New Bonnie Hammer interview

[grinner]

snurching from UPI
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030620-020308-5731r
Interview: Sci Fi -- the future is now

Published 6/20/2003 2:51 PM
View printer-friendly version

NEWTON, N.J., June 20 (UPI) -- Are you a science fiction fan?

Not so fast. Take a moment and think about it because you probably are and don't even realize it. Since technology is part of most of our daily lives, and the future is, in a sense, now, the definition of "science fiction" is broadening, as is the genre's audience.

"Whether it's 'The Matrix,' 'Harry Potter,' 'The Lord of the Rings,' or 'The Sixth Sense,' (the growing popularity of the genre is) amazing," Sci Fi Channel President Bonnie Hammer, told United Press International in a recent telephone interview. "People weren't aware they liked the genre because they themselves defined the genre in an unfair way. It was like the perception of liking sci fi wasn't cool or wasn't right, but if you look at big box-office wins, millions of people are attracted to it. They just wouldn't necessarily define themselves as sci-fi fans because their own definitions were limited."

Technology is evolving so rapidly and embraced by so many people, Hammer noted, that it is no longer reserved for that small segment of the population that once spent considerable time considering what conveniences and miracles the future would hold, what happens after we die and if there is, in fact, life on other planets.

"I think the audience for sci fi is different now than when we grew up," Hammer remarked. "But now in many ways the population is very different because they don't necessarily care about the things we used to care about because the future is now, and technology to a lot of the new younger viewers is just another day in the office, and space operas or futuristic series isn't what they want. They just want a different twist on the here and now."

A glimpse at this summer's slate of Hollywood offerings reveals a variety of feature films and projected blockbusters with sci-fi elements: "The Hulk," "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life," "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines," just to name a few. Television is also home to more than a dozen series featuring action, horror, magic, technology, creatures or some blend of those characteristics, among them: "Andromeda," "Alias," "Angel," "Charmed," "Beyond Re-Animator," "Futurama," "John Doe," "Smallville," "Stargate: SG-1," "Threshold," "Tremors: The Series," "The Twilight Zone" and "Veritas: The Quest."

Asked to explain the one quality that ties together all of these different types of stories, Hammer refers to the Sci Fi Channel's marketing campaign, in which the "i" in "Sci" and the "F" in "Fi," pop out at viewers, challenging them to wonder, "what if?"

"All the possibilities that exist, which live in our imagination (make up science fiction,)" Hammer explained. "That's what really makes the genre amazingly broad and wonderful... One thing that is wonderful about the genre is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out. It's not like simple action adventure where you know what's going to happen and everything is derivative. It's right in front of you on the screen. There are no surprises. In science fiction, you're left with the 'what if?'"

She added: "I think that's why you can watch and re-watch (sci-fi films and television programs.) I can't even tell you how many times I've watched the original 'Matrix,' and I still have questions. I loved it, but I'm still trying to figure it out in a lot of ways."

While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television.

"We've become known for our mini-series events," Hammer said. "We know that a good portion of the sci-fi audience loves literature. Loves reading. Loves great storytelling and great characters, so we know that we can do quality programming and people will come and see it."

Noting that last year's 20-hour mini-series, "Taken," directed by Steven Spielberg, broke viewership records and introduced a whole new audience to the channel, Hammer said her team's commitment to provocative programming and creative marketing are also attracting major-league players, such as "X-Men" filmmaker Bryan Singer and Oscar-winning actresses Whoopi Goldberg and Susan Sarandon.

"A couple of years ago, we had great ambition, but we couldn't necessarily get the talent we wanted to buy in because they said: 'Oh, yeah. They've been doing some nice stuff, but it's just a little cabler.' Now, what's happening is people are calling us, and if they're not calling us, when we call, they pick up our calls on the first ring."

The Sci Fi Channel is currently reinventing the landmark science fiction series "Battlestar Galactica; recently closed a deal to make Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" into a four-hour original mini-series; and secured producer Gale Anne Hurd ("The Hulk," "Terminator 3") to executive produce the six-hour mini-series, "Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars."
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

[chani]

"All the possibilities that exist, which live in our imagination (make up science fiction,)" Hammer explained. "That's what really makes the genre amazingly broad and wonderful... One thing that is wonderful about the genre is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out. It's not like simple action adventure where you know what's going to happen and everything is derivative. It's right in front of you on the screen. There are no surprises. In science fiction, you're left with the 'what if?'"

Then why no Farscape, folks ????

:grr:

[Roland]

quote:
While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television. end quote.

WHAT!!!!


What a piece of frellin' lies. Now I'm really pissed.
How the frell can she spit out thoose things!!!
They killed Farscape for exactley thoose things:

Low ratings and High cost!

AND FARSCAPE HAD AN INTELLIGENT STORY!!! :mad:

[Kerlin]

:headbang:

[Darth Buddha]

Don't let the mouthpiece get to you Kerlin.

In her role as Scifi spewhole, she's not even a real person.

[tedbragg1]

I actually AGREE with Bonnie on this one.

Oh c'mon people. Skiffy channel can't survive on 'true believers' alone. The gains they're making is great. If they hadn't canceled FS we wouldn't be reacting like this, I'm sure.

Of course, if *I* were running the network, it would aim at a different track. Skiffy is taking a new route compared to what's been done and they are right about one thing: American audiences hate to be associated with Trekkies and dweebs...even when FS pulled in all walks of life and demos--you have to dress it up as something else for normal folks to even give a look.

The new Hulk movie is sci-fi to the core, but it's being marketed as a monster/superhero movie.

The Matrix = high-energy action thriller, not a sci-fi dystopian nightmare.

SG1 = MacGyver in the Air Force :-)

So much sci-fi fare has been made that simply SUCKS. It's not that people aren't interested in things like they used to be. The movies and tv shows everybody got burned on and fed up with simply STUNK.

Let's see...number of sci-fi shows that were considered bad, sucked or pissed people off for wasting their time:

Invisible Man
First Wave
Lexx
Sliders (last few seasons)
ST: Voyager
Enterprise
Event Horizon
Treasure PLanet
Titan AE
Black Scorpion
Adventures of Jules Verne
Robin Cooks' Invasion
Battlefield Earth
BeastMaster series
Cleopatra 2525
Encrypt
Viratas <sp?> The Quest

I could go on. All of these shows and movies were the target for much hate and loathing. THAT'S why Skiffy is changing tactics and going the route they are. And so far, it's working.

Sci-fi shows and movies have more duds and disasters than successes. Audiences will stay away from something that remotely resembles a past failure. Love him or hate him, 'Latex' Jackson has the right idea for reshaping Skiffy into a profitable business.

Like I said earlier; if they still had FS on right now, we wouldn't be screaming for their heads. God knows *I* want their heads.

Well, we can either get mad and fume about things, or we can do something about it. SKiffy has their own plans, their own ideas to push. Good for them, let'em at it.

Why don't WE do our OWN network and make our OWN shows? The technology is here to do it, the Internet provides a streaming pipeline. It's do-able. It's only going to get better and why we're not scripting, designing, starring, and producing our own shows already is beyond me.

[Reefrunner]

Looks like Sci Fi decided to change the definition of what science fiction is, and are now trying to convince everyone else that they have the correct definition. Perhaps they aren't doing as well with their re-imaging of the channel as they thought they would?

[Dominar of Action]

I agree with tedbragg and reefrunner. This interview read very differently than other BH interviews. It seemed like she was choosing her words more carefully -- maybe she actually did pay attention to some of the "feedback" she got from prior interviews. However, it does irk me every time I read this kind of so-called "reporting." It's little more than a free advertisement for the interview subject. I don't blame BH for promoting her network -- that's her job. I blame the reporter for not doing his/her homework.

You can e-mail UPI with polite comments here: tips@upi.com

This is what I sent:

You know, "Interview: Sci Fi -- the future is now" (6/20/2003) is little more than a free advertisement for the Sci Fi Channel. Where's the reporting? Why not ask Ms. Hammer about the deep discontent genre fans currently have for her network? About the Battlestar Galactica fans who are boycotting the upcoming "reimagined" series that bears no resemblance to the original? About how, exactly, the most recent Sci Fi original series like Scare Tactics, Tremors: The Series, and The Dream Team exemplify the network's supposed dedication to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television? And most of all, about why the network abruptly decided to cancel its only award-winning and critically acclaimed series (Farscape) despite a publicly stated and oft-repeated commitment to another season? If ever a TV show involved creative and intelligent storytelling, Farscape was it ... yet Sci Fi killed it, without even giving the producers a chance to conclude its epic story. Why?

Essentially, the Sci Fi Channel is a niche network that wants to leave its niche behind and go mainstream. Instead of trying to change the public's perception of science fiction as the exclusive domain of geeks, they are trying to change the definition of science fiction itself, which is a non-starter. Science fiction is what it is: "science" + "fiction." Ms. Hammer would like us to forget the first part of that equation.

Those of us who have been following this network's evolution away from the very genre it claims to celebrate recognize Ms. Hammer's spin when we see it. It's a shame your reporter did not.

[LiLOrion]

Parts of this interview seem familiar but I cant for the life of me remember where I read it before. But I think it was the LAST interview we had with Bonnie where she said these same things.

:confused:



Tedbragg:

I actually liked Invisible Man and Veritas: The Quest, the latter to me had an Indiana Jones type feel. :)
Believe me, if I had the money to sink into a Farscape network, I would.

[PrairieScaper]

Ummm, I liked Invisible Man. And a couple of other shows on that list, too. I'm sure there are fans for many of those shows here on the board. Who determined that they were all so "bad"? The ratings? Unfortunately, a number of them actually got better ratings than FS. Sorry, but it's true, however unfair that may seem and for whatever reason. I don't think there are many more poorly-done genre shows than poorly-done cop or lawyer shows. I'm sure somewhere in this world there are people who dislike FS. Fine, let them watch something else if it's not to their taste.

Anyway, I can't believe BH actually insinuated that SFC caters to intelligent, literate viewers. She has pretty much said that's not the audience she wants, in other interviews. Of course it is her job to promote her channel, but does she have to contradict herself so much? Oh, getting dizzy, stop the spinning, stop the spinning! :hork:

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by tedbragg1
Oh c'mon people. Skiffy channel can't survive on 'true believers' alone. The gains they're making is great. If they hadn't canceled FS we wouldn't be reacting like this, I'm sure.

Of course, if *I* were running the network, it would aim at a different track. Skiffy is taking a new route compared to what's been done and they are right about one thing: American audiences hate to be associated with Trekkies and dweebs... Then why hang onto that 'Star Trek:TOS' contract for dear life, and pre-empt the 'promised' unaired episodes of 'Roar' to screen yet more episodes of 'ST:TOS'. If this is the image and demographic they are steering away from, whay are they using that show, and other 'basement-dwellers' as cructches? I mean really, who really watches 'Dark Shadows'?

If they really were the Tolkien-lovers that they say they are, they would have finished 'Roar's run. and publicized it more. It was one of the few watchachable things they were running.So much sci-fi fare has been made that simply SUCKS. It's not that people aren't interested in things like they used to be. The movies and tv shows everybody got burned on and fed up with simply STUNK.But that doesn't mean that Skiffy has to subsidize MORE of it, as 'Original Movies' and 'Miniseries'.Let's see...number of sci-fi shows that were considered bad, sucked or pissed people off for wasting their time:

Invisible Man
First Wave
Lexx
Sliders (last few seasons)
ST: Voyager
Enterprise
Event Horizon
Treasure PLanet
Titan AE
Black Scorpion
Adventures of Jules Verne
Robin Cooks' Invasion
Battlefield Earth
BeastMaster series
Cleopatra 2525
Encrypt
Veritas: The QuestOk, hold up, just one second - I know we all can't agree on everything here, but 'I-man', 'First Wave' and 'ST: Voyager' were (mostly) enjoyable. But you basically make my previous point with the rest of the list, especially in Skiffy's case. If it's BAD and has limited appeal, why bother?. Many of the shows in your list were Skiffy 'originals', shows that they took over or syndication items that they made an effort to acquire on the cheap.

I could go on. All of these shows and movies were the target for much hate and loathing. THAT'S why Skiffy is changing tactics and going the route they are. And so far, it's working.

Sci-fi shows and movies have more duds and disasters than successes.Are they changing tactics? All I see are episodes of SG-1 and some dubious development projects. They've pre-sold lots of advertising, but the advertisers are clearly operating on some mechanism other than the elite tastes of the 'Farscape' audience. (Or are they, given the recent flurry of 'wormhole' spoof-ads from CD-W and some other advertisers.)Audiences will stay away from something that remotely resembles a past failure. Love him or hate him, 'Latex' Jackson has the right idea for reshaping Skiffy into a profitable business. So, in your view, is 'Farscape' a failure, or did it just fail to find an audience? And what of 'Firefly', since it adhered to Mr. Jackson's antipathy for latex? And 'Odyssey 5', which was an intelligent and successful show that should, theoretically still be on, because it adhered the human stories and 'alternate realities' that Mr. Jackson is so fond of. On the contrary, I think it's the studios and the broadcasters that form the 'first line' of defense against past failures, not the audiences.

If audience 'failure' and network tastes are so omnipotent, why then are there 4,000+ people on this board fighting so earnestly for a reversal?

The only people that Skiffy seems to have won over are the advertisers and the anonymous 5000 Nielsen box owners that contribute their 1.4 ratings for SG-1, and the folks who tuned in for 'Taken' when nothing else was on television.

I still see a credibility gap. Bonnie H. is acknowledging that science-fiction and genre entertainment are more mainstream than the general public likes to recognize, but she as the so-called President of a so-called niche-Network, remains incapable of getting mainstream audience numbers and stronger programming. We've all known and recognized this for some time. Where's the beef in this 'interview'? It might as well be 'Paid-For Promotional Programming' for Skiffy. The only thing she's managed to do in this 'interview' is avoid the mention of Farscape.

[jadeshand]

While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television

I can't believe she said that with a straight face. Tremors, Scare Tactics and the Dream Team are such great quality.

[vhsiv]

Editorial Inquiries

If you would like to comment on any UPI article or have a news tip, please contact us at tips@upi.com

If you have a press release that you would like sent to the newsroom, please send it to pressreleases@upi.com or fax to 202-898-8064.

[gurnemanz]

This is the kind of interview that, in the trade, is called a handjob.

No, really.

It's a time-honored (??) profession . . .

g.

[Dominar of Action]

That's it, g! Perfect description. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. :(

[Tiriel]

While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television.
BWaaahahahahahahahahahaaaaahhh!!!!
:rollin: catches breath
BWAAHAHAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAAHAAA!!!
wipes laughter tears off cheek OMG, that was funny.
giggles uncontrollably for a minute or two Hehehehehehe. Hell, she's a riot and a half! She should work as a stand-up comedian.

G: OMG!!!! Man! You slay me!!!! I wonder how much they paid the writer :D :D :D :D :D

Love and Peace and WhatEVER!

Tiriel :bounce:

[Roland]

7 hours later and I'm still frellin' :mad:

[SweetpeaAeryn]

quote:

While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television.


~I cannot believe she said that knowing that we would read it. She HAD to have known that we would catch wind of it... what was she thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Seriously?!?!?!?!??!?!?:grr: :mad:

[AerynSunsGun]

"One thing that is wonderful about the genre is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out. It's not like simple action adventure where you know what's going to happen and everything is derivative. ..." Bonnie Hammer, 6/20/03

"It was brilliant when you got it, and some of the characterizations were truly amazing, but it took a little too much work." Bonnie Hammer, TV Guide Insider interview on Farscape's cancellation, 1/7/03

This woman frustrates the heck out of me.

[PkTechSquirrel]

Clearly Bonnie misses us.

And as far as rewatching 'The Matrix' over and over and still having questions-well, no wonder she didn't "get" Farscape.:confused: If she did less of this:smokin: and more of this:think:

Maybe we'd have our 5th season.

I apologize in advance to anyone who was offended by my comments about Ms. Hammer. I realize that I should not resort to attacking her personally...but...frell! She just angries up my blood.

[cleverfox]

While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television.

May I say, HUH?

Or, as "Ouroboros" would say, WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT?

Who let the dogs out? I thought we asked politely to have her leash put back on.

Once again her lips are moving and no sound is coming out... I hear a buzzing noise... whatever. She makes no sense. It sounds to me like she wrote this herself. Like all of you, my head is spinning with her logic.

Let's see, cancel Farscape for ratings and budget reasons. Also say that the writing is brilliant but it's just too smart, too inside baseball (even though we all know that even young kids "get" the show). THEN say that the Sci Fi Channel is NOT like other networks concerned with ratings and budget... and just loves creative, intelligent stuff????????? Is it ME???? Or is this woman bipolar?

PKTechSquirrel: If she did less of this :smokin: and more of this :think:

That just cracked me up! I'm still laughing.

I know, I know, knock off the Bonnie Bashing. I'm sorry to get so frustrated, but heck, I'm frustrated. I need to vent.

:train:
:sniper:
:smash:
:flamethro
:wb:
:headbang:

OK, I feel a little better. Just a little.

-CF

[DangerWillRobinson]

quote


"While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television."

I don't know what she has been smoking, but please give me some. She had "fabulous fiction" and she canned it like bad Tuna. :mad:

The way this story was written makes me think that the reporter has a "twinkle" in his eye for Bonnie. So this kind of softball questioning is called a hand job? Well I agree with that, only I don't think that Bonnie is the only one who got a hand job!!!;) :eek:


Sorry but she really cheeses my crackers!! :mad:

[DangerWillRobinson]

Originally posted by PkTechSquirrel
Clearly Bonnie misses us.

And as far as rewatching 'The Matrix' over and over and still having questions-well, no wonder she didn't "get" Farscape.:confused: If she did less of this:smokin: and more of this:think:

Maybe we'd have our 5th season.

I apologize in advance to anyone who was offended by my comments about Ms. Hammer. I realize that I should not resort to attacking her personally...but...frell! She just angries up my blood.

I agree with your statement!!!:rollin:

[trubador]

*sigh*

She does it again...

She states, "One thing that is wonderful about the genre is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out. It's not like simple action adventure where you know what's going to happen and everything is derivative. It's right in front of you on the screen. There are no surprises. In science fiction, you're left with the 'what if?..... We know that a good portion of the sci-fi audience loves literature. Loves reading. Loves great storytelling and great characters, so we know that we can do quality programming and people will come and see it."

... YET...

They dump Farscape.

She says that "space operas or futuristic series isn't what [the current audience] want."

... BUT...

"Sci Fi Channel is currently reinventing the landmark science fiction series Battlestar Galactica."

[Deanna T]

Originally posted by vhsiv
The only thing she's managed to do in this 'interview' is avoid the mention of Farscape.

Well, at least she's learnt something - that it's a good idea to phone ahead, and ask if Farscape will be mentioned, before agreeing to do an interview ;)

[tedbragg1]

Look, why don't the lot of us gang up, make our OWN SHOWS, pool together to makeour OWN NETWORK (either online, cable, digi-sat,whatever) and give Skiffy a run for their money?!?

I'm already working with a local troupe in this backwoods town, development for an action/sci-fi SERIES, shot on Hi-def DV. We've got a few college 3D graphics majors helping out on the CGI, I'm boning up on latex/silicon apps/make-up effects and film editing--- The local ABC affiliate has already expressed interest...

It doesn't take a Hollywood studio to make stuff anymore, people! C'mon, let's get off our emmas and hop to it! If we hate Skiffy so much and bemoan the lack of quality sci-fi on TV, then good grief, let's make our own!

[Ammit]

Sounds good, tedbragg, if nothing else, make your local access channel a new scifi channel. :)

[Sermon]

Well, well, well. Bonnie Hammer strikes again. To be honest, her first couple of statements and interviews after the Farscape cancellation really made me furious, but now I thoroughly enjoy what this woman has to say. She's always good for a good laugh. Her statements are so hilarious, she should get her own comedy show where she shares her views about various topics. I think this would be the greatest comedy event of the year.

"Whether it's 'The Matrix,' 'Harry Potter,' 'The Lord of the Rings,' or 'The Sixth Sense,' (the growing popularity of the genre is) amazing,"

Interesting definition of Science Fiction. Lord of the Rings? Sixth Sense? What's labelled next as Science Fiction? The Arthurian legend? The Iliad? The Nibelungenlied? Beowulf?

"People weren't aware they liked the genre because they themselves defined the genre in an unfair way.

Sure, people didn't realize they were watching Science-Fiction when they saw that movie with those spaceships, the robots and the aliens. People are stupid. They need Bonnie Hammer to tell them that they've been watching so many SciFi films over the years and they didn't even realize they were watching SciFi-films!

"They just wouldn't necessarily define themselves as sci-fi fans because their own definitions were limited."

And now, thanks to Bonnie Hammer, they define themselves as sci-fi fans because their definitions are wrong. I wonder how many Lord of the Rings fans will define themselves as sci-fi fans after having read that interview. I guess Bonnie Hammer and her merry men want to go down in history as the people who re-defined the term science fiction, which basically means they slap a science-fiction label on everything that has a hint of fantasy- or supernatural-elements in it. That's how they think they can escape the science-fiction niche market. So people who like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, X-Files or Spiderman are in their opinion science-fiction fans, which is IMO downright stupid.

"One thing that is wonderful about the genre is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out. It's not like simple action adventure where you know what's going to happen and everything is derivative."

Ah, now that's why they cancelled Farscape and went on to produce shows like Tremors, Scare Tactics and Dream Team, which are definitely very thought provoking, imaginative and cleverly written shows.

"I can't even tell you how many times I've watched the original 'Matrix,' and I still have questions."

Oh, I bet you have ... I bet you have.

"I loved it, but I'm still trying to figure it out in a lot of ways."

Well, at least she admitted that she didn't get it. No wonder they cancelled Farscape and thought it was too hard to follow. I wonder what she would say when she'd watch a movie like Brazil ...

While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television.

Now cancelling a show like Farscape and then making a statement like that is either very bold or very naive. I am not even going to comment this paragraph further.

Well, all in all good old Bonnie has done it again. I hope she'll give more interviews like that in the future (which she undoubtedly will), because they're always a good laugh. I'm actually coming to the point where I am glad that Farscape isn't on SciFi anymore, as the show deserves a better channel than this new and improved "SciFi"-channel.

Enough ranting. I'd better go back to reading this book by this greek Sci-Fi writer ... what's his name again .... Homer ...

[vhsiv]

http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/b5jms/1996-February/001012.html

Is there good stuff being done today? Yes, of course there is... there's just *less* of it around in drama mainly because the networks do all they can do dumb down a show to make it more accessible.

(A network suit actually *said* this to me: "Our operating philosophy these days is that the people with upper or middle-class incomes, and an education, are watching cable, or laser disks, or videotapes. So what we have to do is to program for the rest of the audience, who may be under-educated, but don't have any other options." Scared the hell outta me.)

When I was working on JAKE AND THE FATMAN (no defense offered), I had a script I'd written about a cop who's been trying to nail a certain bad guy for the last 10 years. I had a line in that when they meet: the bad guy says, "I suppose I should be flattered. Not every man has his own, personal Ahab." A pretty spiffy line.

The network calls. "We think there's a typo; there's a character referenced named Ahab, but we don't see him anywhere else in the script." My [Executive Producer] tries to explain to the network suit, "See, it's Ahab... Captain Ahab... you know, MOBY DICK... a nut chasing a big fish...?"

The network guy says, "Look, I have an MBA, and if I don't know who Ahab is, nobody else is going to, so cut it out of the script." And so it went, over my strongly stated objections.

n.b.: This 'educated' network executive is a member of the same class of viewer who is supposed to be fleeing broadcast television for the 'elite' pleasures of cable, sattelite, DVD and videotape, above.

There's a post-script to the Moby Dick story... subsequent to the events described, I send the suit in question a copy of Moby Dick...in comic book form (Classics Illustrated). Something he could handle.
....

Part of the problem with American culture is that we're a throwaway culture...yesterday's fashions get tossed out instantly. To say that TNG or DS9 are *better* shows than TOS because TOS was "of its time," or "good for its time" is at heart a foolish statement. Something is good, or it is not good. Nobody writes like Shakespeare anymore; was Shakespeare good "for its time?" Is it not good today because it is too much "of its time?" Chaucer? Marlowe? Hemingway? Dickens? Serling?

We denigrate our past to falsely ennoble our present. "Well, that was okay for *then*, but it's not very good *now*." We all labor under the rules and predelications of the moment. Yes, TOS operated under rules of that time, just as TNG operates under the rules of syndication, and the secondary and tertiary rules that come along with the fear of not botching the franchise by doing anything too controversial. One could make a good argument that, by calcification and commercialization, there are MORE creative strictures on the ST "form" than there were in the days of TOS; certainly most of the writers who've worked on the contemporary versions will tell you this.

Nonetheless, we should recognize that people aren't just stupid en masse one year, then suddenly smarter today. If TOS was good, then it was good; *we* may have changed, but the quality of the show as perceived then, is still there.

[Dominar of Action]

There's a post-script to the Moby Dick story... subsequent to the events described, I send the suit in question a copy of Moby Dick...in comic book form (Classics Illustrated). Something he could handle.I like this guy's style. :lol

[Scapekid]

*sigh*

I'm just sad because they didn't even mention Farscape.

Usually, if SciFi gets mentioned, Farscape gets mentioned. But this time not even that to console myself... :(

I'll have to console myself that SFX readers at least voted Farscape's death the worst thing to happen in '03, and Bonnie Hammer came second in the category 'person who needs to be killed to prevent further tragedies,' right behind George Lucas.

Cariad,
Scape'

:jedi:

-- Going back to reading Harry Potter now...

[PkTechSquirrel]

:rollin: :spew:

[scrubschick]

The gall of this creature continues to amaze me! How does she get away with this? It's boob sweat, I tell you! Boob sweat!

And Jadeshand? We have no guarantee that she said any of this with a straight face. It was a phone interview. As such it is immediately suspect. Along the lines of OJ Simpson's 'counselling by phone'.

'Greek scifi writer, Homer'. ROTFL!!

hugs and chocolate kisses!
scrubs :spin:

[SweetpeaAeryn]

Originally posted by vhsiv
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/b5jms/1996-February/001012.html

(A network suit actually *said* this to me: "Our operating philosophy these days is that the people with upper or middle-class incomes, and an education, are watching cable, or laser disks, or videotapes. So what we have to do is to program for the rest of the audience, who may be under-educated, but don't have any other options." Scared the hell outta me.)




WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

[Spacepiston]

Lexx was great. So was Voyager.. Invisable Man wasnt bad...

Now Black Scorpion? Yes Black Scorpion was crap.

[Sococlear]

__________________________________________________ _
Asked to explain the one quality that ties together all of these different types of stories, Hammer refers to the Sci Fi Channel's marketing campaign, in which the "i" in "Sci" and the "F" in "Fi," pop out at viewers, challenging them to wonder, "what if?"
__________________________________________________ _


I WANT TO THROUGH UP!!!

What a load of crap

I keep wondering what IF you kept airing FARSCAPE!!!

[Chiana's Frell Toy]

"But now in many ways the population is very different because they don't necessarily care about the things we used to care about because the future is now, and technology to a lot of the new younger viewers is just another day in the office, and space operas or futuristic series isn't what they want. They just want a different twist on the here and now."

That ignorant, out of touch tralk is now making excuses for the dren called "Scare Tactics" and that channeling the dead show whatever it's called.... BLAH!

Stupid stupid stupid
I want her head on a stick!!!

[grinner]

Originally posted by Chiana's Frell Toy

Stupid stupid stupid
I want her head on a stick!!! Where's Rygel when you really need him.

[vhsiv]

by PKAmmoTroop
http://users.boardnation.com/~scapeartist/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6907

"Bonnie Hammer is fascinated by the explosion of popularity in Science Fiction. As she recently told the United Press 'Whether it's 'The Matrix,' 'Harry Potter,' 'The Lord of the Rings,' or 'The Sixth Sense,' (the growing popularity of the genre is) amazing… People weren't aware they liked the genre because they themselves defined the genre in an unfair way.'

"Yes, those silly people, they were defining 'science-fiction' the exact same way that Science Fiction authors and producers were! How silly can they be? All this time people thought 'The Matrix' was science fiction while 'The Lord of the Rings' was fantasy and 'The Sixth Sense' was a ghost story. Of course, they were absolutely correct but now that Bonnie Hammer included anything she can pry into her schedule on her dying network all is fair game. In her never-ending battle to dumb down the audience of the SciFi Channel, she’s actually redefined Science Fiction to mean 'Any work of fiction where 30% of the audience can spell science.' The fiction part and the spelling part are both negotiable.

"What is the definition of Science Fiction? The American Heritage&reg; Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition says it’s 'a literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.' So as I look at this definition for the life of me I can’t figure where 'John Edwards' or the 'The Dream Team' fit in.

"Actually I can’t figure what the hell Bonnie Hammer is thinking. She said the SciFi Channel remains dedicated to bringing 'fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore' to television. Myths and Lore? The closest this channel has come to showing Myths and Lore is 'Hercules' and 'Xena: Warrior Princess'.

"In an attempt to generate much needed income Bonnie has shown us such startling Science Fiction ground breakers as 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' and 'Braveheart'. Both are interesting films, but Science Fiction? Not close, in fact 'Braveheart' is the OPPOSITE of science fiction – not only is it based on a true story (or purportedly true, depending on if your ancestry is Scottish or British) but the most high tech item available is the Long Bow. Does this woman think we’re as stupid as that? Look at the SciFi Channel's weekend movie line up for the month of June. You’ll see that a scifi addict will have to wait until the 28th when '12 Monkeys' is shown to break the drought, up to that point we’re buried in crapola horror films which Bonnie fails to address in her embarrassingly long winded diatribe, but heaps on the viewers ad nausium. Horror films are the reality show of the 90+ minute production side of entertainment. They’re so cheap to make you can’t avoid making a profit and you can always bribe some yokel reviewer to call your pathetic production values 'stylish'.

"'All the possibilities that exist, which live in our imagination (make up science fiction),' said Bonnie Hammer, which sounds great and is a fantastic example of why she’s known throughout the industry as Sound-Bite Bonnie, but she’s wrong. Dead wrong. She just defined Fantasy, a completely different genre all together. Science Fiction is actually a disciplined genre, and having seen the SciFi channels programming department in action, a little discipline could be just what this bunch needs.

"Bonnie goes on to say 'One thing that is wonderful about the genre is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out. It's not like simple action adventure where you know what's going to happen and everything is derivative.' I’m thinking that the interviewer was too embarrassed to interrupt but her gushing description of what she just discovered is not just limited to Science Fiction, what she was heartily babbling about applies to ANYTHING as long as its done WELL. Our English:101 professors have a term for it: Literature.

"And while we’re on the subject of something allowing someone to use their mind and imagination wasn’t there mention of someone a few months ago in the Hammer household who couldn’t be bothered to use their mind and imagination so to save money on aspirin for hubby Bonnie cancelled 'Farscape'? Or am I being cynical?

"So let’s get on with Bonnie's two-faced hypocrisy. How bad? Bad enough that the New York Times is rumored to have offered her a job as editor. Speaking about todays viewers (as 'if' the gilded elite in the sanctum stuporous of the SciFi channel actually looked down from on high and tried to determine what a viewer wants? - Yeah, right.) Bonnie said '…space operas or futuristic series isn't what they want. They just want a different twist on the here and now.'

"So what twist on the here and now does the SciFi channel offer these woe-begotten viewers? 'Battlestar Galactica', Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Red Mars', Ursula Le Guin's 'The Left Hand of Darkness' Excuse me Bonnie, but these are all Space Operas. Let’s look at your track record and see what the audience REALLY likes. Looks like our top 4 qualifiers are 'Farscape', 'Stargate', Taken, and 'Children of Dune'. (Pssssssst! Bonnie! They’re Space Operas!) All in all Bonnie once again shows us that she’s as much a stranger to the truth as she is to running a genre cable network.

"Ok Bonnie, here’s some sage advice for you coming from deep within my decades (ok, hours) of work inside the entertainment industry. Stop lying. Your ratings are static, in fact your ranking has dropped from 10th place to 14th. Change your name to the Fantasy & Science Fiction channel, or maybe just use that infantile play on letters that you need to gush about and call your channel IF. ... ['IF' because] you’re not showing Science Fiction - no matter how much your audience wants it - re-[imagining] the term just makes you look uneducated.”

EDITED to add clarity and a little bit of flair, and not the 15 vs. 34 button-type. (rf. 'Office Space')

[Watcher]

Ooh, well said, well said :aok:
Thanks for cross posting that response here, vhsiv,
I really enjoyed it and there's lots of great materials for anyone writing to the reporter.

I am to the point that Sermon is: :rollin:
Her statements are so hilarious, she should get her own comedy show where she shares her views about various topics. I think this would be the greatest comedy event of the year.

I used to get mad, now I just am amazed and amused. Someone should write a sit com about Bonnie the Spinner. Imagine the network's surprise when they go down in flames because Sci Fi fans can't find any Science Fiction programming on the channel that has any science fiction in it. :et: :critter: :shocked: :thud:

[farscapefan4eva]

lets face it the womans an idiot, i doubt she would know good sci fi if it came up and bit her in the ass and she head of the sci-fi channel. infrellingcredable sigh. Its tragic when the sci-fi genre is defined by harry potter, erm nope i wouldnt class him as sci fi meself but hey let the idiot think whats she wants to think. maybe one day whats left of her brain will rebell and explode or something......ff4eva is smilling at that thought lol.

[jpinMoya]

Someone with more writting skill than I should send UPI a story on how Skiffy buried its ORIGINAL AWARD WINNING FRESH APPROACH TO SCI FI SHOW!!!
:mad:
:finger:
:boom:

This one sure has me seeing RED

[vhsiv]

Beat her at her own game.

New assignment 'Scapers! UPI has an item about accepting press releases - I posted the e-mail link somewhere around here, twice. Why don't one of us polite and verbose-types write another response to Bonnie's nonsense, and send a copy to UPI, to TV Guide, and any other respectable, respected journal of note - Salon.com immediately comes to mind.

Frame the letter or article in terms of dissapointment and that sort of thing. House-captive Moms and Dads should have a particularly poignant tale to tell, as they can't get out of the house, like they used to, and rely on their pay-cable services more than ever. That alone should be able to topple some of the 'geek' stonewalling that we get from the major media. And then talk about Skiffy's broken promises, as if you're talking about your broken 401k plan.

Above all, don't mention this site, or our organizational powers, as it will just whet the flames of the 'geek-alert'. No planetary invasion or hostile takeover succeeded because the participants brandished their involvement in the conspiracy.

Just break out those indignant crocodile tears, and start writing those medium-profile rebuttals. If we can get at least one or two published in a national publication, we'll bbe doing something. If someone can disguise their commentary as a more general 'article' on the state of television these days, well heck, more power to you.

farscapefan4eva was off to a good start --- might I suggest an elaboration of her comments along these lines:Dear TV Guide/Reader's Digest/USA Today/Harper's, etc.:

Up until this Spring, one of the high-water marks of my home-life, was the Friday evenings I'd spend with my kids, watching Farscape.

Despite the stigmatism of it being on the SciFi channel, I found it to be a great means of blowing off the anxiety of the work-week, and sneaking some parenting in on my two boys, who generally prefer not to do things with 'Dear old Mom'.

But the Jim Henson Co. produced a show, unlike most other shows, provided both a context and a medium for me and my kids to talk about the value of friendship and family - and that, in spite of some sometimes objectionable content - but certainly nowhere as objectionable than some of the stuff that they encounter during a typical schoolday.

The SciFi channel and USA Networks and broke their promise to Farscape fans worldwide, despite Ms. Hammer's avowed dedication to 'fabulous fiction', SciFi and USA cancelled 'Farscape' because of the bottom-line: ratings, money and an inability to promote a show that would have been a hit on any other network, period. Any other broadcaster would have seen their way through to make money with this show through syndication deals and cross-promotion. But not SciFi.

Instead of the life lessons I was once able to share with my kids on Friday nights, I only have man-eating earthworms ('Tremors'), and mean-spirited practical jokes ('Scare Tactics'). I would rather leave the television off these days, rather than pollute my childrens' heads with this nonsense.

Marion Qualls
$52,000/yr.
Single mother, 2 kids
Patterson, NJ You and your team may choose not to accept this mission, if you wish.

This message will self-destruct in exactly ten days...

[quendi]

Originally posted by vhsiv
Beat her at her own game.

You and your team may choose not to accept this mission, if you wish.

This message will self-destruct in exactly ten days...

Mission accepted.....

acquiring genetic transformation.....

<<they'll never see my geekiness with this stylish haircut >>




edited to say: could this be on our To-Do list sometime?

[palascaper]

The funny thing is, even if Ms. Hammer and "Sci Fi" don't mention Farscape anymore, plenty of critics do, plenty of sci fi magazines still do. People are still talking about Farscape, and how long has it been cancelled?

That's amazing. Does Ms. Hammer know how much FS is still in the news?

[atomicblue]

challenging them to wonder, "what if?"

That's a question I ask myself daily. I guess I am with the non challenged thinking group. Whatever this woman makes me want to puke.

[RustySlinky]

:trans:
The *Bonnie Maneuver* was similarly pulled by Viacom-owned MTV awhile back. MTV veered toward non-music shows like *Real World*, *Lifeline*, *Undressed*, *Jackass*, *Road Rules*, and *Punk'd*.
:think:
A focus on lifestyle/interests vs. music.
A focus on imagination/state of mind vs. Science Fiction.

A jokster at trekweb suggested that Sci Fi change its name to the Metaphysical and Monster network, or *M & M*. (Enter SpikeTV style lawsuit):elol:

[Chiana's Frell Toy]

OH BOY! A great epic of science fiction is coming to our small screen!!! Bonnie "The Enlightened One" Hammer will grant us, for the pleasure of our sophisticated 21st century audience viewing pleasure, THE FLINTSTONES VIVA ROCK VEGAS this saturday on the SCI-FI Channel.
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Bonnie you out of touch TRALK!
GET A CLUE... and a new job. :finger:

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by Chiana's Frell Toy
Bonnie "The Enlightened One" Hammer will grant us, for the pleasure of our sophisticated 21st century audience viewing pleasure, THE FLINTSTONES VIVA ROCK VEGAS this saturday on the SCI-FI Channel. While many of the major networks seem more concerned with ratings and budgets than creative, intelligent storytelling, Hammer said the Sci Fi Channel remains dedicated to bringing "fabulous fiction ... steeped in our myths and our lore" to television.I used to respect Universal&trade; for their film and television work.
Now I wince, every time I see the logo. I wonder if Bonnie factored that into her 'market analysis' before she canceled FS.

Heck, I can live without 'Law & Order'....

[cleverfox]

Real Science Fiction, as definined by... uh, no one?

They are completely mad, I tell you, mad. I am sure they're fighting hard for the airing rights to Scooby Doo, too.

Sheez.

[trubador]

Yah know... that's the SECOND time THIS YEAR that the so-called "Sci-Fi" channel has aired "The Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas." Now, MAYBE I coulld understand "The Jetsons: The Movie"..... but the Flintstones????:grr: