XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Obveeus sent the following on 11/17/2010 3:55 PM:   
   > "Jim Gysin"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Obveeus sent the following on 11/16/2010 4:43 PM:   
   >>> Yes, the latter will happen and the 'sci-fi' channels will start   
   >>> programming   
   >>> wrestling, ghost stories, cheap reruns of crappy 'sci-fi' shows from the   
   >>> 50s, etc... and infomercials or whatever else will draw an audience they   
   >>> need to survive.   
   >>   
   >> Again, even in the worst-case scenario, we'd be no worse off as viewers   
   >> than we are now with the existing single option of Syfy.  And anything   
   >> other than the worst-case option would be *something* of an improvement   
   >> over the status quo.   
   >   
   > Your idea of multiple sci-fi channels evolving with a 'who cares if they go   
   > belly up' scenario still produces one remaining channel that is much worse   
   > off financially than if it didn't have to survive the death match in the   
   > first place.  You are not back to where you started, you are back to having   
   > one channel...sure...but it will be in even worse shape financially so you   
   > are likely to get an even crappier product.   
      
   Since the issue is quality of writing versus expensive effects, there is   
   no reason to assume that the competition would be financially draining,   
   because writing a good script is far less expensive than having a bunch   
   of space battles and other eye candy.   
      
   Furthermore, as the competition improves the quality of the scripts on   
   the respective networks, the number of viewers increases, as well, as   
   they are SF fans to begin with and they know quality when they see it.   
      
   >>>> What draws me to SF is the issues that it addresses   
   >>>> and the geek possibilities that get explored; it has little or nothing   
   >>>> to   
   >>>> do with who has the latest FX bells and whistles.   
   >>>   
   >>> Me too, but that runs to the polar opposite of what draws people to   
   >>> 'sci-fi'   
   >>> in thre movie theater.   
   >>   
   >> We're talking television, not movies.  Of course people are gonna expect   
   >> more eye candy when they're paying $12 for it.   
   >   
   > You were the one that tried to explain the hiogh popularity of sci-fi at the   
   > movie theater with proof that a huge audience exists for it on TV.  All I   
   > did was point out that the huge sci-fi audience for the theater isn't there   
   > to see characters/plot.  They are there to see explosions and well done CGI   
   > stuff that a weekly TV show won't be able to do finanically.   
      
   I also pointed out--accurately--that the vast, vast majority of   
   post-movie viewing comments for almost *any* SF movie revolve around the   
   plot, the characters, their likability, etc.  As I've said already,   
   whether it's TV or movie discussions, I've had countless long exchanges   
   over story lines and the like, and can't remember the last time I had   
   *any* extensive discussion about the merits of *any* SF movie's effects.   
      
   >>> Then the people watching 'sci-fi' at the theater are not sci-fi   
   >>> fans...which   
   >>> goes back to the idea that sci-fi has a limited fanbase and no matter how   
   >>> good the shows are there isn't enough sci-fi viewership to support   
   >>> multiple   
   >>> channels.   
   >>   
   >> *Every* genre has a limited fan base, but the initial numbers for shows   
   >> like LOST and FLASHFORWARD and THE EVENT tells us that the limit for the   
   >> SF genre is still a very impressive one if a show is done well.  CAPRICA   
   >> only draws 700,000 because it's crap, not because it's cutting-edge and   
   >> quality SF that's written for an audience base that maxes out at 701,000.   
   >   
   > I know what you are trying to claim, but your examples are not useful.  You   
   > point out *broadcast* TV shows that get good numbers negating the simple   
   > fact that broadcast can.does still pull much higher potential viewership.   
   > You point out a cable tv show that never got a decent sampling to begin   
   > with, negating the concept that people tuned out because it wasn't good.   
   > Both of your points are irrelevant to the conclusion that you are coming to.   
   > Syfy could not come out with any new series (unless maybe they named it   
   > 'Star Trek') that would draw 10million+ viewers initially   
      
   The problem with your argument here is that many people still think that   
   the better shows of *all* genres tend to get snatched up by the   
   networks, so, to them, odds are good that a SF show that ends up on   
   cable for its initial run is weaker overall quality-wise than one   
   appearing on a network.   
      
   Put another way, I don't agree that more people watched the premiere of   
   FLASHFORWARD versus CAPRICA because the former had a much higher   
   potential viewership.  Rather, it was because they *expected* the former   
   to be a better program because it was on a network.   
      
   That anti-cable bias is starting to go away, thanks to quality offerings   
   from the likes of HBO and AMC.  And seriously, if HBO--an additional   
   charge over basic cable--can draw 5M or better to TRUE BLOOD and the   
   like, then it's pretty clear to me that your argument about a small   
   potential cable audience for a *basic* cable show is seriously flawed.   
      
   >>>> A second and current example is the many WALKING DEAD threads here in   
   >>>> the   
   >>>> past few weeks.  In them, I think that there have been a handful of   
   >>>> references to the makeup effects and the like. Everything else has been   
   >>>> about the story lines, the characters, their motivations, their choices,   
   >>>> etc.   
   >>>   
   >>> ...or mostly the discussion has been about how stupid the characters are,   
   >>> how illogical the plotline is, and how campy the entire comic book result   
   >>> is   
   >>> on screen.   
   >>   
   >> All of which are considerations that are equally immune to the expense of   
   >> special effects eye candy, and all of which speak to problems related to a   
   >> lack of quality in the writing versus problems related to cheap effects or   
   >> a lack of interest from the potential audience base.  Bottom line: quality   
   >> and inexpensive television SF is possible, and there is an audience out   
   >> there for it.   
   >   
   > IMO, The Walking Dead is a good example of people watching a show that   
   > doesn't have good writing.   
      
   Well, I would have argued with you after the pilot, but I'm starting to   
   wonder about it, as well...   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)