1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Syfy Channel: Discussion (take 2)

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by Stuart Sweet, Mar 26, 2009.

  1. Jul 2, 2009 #181 of 378
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,011
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Yeah, I just tried to schedule them both.... "Warehouse 13" has a 2:04 pilot and "Eureka" is a 1:03 premier. The new Syfy? Grumble, grumble.:mad:
     
  2. Jul 2, 2009 #182 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    I'm also looking forward to Stargate Universe.

    Alice also looks very interesting.
     
  3. Jul 2, 2009 #183 of 378
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I was watching a Twilight Zone episode a little while ago and noticed the Siffey logo bug in the lower right corner.
     
  4. Jul 2, 2009 #184 of 378
    rebkell

    rebkell Godfather

    469
    0
    Sep 9, 2006
    I'm looking forward to the Alice mini-series, Riverworld and the Phantom. I enjoyed Tin Man(of course I'm a Zooey fan), but thought it was pretty good.

    I'll definitely give them all a shot, would love to see more of these type things, and maybe have a series spin off if they are successful.
     
  5. Jul 2, 2009 #185 of 378
    rebkell

    rebkell Godfather

    469
    0
    Sep 9, 2006

    I agree completely about Twilight Zone, this seems completely over the top, even for SciFi, Twilight Zone episodes are running solid with the exception of a couple of two hour infomercial blocks until Sunday Morning.

    They have plenty of good programming they could run, not that Twilight Zone is bad, but wall to wall 24x7(minus the few hours of infomercials) straight through until Sunday morning. :rolleyes: :down:
     
  6. Jul 2, 2009 #186 of 378
    mike1977

    mike1977 Legend

    225
    8
    Aug 26, 2005
    What I am seeing on Scifi though is the newer Twilight Zone series in color (not the series that ran on UPN).
     
  7. Jul 2, 2009 #187 of 378
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    That's been one of my gripes about SciFi.

    For the shows they do make like Eureka (and when they used to have BSG) they hardly ever repeat them in the off-season... so it's almost impossible for a new viewer to catch up or start watching.

    For as much as I love Twilight Zone... I'd like to see SciFi re-run more of its original series like Eureka in the off-seasons to help promote the show.

    I know they do from time-t0-time have a marathon day or half-day... but that's too easy to miss... much better if they ran some one-night-a-week repeats for a few months. Last season of Eureka, for example, ran only 8 episodes... so after 2 months it was done and back into limbo again until this summer when it is coming back. That's far too little exposure for a good show.
     
  8. Jul 2, 2009 #188 of 378
    rebkell

    rebkell Godfather

    469
    0
    Sep 9, 2006
    I've kept an eye on the Eureka listings like a hawk and they have repeated the first 8 episodes of Season 3.0(I guess that's what they are calling it) 3 or 4 times lately, but only one time did they ever show anything else, and that was the final two episodes of season #2, I gobbled them up on my Hauppauge HDPVR quickly. I have always wanted to see the first two season in HD and as far as I know they have yet to show any of them, other than those two eps I just mentioned.

    BSG, Eureka, even Sanctuary has been completely abandoned after it's initial run, don't think I've seen any repeats since the final episode of Season #1. Dresden Files, Painkiller Jane(I'm alone on that one, but I really enjoyed that show). They sure do wear out SG1 though, and they used to show Atlantis a lot, but it's not as often as it was.

    They could run original programming a lot, but instead they opt for old series over and over even in their all day marathons. Tru Calling, Twilight Zone, The Sentinel, Dark Angel and a few others ad nauseum. I always thought they would have better luck with LOST around 7:00 pm nightly, instead they run it at 4:00 pm and 1:00 am. Of course, all this is my personal preferences, but still I have to believe they could schedule a bit more quality and run some series from start to finish on a daily basis and pick up some viewers that would like to watch or rewatch a show in order.
     
  9. Jul 2, 2009 #189 of 378
    mike1977

    mike1977 Legend

    225
    8
    Aug 26, 2005
    I agree, they need to drop the weekday marathons and run them only once in a while and put older shows back on with a M-F schedule, showing only once per day.
     
  10. Jul 3, 2009 #190 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Overexposure degrades value. The more they run Eureka now, on television, the less NBC/U makes on the DVDs, and the less NBC/U can make in later syndication. It is a bit like taking a canteen of water on a hike. You could drink practically all of it in the first few tenths of a mile, but then you'll be thirsty half-way through the hike, and won't have much water left.
     
  11. Jul 3, 2009 #191 of 378
    Wire Paladin

    Wire Paladin Legend

    145
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    In most cases that's true. However there are exceptions. Take NCIS on USA. They started showing it 3 hours a day on weekdays and the fanbase built. This help build the audience when new episodes are being shown on CBS and the show became a bigger hit after 6 seasons. For a long time NCIS got no respect from CBS. They do now.
     
  12. Jul 3, 2009 #192 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Being an example of what you outlined (we picked up NCIS on CBS only because we liked it when we started watching it on USA), I cannot disagree with the premise that sometimes there are significant advantages along the lines you've outlined. However, the scenario you outlined used a cable channel to promote a broadcast channel series. Here we're talking about using a cable channel to promote itself. I'm not sure that really is the same thing.

    Beyond that, hasn't Sci-Fi already run Eureka marathons? Wouldn't there be complaints about them repeating Eureka so much, on the part of Twilight Zone fans, if they spent this weekend running a Eureka marathon, instead? Especially since there are only 26 episodes of Eureka to run, so they'd basically have to run every episode twice to fill the marathon out. I don't see a single duplicate in the Twilight Zone marathon.
     
  13. Jul 3, 2009 #193 of 378
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I don't understand the point of marathons at all unless every episode is different. I've seen some where they run the same five or six episodes several times back to back.

    Speaking of which; [sideline] what is the point of running the same movie back to back two or three times a night? And what about HMC running the same four hour movie (Supernova) three nights in a row? [/sideline]
     
  14. Jul 3, 2009 #194 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Re-running the same movie two or three times makes sense, if you figure that some people will be available to watch it a 8PM and others available to watch it at 11PM. It all has to to do with viewer's individual personal schedules.

    Of course, with a DVR, the DVR is always ready to "watch" something. By the same token, even DVRs have busy schedules sometimes, and so a conflict might "force" a DVR to only be able to "watch" something either at the earlier or at the later time. However, clearly, serving the needs of devices that can be readily used to skip commercials is reasonably a secondary priority for networks (if even that).
     
  15. Jul 3, 2009 #195 of 378
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    Syfy declares independence from its old name

    Cable networks have to work extra-hard to establish their brands, unlike broadcast networks such as ABC, NBC and CBS, whose longevity and prominence makes them difficult to miss.

    Through creative advertising campaigns -- not to mention noteworthy shows -- cable networks such as TNT, FX, USA and lately AMC have established their identities with the public. We tend to know what we’ll be getting when we tune in to those channels: crafty escapism on USA, sophisticated storytelling on FX, mainstream procedurals on TNT and urbane, cinematic drama on AMC.

    So why would an established cable network mess with a good thing?

    For Sci Fi—which changes its name to Syfy Tuesday—it’s a matter of survival.


    See the rest here: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2009/07/sci-fi-syfy-name-warehouse-13.html
     
  16. Jul 3, 2009 #196 of 378
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Changing from an established, well known moniker that actually means something to a disassociated collection of letters is no guarantee of survival.

    AMC is still on? I stopped watching that channel and deleted it from my channel scan when they betrayed their audience by running commercials.
     
  17. Jul 3, 2009 #197 of 378
    Drew2k

    Drew2k New Member

    14,514
    228
    Aug 16, 2006
    I read the article and didn't see any statements from Syfy that they thought this would guarantee their survival, they are just looking to improve their odds by using a name they can trademark.

    It's quite a good article, with lots of background and quite a bit about the direction Syfy will be heading.
     
  18. Jul 3, 2009 #198 of 378
    BubblePuppy

    BubblePuppy Good night dear Smoke... love you & "got your butt

    5,283
    5
    Nov 3, 2006
    A rose by any other name...still has thorns.:p
     
  19. Jul 3, 2009 #199 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    The article is actually quite good at explaining the name change, and as if justification was necessary, justifying it -- if folks reading the article are actually inclined to accept anything that shakes their strongly-held animosity towards the change, of course. Some folks, for their own, completely respectable, reasons, simply don't like this change, and no amount of rational logic can, or should, shake them from that perspective.
     
  20. Jul 3, 2009 #200 of 378
    dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,750
    26
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    I dont get the anti-commercial stuff....just DVR and FF thru them....whats that take like 15-20 seconds....big woop !!
     

Share This Page