Jul
03-23-2003, 09:33 AM
FARSCAPE CANCELLATION F.A.Q.
On 18 September 2002, the SCI FI Channel published the following list of “Frequently Asked Questions” in response to viewer complaints about the cancellation of Farscape.
Here we attempt to fill in some of the blank areas left by their account of events.
[b]q: SCI FI cited poor ratings as a reason for the cancellation. Aren’t the ratings as high as they have ever been?
a: The fact is, ratings for the series have declined. Farscape’s average primetime rating for original episodes in 2001 was a 1.4 [1,611,000 actual viewers] (Farscape’s “rating” represents the percentage of homes that can get SCI FI Channel that tuned into the show). The show peaked in March 2001 with the season 3 premiere earning a 1.9. However, in 2002, season four’s original episodes averaged a 1.2 [1,544,000 viewers]. Also, despite the fact that SCI FI is now available in nearly 3 million more homes than it was during season 3, the actual number of viewers for Farscape has gone down.
our response: This answer compares average ratings for Farscape in 2001 against average ratings in 2002. However, in 2001 six episodes of the show aired in March and April, significantly boosting the average ratings for that calendar year. SCI FI also limits itself to the ratings for the 10 PM airing. However, ratings for the encore showing at midnight have increased, and the total viewership for the series in 2002 has actually increased 16 to 17%. Further, the claim that the actual number of viewers for the first airing of each episode has decreased as the number of homes capable of viewing the SCI FI Channel has increased is based on a misreading of the data. As the statistical universe increases in size, an increasing number of viewers is required to achieve a specific percentage size — this is basic math. But here SCI FI estimates the actual number of viewers represented by a 1.4 ratings share in terms of current audience and not that of the previous year, when the potential audience was 3 million homes smaller by their own account.
Additionally, in past seasons, Farscape had built upon its lead-in program (i.e., had more viewers than the program preceding it - a standard industry indicator of a show’s success). For example, during the summer of 2001, Farscape increased 44% in ratings and 51% in households over its lead-in, The Invisible Man. However, this past summer, Farscape lost 29% of its lead-in program in terms of ratings, and 27% in households. Here SCI FI does not say how much Farscape held onto—or increased—over its lead-in at the midnight showing, for which ratings actually increased. They also compare Farscape’s performance against prior lead-in The Invisible Man (a SCI FI original series with no established audience) with Farscape’s performance against season four lead-in Stargate SG-1 (based on a successful feature film now frequently broadcast on many channels, with the spinoff series developing a strong following on the Showtime channel and now widely available in syndication...all factors amounting to “free advertising” for the new episodes airing on SCI FI). If this speaks to anything, it demonstrates the failure of SCI FI to adequately promote original series making their debut on SCI FI.
q: SCI FI also cited “the rising cost of production” for the cancellation. Isn’t it true that the costs have not changed between seasons 4 and 5?
a: While it is true that there was no rise in production costs between seasons 4 and 5, there was a very steep rise in cost between seasons 3 and 4. At that time, the cost-benefit
ratio was far more equitable - Farscape was the highest rated original series on the Channel and it consistently performed well. In light of the fact that the ratings failed to maintain, and actually suffered a decline during season 4, the overall high cost to produce Farscape became an issue. We were faced with a show that was costing considerably more than it had during its first three seasons, while attracting a smaller audience. Farscape was failing to meet its advertising estimates and its continuation for a full 22-episode fifth season no longer made financial sense.
our response: The “steep rise in cost between seasons 3 and 4” was in fact negotiated by SCI FI. The Henson Company has gone on record that production costs themselves did not increase. The additional cost per episode was because SCI FI wanted to purchase rights to air each episode more times. This licensing fee is Henson’s primary means of recouping their investment in the series. Unlike SCI FI, they have no ad revenues to offset their expenditures. Farscape was still the highest rated original SCI FI Channel series when it was cancelled. It was consistently in the top 5 of the ratings, typically second following Stargate SG-1. Farscape’s supposed failure to meet its advertising estimates is another example of SCI FI only looking at half the data available. Since their advertisers usually sponsor the entire Friday night programming line-up, dubbed the “Friday Prime” block, it makes more sense to look at the total ratings, not just the 10 PM slot. In fact, SCI FI boasted of the increase in ratings for the block in a press release on 28 August...one week before they cancelled Farscape.
q: Did SCI FI have any intention of producing season 5, or was the two-season pick-up announcement just a publicity stunt?
a: SCI FI had every intention of going forward with season 5 when the initial deal was made. However, with the slip in ratings, we could not justify production of another 22 episodes at Farscape’s current high cost. We then immediately began an aggressive pursuit of a shortened 13-episode season 5. We did this knowing that we would be forced to incur significant financial penalties, above and beyond the usual per-episode cost of production. Up until the last moment, we all believed that this would work out. Unfortunately, we could not come to terms with our production partners. We certainly did not want to see Farscape end abruptly. We are disappointed to have the series end this way.
our response: According to comments from Rockne S. O'Bannon in his recent interview in Starlog, SCI-FI was attempting to get out of the contracted 2 season deal almost from the moment they signed it. This “aggressive pursuit” was an offer of less money per episode, not more, in spite of their statement regarding incurring “significant financial penalties.” SCI FI and The Henson Company are already taking enormous advantage of the bargain-priced talent pool in Australia; if the production were located elsewhere, costs could easily be doubled. Simply put, this show cannot be made for less money. In declining SCI FI’s reduced offer, The Henson Company decided they would rather not compromise the quality of their product. As for SCI FI’s “beliefs,” “wants,” and “disappointment,” these statements ring false in the light of the previous spin.
q: Didn’t you hurt the ratings by changing Farscape’s time period?
a: Farscape was moved to the 10pm spot in the hopes that new SCI FI viewers tuning into the debut of Stargate SG-1 would stay around to sample Farscape and become hooked on the show. For the first few weeks of the new SCI FI Friday lineup, we even created special episodic promotions for Farscape that aired within Stargate, in an effort to push viewers to Farscape. However, despite the fact that large numbers of new viewers did show up to watch Stargate, not enough of them stayed tuned for Farscape.
our response: There has always been an overlap between SCI FI’s Friday Prime viewers and Showtime viewers. When Farscape was on at 9 PM, about 10% of its audience switched to Showtime rather than watch whatever was following it on SCI FI. Having acquired Stargate SG-1 from Showtime, the problem was only accentuated. SCI FI might have placed the former Showtime series in the 10 PM slot to try and prevent the switchover.
As for building on lead-ins vs. losing lead-ins, the 8 PM shows have been low-rated. It would be hard for any show not to build on that lead-in, and for SCI FI to compare the difference in behavior between the two is another example of apples-to-oranges. One other unfortunate point to note is that at 10pm, Farscape faced no competition from UPN, WB or Fox, as those networks stop broadcasting dramatic shows after 10pm, and in most markets switch to local news. Yet, even with less broadcast network competition at 10pm than at 9pm, Farscape’s ratings still declined this season. Disingenuous at best. USA Networks premiered the very successful Monk in the 10 PM time slot opposite Farscape, and Showtime debuted its own new genre program, Odyssey 5. To say that Farscape had less competition at 10 PM because some networks switch to news at that hour is laughable. UPN, WB, and Fox never showed new episodes of genre programming during SCI FI’s summer Friday Prime...but this summer there were two strong new contenders, which SCI FI conveniently ignores. News programs aren’t big ratings draws; by this reasoning, Lexx and The Outer Limits should have been getting a ratings bump and beating Farscape in previous years. And again, SCI FI consistently fails to mention the fact that ratings for the midnight showing went up.
q: Wasn’t SCI FI’s lack of promotion of Farscape directly to blame for the series’ failure to reach new viewers? Stargate SG-1 was given far more promotion by the network.
a: This is a misconception. SCI FI made a conscious decision to promote both Friday night original series equally. All of our promotion was directed at the night—SCI FI Fridays. Therefore, Farscape received equal advertising and promotional dollars as Stargate SG-1, and received more marketing support for the launch of season 4 than it had at any other time aside from its premiere. In fact, over the years, SCI FI has dedicated more promotional dollars to Farscape than to any other SCI FI original series.
our response: The last statement is true, if only because SCI FI has never had another original series go to four seasons. Another original series, First Wave, only ran for its original three-year contract, and was not cancelled even though its ratings dropped precipitously; it was still allowed to run through the end of its contract. Note also the wording: “received more marketing support for the launch of season 4 than it had at any other time aside from its premiere.”
After the season 4 launch, however, Farscape advertising did decrease decrease significantly.
q: How can you call Farscape a “beloved show” and still cancel it?
a: Despite what many seem to believe, those who work at SCI FI Channel truly love Farscape. It was one of our first original series, and became our signature show. With four full seasons, it is also the Channel’s longest running original series. However, television is a business and despite every effort on our part, with the ratings dipping, the Channel could not commit to the high financial cost of producing another season. We were deeply involved in Farscape’s inception and development and continue to be extremely proud of the series. Farscape was birthed here
and ran for four full seasons—it was a very difficult decision.
our response: This statement is the most honest and heartfelt response in the entire piece. Many executives at SCI FI Channel, including Vice Presidents Bonnie Hammer and Tom Vitale, really do love the show and we appreciate their sympathies. This decision, however, was out of their hands. Whether or not they could have fought harder to save it is impossible to say at this point, but these people were not the ones who made this decision.
q: Is it true that SCI FI cancelled Farscape in order to finance another season of Stargate SG-1?
a: No. Negotiations for the series are completely separate. The decision to end Farscape after season 4 was based solely on its ratings performance in relation to its high cost of production. Whether we do more episodes of Stargate or not has nothing to do with Farscape.
our response: Another disingenuous statement. Only one wallet holds the cash, and there’s only so much cash to go around. The financial hardships of Vivendi Universal and USA Networks are well known, and the news media has reported efforts to cut costs across the board. As an underperforming member of the corporate family, SCI FI was under considerable pressure to tighten its cash flow...and in cancelling its signature series, they were able to spare funds for second-hand programming inherited from elsewhere at the expense of their own brand identity.
Fans find it particularly irksome that SCI FI just paid a sizeable fee for the rights to THE X-FILES which is available on at least two other cable channels and has already been well exposed in reruns, not to mention being available on video and DVD. In fact, the arrangement to air The X-Files was a joint effort with another cable outlet, leaving SCI FI without any exclusive claim to the show and its remaining audience.
Furthermore, comments from Brad Wright, executive producer of Stargate: SG-1 in January's Impact Magazine tell a different story from what SCI FI would like you to hear - "Some say that Farscape was dropped because of Stargate. I guess there may be some amount of truth to that. I think SciFi needed to focus on one show and we won that battle hands down. Even the Monday night repeat blocks of Stargate on SciFi are doing well. They are deliriously happy and have a show that brands the network. Originally they'd thought that would be Farscape."
q: Why won’t SCI FI Channel release Farscape to another network? Wouldn’t that save the show?
a: SCI FI has not been approached to release Farscape to another network. From what we understand, despite efforts otherwise, there was no deal possibility for the show at any other network.
our response: But would they release Farscape to another network? We hope this possibility is still being explored. But SCI FI has a strong financial incentive to reject any outside offers.
q: Did SCI FI make the cancellation announcement on a Friday to keep it quiet?
a: Actually, SCI FI did not make the announcement. As of close of business on Friday, September 6, we were still in negotiations regarding Farscape’s future. Late that night, unbeknownst to SCI FI, the cancellation was announced to fans via an impromptu online chat conducted by a few people at the production. We confirmed the news when it became official on Monday morning.
our response: SCI FI’s intention was not to announce the cancellation until 2003, possibly as the final four episodes of season 4 were set to air. At that point, months after production had been suspended, the odds against reviving the show would have been greatly increased at best.
q: Is it true that SCI FI automatically deletes any e-mail with the word “Farscape” in it?
a: This is not the practice of the Channel. However, we have requested that fans direct their e-mails to a specific e-mail address (programming@scifi.com) in order for us to monitor and keep track of their messages. It is only when messages are sent directly to SCI FI employees that there is a danger of deletion, since our mailboxes can only handle a certain volume of e-mails. They simply cannot all be read. We request viewers to direct their messages to the appropriate addresses. Viewers are also encouraged to direct their phone calls to our Viewer Hotline, (212) 413-5679, which is checked frequently throughout each business day.
our response: Supporters of the show may direct correspondence wherever they wish. It is probably a good idea to “cc” the programming address on any e-mails, however.
q: There are rumors that SCI FI cancelled the series because “the network brass hated the series.” Is this true?
a: Once again, there is no truth to those rumors. Farscape’s greatest supporters can be found at the Channel. Farscape’s creator, Rockne O’Bannon, has even been quoted in a recent interview as stating that SCI FI Channel President “Bonnie (Hammer) has always been a real strong supporter of the series and seen the value in it.” This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision to reach for all of us here at SCI FI, at every level.
our response: As we agreed above, it may be true that Farscape’s greatest supporters can be found at SCI FI. However, the top executives in the parent company, in particular Michael Jackson and Barry Diller, are known for their dislike of “space shows.” Under their watch, the channel has moved away from science fiction programming.
The current programming lineup includes documentaries on alien abduction, “Crossing Over with John Edward” in which a medium attempts to speak with the deceased, their new series Tremors - which is based on the movie and its sequels, and airings of such films as “Field of Dreams” and “Braveheart”—neither of which constitutes genre fiction. Rather than make an effort to succeed in genre programming, it seems they intend to abandon it and reinvent the channel.
q: Have the sets been destroyed?
a: Although they were initially scheduled to be struck during the week of September 9, SCI FI Channel requested a reprieve as any possibility of saving the series was explored. Unfortunately, we understand that the sets will now be struck by Friday, September 20.
our response: The sets have been struck. However, sets can be rebuilt. Members of the production team have said that after four years, there were sets that needed rebuilding anyway. Some components are in storage. The state of the sets is not relevant to the chances of a series renewal.
q: Is it true that Farscape has been taken off the air?
a: No. The remaining eleven new episodes of season 4 will begin airing in January. Additionally, SCI FI will air an 11-episode Farscape Chain Reaction on December 24 from 8am – 7pm ET/PT. After the conclusion of season 4, all four seasons of Farscape will continue to air on SCI FI in repeats.
our response: The last sentence may be the most ominous in the entire FAQ, given their handling of the series so far. We fully expect that SCI FI intends to air repeats until all interest in the show has been extinguished and even syndication ceases to be an attractive option. Broadcasting history demonstrates continuing series that end unresolved (cf. Twin Peaks) are far less attractive than those that conclude successfully (i.e., MASH or The Mary Tyler Moore Show). Farscape has been structured as a novel for television with a predefined conclusion; the lack of any expected closure will itself harm the show’s chances of future success in later distribution. The “Chain Reaction” of Farscape episodes was scheduled on December 24, one of the lowest Homes Using Television days of the year. If SCI FI wished to increase awareness of the series and build its fanbase, this would not be the time to “burn off” those expensive-to-license episodes. A much better use of the episodes would be to air them in strips in SCI FI’s “Early Fringe” timeframe (4-7 PM). Their current programming in that block is showing wear, and Farscape could have boosted their ratings in that time slot as well as increasing awareness for the remaining episodes of season 4 beginning in January.
As it is right now, SCI FI will be running reruns of Farscape from the Premiere (Season 1)all the way through the season 4 finale, Sunday - Thursday at midnight et/pt beginning on March 31st, 2003. Season 4 will be rerun concurrently Fridays at 5am et/pt.
On 18 September 2002, the SCI FI Channel published the following list of “Frequently Asked Questions” in response to viewer complaints about the cancellation of Farscape.
Here we attempt to fill in some of the blank areas left by their account of events.
[b]q: SCI FI cited poor ratings as a reason for the cancellation. Aren’t the ratings as high as they have ever been?
a: The fact is, ratings for the series have declined. Farscape’s average primetime rating for original episodes in 2001 was a 1.4 [1,611,000 actual viewers] (Farscape’s “rating” represents the percentage of homes that can get SCI FI Channel that tuned into the show). The show peaked in March 2001 with the season 3 premiere earning a 1.9. However, in 2002, season four’s original episodes averaged a 1.2 [1,544,000 viewers]. Also, despite the fact that SCI FI is now available in nearly 3 million more homes than it was during season 3, the actual number of viewers for Farscape has gone down.
our response: This answer compares average ratings for Farscape in 2001 against average ratings in 2002. However, in 2001 six episodes of the show aired in March and April, significantly boosting the average ratings for that calendar year. SCI FI also limits itself to the ratings for the 10 PM airing. However, ratings for the encore showing at midnight have increased, and the total viewership for the series in 2002 has actually increased 16 to 17%. Further, the claim that the actual number of viewers for the first airing of each episode has decreased as the number of homes capable of viewing the SCI FI Channel has increased is based on a misreading of the data. As the statistical universe increases in size, an increasing number of viewers is required to achieve a specific percentage size — this is basic math. But here SCI FI estimates the actual number of viewers represented by a 1.4 ratings share in terms of current audience and not that of the previous year, when the potential audience was 3 million homes smaller by their own account.
Additionally, in past seasons, Farscape had built upon its lead-in program (i.e., had more viewers than the program preceding it - a standard industry indicator of a show’s success). For example, during the summer of 2001, Farscape increased 44% in ratings and 51% in households over its lead-in, The Invisible Man. However, this past summer, Farscape lost 29% of its lead-in program in terms of ratings, and 27% in households. Here SCI FI does not say how much Farscape held onto—or increased—over its lead-in at the midnight showing, for which ratings actually increased. They also compare Farscape’s performance against prior lead-in The Invisible Man (a SCI FI original series with no established audience) with Farscape’s performance against season four lead-in Stargate SG-1 (based on a successful feature film now frequently broadcast on many channels, with the spinoff series developing a strong following on the Showtime channel and now widely available in syndication...all factors amounting to “free advertising” for the new episodes airing on SCI FI). If this speaks to anything, it demonstrates the failure of SCI FI to adequately promote original series making their debut on SCI FI.
q: SCI FI also cited “the rising cost of production” for the cancellation. Isn’t it true that the costs have not changed between seasons 4 and 5?
a: While it is true that there was no rise in production costs between seasons 4 and 5, there was a very steep rise in cost between seasons 3 and 4. At that time, the cost-benefit
ratio was far more equitable - Farscape was the highest rated original series on the Channel and it consistently performed well. In light of the fact that the ratings failed to maintain, and actually suffered a decline during season 4, the overall high cost to produce Farscape became an issue. We were faced with a show that was costing considerably more than it had during its first three seasons, while attracting a smaller audience. Farscape was failing to meet its advertising estimates and its continuation for a full 22-episode fifth season no longer made financial sense.
our response: The “steep rise in cost between seasons 3 and 4” was in fact negotiated by SCI FI. The Henson Company has gone on record that production costs themselves did not increase. The additional cost per episode was because SCI FI wanted to purchase rights to air each episode more times. This licensing fee is Henson’s primary means of recouping their investment in the series. Unlike SCI FI, they have no ad revenues to offset their expenditures. Farscape was still the highest rated original SCI FI Channel series when it was cancelled. It was consistently in the top 5 of the ratings, typically second following Stargate SG-1. Farscape’s supposed failure to meet its advertising estimates is another example of SCI FI only looking at half the data available. Since their advertisers usually sponsor the entire Friday night programming line-up, dubbed the “Friday Prime” block, it makes more sense to look at the total ratings, not just the 10 PM slot. In fact, SCI FI boasted of the increase in ratings for the block in a press release on 28 August...one week before they cancelled Farscape.
q: Did SCI FI have any intention of producing season 5, or was the two-season pick-up announcement just a publicity stunt?
a: SCI FI had every intention of going forward with season 5 when the initial deal was made. However, with the slip in ratings, we could not justify production of another 22 episodes at Farscape’s current high cost. We then immediately began an aggressive pursuit of a shortened 13-episode season 5. We did this knowing that we would be forced to incur significant financial penalties, above and beyond the usual per-episode cost of production. Up until the last moment, we all believed that this would work out. Unfortunately, we could not come to terms with our production partners. We certainly did not want to see Farscape end abruptly. We are disappointed to have the series end this way.
our response: According to comments from Rockne S. O'Bannon in his recent interview in Starlog, SCI-FI was attempting to get out of the contracted 2 season deal almost from the moment they signed it. This “aggressive pursuit” was an offer of less money per episode, not more, in spite of their statement regarding incurring “significant financial penalties.” SCI FI and The Henson Company are already taking enormous advantage of the bargain-priced talent pool in Australia; if the production were located elsewhere, costs could easily be doubled. Simply put, this show cannot be made for less money. In declining SCI FI’s reduced offer, The Henson Company decided they would rather not compromise the quality of their product. As for SCI FI’s “beliefs,” “wants,” and “disappointment,” these statements ring false in the light of the previous spin.
q: Didn’t you hurt the ratings by changing Farscape’s time period?
a: Farscape was moved to the 10pm spot in the hopes that new SCI FI viewers tuning into the debut of Stargate SG-1 would stay around to sample Farscape and become hooked on the show. For the first few weeks of the new SCI FI Friday lineup, we even created special episodic promotions for Farscape that aired within Stargate, in an effort to push viewers to Farscape. However, despite the fact that large numbers of new viewers did show up to watch Stargate, not enough of them stayed tuned for Farscape.
our response: There has always been an overlap between SCI FI’s Friday Prime viewers and Showtime viewers. When Farscape was on at 9 PM, about 10% of its audience switched to Showtime rather than watch whatever was following it on SCI FI. Having acquired Stargate SG-1 from Showtime, the problem was only accentuated. SCI FI might have placed the former Showtime series in the 10 PM slot to try and prevent the switchover.
As for building on lead-ins vs. losing lead-ins, the 8 PM shows have been low-rated. It would be hard for any show not to build on that lead-in, and for SCI FI to compare the difference in behavior between the two is another example of apples-to-oranges. One other unfortunate point to note is that at 10pm, Farscape faced no competition from UPN, WB or Fox, as those networks stop broadcasting dramatic shows after 10pm, and in most markets switch to local news. Yet, even with less broadcast network competition at 10pm than at 9pm, Farscape’s ratings still declined this season. Disingenuous at best. USA Networks premiered the very successful Monk in the 10 PM time slot opposite Farscape, and Showtime debuted its own new genre program, Odyssey 5. To say that Farscape had less competition at 10 PM because some networks switch to news at that hour is laughable. UPN, WB, and Fox never showed new episodes of genre programming during SCI FI’s summer Friday Prime...but this summer there were two strong new contenders, which SCI FI conveniently ignores. News programs aren’t big ratings draws; by this reasoning, Lexx and The Outer Limits should have been getting a ratings bump and beating Farscape in previous years. And again, SCI FI consistently fails to mention the fact that ratings for the midnight showing went up.
q: Wasn’t SCI FI’s lack of promotion of Farscape directly to blame for the series’ failure to reach new viewers? Stargate SG-1 was given far more promotion by the network.
a: This is a misconception. SCI FI made a conscious decision to promote both Friday night original series equally. All of our promotion was directed at the night—SCI FI Fridays. Therefore, Farscape received equal advertising and promotional dollars as Stargate SG-1, and received more marketing support for the launch of season 4 than it had at any other time aside from its premiere. In fact, over the years, SCI FI has dedicated more promotional dollars to Farscape than to any other SCI FI original series.
our response: The last statement is true, if only because SCI FI has never had another original series go to four seasons. Another original series, First Wave, only ran for its original three-year contract, and was not cancelled even though its ratings dropped precipitously; it was still allowed to run through the end of its contract. Note also the wording: “received more marketing support for the launch of season 4 than it had at any other time aside from its premiere.”
After the season 4 launch, however, Farscape advertising did decrease decrease significantly.
q: How can you call Farscape a “beloved show” and still cancel it?
a: Despite what many seem to believe, those who work at SCI FI Channel truly love Farscape. It was one of our first original series, and became our signature show. With four full seasons, it is also the Channel’s longest running original series. However, television is a business and despite every effort on our part, with the ratings dipping, the Channel could not commit to the high financial cost of producing another season. We were deeply involved in Farscape’s inception and development and continue to be extremely proud of the series. Farscape was birthed here
and ran for four full seasons—it was a very difficult decision.
our response: This statement is the most honest and heartfelt response in the entire piece. Many executives at SCI FI Channel, including Vice Presidents Bonnie Hammer and Tom Vitale, really do love the show and we appreciate their sympathies. This decision, however, was out of their hands. Whether or not they could have fought harder to save it is impossible to say at this point, but these people were not the ones who made this decision.
q: Is it true that SCI FI cancelled Farscape in order to finance another season of Stargate SG-1?
a: No. Negotiations for the series are completely separate. The decision to end Farscape after season 4 was based solely on its ratings performance in relation to its high cost of production. Whether we do more episodes of Stargate or not has nothing to do with Farscape.
our response: Another disingenuous statement. Only one wallet holds the cash, and there’s only so much cash to go around. The financial hardships of Vivendi Universal and USA Networks are well known, and the news media has reported efforts to cut costs across the board. As an underperforming member of the corporate family, SCI FI was under considerable pressure to tighten its cash flow...and in cancelling its signature series, they were able to spare funds for second-hand programming inherited from elsewhere at the expense of their own brand identity.
Fans find it particularly irksome that SCI FI just paid a sizeable fee for the rights to THE X-FILES which is available on at least two other cable channels and has already been well exposed in reruns, not to mention being available on video and DVD. In fact, the arrangement to air The X-Files was a joint effort with another cable outlet, leaving SCI FI without any exclusive claim to the show and its remaining audience.
Furthermore, comments from Brad Wright, executive producer of Stargate: SG-1 in January's Impact Magazine tell a different story from what SCI FI would like you to hear - "Some say that Farscape was dropped because of Stargate. I guess there may be some amount of truth to that. I think SciFi needed to focus on one show and we won that battle hands down. Even the Monday night repeat blocks of Stargate on SciFi are doing well. They are deliriously happy and have a show that brands the network. Originally they'd thought that would be Farscape."
q: Why won’t SCI FI Channel release Farscape to another network? Wouldn’t that save the show?
a: SCI FI has not been approached to release Farscape to another network. From what we understand, despite efforts otherwise, there was no deal possibility for the show at any other network.
our response: But would they release Farscape to another network? We hope this possibility is still being explored. But SCI FI has a strong financial incentive to reject any outside offers.
q: Did SCI FI make the cancellation announcement on a Friday to keep it quiet?
a: Actually, SCI FI did not make the announcement. As of close of business on Friday, September 6, we were still in negotiations regarding Farscape’s future. Late that night, unbeknownst to SCI FI, the cancellation was announced to fans via an impromptu online chat conducted by a few people at the production. We confirmed the news when it became official on Monday morning.
our response: SCI FI’s intention was not to announce the cancellation until 2003, possibly as the final four episodes of season 4 were set to air. At that point, months after production had been suspended, the odds against reviving the show would have been greatly increased at best.
q: Is it true that SCI FI automatically deletes any e-mail with the word “Farscape” in it?
a: This is not the practice of the Channel. However, we have requested that fans direct their e-mails to a specific e-mail address (programming@scifi.com) in order for us to monitor and keep track of their messages. It is only when messages are sent directly to SCI FI employees that there is a danger of deletion, since our mailboxes can only handle a certain volume of e-mails. They simply cannot all be read. We request viewers to direct their messages to the appropriate addresses. Viewers are also encouraged to direct their phone calls to our Viewer Hotline, (212) 413-5679, which is checked frequently throughout each business day.
our response: Supporters of the show may direct correspondence wherever they wish. It is probably a good idea to “cc” the programming address on any e-mails, however.
q: There are rumors that SCI FI cancelled the series because “the network brass hated the series.” Is this true?
a: Once again, there is no truth to those rumors. Farscape’s greatest supporters can be found at the Channel. Farscape’s creator, Rockne O’Bannon, has even been quoted in a recent interview as stating that SCI FI Channel President “Bonnie (Hammer) has always been a real strong supporter of the series and seen the value in it.” This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision to reach for all of us here at SCI FI, at every level.
our response: As we agreed above, it may be true that Farscape’s greatest supporters can be found at SCI FI. However, the top executives in the parent company, in particular Michael Jackson and Barry Diller, are known for their dislike of “space shows.” Under their watch, the channel has moved away from science fiction programming.
The current programming lineup includes documentaries on alien abduction, “Crossing Over with John Edward” in which a medium attempts to speak with the deceased, their new series Tremors - which is based on the movie and its sequels, and airings of such films as “Field of Dreams” and “Braveheart”—neither of which constitutes genre fiction. Rather than make an effort to succeed in genre programming, it seems they intend to abandon it and reinvent the channel.
q: Have the sets been destroyed?
a: Although they were initially scheduled to be struck during the week of September 9, SCI FI Channel requested a reprieve as any possibility of saving the series was explored. Unfortunately, we understand that the sets will now be struck by Friday, September 20.
our response: The sets have been struck. However, sets can be rebuilt. Members of the production team have said that after four years, there were sets that needed rebuilding anyway. Some components are in storage. The state of the sets is not relevant to the chances of a series renewal.
q: Is it true that Farscape has been taken off the air?
a: No. The remaining eleven new episodes of season 4 will begin airing in January. Additionally, SCI FI will air an 11-episode Farscape Chain Reaction on December 24 from 8am – 7pm ET/PT. After the conclusion of season 4, all four seasons of Farscape will continue to air on SCI FI in repeats.
our response: The last sentence may be the most ominous in the entire FAQ, given their handling of the series so far. We fully expect that SCI FI intends to air repeats until all interest in the show has been extinguished and even syndication ceases to be an attractive option. Broadcasting history demonstrates continuing series that end unresolved (cf. Twin Peaks) are far less attractive than those that conclude successfully (i.e., MASH or The Mary Tyler Moore Show). Farscape has been structured as a novel for television with a predefined conclusion; the lack of any expected closure will itself harm the show’s chances of future success in later distribution. The “Chain Reaction” of Farscape episodes was scheduled on December 24, one of the lowest Homes Using Television days of the year. If SCI FI wished to increase awareness of the series and build its fanbase, this would not be the time to “burn off” those expensive-to-license episodes. A much better use of the episodes would be to air them in strips in SCI FI’s “Early Fringe” timeframe (4-7 PM). Their current programming in that block is showing wear, and Farscape could have boosted their ratings in that time slot as well as increasing awareness for the remaining episodes of season 4 beginning in January.
As it is right now, SCI FI will be running reruns of Farscape from the Premiere (Season 1)all the way through the season 4 finale, Sunday - Thursday at midnight et/pt beginning on March 31st, 2003. Season 4 will be rerun concurrently Fridays at 5am et/pt.