I was asked on the BSG thread what I thought of the change on the Sci Fi channel to Sy Fy.
I tend to agree with what Isaac Asimov once told me: Sci Fi was a stupid term from the very beginning. When it was first coined, it was supposed to be a play on “Hi Fi.” But Hi Fi was short for High Fidelity. Sci Fi didn’t track because “fiction” isn’t pronounced with a long “i” sound.
So to my mind, Sy Fy makes as much sense as Sci Fi, which is to say, none. Garbage in, garbage out.
PAD
• 
The term Sci Fi never bothered me because we Americans abbrievate everything. Yeah, Fi has a long “I” and fiction doesn’t, but I doubt it is the first or last short-hand that will do something like that. (Hmm, HI FI, does Fidelity have a long “I”?)
But as far as Sy Fy? I sounds like someone is embarrassed by Science Fiction and only serves to confuse, and for some reason I am think of Stir Fry.
“Sci Fi didn’t track because “fiction” isn’t pronounced with a long “i” sound.”
I don’t see how that matters. I mean, Soho is short for “South of Houston,” but Houston doesn’t have a long “O” sound, to name one example. And nobody pronounces “fidelity” with a long “I” sound anyway.
Eh. Sci-Fi Channel has fallen so amazingly short of what it could have been, should have been, that I really don’t care that much anymore.
The trouble with Sy Fy is that now the idiots will start spelling it out as Syence Fyction or whatnot
Repeating what I saw elsewhere…
SighFie.
Somewhere, Bjo Trimble is doing a headdesk.
I kind of liked the term “Skiffy” I heard once or twice.
I’m amused because of what Syfy apparently means in Polish. (Google it–the top hits I came up with are about this renaming thing.)
Yeah, that’s what the channel needs: a re-branding that makes no sense. I was sent the original press release and it was rife with soulless corporate-speak, as opposed to genuine enthusiasm. Do you want to make the channel a must-see place for genre fans? Get rid of wrestling, cut down the mindless reality shows and invest more money in original programming, whether it’s weekly fare or big-event mini-series. Cut down on those awful Saturday night movies shot in Eastern Europe with one recognizable B-list genre actor and the giant reptile/mythological beast of the week (crudely created with cut-rate digital FX). Go easy on the animated on-screen idents that distract from the program we’re watching, and maybe even show the non-letterboxed credits once in a while.
Yeah, a new name; that’ll do it.
“a re-branding that makes no sense” Why should they be any different than other corporations? The business world is rife with examples of such stupidity. Here in Canada there was a chain of mid-level department stores which had been known for a century. Then, the great grand-kids of the original owners decided the profit margins were down and should do something about it. They could have opted to get back to the chain’s roots, offering quality products at a decent price, along with good, reliable service. But, no, that costs money. So, instead, they opted to ‘re-brand’ from a name Canadians had known for generations, to the ‘e Store’ (yes, lower case ‘e’) aimed at a younger, hipper generation of customers. Worked so well the chain was mostly bankrupt within a year. Idiots. I expect the ‘Sy Fy’ channel will have about as much luck. Feh.
I didn’t know that “sci-fi” was a play on “hi-fi”, and really don’t care. It’s a valid abbreviation for “science fiction”. “Sy Fy” is not. It’s stupid.
Joe: Get rid of wrestling…yes that 1 hour of programing a week is the cause of all the problems. The 1 hour that brings in more ratings than most of the other shows on the channel combined. Yeah, that’s the problem.
Oh, I’d say “Sy Fy” makes even less sense for the reasons listed above.
And then there are those who pronounce Sci Fi “skiffy” (like Skippy peanut butter but with fs instead of ps). No, really. I’m not making this up.
I can remember Maggie Thompson punching me in the arm once when I used the term “sci-fi” in the CBG offices back about 1984 or so. (It was a different time then, and editors could routinely punch their staff if they wanted to.) And I felt I deserved it, I knew “sci-fi” was frowned upon by serious science fiction buffs. I don’t think I ever used it again since, either in the office or on the street.
But, when the cable channel was named SciFi, I knew the war may have been lost. But I came to realize that much of the stuff SciFi was running couldn’t be called science fiction. Science fantasy, maybe, but —
Maybe someday a competing channel will come along. Or, more likely, true science fiction buffs will get their fixes off the Internet.
They… what? Of all the stupidest decisions this channel has ever made, this may top the list. And yes, I’m including the decision to air wrestling… which really isn’t all that stupid from a business point of view, much as it doesn’t belong on the channel.
What’s next, they’re gonna change the slogan from “I F” to “yf”?
Although Kim has it right… most of the stuff they show can’t really be deemed sci-fi anymore. (Seriously, Saw? Geez. What’s next, AMC showing Catwoman? Oh, wait, they already do…) so maybe a name-change to reflect that *is* in order.
But “Syfy”? Really? Oh, wait, they can now trademark it and make money off it, now everything makes sense!
Scavenger, Joe listed several things. Just picking one thing and acting as though shooting it down makes anything Joe said look wrong just makes you look silly. It also doesn’t change the fact that Joe is 100% dead right.
.
Let’s start with ECW. I’m a wrestling fan from years back, but putting ECW on Sci-Fi was stupid. It’s not in any way, shape or form a science fiction program. It made even less sense than when they put on mini-marathons of the Det. Munch or “supernatural” themed episodes of Law & Order.
.
The reality blight is a pain in the neck as well. I never minded Sci-Fi doing horror and fantasy as well, so horror themed reality programs like Ghost Hunters didn’t bother me that much. But a game show that’s basically fear factor set in a “scary’ mansion? And a reality show about playing video games? What, was G-4 smart enough to pass on that one?
.
I realize that the things are cheap to produce, but the flipside of that is that the relitively meager ratings means that Sci-Fi can only charge but so much for ad revenue. You get what you pay for in more ways than one.
.
Then there’s the glut of bad “Sci-Fi Original” movies. I don’t mind b-movies. Hëll, I have a DVD collection loaded with C, D and Z movies that I love, but it would be nice to have a channel that bills itself as being THE Sci-F- Channel to get to premiere soma A-level films a little more often.
.
But Sci-Fi is like the red headed stepchild of the NBC Universal family. They’re treated as the bottom of the barrel more often than not. It’s like (just keeping it to three options) the powers that be have decided that the really good films go to NBC to be premiered, the good to fair films go to USA and the ones just okay to god awful get relegated to Sci-Fi. Sure, you get the rare good one that sneaks through by accident, but more often than not Sci-Fi gets the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Sci-Films getting first runs after their theatrical releases and the TV originals that then go direct to DVD.
.
The channel gets a few rare gems like BSG, Eureka, Farscape, Dresden Files and SG-1, but usually they’re just airing repeats of shows that have been on 1000 times before, getting stinkers or getting whatever is left over after the rest of their corporate family gets first dibs.
.
I was so psyched for the concept of a Sci-Fi channel when it was first getting buzz and so ticked off that my local provider didn’t carry it. And the thing looked like it had so much potential back then. Now? It’s on in my house maybe two or three hours a week and maybe even five hours on a banner week.
I read once, so this may be just another Internet legend, but the person incharge of Sci Fi channel, hated Science Fiction. And while that may be just a legend, I do remember an upcoming name change that would allow the show to leave science fiction shows was part of the legend.
The Sci-Fi Channel has had many flaws (starting with the name; couldn’t they have just called it the Science Fiction Channel”? Or do as most networks do and abbreviate: SFC?), but at least in the earliest days, there seemed to be more of an effort to show SF series, and to have original programming about science fact and science fiction. Like “Inside Space.”
Even so, if I were in charge, I’d dump all the crap that has nothing to do with science fiction or related genres, and bring in qualified people to fill those gaps in the schedule with first rate (and relevant) programming.
“Sci-Fi” probably would’ve been an OK (if less than ideal) term if it hadn’t become linked to negative connotations about the genre (Those who disdain the genre will say “that sci-fi stuff,”; but rarely “that science fiction stuff.”). But let’s face it, no matter what term had been coined for the genre, those who look down their noses at it and those who read/watch/listen to/write it would have used said term in a derogatory sense.
But “Sy Fy”? That’s just insipid.
Rick
Sy Fy is definitely stupider than Sci-Fi. They say they’re changing the name because the term “Sci Fi” is too limiting, but they’re changing it to something that is phonetically identical. If we were having this conversation verbally, the absurdity of the distinction would be obvious.
They say they’re changing the name because the term “Sci Fi” is too limiting,
It is limiting… when it comes to making money with marketing. “Sci-Fi” is a generic term; “Syfy” isn’t, so they can trademark/copyright/whatever they want.
But ‘Syfy’ is still a crappy name.
My guess is that by ‘rebranding’ as SyFy, it will likely result in even more wrestling type programming (in other words, more stuff that wouldn’t fit into a fantasy/science fiction category). With a name like SyFy, it now just becomes another channel and they can prety much roll with any type of ‘entertainment’ they desire.
Which for me means the more wrestling and crappy* ‘reality’ type shows they broadcast, the less I’ll be watching that channel.
* [crappy is kind of redundant in that sentence as reality tv has all proven to be utter crap]
As somebody who’s covered an awful lot of Sci-Fi’s programming over the years, I’ve often wondered if some of the folks who work for the channel at the executive level actually like or respect the genre, or as Jerry Chandler pointed out earlier, it’s just the red-haired step kid of the NBC/Universal family.
Looking back over the past several years, it would be difficult to point to that many successes that Sci-Fi actually created and nurtured and stood firmly behind as a project that represented the best of what could be done in the genre. Stargate? That was inherited from Showtime, and while it developed a healthy following, it was easier to cancel the series (as they presumably did with Stargate Atlantis as well) rather than have to pay for the actor’s increased salary demands. Which they deserved, by the way.
THe Dresden Files? A wonderful series of books turned into a tepid series with none of the charm or imagination of the original source material. I remember getting a rough cut of the original two-hour pilot (which I’m not sure has been seen to date) and my heart sank. What is the point of acquiring a property and immediately changing just about every element that made it successful?
Sliders? A leftover from Fox and while the writing/producing team managed to do some pretty good stuff, the lack of budget eventually killed it. I remember actor Peter Jurasik told me he was offered a recurring role in the final season and turned it down because the money was so bad, and this is somebody who was used to crappy syndicated/cable money on Babylon. And by the way, let’s not forget Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers, which was by no means as memorable as the original series, but Sci-Fi never gave it a chance. The reason they gave for not picking it up was they didn’t do ‘space shows.’ Makes you wonder how Battlestar Galactica made it past that dictum.
And let’s not forget Farscape, which for a short time was the jewel of Sci-Fi’s crown, getting the kind of critical notice that BSG has been getting the last couple of years. After picking up the show for a fourth and fifth season, the channel abruptly pulled the plug at the end of season four, resulting in what could have been the most unresolved cliffhanger since Blake’s 7 thanks to Sci Fi’s total disingenuousness (the producers only found out about the cancellation during episode 22). It took Hensons and Hallmark to at least put together a mini-series to wrap up the story, with no input from Sci-Fi by the way.
To this day, I’m still not sure how Battlestar Galactica managed to get through the channel’s curtain of mediocrity, but even there, I can’t help thinking it wasn’t an easy trip at the beginning. Even then, BSG still had to begin as a so-called ‘back door pilot,’ and if it hadn’t been reasonably successful, I have feeling it would have vanished as quickly as Legend of the Rangers, along with the same rationale of ‘We don’t do space series.’ Don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t be happier that BSG lasted as long as it did, and I would have been delighted to see it continue, but I sometimes felt it succeeded in spite of the Sci-Fi Channel drag factor not because of any great input from the channel.
So where does that leave things today, apart from several hundred boxes of letterhead that can no longer be used? As far as I’m concerned, a name change means nothing. Call it the Sci-Fi/ECW Channel if you want, or the Giant CG Reptile of the Week Channel, but none of it really matters if there’s no overriding mission statement about ‘Sy Fy’ is going to go in the future. I’d like to see some really thought-provoking drama, either as ongoing weekly series or the occasional mini-series. Let’s see a tip of the hat to the ‘Sy’ part of the title and maybe see some actual science programming, which as anybody who remembers Carl Sagan’s excellent Cosmos will attest, does not have to be boring. And how about some non-fiction, non-reality shows that actually cover the history of the genre? If the channel wants cheap-to-produce programming, you can’t get cheaper than talking heads, but there are all kinds of shows that can be done with a bit of creativity and a healthy chunk of genre awareness.
Just my two cent’s worth, as a lover of the genre for nearly half a century and someone who’s been writing about it for a big chunk of that time.
I wish they’d call it the Raptor Island Channel–all Raptor Island, all the time!
Eh, Sci Fi shmyfi, hardly ever has anything worth watching. The occasional bad monster movie (Masquito! Cobra Vs Komodo vs Python While Boa Watches!), BSG, not much else. Between the internet and netflix who needs it?
Would be great if some folks with ideas got to do the programming but if changing the name to SY-FY is any indication that sure isn’t happening.
PAD, Thanks for the response. I respect your opinion on such things and yours seems to fairly well coincide with mine (glad to see you reference Asimov btw, whom I grew up reading). Of course, as I said in the BSG thread I don’t get the Sci Fi Channel so I realize that my opinion counts for exactly bupkus anyway. Still, I am a long-time SF fan and I find this re-branding controversy of some mild interest.
–
There are all sorts of articles and blog items out on the web if you Google SyFy, but I closely followed these few last week…
–
SCI FI Channel to become Syfy; “Imagine Greater” is new message—The official announcement from SciFiWire generated over a thousand comments in just four days or so with maybe only a mere handful of them not completely negative.
–
SCI FI president Dave Howe answers your Syfy questions—Then Sci Fi Channel President Dave Howe addressed the response. More negative comments followed.
–
Then there’s Hinman: Why The Games, SciFi Channel? in which Michael Hinman wonders by NBC Universal seems reluctant to admit that in fact Hinman was the one who not only came up with the name SyFy, but had used it for a decade or so (until about a month ago) for his SyFy Portal site (now going by the name Airlock Alpha). Apparently he made a tidy profit from the sale of the name and I for one do not fault him for that in the least. And he’s not looking for any more money now as a result, but simply feels that NBCU is being somewhat coy in possibly presenting the name change as their very own in-house development idea. It does seem curious. I also understand his own natural bit of defensiveness of the name to which he gave birth.
________________
.
I think there’s something of a catch-22 going on… I understand the desire for a trademarkable name and any role it may play in attracting greater viewership and generating more revenue (though I greatly doubt either).
–
I think the problem with a niche channel is that they are inevitably doomed to serving just that—a niche. As such there is only so much viewership and money to be had. It’s OK to launch such a channel with certain goals, but after a while execs tend to wonder “Is that all there is?” and try to figure out ways to attract more viewers/money. Unfortunately, that inevitably ends up translating to broadening programming away from the narrow niche and therefore driving away what had been more loyal (and now disillusioned) viewers.
–
I think that’s fine, up to a point, but too much is, well, too much. Time will tell, of course. Will they be able to bring in significantly more viewers than are driven away? That’s the big question, isn’t it?
–
I think folks should also keep in mind that SF and cloely related genre shows are typically among the most expensive to produce. I’m not a fan of any reality shows on any network and never have been (not even American Idol and other such so-called “talent” competitions). But I can see the attractiveness of such programming to network execs as at least a cheap and easy change of pace type of thing. (Though I will NEVER “get” pro wrestling no matter what the channel.)
–
My own personal perception is that the SyFy announcement, as Joe Nazzaro put it above, was “…rife with soulless corporate-speak, as opposed to genuine enthusiasm.” It came off as so much marketing jargon and even an outright admission that it’s all about the money. (Which again, is fine, but nothing that I think viewers can or should get excited about. It just bugs me when any company does something for obvious self-serving reasons and then tries to make it sound as if “we’re doing it all for you!” I think that tone is more what people are responding to, since obviously the exact ramifications of the change, if any, remain to be seen.)
–
Perhaps, in these economic times, the channel does indeed have to make some genre sacrifices in order to have a better chance at long-term survival. But will there be anything left for the hardcore SF fans to watch if it does? Yup, catch-22.
–
It’s just a name. It shouldn’t matter, really. But it’s the reading between the lines that causes (even more) anxiety to the SF fan base. “Imagine Greater?” SyFy itself doesn’t seem all that imaginative to me, especially considering that they only bought the name anyway and now are trying to pass it off as their very own original concept.
By the way, I can remember getting an e-mail some years back from one of the publicity people at Sci-Fi, who informed me of the decision that from then on, the Sci-Fi Channel would henceforth be referred to as The Sci Fi Channel. That’s right, the purpose of the entire e-mail was to let me know that they were dropping the dash. Needless to say, I then made an effort to include the dash at every available opportunity.
And here’s Airlock Alpha’s initial mention for the SciFi/SyFy transition, SciFi Channel Changes Name … To ‘Syfy’ (If it seems a little familiar, it should), which finishes up with…
–
“If you ask people their default perceptions of SciFi, they list space, aliens and the future,” said current SciFi Channel president Dave Howe. “That didn’t capture the full landscape of fantasy entertainment: the paranormal, the supernatural, action and adventure, superheroes.”
–
But one thing SciFi Channel has to be careful of is what happens sometimes when companies try to change their brands. The Times itself warned about how PepsiCo recently tried to change the package of its popular Tropicana juice only to get negative pushback.
–
Of course, Airlock Alpha itself has changed its name indirectly because of this, and feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Quantum Global Media Inc., the owner of Airlock Alpha, said the change was necessary to allow the site to remain a science-fiction site, but at the same time, not have to spell it out so directly to readers. It also will be a main element in the upcoming BlipNetwork that is being formed with Airlock Alpha, the existing horror news site Rabid Doll and the upcoming television news site Inside Blip.
–
“The testing we’ve done [on Syfy] has been incredibly positive,” Howe said. “If I were texting, this is how I would spell it.”
_________________
.
Yeah, naming my multi-million dollar corporate entity based on what texters may or may not do would certainly be my main criteria. Of course, if their actual text messages are overwhelmingly negative about how stupid a name SyFy is or how bad a program was, shouldn’t they maybe consider that too? I’m just sayin’… Personally I never subscribed to the theory that there’s no such thing as negative publicity.
__________________
.
Also, from the Airlock Alpha (AA?) FAQ page…
–
What is Airlock Alpha?–
Airlock Alpha is a news and rumors science-fiction entertainment Web site owned by Quantum Global Media Inc. It began in 2001 as a collaboration between current Airlock Alpha owner Michael Hinman, who created SyFy World in 1998, and Greg Boubel, who started Star Trek Portal a short time later. Following Boubel’s departure from the site, Hinman created Quantum Global Media, which manages Airlock Alpha today. It was incorporated in Florida in 2007, and is the parent site of both Airlock Alpha and Rabid Doll.
–
BTW, I’m not trying to promote Hinman’s site (I have no stake in it personally, financially, or otherwise), but am merely trying to help point out more background on the overall SyFy controversy and the derivation of the name.
From the first issue of Isaac Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine:
“Gentle Reader, you often ask, ‘Why
Isn’t SF the same as Sci-Fi?’
Well, you see, there’s a fine line
Between Robert Heinlein
And ‘Son of the Two-Headed Fly’.”
– L. Sprague de Camp, IIRC…
I did like one online comment, that the new name sounded like textspeak for “syphilis”, as in “I h8 Jordan – he gave me the SyFy!”
Oh, okay.
So, Sci-Fi is what those fun ’50s monster movies I love are and Science Fiction are those books that look kind of boring and I don’t read. :p
Anyway, the main thing is that they seem to want to create a more recognizable brand, which is what they’ll be doing. Even if it does sound stupid on the surface.
As for the wrestling/reality shows/etc, it’s kind of par for the course as far as cable channels go these days. From what I’ve seen is that the executives don’t want to specialize in terms of genre or form as much as they want to do it by demographic. Sci-Fi/SyFy/whatever sees wrestling as something that appeals to its “core demographic” of young men. It’s not the only place it has happened. Remember how over the years MTV slowly evolved from the music video channel to what essentially could be dubbed “TV for teenagers” (even to the point that people would joke that MTV doesn’t play music videos anymore). Also, Cartoon Network continues to play more live action, so as to seem like more of a general “children’s network”. Toon Disney gets changed to Disney XD so as to aim at boys. The list goes on and on. They all want to stop creating programming of a certain type in favor of creating programming for a certain type of person.
Maybe they’re going to star their own brand of personal lubricant. Sy Fy jelly! Takes you places you’ve never been!
SyFy is definitely a ploy to branch out to other revenue streams, perhaps even to totally eliminate all but the bare minimum Sci-Fi programming. To me it doesn’t matter anymore since Comcast has it as part of a non-standard cable channel package & it & the other channels in the package aren’t worth it.
One last sort of related story…
–
A month or two ago scifi.com consolidated their two main web pages, scifiwire (for SF-related news items) and scifiweekly (more in-depth SF-related articles, commentary, and reviews), into one newly redesigned scifiwire blog.
–
The result for me personally was underwhelming to say the least. Of particular disappointment was the change in book reviews. Scifiweekly posted two book reviews a week (monday & wednesday most weeks except for weeks with a holiday). Now book reviews seem to appear much less frequently. And those that do appear are far less in-depth. They often read almost like promo stuff straight from the publishers’ press releases.
–
Paul Di Filippo did a great review of PAD’s Tigerheart which PAD ended up doing a special entry at the time to highlight. As an aside, I don’t know how he managed it, but Mr. Di Filippo somehow managed to do one review a week and his reviews never lacked for detailed info such as plot synopsis, character references, and genre homages. The other weekly book review seemed to rotate among a handful of fine folks, fairly well known SF/Fantasy authors in their own rights, but all were similarly detailed in their analyses and opinions.
–
Now though, even Mr. Di Filippo’s reviews seem simplified and much shorter, more akin to token fluff pieces. I could put up with less reviews, say, one a week or even two a month, but the stark drop in detail and effort is a huge comedown from what had been for me a twice-weekly source of anticipation to see what books were being reviewed and what they had to say about them. (Note: I do think they’ve made some slight effort to tone down the publicity-centricness of the reviews since, but they’re still nowhere near the quality of the old scifiweekly style.)
–
The rest of the site content seems similarly watered down to me compared to past items. I still include the site in my iGoogle feeds, but I find myself looking at the content far, far less.
–
Of course, at the time they made a similar post about the changes at the site and how utterly excited they were about it all, plus how much better it would be for their fine and loyal readers. Comments then seemed to be generally to the negative side on average, but it was much more evenly split between those who seemed OK with the changes and those who hated the new direction.
–
But if the website change is any indication of the TV channel change to come, I’m glad I don’t get the channel.
As a fan of science fiction/sci-fi/speculative fiction/s-something f-something, I’ve found this channel to be a tremendous disappointment, regardless of its name. Instead of securing the great movies and amazing shows that have been done, they air amazingly cheesy movies (many revolving around mutated animals — FRANKENFISH, anyone?), miss many of the great sci-fi shows (while airing daytime marathons of failures), aired the abysmal WHO WANTS TO BE A SUPERHERO? (I was always hoping for “You’re being dropped deep in gang terriroty, where gabgbangers deal drugs, survive prison, cops, and rivals, and are heavily armed; you’re wearing spandex and a few have plastic weapons. Good luck”), and mysteriously air ECW, which is neither science-fictiony nor a sport.
I shudder that the most ominous portent of a horrible film is a toss-up between “a SyFy Original Movie” and “a Lifetime Original Movie.” Bleh.
I don’t really understand the hatred of wrestling on the Sci-Fi Channel. Although I’m not a fan, I still think wrestling is the closest thing to real life superheroes we can have.
David, I’m a wrestling fan from way back, but even I’ll say it really has no place on Sci-Fi Channel.
I haven’t watched anything on whatever you call it since they cancelled MST3K. My theory has always been if they added Mike, Tom and Crow to any of their original presentations it’d be a vast improvement.
Hey, now would be a good time to take advantage and start up a real Science Fiction channel or you could call it The Speculative Fiction channel. Spi Fi
As I’ve mentioned on another site about this channel, if it wasn’t for the annual Twilight Zone marathon I probably would never watch this network. Since it’s inception, it’s been a HUGE disappointment (IMO).
“I don’t really understand the hatred of wrestling on the Sci-Fi Channel. ”
Which just about sums up my opinion on the Sci-Fi Channel. There are hundreds of channels available on satellite and cable, and among those, there are plenty where wrestling would fit (Spike, VS, ESPN to just name a few) but Sci-Fi????? How in the hëll does this even come close to fitting?
But to be fair, Sci-Fi Channel isn’t alone with programming that has long ago abandoned it’s initial mission statement.
TV Land showing movies would make sense, if they were MADE FOR TV movies. You know, movies (like The Night Stalker, Sybil and Holocaust) that were created, produced and made for television unlike churning out popular big screen films that you can see on many, many, MANY other cable stations.
And I can’t begin to see where Catwoman would be considered an American Movie CLASSIC (AMC)!!!!!!!!
Even if Catwoman were the best movie ever made *koff* (dang hairball…) it wouldn’t belong on the channel because it’s what… 4 years old? Even TNT would hesitate to call it a “New Classic” at that age… I pretty much gave up on AMC when they started showing stuff that wasn’t American, Movies, *or* Classic – ie, a current British TV show or two (I forget what they were now…)
Likewise, I more or less gave up on Sci Fi when they started primarily showing monster/shark/dino/disaster of the week flicks. I pretty much only tune in anymore for Stargate, BSG, and Eureka… and oh, look, two of those (three if you count Stargate twice…) are now over and done with.
Honestly, whatever name the channel goes by? Doesn’t really matter if they’re going to have such quality programming as “I Am Omega” and “Spring Break Shark Attack.”
If they keep doing the occasional marathons of “The Sentinel”, I’ll be happy.
Personally I’m not greatly fussed by it all. If branding themselves as SyFy brings in more revenue that they plow back into production, then good luck to ’em.
–
It’s a different deal over here anyway, we get Sci Fi Channel as part of a bundle of shows and you pay for the bundle, except that I dropped tht particular bundle about 18 months ago, just because overall there wasn’t enough interesting material to justify the total cost. (BSG and Stargate both air on Sky over here, not on the Sci Fi Channel).
–
Cheers.
I don’t see how it’s going to produce more revenue. If the people who made Mansquito are told to make a romantic comedy, they’re not magically going to become talented people and make a good romantic comedy.
Changing the name doesn’t change anything but the name.
Would they be doing it if they didn’t think it would bring in more revenue?
–
Having a ‘fresh’ brand, pulling in new audience – hopefully an audience with the disposable income demographic that attracts new advertisers – and having it as a trade-markable brand are all basic business strategies.
–
I’m not saying it will work, but I can understand the business thinking behind it, and – be fair – at least they’re trying something new.
–
The idea then, is that you can go to other more expensive people and get a good show made.
–
No offense here, but a lot of this seems to be about businessmen who don’t ‘get’ fans, and fans who don’t ‘get’ businessmen.
–
However much the suits love or loathe SF, they’re running a very expensive business that needs more bums on seats than fans alone can supply.
–
Top selling comics do what, 100,000 issues a month? They’re never ever going to make a series for 100,000 people to watch.
–
One idea that might be worth floating would be a showcase show – there are talented fans trying to break into working professionally who might be willing to sell their material to SyFy for peanuts just to get the visibility. In theory, that’s a “win/win” option.
–
Cheers.
The ultimate irony is that when SFC was almost entirely classic SF reruns and old movies, I watched it a LOT more. Their rotating slot for short-lived series like The Immortal was fabulous – these were shows that were never going to see the light of day again since there weren’t enough episodes to syndicate.
As they started to create their own stuff, I realized the new material usually couldn’t hold a candle to even the cheesiest classic stuff.
Then they started adding more and more non-SF stuff (though to my dying days, the idea of Crossing over with John Edward running on the Science Fiction Channel will go down as one of the most magnificent ironies in history) and my interest grew less and less. So much less that in fact I didn’t even bother with the new Galactica series, and have had to catch up with it as I can.
It’s the same issue with Cartoon network trying to show more live-action movies. It’s the Chewbacca Defense – That Does Not Make Sense.
Another problem with the Sci-Fi Channel is that NBC/Universal now has the Chiller Channel which specializes in horror-based TV shows and movies that are stealing some of Sci-Fi’s audience by showing some long buried horror-based shows and movies.
Also I think NBC/Universal also has the Sleuth Channel a network that shows detective/cop shows and movies.
“One of the big promising things about cable when it first came out was the idea that channels dedicated just to one genre or type of show could arise. There’s the Game Show channel. the Soap network, the Food Network, and a plethora of others. As they started to appear, the programmers began to notice something they hadn’t considered – channels that only show one kind of show only appeal to people that like that one kind of show. For a lot of people, this goes against the American desire to eat one’s cake and have not only it, but all other cakes in the vicinity as well.
So using the same marketing strategy that gave us new Coke, these mavens said, “Let’s dilute what we do well by doing some things we don’t do well”. MTV started doing it first – putting more actual programming on its channel, as opposed to videos. It’s now at the point where they had to start whole other channels to do what the main channel used to do -play music videos.
So we started seeing reality shows on Sci-Fi, and live-action movies on Cartoon Network. And on the whole, they did not succeed because…Well, I’ve said it for a long time – you don’t go to IHOP for a steak.”
More at my blog – http://40yearoldfanboy.blogspot.com/
all because you cant copyright “Sci Fi”
The Colbert Report’s take: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_zc_MGkV_M&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcinemageddon.org%2Fforums.php%3Faction%3Dviewtopic%26topicid%3D13602%26page%3D1&feature=player_embedded
We were at a convention before the SciFi Channel started up (I’ve forgotten which one–a MOC, or a Fantasy Fair, or Dixie Trek, perhaps) and a representative from the channel was there to talk to the fans. He asked us what type of programs we would like to see on the channel and was surprised at some of the titles we mentioned. I remember suggesting QUARK and he said they would never show QUARK because science-fiction fans didn’t like comedy. Uhhhh… The guy knew nothing about science fiction, period. And yes, I’ve heard that the woman who is in charge of the channel does not like science fiction. She picked up the wrestling because they wanted more men in the 18-35 demographic and they found out wrestling was the #1 show in that demographic. Gah.
It sounds like a fraternity or sorority: Psi Phi
I see the word “Syfy” and mentally pronounce it “sih-fee” (not even “sigh-fee” for some reason), and that doesn’t bring up positive imagery. (If they camel-cased the “F”, that would help.)
“Imagine Greater”, eh? Greater than what? Greater than what you’re doing now? Imagine it, because it’s not what you’re gong to actually get? Yeah, that makes me want to tune in.
My old speculative fiction teacher in college (who wrote a ST:NG episode or two) actually said a good deal of the writing community has always looked down on the abbreviation “Sci Fi”, network or otherwise. I’ve broken the habit of using it in any context other than the network.
It’s all about the trademark/copyright.
io9 weighs in on the question of…
–
What Would Isaac Asimov Say About Syfy’s Name Change?
–
(Apparently “Beyond” and “SFC” were kicked around as possible alternative monikers.)
–
And here’s another relevant Airlock Alpha piece from “staff writer” (Could it be Hinman cloaking himself?)…
–
SciFi Prez Acknowledges SyFy Portal, But Not Origins
It just now popped into my head, this imagined scene where the channel execs go to the trusted loyal fans and inform them “We’re thinking of re-branding ourselves, any ideas for a new name?”
–
And the fans replied, “Why? Why?”
–
And Voilà, the SyFy name was born.
–
🙂
It makes no difference to me one way or the other. I’ll watch good show and skip bad ones no matter what you call the channel they’re on.
It sounds like a fraternity or sorority: Psi Phi
Actually, there’s a Star Trek books site called Psi Phi. 🙂
The last word on the SciFi/SyFy controversy?…
.
Hinman’s account of his interview with SyFy Prez Howe
.
He now appears satisfied that NBCU came up with the SyFy name independently. However, I am somewhat baffled (ethically) by this:
___________________
.
Another source for the network, who asked not to be named, told Airlock Alpha Wednesday that they couldn’t be sure when it was that SciFi Channel became locked on “Syfy,” but the general belief was that SyFy Portal wasn’t big enough to claim creation rights on the name, and that any waves I did create would get squashed from the initial coverage that wouldn’t mention us at all.
.
Instead, network executives apparently were surprised when I did make some waves, the source said, and quickly turned a lot of industry media to my side, believing that crediting the source of the name — me — was just as important as the name itself, and that SciFi Channel was missing the boat on that one.
___________________
.
I realize that’s just Hinman’s word on the part I emboldened, but if true I don’t see how the size of a company or organization has any bearing on them making any claims of creation. A single person may create something and therefore rightfully be able to claim it, especially when seeking only the mere cited acknowledgment of creation (for whatever that may be worth without any further[?] monetary compensation).
.
Defending that claim against bigger fish can no doubt become problematic and a losing proposition and it sounds as if the new SyFy was indeed initially counting on its Goliath stature. But I don’t see where size matters (I don’t think it should) for simply making the claim. Surely they should have been able to see that the demographic is the same for both the channel and Hinman’s site and that in this age of the www word would quickly spread of the name’s original origins (even if they did develop it anew completely independently).
.
That small portion of Hinman’s account doesn’t put SyFy in a good light imo, but the rest of the piece is actually very favorable.
.
Apparently (though the following is Hinman’s version) Howe also revealed:
___________________
.
There were some missteps along the way in getting this new brand out there. The initial press release picked up by the New York Times was intended for media planners and advertisers, not necessarily the general viewing public, as it was meant to lead in to upfront advertising presentations that usually only attract the interest of advertisers, not viewers, Mr. Howe said. That caused some aspects of the initial release to come off as “cold” to viewers as it didn’t really address them directly.
___________________
.
All in all they could have handled it a lot better.
.
I still think much of the negative reaction is as much (if not more) in response to the tone of the announcement(s) and the inherent corporate marketing sound of it, which many people take some offense at because they believe they see the “real” motives behind it all and maybe even some lack of respect for the previously “loyal” viewers. If so, I don’t know that they’re necessarily wrong.