XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Okay sent the following on 11/16/2010 4:16 PM:   
   > Jim Gysin  ::   
   >> stuff that the audience is gonna tend to be drawn to is quality stuff,   
   >   
   > Any reason to think this?   
      
   Because SF fans gravitate to shows like LOST and THE X-FILES while   
   running away from the likes of DEFYING GRAVITY and CAPRICA.   
      
   >  The highest-rated shows on SyFy   
   > are wrestling and Ghost Hunters.  When the network does show   
   > science fiction, numbers show few watch them.  If people   
   > have the TV on, they're choosing non-scifi.   
      
   I'm talking about the SF-loving subset of television viewers.  As soon   
   as you start talking about wrestling fans, you're changing the   
   discussion to something that I'm not talking about.   
      
   >> desire to get 100% of the audience 100% of the time, both   
   >> channels would be producing the sort of programming that   
   >> the audience wants to see, based on the ratings for various shows.   
   >   
   > I don't see any reason to expect that, and plenty to expect   
   > otherwise.  There's only so much audience to go around.  If   
   > I don't watch westerns, you can have two networks showing   
   > the best the genre has to offer, and it still won't appeal   
   > to me.   
      
   Again, I'm talking about SF *fans*, so once you start talking about   
   people who don't like westerns not watching westerns, you're going   
   off-track.   
      
   >  TV scifi is a genre that plenty of people simply   
   > won't watch, and no matter how good the stuff is *for its   
   > genre* it's not a genre all that many people choose.   
      
   Because it's not done well.  FLASHFORWARD have terrific initial numbers.   
     But the writing was problematic, and the show tanked.  This year, THE   
   EVENT had terrific initial numbers, but the writing pretty much is   
   comical, so the show is tanking.  There are countless examples of people   
   wanting to give SF shows every benefit of the doubt and every chance to   
   succeed.   
      
   >> Based on the success of SF movies, I believe that a large   
   >> part of the reason why there isn't a larger demand for SF   
   >> on television is a lack of quality options.   
   >   
   > Totally different thing, movies and TV.  If a   
   > twenty-something straight couple goes to the cinema, the man   
   > might choose a scifi movie, and the woman might go along for   
   > two hours.  There's a lot less "go-along" when you're   
   > talking weeks and weeks of a show.  Further, while a fan   
   > might not care about special effects, that's what makes most   
   > scifi films: "the plot was confusing or trite, the setting   
   > unbelievable, but it sure looked good".   
   >   
   > While I might hope for a better science-fiction network, I   
   > think it's the nature of the genre that such a TV network   
   > can never pull huge numbers.  Nor is it something enough   
   > people will pay for enough to become something like HBO.   I   
   > don't see the situation getting better in traditional TV   
   > ways.  Possibly small, good, cheap, profitable shows could   
   > come out of a web background.   
      
   Again, look at some of the initial numbers for SF show pilots.  Clearly,   
   people are interested in good SF on television.  Heck, even a good show   
   like LOST started to bleed viewers in the third season when they went   
   into a holding pattern, and then, because of the serial nature of the   
   show, they couldn't recoup those losses once the show got back on track   
   in season four.   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)