flip thru.)
And the next question after that: if a la carte would be a fix,
is it a fix too late?
Is the internet the death of TV? I don't think so. It just
doesn't seem to me like the proper pipeline for sending out lots
of copies of large files to multiple requests. (Speaking
theoretically, I'm prepared if shown that a popular download from
Hulu surpasses the ratings of a small niche cable channel.)
While downloads and DVD (rental or purchase) can satisfy a few
who can't wait for reruns to come around again, I think most of
the audience will still be from broadcasters casting it about
broadly.
The difference will be how the broadcast is received, and when it
is watched:
Will specialty channels be needed as DVRs and searchable online
guides allow one to compile a "Sci-Fi Channel" with a choice not
only of Eureka and Warehouse 13, but local reruns of Star Trek,
classic movies from TCM, newish movies from FX, USA, or TNT,
anime and Star Wars from the Cartoon Network, and first-run
episodes of FOX network's sacrificial lamb du jour?
Having it all in one place was never a practical possibility for
specialty channels, maybe having one channel show it all the time
is not necessary, either.
--
-Jack
LookingGlass
related material available that has never been touched...starting all
the way back at the beginning of the century with the films of
Méliès...the serials from the 30's and 40's...not to mention the
lesser known films from Hollywood and other countries. Endless. They
could have done a *Creature Features*-like series at midnight on the
weekends for those who party at home with friends. Obscure stuff.
Wrestling on the Sci-Fi Channel...?!? Thank your lucky stars for DVDs
and Netflix.
They can call it whatever they want...I won't be viewing.
Default User
> Now on to the next question: Why? Why go from a specialist
> channel to a generalist channel?
> Inspired by news in the paper that The Saturday Evening Post is
> still publishing, I'm going to compare cable channels to
> magazines: For every "general" magazine like the SEP or even Time
> or Newsweek, you could probably point to two specialist magazines
> competing in the same niche.
>
> Now, why the difference? All because of the cable system setup?
> (Note that to get a niche magazine, you don't have to buy a
> package of 57 other magazines that you may or may not flip thru.)
>
>
> And the next question after that: if a la carte would be a fix,
> is it a fix too late?
Not only do I not believe that a-la-carte would be a fix, I believe it
would exacerbate the problem. If channels are competing to be picked up
by individual consumers, they will attempt to broaden their base, not
narrow it.
The magazines you mention are supported mostly by targeted advertising.
That's never really taken off in the cable world.
Brian
--
Day 155 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Mac Breck
...or those who don't get the channel that carries the show, or those
who want to view and/or own the commercial DVDs with all the extras and
without all the animated large popups with sound, station ID bugs, and
scrunched credits with voiceover ads. wiping out the end music.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <4a529d19$0$1646$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> Q) It's not so much the name change as it is the "getting away from
>>> the geeks" rationale.... I think it's the "oh we've got to get new
>>> people" tone - it sort of comes across as leaving us, no matter how
>>> much u say it isn't
>>>
>>> A) That's not at all our rationale. A TV historian named Tim Brooks
>>> said that and it's unfortunately been misattributed to us.
>>>
>> We just don't want to admit that he's spot on with that analysis.
>
> Tim Brooks works for them. It's not misattributed at all.
>
Ubiquitous
>Q) [Not stated]
>
>A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we never
>would have made Battlestar Galactica.
Huh?
--
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.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Q) [Not stated]
>>>A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
>>>never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>>Huh?
>As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
>greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive. Had
>they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have gone ahead
>with the remake.
I thought they were listening to Glen Larsen. We can get more mileage
out of this turkey! Exploit it now while I'm still alive!
Anim8rFSK
Paul Arthur <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> > diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>Q) [Not stated]
> >>
> >>A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
> >>never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
> greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive. Had
> they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have gone ahead
> with the remake.
There's really no way to make that sound like a bad thing.
Ian J. Ball
> In article <slrnh58agb.j76.floweryson...@shasta.marwnad.com>,
> Paul Arthur <floweryson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>
> > >>Q) [Not stated]
>
> > >>A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
> > >>never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
> > greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive. Had
> > they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have gone ahead
> > with the remake.
>
> There's really no way to make that sound like a bad thing.
Yep - bottom line: the "geekdom" detractors were 100% right about that
crap sandwich.
Mac Breck
Looking back, now, yes. However, at the beginning, it didn't look bad.
FWIW, I never much liked the original, and would give it a 5 out of 10
score, tops.
Ubiquitous
>>>Q) [Not stated]
>>>
>>>A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
>>>never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
>greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive. Had
>they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have gone ahead
>with the remake.
I was reacting to the lack of a question for that answer...
Dimensional Traveler
> flower...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>> Q) [Not stated]
>>>>
>>>> A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
>>>> never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>>> Huh?
>> As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
>> greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive. Had
>> they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have gone ahead
>> with the remake.
>
> I was reacting to the lack of a question for that answer...
>
disguised as a Q&A session.
Obveeus
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a54f8b3$0$1627$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> flower...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> Q) [Not stated]
>>>>>
>>>>> A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
>>>>> never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>>>> Huh?
>>> As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
>>> greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive. Had
>>> they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have gone ahead
>>> with the remake.
>>
>> I was reacting to the lack of a question for that answer...
>>
> Because it wasn't a real Q&A session. It was a PR release thinly
> disguised as a Q&A session.
PR release? (what does the 'R' stand for, anyway? ;-)
I didn't see the article as 'PR' at all. It seemed more like Syfy bashing
fan wank material to me.
SFTV_troy
> On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>Q) [Not stated]
>
> >>A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
> >>never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>
> > Huh?
>
> greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive.
You're wrong about that. The fans supported the IDEA of remaking BSG
and rallied support for it. They even enjoyed the limited pilot
created by the former lead actor of the 1978 show. What they did NOT
like was the perverted, twisted, messed-up version Sci-Fi Channel
created..... but of course by that point it was too late. It was
already filmed and in production.
If SFC had stuck with the original 70s concept, they would have had
the full support of the fans. Just as they had the full support for
the Dune remake. But instead SFC deliberately "broke" the original
show and turned it into something else.
BTW:
I still haven't seen the final season. I enjoyed the first two
seasons, but the thrid season "petered out" in my opinion and became
lost. I'm hoping the fourth season redeems my negative outlook.
SFTV_troy
wouldn't have felt right as Sci Fi.
A) Syfy is about catching up to where our programming mix is, not
about changing it.
I think this is the most honest answer I've ever seen come from a
Cable channel executive. The Sci-Fi Channel is *not* sci-fi anymore.
Now it's some weird amalgam of new age mumbo-jumbo (Ghosthunters) with
some fantasy thrown in, a bit of reality programming, a splash of
science fiction, and wrestling (???).
Their programming is a mess of stuff, therefore they changed their
name to a mess of letters - s y f y - Looked from that perspective I
agree the name needed to be changed. "SyFy" is more honest than
"SciFi".
Now the next step is for us geeks to go out and create a REAL science
fiction channel. It can play those classics from the 40s/50s as well
as modern stuff like Outer Limits or Babylon 5 or Masters of SF.
Michael Black
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> flower...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> Q) [Not stated]
>>>>>
>>>>> A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
>>>>> never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>>>> Huh?
>>> As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
>>> greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive. Had
>>> they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have gone ahead
>>> with the remake.
>>
>> I was reacting to the lack of a question for that answer...
>>
> Because it wasn't a real Q&A session. It was a PR release thinly disguised
> as a Q&A session.
>
I thought it was twittering turned into a Q&A form by adding questions
after the fact. The original post said something about twitter at the
beginning.
Michael
Dimensional Traveler
toto.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> flower...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> Q) [Not stated]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
>>>>>> never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>>>>> Huh?
>>>> As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
>>>> greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive.
>>>> Had they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have
>>>> gone ahead with the remake.
>>>
>>> I was reacting to the lack of a question for that answer...
>>>
>> Because it wasn't a real Q&A session. It was a PR release thinly
>> disguised as a Q&A session.
>
>PR release? (what does the 'R' stand for, anyway? ;-)
Rico.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <h32u1d$81f$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Obv...@aol.com
> wrote:
>> "Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> flower...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-07-08, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> diml...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Q) [Not stated]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) Had we only listened to Web-based feedback, for instance, we
>>>>>>> never would have made Battlestar Galactica.
>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>> As with every proposed remake ever, the idea of remaking BSG was
>>>>> greeted with a great negative murmuring from the geek massive.
>>>>> Had they listened to this feedback alone, they would not have
>>>>> gone ahead with the remake.
>>>> I was reacting to the lack of a question for that answer...
>>>>
>>> Because it wasn't a real Q&A session. It was a PR release thinly
>>> disguised as a Q&A session.
>> PR release? (what does the 'R' stand for, anyway? ;-)
>
> Rico.
>
Obveeus
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article <h32u1d$81f$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Obv...@aol.com
>> wrote:
>>> "Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Because it wasn't a real Q&A session. It was a PR release thinly
>>>> disguised as a Q&A session.
>>> PR release? (what does the 'R' stand for, anyway? ;-)
>>
> Relations.
Thank you.
Ubiquitous
>IIRC it was posted by the Syphilitic Channel
Ah, so THAT'S where they got the new name!
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
D. Stussy
news:6fKdnUZK1p8mvMrX...@giganews.com...
> In article <4a5528dc$0$1596$742e...@news.sonic.net>, dtr...@sonic.net
wrote:
> >IIRC it was posted by the Syphilitic Channel
>
> Ah, so THAT'S where they got the new name!
I note that "alt.tv.channels.syfy" has recently appeared.
Anim8rFSK
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
cue sound of tumbleweeds blowing past
Mac Breck
> In article <h3lfkn$q7r$1...@snarked.org>,
> "D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>> "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
>> news:6fKdnUZK1p8mvMrX...@giganews.com...
>>> In article <4a5528dc$0$1596$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> dtr...@sonic.net
>> wrote:
>>>> IIRC it was posted by the Syphilitic Channel
>>>
>>> Ah, so THAT'S where they got the new name!
>>
>> I note that "alt.tv.channels.syfy" has recently appeared.
>
> cue sound of tumbleweeds blowing past
alt.tv.scifi.channel is still getting posts.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>IIRC it was posted by the Syphilitic Channel
>>>>Ah, so THAT'S where they got the new name!
>>>I note that "alt.tv.channels.syfy" has recently appeared.
>>cue sound of tumbleweeds blowing past
>alt.tv.scifi.channel is still getting posts.
The newgroup message for alt.tv.channels.syfy was a troll meant to
interrupt discussion in the existing group. But as it includes
instructions to News administrators for issuing a changegroup command,
something no sane administrator would do, it sure sounds like a D.Stussy
stunt.