SciFi Channel Rebranding...

...to SyFy.

Really? What's up with that?

Whoa - text message talk goes insane!

The best part is that in Polish it's a venereal disease.

Now that BSG is wrapping up and with no stargates there won't be much reason to watch. Maybe the new SyFy channel didn't want to tarnish the Sci Fi Channel's good name. I guess now there will be nothing but reruns of old TV shows and really baaaaaaaaad movies about snakes as long as a football field or genetically engineered monsters. Or, maybe, just maybe, hope against hope, they don't want the Sci Fi brand to tarnish their new super-duper fabulous SyFy channel. You know, the one that is 90% shows on the order of BSG. Just a thought. One can hope, can't one?

The current CEO of the Sci Fi channel is from Britain. Brits in Britain I trust implicitly. Brits in America? Not so much. Most of them are Randians.

it is all about money. You can't trademark scifi.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-18603_1-10197108-73.html

what a bunch of lamers ....

Too bad they didn't take whatever money they spent on that winner of a concept and invest it in better original programming. That channel is the biggest wasted opportunity on the air.

Look at today's schedule: A Leprechaun marathon, wrestling (why is that even on Sci-Fi... I mean Syfy?), a game show about video games and then Ghost Hunters. Oh! But if I can hold out till Saturday, I get a Children of the Corn marathon (they aren't even showing the first one?) and House of the Dead, one of the worst films ever made! Looks like I'll have to cancel my plans for the weekend.

I remember when the Sci Fi channel was about to launch - they did this countdown (over at least a couple days I think) like a space launch before debuting with the original Star Wars. I had such high hopes. There have been times of good moments but for most years and certainly for me in recent years it has been mostly unwatchable esp with their insane use of commercials.

I don't get what is wrong with a science fiction channel ... how hard is that to understand? It isn't like there is a lack of material ... We've already got 500 channels with nothing on. So let us rebrand!

6>Too bad they didn't take whatever money they spent on that winner of a concept and invest it in better original programming. That channel is the biggest wasted opportunity on the air.

I agree. There's some great stuff on SciFi, but most of everything else is just junk. I remember once upon the time when the channel was actually pretty good, and it still has its moments. I guess I like the concept of the SciFi Channel more than I like the reality. :-)

>6 jseger9000: - 8

There isn't enough good sci-fi to show nothing but good sci-fi 24/7, with no repeats, forever.

That said, I don't see how re-branding addresses the problem.

#9-

Maybe not, but they could at least take away the wrestling and try to put on some good original programming like BSG. I'd complain more if I had cable or satellite. I don't, so it only affects me indirectly.

SyFy is lame. SyPhy is obviously much better. then to counteract the perception that wrestling is off topic they could have an SF review show detailing the best (or worst) SF coming out. They could call it the SyPhyList.

Hey geneg, I resent the assertion that most of us Brit expats in America are Randians, most of us are decent, functional alcoholics just like back home.

PsyPhy (nah, sounds like a Psychology-Physics double major).

SyFy looks dumb. I don't even get that channel (not being in US), though, so I'm sure they don't care about my opinion :)

I'm not sure what we could really expect from the SciFi channel (or gods help us, the SyFy channel) - unless they were going to develop a bunch original content, there was never much hope for the venture in my book. The sad fact is, by comparison to the body of literature (or the body of film in general), there isn't that much quality SFF film/video. If y'all were progamming it (let's be fanciful: price is no object), what would you put on to fill up all that space in the schedule?

A recent thread discussed which SF novels deserve to be made into films? The real answer is two part: 1) Too many to mention (even in the last decade), and 2)Most more than the scripts that actually get produced.

To my mind, geneg did a good job of putting Star Wars to rest at #16, here. And so goes most of the rest. Not to overly invoke Sturgeon's Law, but it seems to fit so many situations...

This is not even necessarily to slam SFF film, but rather to note the lack when compared with the literature of the same genre on any given year.

And re: Brit expats in America - it may be time for Ricky Gervais to go home. 'Nuff said.

OK I'll bite. If I was the programmer ....

We don't have to have serious or great science fiction. And I think we could spread the width a little to sort of be the Science Fiction and Adventure channel to allow for things like the Lost World series which really wasn't all that awful. You could even fir Tarzan reruns in if we stretched the adventure. Howsabout the Indy Jr series in its original form. Now that was good television years ago.

I think we would mostly be faced with repeats over a cycle but that isn't terrible. Two quality shows would include Babylon 5 and the two seasons of Jeremiah. I thought Star Trek TNG was the best of that franchsie to include. I'd even go for showing the old Lost in Space series.

When I was a wee lad there were a couple of science fiction shows on and I can't even remember their names, but it was something like "Science Fiction Theater" which was a sort of science fact/fiction show. There were others. If someone went mining the television archives you could find all kinds of stuff like One Step Beyond and Tales of Tomorrow or whatever it was called. Also "The Invaders".

Develop a few projects each year like Tin Man which I thought was rather excellent as well as stuff like BSG.

I agree that the richness of the literature pales against what has been done. But it does not have to be that way if somone with a pocketbookfull of money put their minds to it.

I was always hoping for an interview show with science fiction authors.

And why not another anthology series like Outer Limits? They don't have to be lousy.

>15 RBeffa:

Pretty much agree totally. What I don't understand is that SciFi channel shows so much horror. It's a different genre, and there's now a channel (Chill) devoted to that.

I'd be much happier with reruns of old sci fi shows than with all the snakes/genetically altered sharks/creepy crawlers/ghost hunters crap that's on all the time. I've been rewatching Babylon 5 on hulu.com. There are quite a few other shows it would be great to see again. I realize the funds are limited for original programming, but if USA, TNT, and FX can field some good shows each season, why can't SciFi (however they spell it) do so?

I think we should pronounce it to rhyme with "jiffy."

As far as decent programming goes, I suspect that that would require having people in charge who actually like science fiction.

#9 - There isn't enough good sci-fi to show nothing but good sci-fi 24/7, with no repeats, forever.

Maybe not, but how is producing a film like Mansquito or Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy helping? I'm just sayin'...

The Sci-Fi channels covers sci-fi, horror and fantasy. If the stuff they're airing (especially the wrestling and original movies) is the best they can come up with, why bother?

#14 - If y'all were progamming it (let's be fanciful: price is no object), what would you put on to fill up all that space in the schedule?

Look at the old Ray Bradbury Theater series HBO did before they were the big shots they are now. That series cost what? Fifteen bucks an episode? But it has its fans because of the quality of the writing.

Price of course is an object. I would propose that they take the budget for an average Sci-Fi Channel original movie and give somebody like... George Romero or Alex Proyas a chance to develop a movie with that budget.

Why not a series of linked original movies? Sci-Fi could spend a little more on the first movie to build interest, sign the actors up for multiple movies and there you go.

Hellblazer would be perfect for this sort of thing, but since that has already been snapped up, find some other cult property. D.C. Comics used to have a million obscure series that could do well as movies. The Question was a non-super-powered hero that would work well and could have inexpensive movies with quality writing. He also inspired Watchmen's Rorschach, so they could ca$h in on that.

Why not see if Glen Morgan and James Wong (Space: Above and Beyond, Millennium) have any ideas for a series?

Marvel had an old series called Strikeforce: Morituri that would make a great original series. Picture it: Aliens have invaded Earth and nearly succeeded in conquering it and stripping it of its resources. A scientist discovers a process which can provide humans with superhuman powers, effectively creating a group of defending superheroes. However, the process would also ensure that the empowered humans would die within a year of being empowered. The series thus focused on the heroism of the main characters in fighting the invaders, while living with the knowledge that their fates were sealed regardless of whether or not they prevailed. (Synopsis swiped from Wikipedia)

Point is there's lots of stuff out there. Some could be licensed which would save the time of even having to come up with original concepts.

Maybe they'll re-run "Dark Shadows" again. One can hope.

>19 geneg: Yessssss

Re-run "Night Stalker"! And the "X-Files" while they're at it.

I wonder how much of them NOT running old classics like Lost in Space or Space 1999 is due to contractual-type dealings with other networks that run classic TV?

Shoot, even Mork and Mindy has a tie-in if they wanted to be different.

A lot of people bring up the wrestling and proclaim wonder at how this is on SciFi. The reason is very simple. It makes money. Does it belong in the genre? No, but it makes money. They've even paid their wrestlers on ECW to guest star on the live Ghost Hunters specials to cross promote.

They do run X-Files, Dark Angel, adn a few other shows fairly regularly, though. Bablyon 5 would be excellent and so would Firefly had Wheedon not made Serenity, though there are ways to keep most of the crew going.

SciFi has made some very curious choices. I'm still baffled over the cancellation of Farscape before they filmed the last season. Seriously...only one more season to go on one of your more successful original series and you kill it with one season left? Either someone thought their compensatory movie would go over much bigger, it wasn't REALLY doing all that well, or some decision maker simply has no taste.

I'm going to go with your last option, because I cannot believe that buying old TV series would not be a better use of their money than making yet another creepy creature movie. Either commit to being a sci fi channel, or change the name to something else entirely.

I think the idea that has been voiced that whoever runs the SciFi channel just doesn't like science fiction must have some truth to it.

Science Fiction seems to be getting more mainstream all the time - very popular series like Lost and Heroes are character driven science fiction. The recent very successful comic spawned movies are science fiction. We've got time travel on Life on Mars.

There are a lot of old series that have been named in this thread that all qualify as science fiction. And did we forget Alf?

How hard would it be to get a good host to run a creature feature type presentation of old bad scifi films? One of our local PBS stations ran the Prisoner series fairly regularly for years with a great host who discussed the episode before and after and sometimes had guests. How hard is it to do that? The Prisoner could seem to be bent into the science fiction channel.

And stopping Farscape I agree is one of those scratch your head things. They ALMOST did that with Babylon 5.

Space Above and Beyond was a too short lived quality series as was Firefly. I guess it is too late to resurrect Firefly.

Much of MST3K would also apply, though I'm sure Comedy Central won't give up the rights to that. And how could I forget Red Dwarf?!?

Old Dr. Who episodes would also be extremely welcome. As would Alien Nation and V, though it would be great to see Tom Baker semi-regularly again.

>25 kawika:
I would love, love, love to see Dr. Who from the beginning.

We got Sky recently and were looking forward to watching the SciFi channel thinking there would be lots of BSG-quality programmes to fill the very large hole that is going to be left in our lives very soon.

Obviously we were sorely mistaken!

>26 ejj1955: - Alas many of the earlier episodes were deleted by the BBC as they needed the storage space. That being said, a significant number, including the very first 3 adventures are complete and in good shape.

Soundtracks for all episodes do exist though - an interesting exercise for siffy (h/t #17) would be to somehow recreate those episodes (using CGI?). That's how we'll use that budget - yeah, that's the ticket.

#27, Scifi UK is not the same as the SciFi channel in the US and doesn't share the same programming (thank goodness we are spared the wrestling). The UK one is owned by NBC Global though so there is some affilliation. I don't know if the rebranding will extend over here though. The UK channel has Eli Stone which is the only thing I watch on it at the moment and repeats of Sanctuary, Dead Like me, Medium, the best american SF seems to go to Sky (BSG, Lost, Fringe) and Virgin (Terminator).

25> I loved MST3K! I knew it had been dropped from SciFi, but didn't realize Comedy Central was involved.

#24 How hard would it be to get a good host to run a creature feature type presentation of old bad scifi films? One of our local PBS stations ran the Prisoner series fairly regularly for years with a great host who discussed the episode before and after and sometimes had guests. How hard is it to do that?

Now there's a good idea! Why not go all TCN on classic sci-fi movies and TV series? Man, besides The Prisoner which is ripe for discussion, imagine what they could do while showing stuff like Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still or Them. Maybe they could make some slow week day 'retro sci-fi' day or something. Cost seems like it would be negligible. They would argue that it wouldn't attract large ratings, but I wonder really what sorts of ratings do gems like Attack of the Sabretooth or Boa vs. Python get?

The Prisoner could seem to be bent into the science fiction channel.

I don't get that comment? What would The Prisoner be if not sci-fi (besides ultra weird)? Besides, it was one of the series they showed in the past.

Was SeaQuest as good as I remember it being? That would definitely have a place on SciFi. Is there a reason they can't show Firefly anymore? They did at one point.

seaQuest was terrible. The first season was bad, the second season was, well, abysmal.

All those TV programmes you remember from your youth as being good. They weren't. In fact, they were mostly shite. For example, I remember Starfleet being good. It's just been released on DVD for the first time, and I had to review it for VideoVista.net. Oh dear. It's bloody dreadful. So much for nostalgia...

Um, I wonder if the reverse holds true: programmes we remember as being awful turning out to be quite good... Nah.

I thought SeaQuest was pretty abyssal.

The actors were out of their depth, and I couldn't fathom its appeal.

:-D

I still love the Twilight Zone marathons that show up every once in a while.

They just couldn't get the lead out.

There was no porpoise to it.

I thought it was pretty fishy, myself.

No need to whale about it.

It just submerged itself in a sea of mediocrity.

>36 PhoenixTerran:

I enjoy the Twilight Zone, but really, they show marathons on every single holiday weekend. Sometimes I don't even realize it's a holiday weekend until I see their lineup. *hits self in head* Oh, it's Memorial Day!

I watched the BSG Last Frackin' Special last night and there was the head of SciFi Channel talking about how proud they were of such quality programming, etc. Really? Hard to tell from the rest of the lineup . . .

SeaQuest would still be preferable to 90 percent of the current programming.

Foir your 1970s dose:

Space: 1999.

Space: 1999 - what a moonshot that was!

Definitely a lunatic programme.

#33 I would imagine that most of the old series don't live up to memories but it isn't always the case. I've started watching the Invaders series recently released on DVD (two seasons) and altho I figured it would be at best OK I find instead that it exceeds my hopes/expectations by a good measure. I also watched a few Time Tunnels which I remembered as campy like Lost in Space but they too, although far from perfect, were quite a bit better than expected. I know Lost in Space has been released on DVD but I haven't had the urge to sample it yet.

The thing is tho, that even bad scifi can often be pretty fun esp if you have a good host to lay on the trivia and window dressing.

And good classic scifi like the Day The Earth Stood Still is even better.

As for the Prisoner, I loved it then and now, but it really isn't scifi - it is much more brainwashing/spy/cold war paranoia. A few scifi-ish elements such as the balloon.

Does anyone still show those old campy reels like Radar Men From the Moon? Those were so bad then that they were great. I imagine they still would be a lot of fun to watch.

All these shows are coming back to me now...Sliders...Highlander...BSG (original series)...

Don't forget Buster Crabbe. He played both Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon in the serials. There is also Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (I think).

#48 - it is hard to forget the fabulous Wilma Deering. Buck in the 25th was intentionally campy and a lot of fun back then.

I have Buck Rogers in the 25th Century on DVD. The Gil Gerard / Erin Gray version, that is. It's entertaining for all the wrong reasons. The episode where Buck investigates the murder of the manager of a the band who are top of the galactic charts is good for clearing the house of guests who outstayed their welcome...

>50 iansales: - a truly classic episode - although it would have been better if the kids had rioted because the music played by the 'best band in the galaxy' produced the same sensation as being trapped in a lift with muzak blaring.
On the same theme, there was also the great moment (in the pilot episode, I think) where Buck taught the future how to boogie.

ps...the second season of BR is probably the worst re-imagining of a show ever.

Jerry Orbach was in that "best band in the galaxy" episode. Happily, it didn't kill his career.

The final two-parter is completely bizarre. It all takes place in another dimension, handily reached by a black hole or something. The villain is the War Witch, played by what looks like a badly embalmed Julie Newmar.

33> Please, please tell me Quantum Leap is as good as I remember it being?

>53 PhoenixTerran: Oh, yes, that one will stand the test of time, I think.

See http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/gallery/topscifishows/ for one list of classic shows that might provide ideas for Sci Fi programming. One may not agree with all of their rankings (Buffy should be much higher in the rankings, IMHO), but I think they got the #1 show right.

An interesting list although I have some trouble with the order. Glad to see that they included Science Fiction Theater with Truman Bradley that I recalled so fondly. Surprised that Dark Skies was omitted - it was pretty good. And what about Space Above and Beyond? In any event, a good place for Sciffy to start.

I'm sure there's plenty of good animated stuff out there, too. (Of course, like everything, a lot may be crap.)

Cowboy Bebop, for example, is well received by many.

I just came across this list of SyFy alternatives, some are rather amusing:

25 Other Names The Sci Fi Channel Could Rebrand With

So is SciFriday going to be renamed SyFyrday? Will all the promos feature people lisping like a badly dubbed Mothra movie?

#48 -
Flash Gordon? If they *really* wanted to bring in their demographic group, they'd show Flesh Gordon.

> 28: The BBC, having realised just how much Who they'd lost, trawled all their foreign markets and got a lot of episodes back - after removing all the subtitles, like Malay and Japanese...

> 33: Someone I know once said of 'SeaQuest DSV' "Ah, yes - Deeply Stupid Vessel."

> 43: Or as Bob Shaw called it, "Space: £19.99p". Apparently, that was going to be a second season of Gerry Anderson's UFO with SHADO getting a hefty funding surge, hence the much bigger Moonbase. But then the syndicators hinted that they wanted bigger stars (and they weren't talking about the fx) and the whole thing just inflated into the complete barking awfulness that the series became. Pity. I would have enjoyed another season of UFO, though Anderson never really got the hang of season openers and finales.

> 53: You thought Quantum Leap was...? I lost patience with the series after about the third episode that ripped off a feature film on current release. I liked the season one finale where the whole point of the leap was to change history so that the Congressional hearing kept the project alive rather than closed it down - for me,that was proper SF within the framework of the show - but then it just went downhill. I watched the last episode and thought it nearly turned into something interesting, but then it went totally barking, too.

Don't forget though, many of these old shows being mentioned have already run on Sci-Fi. They can't only rerun old shows. (Off the top of my head, I know they re-ran Battlestar Galactica (the original, which didn't age well at all. Special effects = good, writing = abysmal), U.F.O., Max Headroom, The Invaders, The Prisoner, Lost in Space, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Quantum Leap, Sliders, Highlander, Time Tunnel and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.)

Why not contribute some ideas for new stuff?

I still don't get how The Prisoner was anything but Sci-Fi... body swapping, killer balloons, Number 2's office, nominated for a Hugo... sounds like sci-fi to me. Besides, what section of the book store would you go to if you were looking for one of the Prisoner novelizations?

Anybody see that AMC is working on a six hour Prisoner remake miniseries slated for this year, starring Jesus Christ himself (Jim Caviezel) and with Gandalf (Sir Ian) as Number 2? Man, I hope it's as good as it could easily be...

Perhaps we should rename the thread: "If I ran the SF Channel..."

A friend and I once contemplated starting our own company with the tagline, we can't do worse than the men we worked for.

That's about how I feel about the Sci Fi channel--it would be hard to do a worse job of programming it.

Reminds me of a friend of mine and myself. We thought it would be really cool to build a brewery on the DC side of the Potomac somewhere between Chain Bridge and the rendering plant. Our slogan: It's the water that makes the difference!

SciFi channel...sigh. I recently got an email advert for them and their SciFi movies....we all know the ones.

I looked and thought, wow, maybe they are going to expand beyond the schlocky alien monsters of the week fare. There it was - "THOR: HAMMER OF THE GODS". Cool, maybe they are having a classy go at bringing Norse mythology to life.

I went to the website. I looked. Slaps head with palm of hand. What was I thinking. This gem is about "when an army of Vikings clashes with a pack of werewolves............"

#65

Vikings versus werewolves? How could that fail?

Because it has no spaceships in it, of course.

Hah, you don't know that! Those werewolves came from somewhere, didn't they?

They're time-traveling werewolves!!

with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

It would have been much, much better, apparently, had it been Vikings and Vampyres. I've heard Vampires make everything better.

#71 yes Vampires continue to be the year's favorite flavor just as it seemed zombies were everywhere not all that long ago.

I suspect the vampires are a planned sequel once the Vikings get all the werewolves out of the way.

SyFy should obviously go the way of all other TV channels and concentrate on reality TV. It's cheap, the writers work off the books and you can pay the participants in Cheez wiz and Bud Lite.
How about a Wife Swap between a Goth Vampire family and a family of Abductees. Anal Probe vs Bite Me. This could be a winner.

LOL!!!

It may not reflect all that well on me, but I'd rather watch "Cha$e" than the creepy crawler of the week movie Sci Fi offers.

#72

Imagine how good a movie about vikings versus werewolves and vampires at the same time?

Underworld 3: Viking Armageddon.

How can you guys not be working at SyFy already?

I was before, but they said my ideas were too outlandish and original for them.

>79 rojse: So they included both Science and Fiction?

I was working for them on an Underworld 3 idea, but they told me "There's no market for stuff about vampires."

Well, I work in the accounting dept so they pay no attention to my ideas.

Any science in that - 'cos you've got fiction covered, right?

Personally I'm waiting for the inevitable remakes - Family Feud with Aliens vs Predators, or All inthe Family with Quark reprising the Archie Bunker role. Or perhaps I Love Lucy with Ricky's part played by the Borg - Lucy I'mmm Homme Resistance is futile

#84, "Quark reprising the Archie Bunker role"

I thought he was being eyed for "Cheers". But the Aliens vs. Predators Feud is sure to be a ratings winner!

If we are going to go with rubbish "versus" movies (which actually sound like the SyFy Channel would be going up-market), why not have the Terminator duke it out against Robocop and the robot from "Lost in Space"?

I stopped watching the Sci Fi channel about five years ago when I realized that they believed in something called the "eternal repeat." There's only so many episodes of the Trouble With Tribbles and the -new- (and improved? Hah!) Battlestar Galactica one can watch...WITH commercials...before they realize that spending money on DVDs is worthwhile.

And SyFy?! Give me a break!

More excellent movies from the folks at SciFi, or SyFy:

http://au.tv.ign.com/articles/976/976271p1.html

#88, rosje -

eeek, I'm such a bored sucker tonight. I went and looked and I know I knew better but I just couldn't help myself. What a hodgepodge....

Warehouse 13 - recycled X Files with a dash of the final scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark

Malibu Shark attack - recycled Jaws

High Plains Invaders - woah sort of Day of the Triffids with a dash of Outland

Hellhounds - vaguely reminds me of "what Dreams May Come" meets "The Odyssey"

Sand Serpants - whoohoo, Tremors crossed with Dune

#89

Sorry for the sarcastic tone not coming across. At least you might have had a chuckle at the depths that SciFi have sunk to.

Oh, your tone came across. :D

That's why I felt like a bored sucker....so little to do that I went there knowing better....and oh yes, definite chuckles.

I moved this post from the "good tv" topic/thread to here where it belongs.

I have to comment on the scifi channel "original" shows like "Hammer of thor" .....egad what awful stuff. I think I know where the special effects people from the tv series Lost in space went. They are using paper bags on peoples heads as monsters again!!! werewolves with fur covered paper bag heads. The main characters could not hold an accent either.

"Primeval" is pretty bad also, maybe it can grow on me.

Primeval is so much better than SeeFee fare. Are watching it on SeeFee or did you see it on BBC America. The series develops really well.

My wife and I are watching it on SciFi. We are both enjoying it quite a bit. It's no BSG (yet) but it's better than much of what is on that channel.

The special effects aren't up to BSG standards (it's the Beeb after all) but it is well written, suspenseful and at times quite scary.

Primeval is actually ITV, not BBC.

#94

That's definitely damning something through faint praise.

#96 Interesting. I didn't think BBC Am. showed anything by the competition.

I think I've seen ITV series on BBC America DVD before.

98/99>
Forex: Wire in the blood and Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares (C4 in the UK). One sees more C4 than ITV on BBCAm.

Warehouse 13 sounds awfully similar to the cheesy old Friday the 13th TV series (which had nothing to do with the hockey-masked killer movie series).

The Invasion:Earth series done by SciFi with the BBC was pretty good for it's time. Although some of the acting was over the top, most was pretty good and it had an excellent story idea. Many of the main characters were dead by the end of the last episode and it finished a bit wide open so you did not know what was going to happen next, although the end of humanity seemed to be the probable outcome. This was a miniseries where I really wanted more of the backstory and could see that as a series of it's own. Stephen Baxter had some involvement with this project.

Eh.... the acting in 99% of scifi's original movies is horrible. they really need to work on that, because it's unbearable to the point where i, as an avid scifi fan, just have change the channel or turn off the TV.

picking up random actors, to actually say something on air, because they're cheap and inexperienced, only serves to make scifi even more of a joke among the majority of the population.

Well, plus the fact that most of the SciFi channel's original movies aren't sci fi at all, they're horror. What's the point? Probably not many self-respecting actors who know how to act are that eager to fight the giant CGI worm/spider/shark/other creature of the week.

#104 "aren't sci fi at all, they're horror. What's the point?"

But...but...it's alien horror!

>105 GwenH:

Maybe it would be better if it were, but I don't think it's even that "creative." Here's today's line up:

Sasquatch Mountain: "a legendary monster"
Abominable: "a legendary beast"
Ice Spiders: "giant mutated spiders"
Mutant Chronicles: "28th century machine makes bloodthirsty mutants"
Thor: Hammer of the Gods: "various creatures"

Seriously, people are getting paid for this crap?

I agree with you, 106...

It's not sci fi at all, but horror. The SciFi channel of old was far superior. Even if they aired some pretty bad series from time to time, at least they were scifi and had a place on the SciFi channel. I'd prefer the classic, b&w scifi--or even horrible scifi like Hard Time on Planet Earth or Something is Out There or that one with the other dimension that they got to by going through the pyramids to the poor-quality movies that they are mass producing.

I think any scifi on SciFi (or SyFy) would be better than the crappy movies and the wrestling they have now...but at least with wrestling, it gets watched, and that's all they care about--the ratings. And it will stay that way unless people start campaigns directed towards the advertisers--and even that might not change anything.

Hey, I think we all kind of agree....SciFi hadn't been SF, SciFi, or even SyFy for quite some time. Every time I check it's horror, paranormal, or something even further removed.

I'm sure I remember taping a couple of the early made-for-tv movies because they weren't half bad, but that was a very long time ago.

I watched "Mutant Chronicles: "28th century machine makes bloodthirsty mutants" " and thought it was interesting and better fare than the others on scifi. It was of the "steam punk" genre that was all the rage on this forum some time ago.

I am/was also entertained by the way a HUGE part of the script's scenes and predicaments are "borrowed" from recent successful films. In Mutant, a good zombie flick, you had :

Star Wars like guy trapped on a conveyor belt, escaping using a light saber... er ah short sword.

Main character looks/acts like the lead from Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman

Plot a rehash of The Seven Samurai by Kurosawa

Space ship design & others taken from those Italian Heavy Metal guys.

Plenty of other examples that escape my memory but still it was a fun watch and probably fun to get high and cut & paste the script together with a group somewhere. To the flicks credit, there was some attention to detail in special effects etc. that pushed it to a "slick" status IMOHO.

> 107 and 108

Granted we our cable didn't get SciFi the moment it came out (mid 90s though - so fairly early), but I always remember horror dominating over science fiction on SciFi. In those days if I wanted to watch an old science fiction movie, I had to watch PBS at 1:00 am or catch MST3K. But if I wanted a bad horror movie, I always knew where to look....

#110 - I got SF channel in the late 90's, I think. One movie I remember taping was something called "White Dwarf" and I thought it was pretty decent for a tv movie:

Product Description
In this made-for-TV sci-fi-drama, the world has entered into an age when travel between the planets has become an everyday event, and Driscoll Rampant (b), a medical student, finds himself taking an internship on the distant planet of Rusta. Unlike Earth, Rusta does not turn on its axis as it orbits through space, with one half of the planet in constant daylight and the other in permanent nighttime; as a result, Rusta has two very different civilizations, one a genteel land of ladies and gentlemen, the other a feudal kingdom. As Rampant travels between the two sides of Rusta, he struggles to build a bridge between both sides in a world where the essential duality of man is brought clearly to the forefront. White Dwarf also stars Paul Winfield, C.C.H. Pounder, and Ele Keats. ~ Mark Dem

111: Sounds a lot like the setting for Zelazny's Jack of Shadows.

112 StormRaven - might have been, I don't know if any previous work was credited. Then again, many works start from similar premises. The surprising thing is I remember it as having been done nicely. I remember it really evoking another time and place with some memorable characters, like the medical student and a few others.

Even if its derivative, as many SciFi, oops SyFy channel movies are, at least it was derivative of something other than horror!

110

I thought it was mid 90s when I got the SciFi channel where I'm from, too..or maybe even late 90s. But I do remember that it would show good and not so good scifi shows from the 60s and 70s mainly--Lost in Space, Land of the Lost (I think), Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica and Galactica 1980, and a lot of others in a similar line. Yes, they would have a lot of horror, and they had their anime on Saturday mornings, but I may be influenced by the fact that during that time, I held jobs on the second shift at the time, so I was home during the day and now I work during the day.

And I realize that there is always blurring on the edges of sci-fi as to what is and what isn't, and different things that may be considered sci-fi and the fact that someone who is into sci-fi may be in to something else (for instance--do shows such as Wonder Woman, Batman (1966s), the Incredible Hulk, and such belong in the sci-fi category?

Anyway, here are my ideas for the Sci-Fi channel

There is a horror channel on my cable system (in the high 100s--maybe 199?) called Chiller. It shows Wolf Lake, Millennium, the newer Dark Shadows (Ben Cross version), Point Pleasant, Ripley's Believe It or Not, Twin Peaks, Beauty and the Beast, Invasion, and movies.

Check it out: http://www.chillertv.com/

I'd rather SciFi channel followed this more repetitive programming style, showing old series ad nauseum, than to show the stupid made-for-tv creature fests it clutters the weekend schedule with. Ugh.

Some of those shows you mentioned I wouldn't mind seeing again--such as Wolf Lake and the newer Dark Shadows--though I went to the website, and didn't necessarily see those listed in their series area, but maybe I was looking at the wrong place. They also listed the Twilight Zone, which to me is more sci-fi than chiller, and some of the other series there are good too.

I do see that NBC owns Chiller Tv too....don't they own sci-fi? So why can't they do one Chiller TV with more of the horror aspect and put more sci-fi stuff on Sci-Fi.

I have the same problem with the history channel, with them playing programs that would better fit on Discovery channels--not that they aren't good shows, justs don't fit into the supposed genre that the station supposedly airs.

>116 kingoftheicedragons: You're right, some of them aren't listed on the website, but I know I've seen them on there. Oh--they also have Special Unit 2, which I think is fun, and Freddy's Nightmares. I just looked at the onscreen schedule for the next week; Wednesday night is Twin Peaks and it looks as though they are showing the new SciFi show, Warehouse 13, on Thursday, so there must be some cross-pollination going on. Stephen King's "Golden Years" is on Friday.

I really wanted to see the resolution of "The 4400". And it would have been nice had the Sci-Fi channel picked up ABC's unfortunately-canceled series "Invasion". I refuse to believe American audiences don't like science fiction shows...so many stations juggle the schedules of everything too much (and with no reason) to keep a core group of viewers. "Dr. Who" is stellar. A surprise, since I thought no one would top Tm Baker...

The big shame is that so many sci-fi channel movies are cheesier than Kraft. The concepts might be great, but the executions are embarassing.

I agree with earlier posters, however, that re-branding the name means nothing.