Ask Slashdot: Is It Time For SyFy To Go Premium? 607
Cutriss writes "Now that Caprica is gone and SG:U has concluded, I see new shows coming in their place such as Alphas and the Red Faction series, and I find myself asking if the fate of Atlantis and SG:U might have gone differently if SyFy had been a paid cable network. I know the Slashdot audience would probably trade a few dollars a month if it meant replacing wrestling and ghost-chasing shows with relicensed classics and more appropriate treatment of original content. Plus, with a paying audience, the ad space would become much more lucrative and SyFy could lose some of the seedier ads it has been saddled with lately, and better fund new original content."
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for it to go away.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree 100%.
It's funny when BBC America is doing better Science Fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny when BBC America is doing better Science Fiction.
The BBC have Top Gear, which all by itself gets more viewer-hours than all scifi together.
Anyway, that syfy channel should offer it online, not on a cable, if they wish to get money from the geek community. Most of us watch it online already anyway :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Which just means that the producers will introduce another Wesley every week or two. So instead of one Wesley, you get a constantly repeating series of Wesley and Wesley-alikes (some Wesleys will be the same Wesley due to time travel, holodecks, and tachyon particles).
Of course... that may lead to more meta geek culture [slashdot.org] moments where post-Wesley actors (who are considerably more cool than their character) work out their personal issues in front of the world with the simple question "are we cool?"
Re: (Score:3)
But will the Wesleys all wear red shirts?
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
What we need is TNG where we get to vote who gets kicked out of the airlock every week. Adios, Wesley...
You know, you may find Wesley annoying but is a TV show where all plot developments are determined by majority rule really what you want? That's a quick route straight to lowest-common-denominator crap. The ultimate in low-risk storytelling.
The thing to remember is that the viewers, for the most part, aren't particularly good at telling stories. Not that the people behind TNG, etc. were always aces at this either, but for good TV you generally need good leadership establishing direction of the show.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's think about this for a moment: What is the appeal of Sci-fi for you?
As a layman, I'm more interested in the stories being told rather than technobabble about the setting. My only criteria for their technology is that the rules of their universe remain consistent enough so that they don't draw attention to themselves.
Beyond that, I'm just interested in the human story that is laid out over the framework established by the futuristic setting. I'll freely admit that Star Trek is full of camp, but it also engaged viewers to look at how we treat those that are different from us, what is to be human, how to behave ethically in the face of uncertainty, and many other interesting quandries. While the settings may be fantastic, and may involve a myriad of strange and unfamiliar races and creatures, I find that my favorite science fiction are fundamentally human stories; stories about humans as individuals or our society as a whole. When sci-fi removes the familiar trappings of the world that we know, we can take a closer look at humanity in a new context, and perhaps learning about ourself in the abstract.
I also appreciate the general sense of optimism in the franchise. It's something that has been lost in the cynicism of the times. As technology allows us to get closer to the news and revealing the horrible acts that we commit against each other, we're left with a pretty low opinion of our species as a whole. I like that Star Trek presents a relatively progressive humanity. The Federation has plenty of room for improvement, but even the idea of having resolved so many of our deepseated problems and conflicts gives the franchise a sense of hope. BSG for example, takes the opposite approach of showing our terrible inclinations through the future and into what appear to be humanity's last hours. Perhaps BSG resonated so well with audiences because that is the kind of future we expect.
I wonder if a "Section 31" series is the best route for a new star trek. It would be able to adopt the dark and gritty atmosphere of shows like BSG and 24, and may be better suited for today's audiences and their expectations of how people would really behave in dire circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Syfy is they say their cheesy monster movies are extremely profitable and keep slamming them out at the expense of better shows. Their (initially) high budget shows like Caprica targeted a niche of Battlestar Galactica fans and in that respect I think it was doomed to failure from the start. The special effects in the last few Capricas was terrible. I never got into the Stargate... or any other show based on a bad movie (Buffy and Highlander to name two, but to be honest I liked the first H
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now now -- SG:1 and SGA were decent shows. It's SGU that deserves its fate. Show was garbage and I gave up before the first season was over. Just a derivative piece of overblown melodrama trying to cash in on BSG, which itself was more ridiculous and unrealistic than any daytime soap.
Re: (Score:3)
The first half of the first season of SGU was absolutely awful. Since then SGU has actually been pretty exciting and entertaining, with actual 'sci-fi' stuff happening, but unfortunately it had already lost 75% of it viewers within that first half of season 1 and its fate was pretty much sealed.
Add to that, Syfy playing a game of musical chairs with its schedule and giving it minimal promotion (instead focusing on monsters and wrestling instead), couldn't have helped either. Many people I know who watched t
Re: (Score:3)
>> "...which is from all the reports I've seen a *much* better channel than SyFy is in the US."
That's a low bar. If you had "The Moose Channel" (Deer not allowed, eh) that would be a better channel than SyFy. If you had a channel called "Bacon" for bacon enthusiasts that would be better than SyFy.
On the other hand if Space is a good station I wish we could get it here. Exiled SyFy viewers need a new home.
Re: (Score:3)
BSG only got made because it was cofunded by the British channel SkyOne.
Are there any fans of Syfy left anywhere? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I thought they had driven off all their more intelligent fans when they started catering to the developmentally challenged. I found this turn of events very disappointing until I realized, the Syfy channel isn't just for the learning disabled, it is run by the learning disabled as well. I mean look at them, they sent a marketing bot to slashdot to do some market research and try to find out why real geeks don't watch Syfy anymore.
Wll, Mr. Retarded Marketing Bot, please take this back to your superiors: premium channels require premium content first, not last. You don't get to create literally the dumbest channel on television anywhere in the world and then complain that you could make it better if only you had some more money. You don't have money because you are doing it all wrong. You won't get more money until you start doing it right. You don't get to skip over the "getting it right" part. We are not a captive audience. We have other choices.
Until I realized that Syfy is actually a retard employment program, the idea of having to explain any of this to grown adults would have blown my mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Or it could be that people who tuned into the other two stargates to see interesting interactions with alternative societies and aliens in a big open world didn't find a claustrophobic ship with episodes almost completely restricted to humans and their emotional dramas interesting.
Uh yeah... (Score:4, Informative)
Then they can make Megamonsterdragonfrog vs. Interstellar Goldfish with even better production values.
This whole story is a joke, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey! Sharktopus was a thespianic masterpiece of the B-movie genre. Ok, D-movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were already Premium. I mean, I saw "War of the Worlds" and that drilling to earths core movie, and something about "Thor" all before they were even in the movie theater!
Oh wait, those weren't the real movies? Just slapped together crap with the names resembling currently advertised movies designed to fool small poor children so they will stop pestering their parents to take them to the movies? Damn. I guess I missed a lot of cinema...
Re:Uh yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
"I guess I missed a lot of cinema..."
I don't know that "missed" is the right word. "Narrowly avoided," maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
For the welfare of everyone else, anyone who uses the words "branding strategy" on a regular basis should be forcibly relocated to some sort of leper island.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely - the lepers deserve better than to be stuck with those people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Internet (Score:2)
I would pay extra for it through not cable. If I could drop another $2-3/mo on my Netflix subscription to have Syfy's entire back catalog and new shows available day-of-release on Netflix, I'd do it in a second.
And I haven't had cable, thus not watched Syfy except at friends' houses or on Netflix since 2007.
Re:Internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can not wait for the cable monopolies to be disintermediated.
Re: (Score:3)
Alas, Netflix won't be able to save cult shows [hyperom.com]. Mostly because it would eat up all of their cash with dubious return.
Unless ratings are wildly underestimated, $10 a month won't cut it to make anything more advanced than a talk or "reality" show with no special effects
Re: (Score:2)
For a period of time on Cablevision back when I was in grad school, the only way to get Sci-Fi (it was not SyFy back then) was the top-tier premium package - it was bundled with stuff like HBO and the like. (Maybe not HBO - but it was a package above the typical 70-channel "family package" that Sci-Fi was usually a part of.)
Obviously, I didn't watch SciFi back then.
Re:Internet (Score:4, Informative)
90% of TV channels are owned by one of seven large media conglomerates. Viacom, for instance, owns Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Spike, TV Land, Nick@Nite, Nickelodeon, TeenNick, Nick Jr., MTV, VH1, MTV2, Tr3Ìs, CMT, Palladia. The cable companies cannot buy just one network and they are contractually required to group certain channel in certain ways. If the cable company doesn't agree to Viacom's terms, then no Nick, no MTV, no Spike. It is an all or nothing proposition.
How long do you think a cable company will stay in business if they don't have Nick or MTV? No Comedy Central?
The media companies hold the scarce resource (the channels and content) and they dictate the terms. One of those terms is that the cable company cannot a-la-cart the channels.
Don't blame the cable company, blame Viacom, Disney, National Amusements, News Corporation, Time Warner, General Electric and Sony.
I don't mean to rant, just trying to educate.
Don't like it? Write your congress-person, pay them more than the media company lobbyists do or boycott mass media. But don't blame the wrong group.
Re: (Score:3)
My wife and I went with DirectTV a few months back and decided we would have a media room and only one TV. We don't have a DVR and don't schedule our lives based on what shows are on. It's amazing how much more time we have together to do things.
Then we dropped all but basic. It is far cheaper to use NetFlicks to always have a couple of movies lying around, plus the instant play list, than to pay all of that money for reru
Probably Not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, SG:U, Atlantis, and Caprica are supposed to be examples of good sci-fi? Sure, they're better than Sharktopus or Ghost Hunters, but stellar they are not... The only reason anybody watched any of them is that they got hooked by their predecessors. I've begun to think, each time I hear an outcry from sci-fi fans when a show is canceled, that it's really just familiarity they're missing -- that these are sad, novelty-avoiding people, who desperately cling to whatever escape from reality is given them n
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. I'd like to see more SGU (wait for it..) BECAUSE all the other shows are far to familiar. It pack some good recent ideas (from Firefly, BSG, SG1, SGA, and many many more) into a new series on a new way. I've never seen anything like SGU. They don't have the annoying whispering that BSG had al to much, for example.
If you know of so many shows that is much like SGU was, please do share them. I probably like them.
Re: (Score:2)
SGU started out kinda "meh" and too "soap-opera-y", but by the time they had the typical midseason hiatus it had picked up and was starting to get good.
It was right around when it got canned that the real promising "We've found Destiny's true mission" plotline started showing up and the "who is fucking who" plotlines started dying down.
Sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There's good stuff?!
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:5, Funny)
About 4 of the 9 Caprica episodes were good (by most standards...) so that makes for an enjoyable 3 hours or so before you come to the conclusion that SyFy is now a zombie cable network feeding off the brains of slow and unsuspecting victims.
Hey, come to think of it, I have a show idea to pitch to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
I lobbied hard to get my local cable company to add SciFi; and was markedly disappointed when they did. The actual science fiction content has only declined since then. I no longer see a reason to watch it at all; there's zero chance I'd pay to do so. OTOH, making it a pay channel would hasten their bankruptcy, freeing up bandwidth for something else.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Really... they stopped being a network for the fans when they dropped MST3k for more "mainstream" audiences. That was a good indicator that the executives of the channel stopped caring about people like me.
They've had some good stuff on occasion since then, but that's where it really started to die for me. Having a network where you could watch "Lost In Space" in the middle of the day as well as *thoughtful* new content was cool, but they don't run their network like that any more.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd long wanted access to it, and was surprised to find it on my basic cable. I then found the only things worth watching were X-Files reruns and the new Galactica. When they stopped running X-Files, I resorted to checking out the X-Files from the library, and didn't feel like I'd lost anything when they were dropped from my basic cable package.
I never got into the Stargate spinoffs because I didn't have access to SciFi when the first ones started. I might go through the effort of checking them out from th
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Some executive did an interview at BoingBoing a while back. He was joking about how people give these suggestions but "they just don't get it". Apparently, people don't understand that the way SYFIE is currently being run is literally the only possible way to run it, that the revenue streams they have now are the only revenue streams they could ever possibly have, that there must be no variance from how things have always been done, that people who want different shows actually, uh, don't, etc...
It
Re: (Score:3)
The entire sci-fi market has been shrinking (Score:3)
The public appetite for space travel, battles, and true sci-fi (as opposed to War of the Worlds: LA) has been shrinking for years. It's not just syfy, but every true space opera franchise has been slowly dying for the past decade or so, to be replaced by garbage like the "V" reboot. Even is syfy transitioned to a premium model, they may not get enough subscribers without the ghost chasers and such (I won't walk about wrestling).
The audience you want don't want cable (Score:5, Insightful)
Who wants to pay a few more bucks a month for another channel? I think most folk want to pay fewer bucks per month and have a smaller number of higher quality channels. Cable has no interest in delivering that, so folk are moving away in droves. The audience that reads sites like /. are likely to be amongst the first switchers.
It could just be the economy, but subscriber numbers for cable declined in Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2010. Personally I think it's a trend and one that will continue for quite some time.
Broadcast television is so 20th century. If you want access to quality older issues, your best hope is from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason I forgot to add good old Google to the list of providers. Given that they have announced [theregister.co.uk] that they are offering movie rentals via YouTube, I'd expect to see a lot more content and a paid subscription model from them in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that each episode costs a couple of million to make and the only people interested in paying that up front for a show are TV channels. I'd happily pay to download new episodes of SGU but no investor will take my word for it.
What we need is a rich billionaire who is also a nerd to pay for another season in the hopes of recouping the cost via downloads and DVD sales. Someone has to be first and a quality show like SGU seems like the ideal candidate.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the entire problem right there. Only the entertainment industry can make the government look lean and efficient in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
oh try telling your suggestion to James Bamford (AKA Bam Bam) the fight arranger for a lot of the stargate shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcast television is so 20th century. If you want access to quality older issues, your best hope is from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.
And if not one of them then Piracy will continue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree here. There's a bit of disconnect in the original question I think. Some people assume that because they would pay for something that most others would too. If it were premium even with quality shows it would die out anyway. There's just not enough people willing to pay it. Sure you may find some people willing to pay for HBO and Showtime for a few hyped original series, but the vast majority of subscribers are there for the movies. The original series are only used as a differentiator so that
Just start a new sci fi network (Score:4, Insightful)
Sci-fi not Sy-phy-lis, like the current one. There's nothing to salvage after what they've done.
FINE! (Score:2, Funny)
In fact, forget the Sci-Fi and Blackjack!
Re:FINE! (Score:5, Funny)
Which incidentally is the exact same thing the producers on Sci-Fi thought when they made SyFy.
Under what assumptions? (Score:2)
Are you assuming that these shows wouldn't have been canceled if they weren't on an ad/ratings driven channel? I hate to tell you but premium channels care about ratings, too. Ratings mean subscribers.
And I highly doubt they have enough quality content to be a premium channel.
The content is out there (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The content is out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a hint: everything has a license fee, even stuff they produced themselves because they have to pay the actors per credit. They moved away from science fiction for pro-wrestling because intellectuals are too diverse and critical an audience to reduce to a simple demographic to advertise to. If there were a premium package from my cable company that focused on real documentaries, non-action oriented science fiction, and absolutely no ads that belittle my intelligence, I'd pay 3-5 times as much as people pay for their sports packages. I get miffed because absolutely every single television channel assumes I'm a blubbering moron or blubbering moron compatible.
The following were good, but are now blubbering moron bait:
Discovery Channel(trucks driving on ice? REALLY?)
History Channel(we're 100% certain that this piece of rock was portal to alien jesus, here's an "expert")
Sci Fi(Covered in depth here, but REALLY bad. Hasn't touched the ideas of real speculative fiction in a decade)
Animal Planet(Nature documentaries? Screw that, pet reality shows!!!)
TLC(babies are all anyone ever wants to see!!!! We're SURE!!!)
The following still make some attempt an any real depth
BBC America
PBS
I don't inherently loathe television as a medium, I loath spoonfed bullshit supportded by psychologically manipulative bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure you understand supply and demand (Score:5, Insightful)
If nobody wanted to watch those shows for free, I don't see how charging people to watch them would have improved the audience. It isn't like SyFy is Apple or something.
Re: (Score:3)
There will always be more oatmeal-brained pro wrestling fans out there, but scifi fans are passionate... and they might very well pay. I don't know if it'd work, but seems like an interest
Re: (Score:3)
It's a question of price discrimination. In a broadcast free-to-view environment that is ad supported, you are required to seek as many viewers as possible. If your high desire viewers (the ones that will pay) are willing to pay 10x the rate of ad dollars, you only need to attract 10% of the audience. That might even be better than break even, first because your audience will likely be more loyal, and second with a shift toward quality the income from rebroadcast licensing may increase (you can sell DVDs or
How about they just go away (Score:3)
The showed their hand when they renamed their channel. As in, they were more interested in being hip than being a place to be for science fiction.
If I want premium shows I will watch HBO (usually on DVD - used to on Netflix till HBO yanked what I wanted from them - BOOO!). Considering the quality or should I say lack there of when it came to in house stuff are we losing much that they show wrestling? At least with wrestling the costumes and special effects are better.
I will admit being a fan of Children of Dune (did not care much for their Dune remake - but the follow up was great to watch and had an awesome soundtrack) and I also found Tin Man to be great. FWIW, I thought it was NBC who did BSG and SyFy who did only the follow ups which really were muddled messes.
An interesting point (Score:2)
Therein lies the rub. If set up as a premium channel, it would likely end up in a premium bundle rather than as an a la carte offering. I don't know that enough people would have paid (would yet pay) for the service.
The fa
Being Human (Score:2)
How about we get a Sci Fi channel? (Score:2)
I haven't actually followed the channel that much, living in Norway for about 99% of my life. But I have enjoyed several of its shows, and I would like to see more of them that fit the sci fi genre.
Syfy has lost its way (Score:2)
Sci-fi not SyFy specific problem? (Score:3)
It seems like Science Fiction shows struggle to avoid cancellation on any channel, not just SyFy. Apparently there just are not enough of us tuning in. The fact that premium channels avoid sci-fi shows too should tell you something about that idea.
Why is this on Ask Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this on Ask Slashdot? The question does not contain *any* indication that SyFy actually considers this, so at the moment it's just one person's speculation, nothing more. And anyway, (almost?) nobody here has the data or experience to make a qualified answer to the question in the post title.
Ask Slashdot should IMHO be limited to questions where our collective *experience* can actually help.
Re: (Score:3)
I would wager the questioner works for SyFy's marketing department and wants to test the waters for additional fees. Hopefully the response on here will be a huge wake-up call for their executives. I stopped watching about the time I dropped cable entirely - it wasn't worth me paying $30 a month for the two channels I actually watched, SciFi (before the name change) and Cartoon Network (Adult Swim).
To quote another great Sci-Fi show: "They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
Taking a collection... (Score:2)
Seriously, the biggest problem with the channel is that they're trying to do all original sci-fi content, which, for quality stuff, is EXPENSIVE to produce. Each episode of SG-1 had the budget of a small movie. They're bringing in the Ghost Hunters and that other BS because it's cheap. Buying the rights to failed series from other networks (for example, what they did with Sarah Connor Chronicles) will enable them to stop spending money on production of mediocre crap, pooling resources onto a few shows that
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, some Star Trek wouldn't even suck for daytime space-filler.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this likely because the channel has gone to absolute poop. I watched SG:U until the midseason break of Season 1, after having been a rabid SG-1 and SG-A fan for years, and by the midseason, SG:U just didn't grip me. I haven't turned SyFy back on since. My wife occasionally watches Sanctuary (one of the few shows worth keeping), but usually watches it on Netflix.
SyFy, if they have any hope of surviving, needs to re-name itself back to Sci-Fi (or perhaps something like "The Geek Channel", ditch all but th
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree that quality sci-fi material is expensive to produce. The quality of a show is based on the writing and the production. I have found that SciFi fans are very, very forgiving when it comes to special effects and acting. We're okay with bad acting and cheesy special effects as long as the story is a good one and told well.
Example: The original Dr. Who series, produced by the BBC, on a shoestring budget. The stories were interesting, with plenty of social commentary, a lot of "what if", things that
Re: (Score:2)
For Pawn Stars it was the episode where some guy tries selling The Who Woodstock contract for
Premium... as in "Paying for Linear"? Seriously?? (Score:2)
The entire industry is shifting AWAY from linear, "TONIGHT AT EIGHT PM/ SEVEN CENTRAL!!" linear, in-your-quaint-lil-living-room networks and over to multi-screen VOD offerings. PVR devices have killed "time" and tablets and mobile devices are in the process of destroying "space" as considerations for cable programmers. No kind of content -- not The Naked Ladies with Chainsaws Channel, certainly not The Quality Science Fiction Channel, could possibly influence the launch of a premium linear network in tod
What? (Score:2)
" Plus, with a paying audience, the ad space would become much more lucrative and SyFy could lose some of the seedier ads it has been saddled with lately, and better fund new original content.""
You want me to pay and watch ads?
No really imagine if TV was free. I mean what if you could just stick a wire into the air and like magic suck the shows right out of the air for free! The people could pay for the shows by just running ads. I know it is just a dream but just imagine if it could work.
Actually if you l
"Is It Time For SyFy To Go Premium?" (Score:2)
No. They lost all credibility the second they aired their first wrestling broadcast. I fail to see how throwing more money at the network will make it stop sucking at this point.
You give them more money, you'll get Sharktopus sequels. Guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's no joke. They recently announced their new season will feature such gems like Jersey Shore Shark Attack and Snowmageddon [gothamist.com]. Add that to the wresting, and this new cooking show they just added, and yes, it's not too hard to see their death around the corner,. . . Combine that with the fact that most of Sci-Fi's (excuse me, SyFy's) demographic is in the process of ditching cable in favor of internet distribution, and Dr. McCoy w
Syfy must die. (Score:2)
Netherlands agrees. :) (Score:2)
I know the Slashdot audience would probably trade a few dollars a month if it meant replacing wrestling and ghost-chasing shows with relicensed classics and more appropriate treatment of original content.
I agree. Greetings from the Netherlands.
No (Score:2)
Story submitter here (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of you already sound jaded beyond the point of wanting Syfy to continue existing. Fair enough. It could be someone else doing things properly. I mean, right now the Science Channel seems to have more going for it than Syfy. BBC America is *increasing* its science fiction lineup where it already had more content than Syfy did. I don't know how the figures are working for Discovery, but BBCA has to see something if it's able to keep this stuff going. It's not like BBCA gets to use the UK TV franchise fee.
I'm not proposing an ad-free network like HBO. The market is niche but it's still not tiny. I mean, a MILLION people watched SGU last night, and that's with a whole bunch of Atlantis fans up-in-arms over it. Let's say that 1M is the audience. At $3 a month, that's $36M a year alone for SGU. Plus, as I mentioned in the summary, their ad revenue will go up because the spots become more valuable. Let's figure four TV tiers - nationwide network OTA (IE - free), local OTA (free), cable (paid), premium (paid AND personally invested). On a premium niche network, these are people that are specifically interested in a narrow segment of content that the network is carrying and not just putting that channel on because Son of Sharktopus is on. You know more about these people and can spend more money marketing to them because they have the money to spend not only on cable but on a premium channel.
And while I personally don't have a strong taste for the cheesy monster movies that they've shown lately, I was amused by the terrible disaster flicks. Not everyone's sci-fi tastes are the same, but they're close enough that I think if they weren't tainted with wrestling and other assorted crap, we'd have a really good network on our hands.
Let's not forget that SG1 started on Showtime, and Game of Thrones is doing *quite* well on HBO. The market is there. Maybe Syfy can't do it, but someone can, and I hope they do.
Re: (Score:3)
BBC America is *increasing* its science fiction lineup where it already had more content than Syfy did.
Well, BBC UK has recently had several successful SF/Fantasy shows (Dr Who, Being Human, Torchwood, Life on Mars) - which is a pretty unusual state of affairs for them (what I suspect is happening is that the kids who grew up on Dr Who, Blake's 7, Quatermass, Thunderbirds etc. in the 60s and 70s are now old enough to start cropping up in important roles in the BBC). In the UK, 'Who is not just a successful SF show, its a successful mainstream TV show that goes out on a major channel, early evening, on a Satu
Re: (Score:3)
A season should only be ~13 episodes. Virtually every quality television show not on the major broadcast networks follows this rule of thumb. So a season of SGU only gets you 3 months or $9 million by your estimation[this is ignoring the fact that some of the audience was only watching it because it was on and won't actually pay extra for it]. If Syfy is still attempting 22 episodes a season perhaps that is part of the problem, it ensures that 10 of the episodes are crap filler bringing down the average
Premium channel? Not a chance... (Score:2)
As a service I can subscribe to on a roku Box? YES. itunes? YES,
Sorry but Cable TV is dead, it's body just has not stopped flailing. Why would a company be silly and continue a dying business model.
Also they can cut back on production costs and still out out a fantastic show. SGU did not need to cost that much to produce.
SyFy vs SciFi (Score:2)
Note: The shit programming is there because they wanted to attract a broader audience -- Hence them dropping the "nerd's only" Science Fiction abbreviation and adopting some syphilis sounding name... SyFy
Even the SciFi shows themselves have been dumbed down (little to no hard sci-fi; It's mostly just fantasy-fi in my book), romantic interludes and who's mating with who drama are inserted for no apparent reason other than to attract the "wider" audience (those with narrower minds who can't pay attention u
They Make More Money as Basic (Score:2)
Very few channels can hack it in the premium space. Disney did the math in the 90's and figured out it was way more profitable to get small amount of money from everyone as a basic channel rather than a lot of money from a few people as a premium channel. The money is so much better that Disney started playing hard ball with the cable operators. You want to carry the local ABC affiliate on your system, you're going to put Disney in the basic tier.
SyFy's issue is that they are owned and operated by NBC Un
What do you mean by a few dollars? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been saying for years that I would like to get my channels al la carte. If I can get channels for between $2-$5 each, and not have to get a stupid package, yeah, sure, I would pay for SyFy. Lets see,
1) SyFy
2) BBC America
3) History
4) History Channel International
5) Discovery
6) HDNet
7) TLC
8) Travel
9) Science channel
10) HDNet Movies
Multiply by, oh, a few bucks, say, $3 a channel, and, wow, look at that, $30! Add in Taxes and box rental, I am at $50. That is half of what I am paying now, and those are the only channels I watch. Yeah, I would pay a few bucks a month for these.
Re:There is no hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Stargate should have ended... um... as the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Stargate should have ended... um... as the movie.
Roland Emmerich? I didn't know you had a Slashdot account! Or is that you, Devlin?
Re: (Score:2)
Midseason hiatus is pretty standard for SyFy shows nowadays. I think it may have to do more with international syndication/cooperation - In foreign countries, seasons are typically half as long as in the United States.
So one season for us = two seasons internationally on SyFy's partner networks outside of the USA.
Re:Remember when (elitist post) (Score:4, Insightful)