SabaceanBabe
06-27-2003, 12:33 PM
June 27, 2003
Ms. Bonnie Hammer, President of Programming
The Sci Fi Channel
1230 Avenue of the Americas, F115
New York, NY 10020-1513
Dear Ms. Hammer:
I read the interview you gave to the United Press International, “Sci Fi – the Future is Now,” with great interest and no small amount of incredulity. It amazes me to think that you and the so-called Sci Fi Channel are attempting to redefine the term “science fiction.” I was unaware there was any ambiguity in the existing definition:
science fiction, n., a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation. – The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition. (emphasis added)
But, perhaps it was the word “fiction” that caused the apparent confusion? After all, it is not quite as simple a definition as its subset, above:
fiction, 1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form. 2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction. 3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story; falsehood. 4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining. 5. Law. An allegation that a fact exists which is known not to exist. – The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition.
Of the movies you cited in your interview as drawing the public to “sci fi” without them even realizing they were science fiction, only one was actually science fiction (The Matrix). The others fall into different categories altogether – fantasy (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) or horror (The Sixth Sense) – all three categories being part of a broader category known as speculative fiction.
Later on in the interview, I find myself agreeing with what you said: “…One thing that is wonderful about the genre [science fiction] is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out….” These statements are the truth, as I know it, but what, exactly, do they have to do with Bonnie Hammer and the Sci Fi Channel?
The Sci Fi Channel was once a haven for fans of science fiction. Now, though, I shudder to hear of the future projects planned for your channel (and make no mistake, it is still nothing but a “little cabler”), based on what you have brought us in the recent past. Rather than continuing programs that are thought-provoking, that allow your viewers to use their minds and their imaginations (as well as their hearts), and that do not spell everything out for them – programs such as Farscape and the Invisible Man – you see fit to broaden the definition of science fiction to include such drivel as Scare Tactics and Crossing Over with John Edwards – programs that are more accessible and cost less to produce than science fiction. And I won’t go into the upcoming bastardization – sorry, reimagination – of Battlestar Galactica.
Now, though, the Sci Fi Channel seems to have less and less to do with good science fiction every day. On the Sci Fi Channel, where once I might have found a thought-provoking and entertaining show such as Farscape, I am more likely to find a sleep-inducing piece of drivel such as “The Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas.” As a friend recently said to me, “If ‘the New TNN’ is the ‘Men’s Network’, then Sci Fi has quietly segued into ‘the Network for 13-year-old boys’…A target audience that can’t afford Hummers, is too young for Viagra and doesn’t care about Funeral Insurance.” And then there is the ad promoting the Sci Fi Channel during its commercial breaks that features a scantily clad woman writhing on some sort of table or altar. Suffice it say that ad has nothing to do with science fiction but rather more to do with the occult – and 13-year-old boys.
In closing, I find myself praying that a broadcaster that actually respects their audience – Viacom? Liberty Media? – and appreciates the money-making capacity of good science fiction will purchase the Sci Fi Channel soon and put us out of our misery by airing shows and movies in the genre the name of the channel purports to represent. By the way, just so that you are aware of what you are losing, I am a married, college-educated woman in the coveted 18-49 demographic, with a household income of $xxx,xxx per year, much of which is “disposable” since we do not have children.
Sincerely,
me
I’m not Nielsen. I am Farscape.
Cc: Viacom, Liberty Media, MGM, NBC
*************************
Sorry, V, I had to keep the 13-year-old boy comment. :D
Ms. Bonnie Hammer, President of Programming
The Sci Fi Channel
1230 Avenue of the Americas, F115
New York, NY 10020-1513
Dear Ms. Hammer:
I read the interview you gave to the United Press International, “Sci Fi – the Future is Now,” with great interest and no small amount of incredulity. It amazes me to think that you and the so-called Sci Fi Channel are attempting to redefine the term “science fiction.” I was unaware there was any ambiguity in the existing definition:
science fiction, n., a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation. – The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition. (emphasis added)
But, perhaps it was the word “fiction” that caused the apparent confusion? After all, it is not quite as simple a definition as its subset, above:
fiction, 1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form. 2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction. 3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story; falsehood. 4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining. 5. Law. An allegation that a fact exists which is known not to exist. – The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition.
Of the movies you cited in your interview as drawing the public to “sci fi” without them even realizing they were science fiction, only one was actually science fiction (The Matrix). The others fall into different categories altogether – fantasy (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) or horror (The Sixth Sense) – all three categories being part of a broader category known as speculative fiction.
Later on in the interview, I find myself agreeing with what you said: “…One thing that is wonderful about the genre [science fiction] is that it is thought provoking. It allows you to use your mind and your imagination. Everything is not spelled out….” These statements are the truth, as I know it, but what, exactly, do they have to do with Bonnie Hammer and the Sci Fi Channel?
The Sci Fi Channel was once a haven for fans of science fiction. Now, though, I shudder to hear of the future projects planned for your channel (and make no mistake, it is still nothing but a “little cabler”), based on what you have brought us in the recent past. Rather than continuing programs that are thought-provoking, that allow your viewers to use their minds and their imaginations (as well as their hearts), and that do not spell everything out for them – programs such as Farscape and the Invisible Man – you see fit to broaden the definition of science fiction to include such drivel as Scare Tactics and Crossing Over with John Edwards – programs that are more accessible and cost less to produce than science fiction. And I won’t go into the upcoming bastardization – sorry, reimagination – of Battlestar Galactica.
Now, though, the Sci Fi Channel seems to have less and less to do with good science fiction every day. On the Sci Fi Channel, where once I might have found a thought-provoking and entertaining show such as Farscape, I am more likely to find a sleep-inducing piece of drivel such as “The Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas.” As a friend recently said to me, “If ‘the New TNN’ is the ‘Men’s Network’, then Sci Fi has quietly segued into ‘the Network for 13-year-old boys’…A target audience that can’t afford Hummers, is too young for Viagra and doesn’t care about Funeral Insurance.” And then there is the ad promoting the Sci Fi Channel during its commercial breaks that features a scantily clad woman writhing on some sort of table or altar. Suffice it say that ad has nothing to do with science fiction but rather more to do with the occult – and 13-year-old boys.
In closing, I find myself praying that a broadcaster that actually respects their audience – Viacom? Liberty Media? – and appreciates the money-making capacity of good science fiction will purchase the Sci Fi Channel soon and put us out of our misery by airing shows and movies in the genre the name of the channel purports to represent. By the way, just so that you are aware of what you are losing, I am a married, college-educated woman in the coveted 18-49 demographic, with a household income of $xxx,xxx per year, much of which is “disposable” since we do not have children.
Sincerely,
me
I’m not Nielsen. I am Farscape.
Cc: Viacom, Liberty Media, MGM, NBC
*************************
Sorry, V, I had to keep the 13-year-old boy comment. :D