BSG article by Suzanne Ryan (boston globe) - Farscape Mention

[Jul]

My favorite part of this article is the quotes from Glen Larson regarding Skiffy :D

Starbuck is a . . . she?
'Battlestar' fans angry over update of sci-fi favorite
By Suzanne C. Ryan, Globe Staff, 12/7/2003

When he was 10 years old, Marc Drucker remembers, his best friend Jordan would come by his house every Saturday night to watch television. Drucker's mother would make popcorn. And together the boys would become engrossed in their favorite program, "Battlestar Galactica," that science fiction series famous for its robotic red-eyed villains, the Cylons.

"It was a great buddy show set in space," recalls Drucker, now a 35-year-old medical-device designer in Newton. "Every week, the fighter pilots Apollo and Starbuck would compete with each other. Apollo had the birthright. He was the commander's son. And Starbuck had the talent.

"In the end, neither would get the girl. We loved it."

Tomorrow night at 9, in honor of the 25th anniversary of the classic series, the Sci Fi Channel is airing the first episode of a new two-part "Battlestar Galactica" miniseries. The four-hour drama continues at 9 p.m. on Tuesday.

Perhaps it was inevitable that notoriously outspoken science-fiction fans would be critical of any new fashioning of a beloved show.

But the Sci Fi Channel has enraged would-be viewers with the news that their version of "Battlestar Galactica" features a female Starbuck who smokes cigars, plays poker, and has a love interest in Apollo. Boomer, an African-American man in the original show, is now an Asian woman. And the dreaded Cylons are now humanoid, mingling undetected among people. One of the Cylons, No. 6, is a seductress. Meanwhile, the mysterious reptilian race that controlled the Cylon troopers in the original show is nowhere to be found.

The show's biggest name is Oscar-nominated actor Edward James Olmos, who takes on the Lorne Greene role as Commander Adama. Otherwise, the cast is made up largely of newcomers, among them Katee Sackhoff as Starbuck (formerly Dirk Benedict) and Jamie Bamber as Apollo (once Richard Hatch).

Behind the scenes, the producers seem to have the right credentials. Ronald D. Moore is a veteran writer for "Star Trek: The Next Generation," and David Eick produced the syndicated series "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys."

But many fans are unimpressed. "They managed to change all of the elements other than the characters' names," said Drucker. "They are forcing me to start from scratch with a new show when I have so much affection for the original. I'd be more excited if they announced they were showing reruns."

Drucker, however, does plan to watch the miniseries, unlike Michael Johnson, a 32-year-old financial-services professional in Milford.

"Why don't they remake `Star Trek' and make Captain Kirk a woman?" he says. "Making Starbuck, who was a womanizer in the original series, a female is too weird. I don't like them changing things too much, and I've made up my mind not to watch it."

Despite the passion of its fans -- there are at least 21 websites devoted to the show and its original cast -- "Battlestar Galactica" was only broadcast for one season on ABC in 1978. Attempting to capitalize on the success of "Star Wars," the show followed a convoy of space ships heading to Earth after being attacked by the Cylons who wanted to destroy mankind. In 1980, ABC aired a sequel, "Galactica 1980," in which Earth was threatened by the Cylons. That series lasted just three months.

Since the late 1990s, a revival has been in the works. Hatch co-wrote five books advancing the series, including "Battlestar Galactica: Resurrection." In 1999, he also wrote and starred in a 4 1/2-minute film trailer, "Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming," which illustrated his ideas for a new film or series.

Fox also considered a series from Universal Television in 2001, but turned away the script, said Eick, who was later hired by Universal to develop a show for Sci Fi.

"It seemed to be a genre ripe for reinterpretation," he said. "The sweeping camera moves. The big orchestral score. The space opera has been mastered by `Star Trek.' We opted to go for a story where the heroes have moral ambiguity to them. Cinematically, there's a lot more hand-held camera work. Our sets are less designed."

From the beginning, Sci Fi made it clear to Eick that it had no intention of simply remaking the original, a show Bonnie Hammer, Sci Fi's president, said she watched and enjoyed but found to be "too campy." The Sci Fi Channel has aired reruns of that show periodically since 1994.

"We didn't want to completely negate the story line, but we wanted some surprises," she said. "If we had just done a continuation of the original, it would have shut out a lot of viewers who didn't see it. We had to make this fresh and self-contained."

Making the gender changes was one way to modernize the script, she said: "I love the twist of Starbuck being this sassy, tough pilot. That's probably very true today in the military world." In an attempt to reach more viewers, the channel will also close-caption the series in Spanish, making it the first basic cable channel to do so for an original drama.

Among those with doubts about the new "Battlestar Galactica" is Glen Larson, who created the original series.

"I don't know that the Sci Fi Channel is comfortable with [traditional] science fiction," contends Larson, who watched an advance tape of the minisieres recently. "To make the Cylons humanoid is a concept that has been done in `The Matrix' and `Terminator.' The gender changes seemed to be a change just for the sake of change. I'm thrilled that a story I wrote 25 years ago has held up, but I would have liked this version to be a little more faithful to the original."

To be sure, Hammer was prepared for a backlash. Earlier this year, she endured widespread criticism from fans who were upset that the channel had canceled "Farscape," a series some fans called television's best science-fiction program since the original "Star Trek."

"Farscape" had suffered from ratings declines, and the channel determined that it was time to move away from traditional space-odyssey science fiction in favor of shows based on Earth. "We are trying to open the door to those people who go to see `The Matrix' and `Harry Potter,' " Hammer said.

While not giving up on space stories completely, this year the 24-hour basic-cable channel, which is available in 82 million subscribing homes nationwide, introduced a reality show, "Scare Tactics," and the horror-comedy series "Tremors" (which has already been canceled). Its miniseries "Frank Herbert's Children of Dune" attracted 2.4 million viewers, making it the third most-watched original program in the channel's history behind 2002's "Taken" and 2000's "Dune."

"We are trying to strike that perfect balance between redefining science fiction for our audience and supporting the classics that the fans really love," Hammer said.

The Sci Fi Channel's website, www.scifi.com, has been "inundated" with protests, said Hammer, who added that fans "can't drive the creative process."

In a nod to the old generation, the channel did air a one-hour special, "Battlestar Galactica: The Lowdown," Nov. 26, in which Katee Sackhoff, as Starbuck, bought a Starbucks coffee for Dirk Benedict, the old Starbuck. "We hung out," said Sackhoff, who had no idea her character was originally a man when she received her script.

"He told me that his Starbuck would hide when it was time to go out on a mission," Sackhoff said. "He would go play cards and hit on women. My Starbuck wanted to be the first one out there."

Chris Feehan, co-president of the Battlestar Fan Club at www.battlestarfanclub.com, said he's "shocked" that the fans have not prevailed. "Deep down," he said, "I'm hoping this is a flop so we can have a proper revival."

Suzanne Ryan can be reached at sryan@globe.com

[Red]

ugh - skiffy cancellation spin redux.

[waltersgirl]

who added that fans "can't drive the creative process."

fan = consumer = end user

[Jul]

yeah... that pissed me off too...

They're working to make these in a way that the fans (consumers) will tune in, ergo, we are an important part of the creative process as we do drive it... they make their money from selling advertising that will be shown to us during their miniseries. Their drive is to get more fans/eyeballs, more eyeballs = more advertising dollars will be spent...frellin' idiots...

[Stargate2077]

While not giving up on space stories completely, this year the 24-hour basic-cable channel, which is available in 82 million subscribing homes nationwide, introduced a reality show, "Scare Tactics," and the horror-comedy series "Tremors" (which has already been canceled).

How this sentence makes sense? How are introducing "Scare Tactics" and "Tremors" show that the channel is not giving up on space stories completely?

[Dutch]

I watch Matrix and Terminator. I'm not impresssed at all with the current programming on Sci Fi. The original Galactica was too campy? And Tremors, albeit cancelled, is not? Aren't they also showing a program with Bryant Gumball (mis-spelling intentional) on some alien cover up in England or some place?

No thanks.

[Ammit]

I'm not sure if I want them to redefine science fiction for me. :(

[vhsiv]

In a nod to the old generation, the channel did air a one-hour special, "Battlestar Galactica: The Lowdown," Nov. 26, in which Katee Sackhoff, as Starbuck, bought a Starbucks coffee for Dirk Benedict, the old Starbuck. "We hung out," said Sackhoff, who had no idea her character was originally a man when she received her script.

"He told me that his Starbuck would hide when it was time to go out on a mission," Sackhoff said. "He would go play cards and hit on women. My Starbuck wanted to be the first one out there."Dirk is a dry, dry fellow, and Miss Katee is an idiot. It seems to me that Dirk misrepresented himself just a wee bit, and Katee has never bothered to look up, much less watch the original show. That's pathetic.David Eick:"The space opera has been mastered by 'Star Trek.' We opted to go for a story where the heroes have moral ambiguity to them. Cinematically, there's a lot more hand-held camera work. Our sets are less designed." Has he even watched 'Star Trek' recently? IMHO, Patrick Stewart was the last hurrah for Trek, and that's been over and done for at least a decade. I'm surprised he didn't mention SG-1, since it wasn't that long ago that Skiffy and MGM were standing in a circle, clapping at themselves and each other for producing the 'longest running' sci-fi show on television - SG-1 is supposed to have eclipsed Trek in terms of 'durability'.

I guess Mr. Eick didn't get the memo.

[Darth Buddha]

Art ot the Subtle Slam

Originally posted by Stargate2077

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not giving up on space stories completely, this year the 24-hour basic-cable channel, which is available in 82 million subscribing homes nationwide, introduced a reality show, "Scare Tactics," and the horror-comedy series "Tremors" (which has already been canceled).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How this sentence makes sense? How are introducing "Scare Tactics" and "Tremors" show that the channel is not giving up on space stories completely?
It makes sense they are saying WHILE they haven't given up on space stories entirely (SG-1), the new shows they've introduced (some failed already) AREN'T sapce stories.

I think the author was being utilizing a subtle slam. One we'll get, but Bonnie won't. I'd also bet it was all the author was allowed to get away with by the section editor.

[grinner]

Originally posted by vhsiv
Has he even watched 'Star Trek' recently? IMHO, Patrick Stewart was the last hurrah for Trek, and that's been over and done for at least a decade. I'm surprised he didn't mention SG-1, since it wasn't that long ago that Skiffy and MGM were standing in a circle, clapping at themselves and each other for producing the 'longest running' sci-fi show on television - SG-1 is supposed to have eclipsed Trek in terms of 'durability'.

I guess Mr. Eick didn't get the memo. When did MGM and SciFi say that SG-1 was the longest running Science Fiction show of Television. Did they forget Doctor Who? 1963-1989. by my count that is 26 years... continuously shown. With a half season Hickup in 1985/6

[Darth Buddha]

Why bother with the facts?

Originally posted by grinner
When did MGM and SciFi say that SG-1 was the longest running Science Fiction show of Television. Did they forget Doctor Who? 1963-1989. by my count that is 26 years... continuously shown. With a half season Hickup in 1985/6
Marketers, advertisers, and media-hype specialists are better at disregarding the actual facts than politicians.

And the news media is even LESS responsible in correcting them than in correcting politicians (and I'd give them a D- there).

[tedbragg1]

Actually, I'm TRILLED Sci-Fi is trying to move away from 'traditional sci-fi.'

Aside from FS, everything they had in that area sucked beyond belief.

BSG fans need to just let it go. Dont watch it. It's not THEIR show, they didn't write it, develope it or pay for it.

Give it up.

Skiffy will learn the hardway that if they're to be a sci-fi channel, they MUST cater to the american idealized idea of what sci-fi is SUPPOSED TO BE: space-opera.

Boy how I wish I was running that network right now...

[AnnieBW]

Actually, the longest running American sci-fi show was The X-Files, which ran for 9 seasons. Naturally, Doctor Who ran much longer. But Bonnie is suffering from typical American myopia.

Personally, I plan on giving the show 1/2 an hour. Mostly because I want to see how bad it is. I mean, my main complaint about the people that say that Harry Potter is eeeevil is that they haven't read the books or watched the movies. So, I'm watching it just for the MST3K value.

- Annie

[Sunderflame]

I've watched the trailers' and commentaries of their role changes. It's bunk. I've already found myself on the floor laughing hysterically.:roflmao: :roflmao: :poke: :cylon: :cylon: :cylon: It's just nuts. IMO

[BillFrugge]

Originally posted by Jul
Among those with doubts about the new "Battlestar Galactica" is Glen Larson, who created the original series.

"I don't know that the Sci Fi Channel is comfortable with [traditional] science fiction," contends Larson, who watched an advance tape of the minisieres recently. "To make the Cylons humanoid is a concept that has been done in `The Matrix' and `Terminator.' The gender changes seemed to be a change just for the sake of change. I'm thrilled that a story I wrote 25 years ago has held up, but I would have liked this version to be a little more faithful to the original."

To be sure, Hammer was prepared for a backlash. Earlier this year, she endured widespread criticism from fans who were upset that the channel had canceled "Farscape," a series some fans called television's best science-fiction program since the original "Star Trek."

"Farscape" had suffered from ratings declines, and the channel determined that it was time to move away from traditional space-odyssey science fiction in favor of shows based on Earth. "We are trying to open the door to those people who go to see `The Matrix' and `Harry Potter,' " Hammer said.

"We are trying to strike that perfect balance between redefining science fiction for our audience and supporting the classics that the fans really love," Hammer said.

The Sci Fi Channel's website, www.scifi.com, has been "inundated" with protests, said Hammer, who added that fans "can't drive the creative process."


What the frell? In all of the PR, they keep trying to say that this new mini is more in-line with the original concept. Larson, who created the show, clearly disagrees...

It's interesting to read Bonnie's statement that the fans can't influence them, when the concern over ratings clearly shows that they think that they are influenced by the fans. (indirectly, of course...)

Oh well, 'open mouth, insert foot'

[vhsiv]

Originally posted by grinner
When did MGM and SciFi say that SG-1 was the longest running Science Fiction show of Television. Did they forget Doctor Who? 1963-1989. by my count that is 26 years... continuously shown. With a half season Hickup in 1985/6 Here you go, grinner -http://www.scifi.com/stargate/press/press_02.html
July 23, 2003

SCI FI CHANNEL RENEWS STARGATE SG-1
FOR 8TH SEASON

New Season to Set Up Spin-Off Series,
Stargate: Atlantis

SCI FI Channel has ordered an eighth season of its ratings powerhouse Stargate SG-1 from MGM. Greenlit for another full season, SG-1 becomes the second longest-running science fiction drama on American television — exceeding every Star Trek series and second only to The X-Files. Currently in production on its seventh season, season eight of SG-1 is slated to premiere Summer '04. I was wrong - they only claimed that SG-1 was the 2nd longest running show. But they specifically said it was the "longest running show on the air". SciFi.com's 2003 Fall SF TV Preview: Part II
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue334/screen.html
(Scroll about halfway down the page)

The Outlook: Stargate SG-1 has already been picked up for an eighth season, which will premiere in June 2004.
It is by far the longest-running sci-fi series on the air, and comes in only second to The X-Files as all-time longest-running series. At the end of season six, everyone involved in the series seemed tired and ready to call it quits. But after getting great ratings with its move to the SCI FI Channel, Stargate SG-1 seemed revitalized. It's too early to guess whether there will be a ninth season. However, as long as the ratings stay strong and the fans stay enthusiastic, it certainly is a possibility... As much was parroted back in September, in TV Guide, where I originally remember seeing it. But the press-release was widely disseminated to several other journals, including the New York Post, who reported with a notorious Bonnie sound-bite at the end:via Google cache (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:VyQxBGJ7NYIJ:www.nypost.com/entertainment/37953.htm+%22SG-1%22,+TV+Guide,+longest+running+Science+Fiction+sh ow&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) - 'STARGATE' RUMOR WAS ONLY SCI FI

July 19, 2003 -- CONTRARY to rumors, "Stargate SG-1" is returning for an eighth season, TV Guide has confirmed.

And not only will it return intact with star Richard Dean Anderson, it's spinning off a new series, "Stargate: Atlantis."

"Stargate SG-1," now the SCI FI channel's most popular series, was rumored to be history - lighting up Internet message boards and causing much hand-wringing among the show's loyal audience - until ratings shot into the stratosphere last season.

Now, Anderson tells the upcoming issue of TV Guide that both he and the show will be back for another go-round. Anderson says he will work a reduced schedule and that his character, O'Neill, will get a promotion.

"You can only fool an audience for a few minutes with special effects," Anderson says of the show's popularity. "It's the stories that make them stick around."

With its season renewal, "SG-1" now becomes the second-longest-running individual sci-fi series in TV history, notes TV Guide - and the show is now huge in France, Germany and England.

"We had to go to Europe to make it big, and the reverberations are just now hitting North America," says series co-star Christopher Judge, who plays Jaffa warrior Teal'c.

"A lot of other science fiction series either become too complicated or start to take themselves too seriously," says SCI FI president Bonnie Hammer.

"'Stargate' is smart, but it doesn't make people do homework," she says.

[fermicat]

Once again, Bonnie's comment about not letting the fans drive the creative process means that the Skiffy execs still think they are WAY smarter than their audience. You know, the same audience that supposedly can't handle a TV series with continuity and arc-driven episodes. Now that the Farscape fans have mostly stopped viewing, this might be closer to the truth....

[Antrobus]

Suzanne Ryan was the writer for the Boston Globe's March 16 '03 article "Science Friction" if anyone remembers. After reading this article I'm guessing she's not a Skiffy fan!!

said Hammer, who added that fans "can't drive the creative process."

Poor Bonnie, she just doesn't get it! How can she justify that statement when we all know that Farscape's filming in Oz. While fans may not be able to drive the "creative" process, its been shown that they can drive THE process!!

[grinner]

Well, that is clearly a American television centric view. Because clearly Doctor Who was on at least 15 years longer than the X-Files. Unless they don't think that it counts as there were different casts throughout its history.

[StarsGoBlue]

Sounds to me like it's time for another sane-TV t-shirt....

Fans can't drive the creative process. That's so very good to know. 'Cos otherwise, you know, I might have thought that we could get a miniseries or more for Farscape. I'm glad I haven't wasted the last 15 months involved in an ineffective fan campaign...

Back to 'Bonnie-is-truly-an-idiot' mode. :bonnie:



*****stars :g2f:

[waltersgirl]

BSG fans need to just let it go. Dont watch it. It's not THEIR show, they didn't write it, develope it or pay for it.

Give it up.

that's an interesting comment to make on a Save Farscape website.

[buggabboo]

hmmm...

i don't know. i think there's a difference between fighting to get the show back on the air, and thus allowing the creators to do their thing, and "driving the creative process."

a lot of fans feel like they have a right to tell the producers, writers, actors, etc., how to make their producct, that because they are a consumer they can tell them what to do and tha tthey have a right to be upset if the outcome isn't something that they enjoy.

while i understand the frustration of watching a show or franchise deconstruct before your eyes, it's not the watcher's place to dictate what is created. you can choose to continue watching or not, but if viewers start to dictate what the creator can do, wouldn't it stiffle the process?

it's hard with something like BSG because you're taking someone else's original idea and playing with it, but in the end, that's their job. and if one doesn't like it then they don't have to continue watching.

yes, you can protest the way a story is going, but i don't see the point. if they've already "frelled" with the story and characters, why would you trust them to fix it?

[Crankygrrl]

that fans "can't drive the creative process."

Well, sure, fine, what-evah .

Yes, we all agree that fans can't drive the creative process, however, if that is going to be your guiding principle, isn't remaking old TV shows with established fans counter-intuitive, not to mention counter-productive?

Skiffy wants to have its cake and eat it, too. They'll create an almost entirely new product, use the old name to attract interest from people who are familiar with the original, and then complain that fans have no life when people voice their dis-satisfaction with the update.

Now, if Skiffy were talking about its Dune adaptations, I'd have some sympathy for their position because translating a story from one medium to another necessarily involves some changes.

But if you make a decision to remake an old TV show, you can hardly complain when people compare, and compare unfavourably, the two versions.

Of course, Bonnie Hammer likes TV that doesn't make people "do their homework"--would that be like watching every episode, Bonnie?--so perhaps she thought that no one would connect the new Battlestar Galactica with the old Battlestar Galactica.

They only have the same title, after all. :ewink:

[waltersgirl]

Yes, we all agree that fans can't drive the creative process, however, if that is going to be your guiding principle, isn't remaking old TV shows with established fans counter-intuitive, not to mention counter-productive?

my original comments regarding tedbragg's post were referring to telling fans to give something up, which seemed a curious statement at a fan campaign message board.

that said, my underlying issue with Bonnie's comments regarding BSG stem from what Crankygrrl so nicely summed up. (thanks ;)) if fans don't matter in the creative process, then why remake a show and call it by the same name? what purpose does that serve?

i agree wholeheartedly that the creative process is from the creator's point of view. i'm not going to tell Rockne and DK et al how to write Farscape for example. it's their story. i'm just along for the ride. at the same time, however, a creator would be foolish not to keep an open mind about feedback from the viewing audience, about what works and what doesn't. and i don't mean nitpicking fanboy behavior, but genuine commentary. the fans are in a unique position to sometimes "see" better because their vision isn't as immersed as the creative staff's.

[Shipscat]

We aren't the consumer, we're the end product. Advertising agencies are the consumers, and the eyeballs are what are being sold to them..

This is why Bonnie doesn't care if her statements piss off the fans or sound disparaging of us. We're not the audience she's playing to, and all they care about is whether it sounds good to the people purchasing ads on Scifi.

[Red]

No, I'd have to say we're the consumers. The tv show is a product and the advertisers are buying the tv show and using it to sell us their products. If the advertisers didn't think that they'd be able to sell, they wouldn't buy ad time on the tv show.

I suppose it could be relative to a person's point of view, but IMO, they're selling us a product and that makes us the consumers.

[AnnieBW]

Well, if this is an example of their "new direction", I'm almost glad that Farscape isn't a part of it. We watched the first hour. Watching paint dry was more exciting! Time to go watch some taped cartoons. :zzz:

[Shipscat]

From our point of view we're consumers..we are consuming their product, and in the case of Farscape enjoying it very much. :) And from the viewpoint of the PTB that make Farscape, we're the fans, the constant reader, the people who both enjoy and criticize their creative product. The other half of any creative endeavour-the audience.

But from Bonnie's POV, we're the end product that they're selling to advertisers. And we (And I mean everyone that watches their channel, not just Farscape fans) are such a tiny little slice of the viewing audience, that they don't think that they're risking much by possibly alienating us by their attempts to get new eyeballs.

I think they're risking a lot because they could end up like the dog with two bones and have none at all, but they aren't thinking that way.

[Deanna T]

Originally posted by waltersgirl
i agree wholeheartedly that the creative process is from the creator's point of view. i'm not going to tell Rockne and DK et al how to write Farscape for example. it's their story. i'm just along for the ride. at the same time, however, a creator would be foolish not to keep an open mind about feedback from the viewing audience, about what works and what doesn't. and i don't mean nitpicking fanboy behavior, but genuine commentary. the fans are in a unique position to sometimes "see" better because their vision isn't as immersed as the creative staff's.

That reminds me of an Editorial I read on Gamespy the other day - "Are Fans Ruining Games", which I thought was fairly simple but enjoyable
http://www.gamespy.com/counterspy/december03/spy14/

I do agree that fans can't drive the creative process because, in most cases, fans don't know what they want. On the other hand, receiving constructive criticism from the fans is always a good thing. My opinion (which I make quite easily from the comfort of my living room, mind you ;) ), is that creators should be able to read viewer opinions, but be smart enough to distinguish between what is useful for their series/game/movie/etc, and what is just fan drivel. And if they can't do that successfully, then maybe they don't know their own creations as well as they should.

I'm not really sure what the BSG fans are trying to accomplish anymore. Originally they were trying to influence changes in the story or cancel production, but now they have basically lost that fight. Worse than that, any actions they take now are only generating publicity for the series. I do feel bad for them. I know how I'd feel if someone remade Farscape in 20 years, but changed John Chrichton into a female. It wouldn't be a problem for myself, because I could just refuse to watch it. The thing that would really irk me is if it actually became extremely popular after the remake. And I'd invite people over to watch the "original" eps, and everyone would think they were terrible, and talk about how much better John is as a female. Then I'd become one of those spiteful fans who always says "I liked it when it was actually good". :)

There wasn't any real point to the last bit of that post. Just thought it was an interesting hypothetical

[Selena]

:cylon: :cylon: :cylon: AnnieBW, the first 30 minutes should be enough to totally convince you that you've devoted 30 minutes too much to this deplorable remake of what was a fun series 20 odd years ago.:cylon::cylon::cylon:

As for the SFC defining science fiction for me ... forget that.

We are so privaliged and grateful to the excellent sci-fi writers who are thrilling us away from the SFC.

[SabaceanBabe]

Here's what I had to say to Ms. Hammer the last time she mentioned redefining science fiction:

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.

Sincerely,

me

I’m not Nielsen. I am Farscape.
Cc: Viacom, Liberty Media, MGM, NBC

[DentArthurDent]

I'm thinkin' the term I'd want is SHOTGUN !

In some sense we don't drive the creative process, as ride shotgun on it. We are along for the ride, but we also point out El Bandito behind that rock outcrop, keep things together, and protect the vehicle. Not totally analogous, I know. But I'd gladly ride shotgun for Rock, DK, Brian, Ricky, Ben, hell all of 'em.

Just remember, I called 'shotgun' ;)

AFD
'lock up the wimmin, and hide the fried chicken...'