I keep givig Sci-Fi the benefit of the doubt, but I should know better...
I always think that this is someone's film school homework or something (they took over a doomed/bankrupt project?) - and then manage to make it worse...
I think the effects are actually getting better. I guess the interns are learning... Rock Monster (it's on in the background) is actually an improvement over past movies.
Sci-Fi (and USA) have passed on a few good projects (Crussade, Legend of the Rangers) and cancelled series that were actually making inroads (I-Man, SG-1). And there are other programs that just aren't my taste (so I don't want to diss them too much, in deference to people that might actually like them) and IMO shouldn't even be on a Sci-Fi oriented network (or shouldn't be mixed in with scripted shows)...
It's a bit of a moving target. They seem to want to be competitive against OTA networks, yet keep funding these crappy MOWs and passing up on projets that can build up a following over time (yet require investment). Heck, if they have to do movies, I'd rather a movie of the month (put the resources of 4 movies into 1, maybe that would have been good). When they were doing mini-series (Taken, Dune), they seemed to be going the right way, but I guess that they couldn't build up enough of a following outside of Sci-Fi. There are plenty of shows that they could pick up and build them up (like Charlie Jade) - just don't run them down (like Sliders)
I've been watching Doctor Who (didn't have time until a few months ago), and other new series in this universe (Torchwood, Sarah Jane, Dr Who Confidential, Torchwood Declassified). How can a "small" country like UK generate all these good (at least reasonable) quality Sci-Fi shows, and then Sci-Fi channel can't manage to air decent movies and to build-up a consistent series line-up beyond summer series?
reply
share
zootie
16 years ago
To further consolidate some of the ideas I tried to convey...
In the past, Sci-Fi was trying to compete with the big networks, using ratings based strategy (ie, if something doesn't hold or increase prior programs rating, nix it and get something brand new to replace it - if only for the freshness factor). While that might make sense for the networks competing against each other in primetime -many TV viewers would disagree-, it makes little sense for a specialty cable channel. In this case, you're not competing with 2 or 3 networks, you're competing with all of them plus all other cable channels: then your strategy should (proably) be the reverse: develop quality programs, build up an audience over time, slowly build up blocks of cult programming (space/science/scripted friday, reality/ghost/paranormal wednesday, etc.) and maintain them (ie, don't run BSG with reruns of SG-A, and -to top it off- cancel SG-1, let BSG end and leave SG-A alone) and introduce new ones so you can keep up with attrition (Charlie Jade seems a diamond in the rough that is already dead and relegated to late Monday night, but that seems it has some material to work with - saw in a board that it even has scripts for the 2nd season that was never produced).
reply
share
bobquack
16 years ago
What I can't understand is why is ECW on Sci-Fi? That stuff belongs on Spike.
"Klaatu barada nikto"
reply
share