SCI FI Channel Considering Changing Its Name To Beyond [Text View]

FilmCritic3000

12-20-2008, 05:54 AM

I also would prefer the name change, as it would hopefully prevent more inane complaints about the name of the channel. :rolleyes:

The channel is what it is. I've seen the channel improve over time. I do sympathize, though; it must suck to be a fan of your specific personal preferences.

SCI FI has gotten worse over time. Did you happen to see the channel in the mid '90s, when it was known as The Sci-Fi Channel? They were airing some really classic sci-fi films and series and also had a sci-fi themed entertainment news magazine. Now it's sci-fi in name only.

Hmm...labels don't matter? Alright then. I can't wait to watch Taxi Driver on Food Network.

If you're a niche channel, be one. If not, change the name of the channel so you can keep programming crap. That's the problem with all of these niche channels - they always wind up feeling like they need to "broaden the channel's horizons" and then wind up denigrating and alienating those that started watching the channel in the first place. It's always because of the same thing - new management or ownership.

I REALLY wish we had a science fiction channel equivalent to Canada's SPACE.

http://www.channelcanada.com/tvzone/imgtopics/newspacelogo.gif

http://www.spacecast.com

Maybe if NBC Universal wises up and does change SCI FI's name and identity to Beyond, another company will pick up the slack. One can dream, anyway.

bicker

12-20-2008, 07:37 AM

SCI FI has gotten worse over time.You indicated that you felt that was the case in your first message. I indicated the opposite. Was that confusing to you in some way? :confused:

Did you happen to see the channel in the mid '90s, when it was known as The Sci-Fi Channel?Yes.

They were airing some really classic sci-fi films and series and also had a sci-fi themed entertainment news magazine.http://msn.mess.be/data/thumbnails/21/Vomit.png

AFAIC, "classic" often means that it sucks, i.e., that, in this day and age, it is not good enough to be watched on its own merits, so its value is only the fact that it is old. That feeds some people's need for nostalgia. Nostalgia gives people the ability to revisit one's youth for a moment and helps one feel that they have achieved timelessness.

Now it's sci-fi in name only.All the better reason to change its name to Beyond, which better indicates what it presents, and perhaps what it always should have been presenting, as the interest in purist-defined, hardcore "science fiction" is pretty minimal.

If you're a niche channel, be one.Easy to say when it isn't your money invested. In reality, the expectation that any niche interest deserves a cable channel is pretty tenuous, at best, and the more many viewers (and regulators) push for various forms of a la carte, that goes from "tenuous" to absolutely unreasonable. Niche interest translates into very little money, and so, very naturally, in a capitalist society, that should be understood to imply very little quality.

If not, change the name of the channel so you can keep programming crap.They are considering changing the name of the channel. Did you not read the OP? Remarkable, if you didn't, since you, yourself, posted it. Regardless, what they're presenting isn't crap. You simply don't like it, for your own reasons. Sci-Fi is now the 7th most popular cable channels. That's a very prodigious accomplishment, showing a definitive success in presenting programming that viewers actually do enjoy. In other words, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, and doing it well. That is indeed the case, even though you personally don't like what they're doing.

That's the problem with all of these niche channels - they always wind up feeling like they need to "broaden the channel's horizons" and then wind up denigrating and alienating those that started watching the channel in the first place.The fault really rests with those who hold to the purist hardcore definition of the genre: If there were enough of them, willing to pay $25-$35 per month for the channel, it is possible that that offering would be made and would survive. However, the nature of niche interest is that it affords substantially less motivation to suppliers to make such an offering. What you're frustrated with, therefore, is not with how the channels conduct themselves, but rather with the fact that you find yourself in a very small minority of interest, with a proportionally small amount of power. I can sympathize with the frustration that stems from feeling so impotent with regard to something you care about.

It's always because of the same thing - new management or ownership.Yes, damn that "ownership" thing. Why do people need to own things? ;)

You don't really believe that way, do you? :confused:

I REALLY wish we had a science fiction channel equivalent to Canada's SPACE.You could move to Canada, eh? :up:

Maybe if NBC Universal wises up and does change SCI FI's name and identity to Beyond, another company will pick up the slack. One can dream, anyway.The question, though (and really the whole point of my reply) is whether or not that dreaming is a good thing. Which feels better to you?
(1) Reasonable expectations, typically satisifed. OR
(2) Unreasonable expectations, typically disappointed.
You have a choice. And choosing "reasonable" over "unreasonable" doesn't mean not reaching for or desiring something you want. It just means keeping things in perspective, acknowledging that just because you don't get what you want doesn't mean someone else screwed up.

tewcewl

12-20-2008, 08:10 AM

dswallow

12-20-2008, 08:32 AM

SciFi made me not care about them when they started airing wrestling.

MickeS

12-20-2008, 08:46 AM

All channels should just have numbers anyway. They all end up showing the same crap in the end.

philw1776

12-20-2008, 08:51 AM

Rob Helmerichs

12-20-2008, 08:53 AM

SciFi made me not care about them when they started airing wrestling.
Yeah, at least the reality crap (pseudo-reality, anyway) they show has a vaguely sci-fi-ish slant to it (supernatural, anyway). The wrestling just baffles me.

rondotcom

12-20-2008, 08:56 AM

SciFi made me not care about them when they started airing wrestling.

On the other hand what could be more creepy and fictional than THAT?!

FilmCritic3000

12-20-2008, 09:00 AM

It just means keeping things in perspective, acknowledging that just because you don't get what you want doesn't mean someone else screwed up.

As I stated earlier, I'm all for the name change, as it's been a long time coming. They need to go ahead, drop that other shoe, and rename the channel Beyond. They're already programming it in a manner antithetical to the genre they purport the channel to be so why not make the change complete?

FilmCritic3000

12-20-2008, 09:08 AM

In other words, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, and doing it well. That is indeed the case, even though you personally don't like what they're doing.

http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showforum=69

I find it rather interesting that there are many posts on SCI FI's own forum about the decline in quality of their programming over the years. Oh, but viewer input doesn't matter, does it? As long as SCI FI airs 8,000 hours of the Ghost Plumbers investigating a creaking door, the 1 millionth showing of [insert Grade Z-filmed-in-Romania-giant-snake-movie-of-the-week], or frigging ECW wrestling, it's all gravy.

And don't give me that nonsense about how niche programming doesn't work - how long has Turner Classic Movies been on the air? Oh, but no one wants to watch those old movies, right?

Rob Helmerichs

12-20-2008, 09:42 AM

I think it's hard to argue that, whether or not the change in Sci-Fi's programming in recent years represents a decline or an improvement in quality, it certainly represents a decline in science fiction.

(As for TCM, there are probably a LOT more classic movie fans out there than science fiction fans. Niche programming works, certainly, but the niche has to be large enough to sustain profitable levels of advertising. Science fiction seems to struggle to do that.)

bicker

12-20-2008, 09:44 AM

I find it rather interesting that there are many posts on SCI FI's own forum about the decline in quality of their programming over the years.Why? Did you really think you were the only person who held the personal preferences you hold?

What the forum doesn't show is the millions of people who tune into Sci Fi regularly. They don't post. They just watch. And watching is what fills Sci Fi's coffers, and that's what matters most to a for-profit company in a capitalist society.

Oh, but viewer input doesn't matter, does it?Viewers is what matters, not viewer input. And millions beats dozens. You seems to be trying to imply that online forums represent the reality of what the audience thinks. They don't. People often post online only to complain. And regardless of that, certain types of people, niches, as it were, generally are the ones that post in online forums with regard to specific subjects. Besides often being very small minorities (the definition of niche), these folks are often the sort of people who are less driven to make purchases based on commercial advertising. Those of us here in this forum consider that distinction as a point of pride. However, it basically marginalizes us (makes us worthless) when it comes to determining what the network should be doing. Sucks, sure. However, it is reality. Accept it or prepare to be continually disappointed, forever.

And don't give me that nonsense about how niche programming doesn't work - how long has Turner Classic Movies been on the air? Oh, but no one wants to watch those old movies, right?I don't have to give you anything, except reality. You can choose to ignore it, but that won't make you understand reality any better.

FilmCritic3000

12-20-2008, 09:45 AM

I think it's hard to argue that, whether or not the change in Sci-Fi's programming in recent years represents a decline or an improvement in quality, it certainly represents a decline in science fiction.

A decline in the genre's foothold in the mainstream public's consciousness, perhaps, but not in the genre as a whole. It's still as strong as ever. Take a look at summer movies or the legion of people that swarm through San Diego every year at Comic Con. And as I've heard others state time and again, there are hundreds of hours of science fiction programming out there for the airing. However, NBC Universal does not see any money in doing so, therefore the proposed name change to Beyond makes sense. The sooner they do that, the better.

bicker

12-20-2008, 09:46 AM

I think it's hard to argue that, whether or not the change in Sci-Fi's programming in recent years represents a decline or an improvement in quality,Indeed, though you can look at viewer ratings, normalized by total viewership for all cable television, to get some idea about how well the network is doing vis a vis its actual obligations. Hint: They're doing really well.

it certainly represents a decline in science fiction.Which their survey question almost explicitly acknowledges.

(As for TCM, there are probably a LOT more classic movie fans out there than science fiction fans. Niche programming works, certainly, but the niche has to be large enough to sustain profitable levels of advertising. Science fiction seems to struggle to do that.)Especially the dogmatically restrictive mission for the channel that some wish to prevail.

FilmCritic3000

12-20-2008, 11:04 AM

I don't have to give you anything, except reality. You can choose to ignore it, but that won't make you understand reality any better.

I understand reality just fine. Turner Classic Movies has proven, for almost fifteen years, that a smartly programmed non-premium cable channel dedicated solely to one genre can be a moneymaker for a company.

There's a happy medium to be had - a channel that caters to classic sci-fi while still moving forward progressively with newer movies and original series. And maybe one day, we'll see it. Until then, as I stated earlier, the sooner SCI FI rebrands as Beyond the better. Truth in advertising is the best avenue of pursuit and until the name change, they're advertising that the emperor has no clothes, as they've done for years now.

zuko3984

12-20-2008, 11:19 AM

mrdbdigital

12-20-2008, 11:59 AM

http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showforum=69

I find it rather interesting that there are many posts on SCI FI's own forum about the decline in quality of their programming over the years. Oh, but viewer input doesn't matter, does it? As long as SCI FI airs 8,000 hours of the Ghost Plumbers investigating a creaking door, the 1 millionth showing of [insert Grade Z-filmed-in-Romania-giant-snake-movie-of-the-week], or frigging ECW wrestling, it's all gravy.

And don't give me that nonsense about how niche programming doesn't work - how long has Turner Classic Movies been on the air? Oh, but no one wants to watch those old movies, right?

Well said! :up:

mrdbdigital

12-20-2008, 12:00 PM

SciFi made me not care about them when they started airing wrestling.

:up:

bicker

12-20-2008, 12:04 PM

I understand reality just fine. Turner Classic Movies has proven, for almost fifteen years, that a smartly programmed non-premium cable channel dedicated solely to one genre can be a moneymaker for a company. You've already been told the reality of the difference. Ask yourself: How many of the movie theaters in your city show classic films most of the time? Now ask: How many of the movie theaters in your city show science fiction, as you have chosen to restrict it, most of the time?

Classic film = significant minority
Science fiction films (as you have chosen to restrict it) = not-so-significant minority

There's a happy medium to be had - a channel that caters to classic sci-fi while still moving forward progressively with newer movies and original series.Post your business case, complete with professional market research, showing that that will be more profitable than what Sci Fi has been doing.

Truth in advertising is the best avenue of pursuitSo it is a good thing that Sci Fi shows what it shows, given that their advertising that the present science fiction, fantasy, horror, and paranormal programs.

LoadStar

12-20-2008, 12:50 PM

You've already been told the reality of the difference. Ask yourself: How many of the movie theaters in your city show classic films most of the time? Now ask: How many of the movie theaters in your city show science fiction, as you have chosen to restrict it, most of the time?

Classic film = significant minority
Science fiction films (as you have chosen to restrict it) = not-so-significant minority

Theater != TV

What works in theaters doesn't necessarily work on TV, and vice versa. Going to the theater requires a significant investment in time - get in the car, go to the theater, buy the ticket, and you are there for 2 hours or more. It's something that requires intentional planning and action by the participant. TV is completely different - you turn it on and if you see something you like, you watch it. And in that environment, a well-programmed truly intelligent science fiction network could do as well as any other network on TV.

I can't produce specific studies, but I know I've read that science fiction viewers tend to:
- land on the upper end of the IQ range
- be more educated (many have a postgraduate degree of some level)
- be more financially successful (many have three-digit incomes or higher)
All of which would theoretically be in great demand, particularly in tighter economic situations such as we are in now.

What I'd like to see is one of two things:
- a US version of Canada's "Space" network. It is almost perfectly programmed, from what I can see.
- a hybrid science fiction/science fact network. Ditch the kitchy way way way less than B-grade TV movies, wrestling, and reality shows SciFi Network is showing now, and pick up fact-based shows on science topics like space travel.

wtherrell

12-20-2008, 03:44 PM

Fiction part is the wrestling itself.
Science part is how that they get so many people to watch--and a lot of them think it is real.

bicker

12-20-2008, 05:54 PM

Theater != TVNothing is equal to anything else except itself. So by your logic, there is no such thing as analogy. Let's rip the word right out of the dictionary. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What works in theaters doesn't necessarily work on TV, and vice versa.Or perhaps it does. It doesn't matter. If you want to think that there are billions and billions of hardcore science fiction geeks just dying to watch old (and new) hardcore science fiction on television, that is your prerogative, and your right to be wrong, and have that drive you towards ever-increasing disappointment and dissatisfaction with what practically everything the mass-market ever offers you. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

I can't produce specific studies, but I know I've read that science fiction viewers tend to:
- land on the upper end of the IQ rangeDo you think IQ correlates positively or negatively with making purchasing decisions based on television commercials? I predict that either you'll answer in a manner that supports my contention, or you'll be deluding yourself. One or the other. :D

What I'd like to see is one of two things:
- a US version of Canada's "Space" network. Lots of people want socialized medicine and other aspects of Canada, until they learn that those things come with a whole bunch of downsides. If you want Canada, go live there for a while. Maybe it is for you. Maybe it isn't.

dcheesi

12-20-2008, 06:17 PM

Indeed, though you can look at viewer ratings, normalized by total viewership for all cable television, to get some idea about how well the network is doing vis a vis its actual obligations. Hint: They're doing really well.

Which their survey question almost explicitly acknowledges.

Especially the dogmatically restrictive mission for the channel that some wish to prevail.Lemme guess, you're a sports fan, right? If ESPN started running reality shows or dramas instead the games you want to see, while still calling itself a sports network, wouldn't you be just a little bit annoyed?

And note that at no point did I imply that sports is the only thing you're interested in watching. You seem to think that those of us who complain about SciFi want all TV programmng to be science fiction -related, and that's just not true. We would just prefer to have one channel that consistently devoted some airtime to the genre, which is actually less likely to happen while SciFi continues to pretend that it fills that niche.

dmdeane

12-20-2008, 06:49 PM

A channel dedicated to alienating its core audience: not a recipe for success. :down:

trainman

12-20-2008, 07:27 PM

Do Canadians complain when Space shows programs that don't take place in space? :D

LoadStar

12-20-2008, 07:42 PM

Nothing is equal to anything else except itself. So by your logic, there is no such thing as analogy. Let's rip the word right out of the dictionary. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Or perhaps it does. It doesn't matter.

You're right. In fact, English doesn't matter. Words don't matter. Let's just take this to it's inevitable conclusion.

Ludumu gekitan satod senecel pipami! Res werot onitesor, nol re car ga ponap yenoj. Eror rol eri ni hegiguw oribe pipo ise; edugibu warahi di, tidedip caye ne ce avereb cated dodetie etagidob deret. Sipemo sirosi ero nufilo tietie ocutie du. Ta rapilil sesesar wiru la surud lo yef basom tie.

FilmCritic3000

12-20-2008, 09:01 PM

You're right. In fact, English doesn't matter. Words don't matter. Let's just take this to it's inevitable conclusion.

Ludumu gekitan satod senecel pipami! Res werot onitesor, nol re car ga ponap yenoj. Eror rol eri ni hegiguw oribe pipo ise; edugibu warahi di, tidedip caye ne ce avereb cated dodetie etagidob deret. Sipemo sirosi ero nufilo tietie ocutie du. Ta rapilil sesesar wiru la surud lo yef basom tie.

+1 :D

That's where we were heading anyway, LoadStar. Kudos.

bdlucas

12-20-2008, 09:32 PM

Ludumu gekitan satod senecel pipami! Res werot onitesor, nol re car ga ponap yenoj. Eror rol eri ni hegiguw oribe pipo ise; edugibu warahi di, tidedip caye ne ce avereb cated dodetie etagidob deret. Sipemo sirosi ero nufilo tietie ocutie du. Ta rapilil sesesar wiru la surud lo yef basom tie.

That's Dutch, right? Went to Babelfish, plugged the text in, asked it to translate Dutch to English, and it came back with the following. :(

Ludumu gekitan satod senecel pipami! Res werot onitesor, nol re car ga ponap yenoj. Eror rol eri ni hegiguw oribe pipo ise; edugibu warahi di, tidedip caye ne ce avereb cated dodetie etagidob deret. Sipemo sirosi ero nufilo tietie ocutie du. Ta rapilil sesesar wiru la surud lo yef basom tie.

Rob Helmerichs

12-20-2008, 10:09 PM

I guess Babelfish still needs some work...

appleye1

12-21-2008, 12:56 AM

I am probably in the minority but I'm just not seeing the decline in quality or amount of sci-fi programming. With the obvious exception of wrestling which i really don't understand what it is doing on the channel.

I really think the shows they have aired in recent years are vast improvements in what they used to air. I remember when they aired reruns of Automan and Manimal. Sure that type of programming may be fun once in a while for nostalgic reasons but I'd much rather watch Battlestar Galactica, Eureka, Sanctuary. I really enjoyed the Lost Room and am looking forward to Caprica.

And they still do air lots of the sci-fi series reruns. Just this week they are airing Dark Angel, a star trek TNG marathon all day Christams day, A highlander marathon on the 26th, a twilight zone marathon on new years, They have stargate, stargate atlantis and another stargate series in the works. They air the outer limits, tales from the darkside they show the new Doctor Who series and plenty of other classic and not so classic series. Now while all of what they air may not be in the strictest definition sci-fi , it is all in that general area and if anyone is looking for a channel to air strict definition sci-fi programming well i just don't think a channel like that would get enough viewers.I guess nobody read zuko's post since I'm the first to comment, but zuko is 100% right. Sci-Fi isn't near as bad as people are making it out to be, and I'd dare to say it's better than it was 5 years ago.

Yeah, the wrestiling is puzzling and I wish they hadn't started showing that, and some of their movies are really out there, but in general they're staying true to their mission. It's still a channel I enjoy watching...a lot.

I hear a lot of complaints about what they're showing but not many ideas about what they should be showing. What do you want? Babylon 5, Space 1999, old cheesy 50's sci-fi movies, what?

bicker

12-21-2008, 05:01 AM

Lemme guess, you're a sports fan, right?Buzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong! Sports is one of several types of programming that I practically never watch.

Why is it so hard for some people to believe that someone doesn't have a problem with reality, even when it is to his own personal disadvantage?

Here's a free hint: Don't try to analyze this poster -- you don't have the skills. Analyze the post, if you wish.

You seem to think that those of us who complain about SciFi want all TV programmng to be science fiction -relatedNo, I don't seem to think that or think it. Read what I'm actually writing; stop arguing against things I haven't written.

bicker

12-21-2008, 05:05 AM

I guess nobody read zuko's post since I'm the first to comment, but zuko is 100% right.Of course he's correct, but what he's saying probably doesn't give those who are frustrated that they're not getting their way a foundation for off-target ranting.

FilmCritic3000

12-21-2008, 07:52 AM

Of course he's correct, but what he's saying probably doesn't give those who are frustrated that they're not getting their way a foundation for off-target ranting.

Uh, off-target is exactly what channels like SCI FI have become, and none of us are ranting. All I and others are asking is for truth in what a channel's airing. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're SCI FI, don't water down your programming with wrestling, Braveheart (which SCI FI's aired), James Bond films, and any of the Law & Order franchise. If they seek a different path because they feel that genre's not a moneymaker, then change the name and all is well. I'll continue to get my science fiction fix elsewhere, as I've done for ten years now, and they can continue to market and air pablum.

dcheesi

12-21-2008, 08:18 AM

Buzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong! Sports is one of several types of programming that I practically never watch.

Why is it so hard for some people to believe that someone doesn't have a problem with reality, even when it is to his own personal disadvantage?

Here's a free hint: Don't try to analyze this poster -- you don't have the skills. Analyze the post, if you wish.

No, I don't seem to think that or think it. Read what I'm actually writing; stop arguing against things I haven't written.*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have fed the troll --especially one with such an obviously appropriate name :)

bicker

12-21-2008, 08:23 AM

Uh, off-target is exactly what channels like SCI FI have become, and none of us are ranting. All I and others are asking is for truth in what a channel's airing.Gosh, why don't you try to actually read their program schedule? :rolleyes:

This should help: http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3

If you're SCI FI, don't water down your programming with wrestling, Braveheart (which SCI FI's aired), James Bond films, and any of the Law & Order franchise.If you want to dictate what a channel presents, buy it. Then it is your money that you're screwing around with.

If they seek a different path because they feel that genre's not a moneymaker, then change the name and all is well.Which, for the fourth time, apparently they're prepared to do, if viewers want them to. Not if viewer (you) want them to, but if viewers (overall) want them to. I suppose the message here is that it isn't all about you.

bicker

12-21-2008, 08:25 AM

*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have fed the troll --especially one with such an obviously appropriate name :)It seems to me that the trolling here is the patently self-centered complaints about a for-profit company doing what's best for its owners. Don't use this lame excuse, now, to avoid the fact that you made inane, insulting and myopic comments about me, personally, instead of staying on-topic, solely because you didn't like what I posted.

Rob Helmerichs

12-21-2008, 08:31 AM

*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have fed the troll --especially one with such an obviously appropriate name :)
It had been rather peaceful around here for a while...

FilmCritic3000

12-21-2008, 01:11 PM

It had been rather peaceful around here for a while...

Indeed it had but I guess defending a company's bottom line is the end all be all around here all of a sudden and constructive criticism has no place in any forum.

bicker

12-21-2008, 01:39 PM

On the contrary, reality is the end all and be all. In order for criticism to be constructive it needs to be based on reality.

dylanemcgregor

12-21-2008, 01:41 PM

but I'd much rather watch Battlestar Galactica, Eureka, Sanctuary. I really enjoyed the Lost Room and am looking forward to Caprica.

I too think Sci-Fi has had better shows over the last few years than they ever did before. In addition to the shows that Zuko mentioned I also really enjoyed The Dresden Files.

But all in all it is hard for me to see what the fuss is about here. I would think in a forum of TiVo users the idea of a channel is fairly outdated. I don't watch channels, I watch shows I like regardless of where they are originally broadcast. I don't have TV anymore, so everything I watch is ala carte downloads, Netflix, or Hulu streams, so I'm just glad that there are good programs still being made (and in my mind the last few years has felt like the golden age of television, I'm constantly amazed at the number of really intelligent, entertaining, or at least really fun shows that are on the air).

Also, I see people mentioning TMC as being a good example of successful niche channels, but no one mentions how American Movie Classics changed to just AMC and now produces two of the best series (IMHO) on TV that have nothing to do with American Classic Movies?

bicker

12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

But all in all it is hard for me to see what the fuss is about here. I would think in a forum of TiVo users the idea of a channel is fairly outdated. I don't watch channels, I watch shows I like regardless of where they are originally broadcast.That's a good point. Indeed, even if we throw reality to the wind, many viewers are clamoring for a la carte, potentially the scourge of the niche channel. There are far more of "them" (those pushing to not pay for channels they have no interest in, i.e., not wanting to pay for a science fiction driven channel, of any sort) than there are of "us" (those wanting to push niche channels to be even more "niche-y").

Also, I see people mentioning TMC as being a good example of successful niche channels, but no one mentions how American Movie Classics changed to just AMC and now produces two of the best series (IMHO) on TV that have nothing to do with American Classic Movies?Indeed, and if the a la carte proponents have their way, we'll see even more conversions of formerly "niche-y" channels into lightly "niche-flavored" channels, and more "niche-flavored" channels into mainstream channels.

getbak

12-21-2008, 05:55 PM

I understand reality just fine. Turner Classic Movies has proven, for almost fifteen years, that a smartly programmed non-premium cable channel dedicated solely to one genre can be a moneymaker for a company.
How much original programming does TCM air? The network is probably operated by some computerized playback system (or a minimum wage earning master control operator, whichever is cheaper) based in a small room at the CNN Center in Atlanta. The network can be profitable because it has minimal operating costs. Once you start producing a lot of original programming, operating costs go up, so you have to broaden your appeal to increase revenue in order to pay those increased costs.

Lemme guess, you're a sports fan, right? If ESPN started running reality shows or dramas instead the games you want to see, while still calling itself a sports network, wouldn't you be just a little bit annoyed?
ESPN does produce reality shows and dramas (for example: The Contender, Dream Job, Playmakers, and Tilt). It also shows a lot of "sports" programming that doesn't have a wide appeal, and some that many people don't consider to be true sports (poker for example). If you only watch ESPN for its live sports coverage, you're not going to watch the majority of its programming.

A channel dedicated to alienating its core audience: not a recipe for success. :down:
I'd say that if a channel is redefining itself to the point where its traditional viewers feel alienated, those viewers are no longer its core audience. If the changes have resulted in increased ratings and revenue for the network, it was a recipe for success.

I'm sure that a lot of the traditional viewers of TNN felt alienated when it slowly began abandoning its country music focused programming, eventually becoming Spike, but the fact is that Spike is available in many more homes, and is watched by many more people than TNN ever was.

The network doesn't owe you anything for your past viewership. At the same time, you don't owe the network any future loyalty if they become something you're not interested in watching.

Do Canadians complain when Space shows programs that don't take place in space? :D
Yes, I write letters of complaint every time I turn on the channel and see someone standing on solid ground. ;)

dylanemcgregor

12-21-2008, 06:00 PM

I think a la carte proponents again miss the point when they focus on channels. It seems fairly obvious that we are moving to a program a la carte model. People complain about having to pay for the channels that they don't watch, so why should I have to pay for the shows that I don't watch, just because I watch some of the shows on that channel (I'm looking at you wrestling on Sci-Fi).

First with Tivo, then with TV series on DVD, and finally Unbox and Hulu ...I at least have become very accustomed to just watching (and paying either via watching commercials or directly) for what I want, when I want. I think the studio name becomes much more important than the channel in this model, if you have a studio known for producing good work, I'll be a little more likely to give a shot to something new that you produce.

Back a bit more on topic...I do like the name Beyond...:)

cheesesteak

12-21-2008, 06:03 PM

Well, after watching last night's probable straight to SciFi channel movie starring Michael Shanks and Shannon Doherty, SciFi should change its name to the Craptastic Channel.

mattack

12-21-2008, 06:41 PM

Actually, I have to agree with the OP. The channel was much better when it was truer to its namesake. There's A LOT of GOOD sci-fi out there that the channel should/could be promoting, much like AMC does with its films. I know I would be watching it much more if they had a good mixture of classic sci-fi films, TV shows along with cutting edge sci-fi shows now that push the envelope. F/X does this very well with its shows.

That's funny that you compare it to AMC, because a lot of people have been complaining about AMC's changes for a long time (well over a decade at least). (I REALLY liked AMC's original series "Remember WENN", and especially at the time it was on, I was _way_ under AMC's presumed demographic age.)

I don't know why you want 'classic' sci-fi films on a channel riddled with bugs (animated logos) and cut for time and content. I appreciated their airing of _unedited_ original Trek years ago, though even then they added in commercial breaks in very strange places, so it was still sort of edited (not seamless).

mrdbdigital

12-21-2008, 10:22 PM

How much original programming does TCM air? The network is probably operated by some computerized playback system (or a minimum wage earning master control operator, whichever is cheaper) based in a small room at the CNN Center in Atlanta.

Nope. None of the Turner entertainment channels have anything to do with CNN or CNN Center. They are all located at the entertainment property north of Georgia Tech on Techwood Drive, which is also where the primary satellite uplinks are located.

They are all run from automated video servers, and separate master controls. Let me assure you they are not run by minimum wage master control operators. They have a huge staff of professionals that work there in the state of the art facility. (It's only about 6-8 years old).
For each network, they "double run" all programming on two synchronized video playout servers run by custom automation software, with a third backup running on DVD in automated DVD changers. When they ingest the programs into the servers, they also burn the DVD copy that goes into the changer. It's actually a pretty sophisticated facility, with lots and lots of custom written software. It's also a totally digital plant. All the server content is stored on quite literally thousands of arrayed hard drives, and is available to any playout server.

I worked there in the old days when the place was still owned by Ted. Now, I could tell you stories about back then! :D

Kingfish

12-21-2008, 10:41 PM

A channel dedicated to alienating its core audience: not a recipe for success. :down:

Good word choice. :D

getbak

12-21-2008, 10:47 PM

Nope. None of the Turner entertainment channels have anything to do with CNN or CNN Center.
...

I worked there in the old days when the place was still owned by Ted. Now, I could tell you stories about back then! :D
Okay, but my point, which you pretty much confirmed, is that it's an autorun operation, and with no original programming, would be relatively inexpensive to run.

Snappa77

12-22-2008, 04:29 AM

...

This is like the MTV "doesn't play videos" fight all over again.

BriGuy20

12-22-2008, 04:50 AM

...

This is like the MTV "doesn't play videos" fight all over again.

True, but it doesn't mean they don't have a point.

I personally hope they go whole horse either way. Either keep the name and air legitimate quality Sci-Fi programming (and not Bruce Campbell B-List monster movies) or bring in the Bravo people to turn it into a channel that caters to Taco Bell-eating Adult Swim viewers with a name change and blocks of wrestling. I'm most disheartened about where it is now, one foot in both places, neither a real Star Trek kind of SciFi channel nor a more mainstream one.

bicker

12-22-2008, 04:58 AM

Once you start producing a lot of original programming, operating costs go up, so you have to broaden your appeal to increase revenue in order to pay those increased costs.Well said.

I'd say that if a channel is redefining itself to the point where its traditional viewers feel alienated, those viewers are no longer its core audience.Beyond even that, it isn't clear to me that folks who claim to be the network's core audience ever were.

If the changes have resulted in increased ratings and revenue for the network, it was a recipe for success.This is the reality I referred toe arlier.

I'm sure that a lot of the traditional viewers of TNN felt alienated when it slowly began abandoning its country music focused programming, eventually becoming Spike, but the fact is that Spike is available in many more homes, and is watched by many more people than TNN ever was.And that was a radical change in direction, rather than only a moderate shift.

The network doesn't owe you anything for your past viewership. At the same time, you don't owe the network any future loyalty if they become something you're not interested in watching.Absolutely. People shouldn't take business personally.

bicker

12-22-2008, 05:02 AM

I think a la carte proponents again miss the point when they focus on channels. It seems fairly obvious that we are moving to a program a la carte model. People complain about having to pay for the channels that they don't watch, so why should I have to pay for the shows that I don't watch, just because I watch some of the shows on that channelWow, you'd have loads of fun participating in the a la carte threads. LOADS of fun! :D Actually, since this is actually advocating metered cable service (just pay for the time you're watching something), why shouldn't Internet service be priced the same way? Instead of POP and then we all fight to get performance from limited bandwidth, why not just charge per Mbps?

bicker

12-22-2008, 05:15 AM

That's funny that you compare it to AMC, because a lot of people have been complaining about AMC's changes for a long time (well over a decade at least).It's a perfect analogy then, since the changes at AMC are considered by so many viewers as a Good Thing.

I don't know why you want 'classic' sci-fi films on a channel riddled with bugs (animated logos) and cut for time and content.This is a good point: Many folks who bemoan the loss of such classic television sources, aren't looking just for entertainment, they're looking for "an experience" with historical context. They'd be better off obtaining their programming strictly by disc.

However, don't even expect that to be sacrosanct. If it becomes advantageous, expect to see more commercialization of discs, as time goes on.

bicker

12-22-2008, 05:23 AM

It's actually a pretty sophisticated facility....I believe the point was that there were no on-going production costs. What programming that TCM presents are working to make back their original production costs? If you want to see the sophistication of the Sci Fi Channel, you need to travel to Burnaby (Battlestar Galactica), Vancouver (Eureka and others), British Columbia.

bicker

12-22-2008, 05:26 AM

I personally hope they go whole horse either way. With respect, that sounds irrational to me. I cannot believe that folks would really prefer that there be no science fiction on a channel, if the channel would not present exclusively science fiction, as you would personally define it. That's basically just spiting yourself.

realityboy

12-22-2008, 09:16 AM

Wrestling aside, the channel still shows mostly Sci-Fi related things. I'm not sure what the name change really accomplishes. If Sci-Fi as the name turns a viewer off, is Beyond any better? This doesn't gain any viewers and might lose a few that held out hope that Sci-fi would eventually return to its roots. It would however please the crowd that complains about the lack of Sci-Fi, but would it make them watch more or less?

bicker

12-22-2008, 12:07 PM

Sometimes, there is a benefit to rebranding. You get to make a big splash and perhaps get some free PR has news media spreads the word. You're right, though, that that may not be the case, and it could just be cost without benefit -- if so it isn't worth changing the name: In that case, they should just leave the name alone, without regard to how well some people feel the name fits the programming.

TAsunder

12-22-2008, 02:42 PM

This change is meaningless to me because I have a DVR. I don't get how anyone could prefer the old channel to the current one, though. I remember it being nothing but reruns of largely crappy TV shows and highly edited movies. I guess I'm a movie snob or something, because I hate watching movies that have been edited or even movies with commercial breaks. Blech!

Now we have original programming which for the most part actually fits the theme of "SciFi". Some of it is pretty good, too.

Okay, but my point, which you pretty much confirmed, is that it's an autorun operation, and with no original programming, would be relatively inexpensive to run.

Have you never watched TCM then? Almost every movie has a small introduction by one or more people. They sometimes have nights where a particular guest picks and discusses why they picked certain movies. Are we talking about the same channel?

That said, it probably is relatively inexpensive to run, but it really depends on how much it costs them to license it.

Mindflux

12-22-2008, 02:48 PM

Beyond? sounds like a porn channel.

Fl_Gulfer

12-22-2008, 04:34 PM

The real SciFi lovers don't realy care what they call the channel, as long as they show some good scifi now and then.

sieglinde

12-22-2008, 06:09 PM

SciFi should be showing "Legend of the Seeker" for example rather than some of the crappy stuff it shows. I actually like some of the stupid movies they show. The one about Romans and the Cyclops was OK for what it was. I haven't watched the Grand Canyon one yet.

They have shown some interesting original programing such as Oz and Taken.

Eureka is good (or was.) The Stargate series's and Battlestar Galactica are good. I would say the percentage of decent stuff to crap is the same as any other channel.

I watched Estate of Panic and it was pretty bad but it fit SciFi better than wrestling. Scifi as a genre has Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror so the paranormal stuff does fit to an extent.

aintnosin

12-22-2008, 06:39 PM

Beyond? As in "beyond saving?"

Or more like the audience, "beyond caring."

bengalfreak

12-22-2008, 07:00 PM

Lemme guess, you're a sports fan, right? If ESPN started running reality shows or dramas instead the games you want to see, while still calling itself a sports network, wouldn't you be just a little bit annoyed?

And note that at no point did I imply that sports is the only thing you're interested in watching. You seem to think that those of us who complain about SciFi want all TV programmng to be science fiction -related, and that's just not true. We would just prefer to have one channel that consistently devoted some airtime to the genre, which is actually less likely to happen while SciFi continues to pretend that it fills that niche.

No one seemed to be annoyed when ESPN started running its own scripted programming like Playmakers. Although, planted in a setting of a fictional pro football league, the show was little more than a modern soap opera with more violence, drug use, and sex. And if I recall, it was very highly viewed.

bicker

12-23-2008, 05:52 AM

SciFi should be showing "Legend of the Seeker" I would prefer that. I don't have anything against syndication, specifically, but they're showing the program at 1AM here, and sometimes delayed (or earlier!) so even with a DVR it is hard to keep up with the series.

Eureka is good (or was.)It still is. It'll be back in the Spring.

The Stargate series's and Battlestar Galactica are good. I would say the percentage of decent stuff to crap is the same as any other channel.Higher, really. It is the same as any of the other Top 20 with original programming, perhaps, but there are literally dozens of channels that actually are crappy.

Scifi as a genre has Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror so the paranormal stuff does fit to an extent.Yes, and the channel's program guide, itself, makes it clear that the scope of the channel is even broader than that.

sieglinde

12-23-2008, 05:42 PM

Beyond is a good name for the channel because of the "reality" shows they have such as the Ghost Hunter series and the cryptozoology series they have. I don't mind them having those at all. But the Wrestling has to go unless it is the only thing keeping the channel afloat.

Rob Helmerichs

12-23-2008, 06:16 PM

Well, wrestling pretty much qualifies as "beyond"...

marksman

12-23-2008, 06:52 PM

Lemme guess, you're a sports fan, right? If ESPN started running reality shows or dramas instead the games you want to see, while still calling itself a sports network, wouldn't you be just a little bit annoyed?

ESPN has run multiple reality and scripted shows and movies on its primary channel over the years.

They have all related to sports in at least a general sense.

I know if I were a media mogul I would not choose to appeal to the Sci-Fi crowd. The most vocal but for some reason the numbers ALWAYS underwhelm. Science Fiction tv shows flounder left and right, even succesful Sci-Fi movies are not really succesful in a general sense most of the time. The only ones that are are the ones with a broad appeal.

The reality is there are a lot less people genuinely interested in watching science fiction than people would have you believe. Otherwise science fiction related products would not always be failing.

mrdbdigital

12-23-2008, 08:00 PM

I believe the point was that there were no on-going production costs. What programming that TCM presents are working to make back their original production costs? If you want to see the sophistication of the Sci Fi Channel, you need to travel to Burnaby (Battlestar Galactica), Vancouver (Eureka and others), British Columbia.

The point I was making is this: Despite not having the overhead of production costs for original programming, none of the TBS networks are cheaply run operations. They have a huge capital investment in equipment and facility, and it takes a lot of skilled humans to "feed the machine". This isn't some Nielson 350 market local TV ststion that CAN get by with unskilled employees.

Overall, I would put them on par or better than any of the other cable networks in this respect.

bicker

12-24-2008, 03:50 AM

mrdbdigital

12-24-2008, 07:41 PM

You'd be mistaken then, within the context of the discussion you're actually participating in, since you'd have to ignore the production costs associated with original programming in order to equate TCM with Sci Fi.

Just give it a rest, OK? My comments were not given within the context of production costs for original programming. I am not talking about anything to do with original programming costs on TCM. I am simply informing folks in the thread that the TBS networks are not cheaply run on the operation level. i.e. facilities and employees.

Go argue with someone else.

appleye1

12-24-2008, 10:20 PM

No one seemed to be annoyed when ESPN started running its own scripted programming like Playmakers. Although, planted in a setting of a fictional pro football league, the show was little more than a modern soap opera with more violence, drug use, and sex. And if I recall, it was very highly viewed.ESPN has an out. It's full name is the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. The operative word being "Entertainment". I guess with that they figure they can show anything as long as it's entertaining! (Back in the early days of the network I remember them showing movies fairly often, but that tapered off as they got their sports operation up to speed.)

Sci-Fi on the other hand, has no out. If they want to continue to show wrestling then they really ought to change their name. Maybe to Spike. :(

bicker

12-25-2008, 09:02 AM

My comments were not given within the context of production costs for original programming.Yes, that's what I said. I agree with this statement of yours completely.

I am not talking about anything to do with original programming costs on TCM. I am simply informing folks in the thread that the TBS networks are not cheaply run on the operation level. i.e. facilities and employees.In the context of a thread about something else. I appreciate your interest in providing informed details to support a contention made by someone I was discussing an issue with.

Go argue with someone else.I am, actually, and you inserted your admittedly relevant information into that discussion -- information that on the surface could seem like that they support of contentions I disagree with, but effectively only misdirect away from the core point of the discussion. I promise you that that will assuredly prompt me, if I have time and inclination, to post a reply.

BTW: If you would rather someone not reply to your postings, then my best advice is to avoid prompting that person to reply. :up:

Thanks for your insights, though.

bicker

12-25-2008, 09:18 AM

Sci-Fi on the other hand, has no out. If they want to continue to show wrestling then they really ought to change their name. Maybe to Spike. :(While I disagree with this sentiment completely, I think it is interesting to note how companies have faced this issue in other arenas, in the past. It is this type of perspective that has prompted us to have companies serving our nation named with names like Verizon, and Keyspan, BP (instead of "British Petroleum"), Broadpoint, etc. And this has been going on, in industry, for many years, so long in fact that there are already some companies with these crafted names that have been renamed again! (There is actually companies out there who's sole business is to advice other companies on the renaming of their company.)

Where I think many people go off the tracks is that they hold an expectation that "the niche must be served!" That's bull. There is no "right to be served". That's a fantasy, a fabrication, an unreasonable expectation. So the question is strictly a matter of whether having things named with contextually meaningless names, like Verizon and Broadpoint, is really a boon for society, no consequence for society, or perhaps a detriment. The only relevant research I've seen indicates strictly that such naming helps (or hurts, in some cases) the business of the company; i.e., that society has no vested interest. If I had to speculate, I'd lean more towards the "no consequence" side of the scale.

mrdbdigital

12-25-2008, 07:33 PM

I am, actually, and you inserted your admittedly relevant information into that discussion -- information that on the surface could seem like that they support of contentions I disagree with, but effectively only misdirect away from the core point of the discussion. I promise you that that will assuredly prompt me, if I have time and inclination, to post a reply.

You were the one that tried to drag me into the discussion with your reply to my post about Turner facilities. I never said anything about original programming costs.

BTW: If you would rather someone not reply to your postings, then my best advice is to avoid prompting that person to reply.

I did not prompt you to reply to anything I posted. I simply gave the other poster clarified technical information on the subject of his statement about how the network was run.

BTW, I do appreciate your condescending advice quoted above. Your statement does prompt me to ignore your argumentative tactics in the future.

Thank you for your input, and for picking such an accurate user name for yourself. :)

bicker

12-26-2008, 07:30 AM

You were the one that tried to drag me into the discussion with your reply to my post about Turner facilities. I never said anything about original programming costs.Heheh... it isn't all about you. As I said, you posted your information in support of a contention contrary to what I was saying. Live with it.

I did not prompt you to reply to anything I posted.You're mistaken; I outlined what prompts me to respond. Your message qualified.

How much further would you like to take this meta-discussion?

FilmCritic3000

12-26-2008, 08:27 AM

How much further would you like to take this meta-discussion?

To the ends of the earth! Ready the hot air balloon! :D

JLucPicard

12-26-2008, 02:30 PM

How much further would you like to take this meta-discussion?
How about to PM so this thread can get back to the matter at hand? :up:

bicker

12-26-2008, 03:43 PM

GREAT idea; Seems to me that whenever someone doesn't like how someone says things that that be shared with that person exclusively as a personal message to that person.

mrdbdigital

12-26-2008, 09:56 PM

GREAT idea; Seems to me that whenever someone doesn't like how someone says things that that be shared with that person exclusively as a personal message to that person.

OK. We will have to agree to disagree on this subject. But after reading how you have responded in a multitude of other threads on other subjects over time, you should really think about taking your own advice as stated above.

As I have tried, apparently without success, to explain to you, the technical data I posted was only on the specific comment about operation costs as to plant and employees. It was not given to support anyone's position, which is where we disagree. End of discussion. In order to minimize off topic discussion, I'll try in the future not to "enlighten" anyone else in a thread in which you are participating.

And, to everyone else who thinks these are off topic posts, let he who is without sin in that arena cast the first stone. :)

smark

12-26-2008, 11:24 PM

I am probably in the minority but I'm just not seeing the decline in quality or amount of sci-fi programming. With the obvious exception of wrestling which i really don't understand what it is doing on the channel.

I really think the shows they have aired in recent years are vast improvements in what they used to air. I remember when they aired reruns of Automan and Manimal. Sure that type of programming may be fun once in a while for nostalgic reasons but I'd much rather watch Battlestar Galactica, Eureka, Sanctuary. I really enjoyed the Lost Room and am looking forward to Caprica.

And they still do air lots of the sci-fi series reruns. Just this week they are airing Dark Angel, a star trek TNG marathon all day Christams day, A highlander marathon on the 26th, a twilight zone marathon on new years, They have stargate, stargate atlantis and another stargate series in the works. They air the outer limits, tales from the darkside they show the new Doctor Who series and plenty of other classic and not so classic series. Now while all of what they air may not be in the strictest definition sci-fi , it is all in that general area and if anyone is looking for a channel to air strict definition sci-fi programming well i just don't think a channel like that would get enough viewers.

Wrestling is there because it brings ratings and I believe that NBC doesn't have to pay for it.