# Where's all the Sci-Fi in the Sci-Fi Channel?



## Melanie Nilles (Jun 16, 2007)

I agree 100%  I want science fiction too and have been disappointed in Sci-Fi since they canceled Farscape.  It's gone down hill since then.  Thank goodness they still have Stargate, but that won't last much longer.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 16, 2007)

Yeah they dont have much SF these days.

Im specially angry with what they have done to thier series.


I was huge fan of Farscape.   Now that Stargate is gone soon, they suck serieswise except BSG,SA.


----------



## Urien (Jun 16, 2007)

Gotta love that wrestling... not sure it's sci-fi though, more like fantasy.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 16, 2007)

Hahaha good one 


I was actually like "what the..."  when i heard of that.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jun 16, 2007)

That's a perfect example: Why is the SFC so hard up for material that they're broadcasting _Wrestling_?  I mean, what's next?  _Survivor Bikini Atoll_?  This is NOT sci-fi!


----------



## ambershadow (Jun 17, 2007)

When I first got sifi channel many years ago they did run lots of old sifi tv shows and movies but now..............wrestling????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! come on where does this fit in the order of things. I agree that there are sooooo many classics out there i'd much rather watch.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 17, 2007)

Where's all the SF in the Sci-Fi Channel (pardon me, I have a constitutional aversion to the latter term, and only use it here as it's part of the actual name of the damn' thing...)? Well, take a look at this, from a JMS site, on the subject of "Polaris":

Straczynski Project Watch - Worlds of JMS

Note their reason for turning the project down.....


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jun 17, 2007)

> _Polaris_ made it to the final three candidates to be picked up by the Sci-Fi Channel. Unfortunately, Straczynski announced in January 2003 that _Polaris_ was turned down for being "too science fictiony".



Um... Pardon me, sport, but exactly _how_ do you create a show that's "too science fictiony" for the *FRICKIN' SCI-FI CHANNEL??!!??  *(Sorry... a little Nicholson showing there...)

There are days when I'd just like to walk into their executive meetings, and say: "Okay... you can tell me.  Just what are you guys doing here, really?"  And I'm sure I'm going to be told something along the lines of, "We're just a USA Network overflow channel... this is all the crap that USA won't show."

BTW... I got over the whole SF/Sci-Fi thing years ago.  It's just labels, and they're pretty much used interchangeably these days.  But maybe... _just maybe_... the fact that the channel's name is Sci-Fi, and not SF or Science Fiction, really is significant...


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 17, 2007)

Um, on the SF/Sci-Fi thing... have you seen Harlan Ellison's take on that one? It's included in an essay he did on the Heaven's Gate cult some years ago. I tend to agree with him on this one:

Harlan Ellison Webderland: Harlan Ellison on Heaven's Gate

And I'll be honest: I don't think there is such a thing as an interchangeable label; each phrase or word (and this applies to all such, not just to this particular instance) carries with it a host of connotations and layers of meaning. Generally speaking, it's that inability to distinguish between them that I feel is a part of the entire lack of critical thinking/discrimination (in the positive sense) that has so muddied the clarity of discourse over the past several decades, allowing for muddled, half-baked thinking to pass as profound insight....

(Steve: Just for clarity, this isn't aimed at you. It's a general observation of how imprecise our thinking -- and therefore our ability to communicate well -- has become....)


----------



## The Ace (Jun 17, 2007)

I have to admit, the Sci-Fi Channel in the UK isn't quite as bad as its US parent but the programme list is so bad, and so defficient in science -fiction, that as a dedicated science-fiction nut, I never watch it.


----------



## steve12553 (Jun 17, 2007)

Sci-Fi and SF are like Trekkies and Trekkers. Trekkers are had core fans of Star Trek and Trekkies (think "groupies") maybe want to have sex with Mr. Spock. Words are very powerful. As to the channel unfortunately I suspect the problems have to do with ratings, and rights to material and stuff like that all the while competing with other channels who don't cater to those of us with non-mainstream tastes. Dollars (or Yen or Lire or whatever) still rule.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jun 18, 2007)

Well, if that's the case, I'm all for them changing the station's name to the Cheap Castoff Channel, just to be clear. 

J.D., I agree, most labels are a lot more precise than SF and Sci-Fi, or Trekkers and Trekkies, for that matter.  (Personally, I couldn't care less what Ellison thinks.  Another story.)  But the fact of the matter is, if a label is placed by someone who doesn't know the material, or the people involved, and honestly doesn't try to understand, the label is useless.  

Suggesting thet Trekkies all want to have sex with Mr. Spock is a lot like saying that all Blacks like fried chicken (sorry steve12553).  Any group, but especially one that espouses to appreciate the higher concepts and intelligent discourse that is inherent in science fiction, should be well above that kind of insulting generalization.

(Besides, I'm a guy... I wanted to sleep with Barbara Luna when I was a kid (you figure out which Trek episode she was in!).  Did that make me a Trekkie, or just a girl-loving adolescent?)


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 18, 2007)

Well, the reason I brought Ellison up on this is that he made the point rather well; at least for a very long time, "sci-fi" was the idiot brother in the field. Though it's fading slowly, there's still quite a bit of truth to that generalization. (Not all generalizations are to automatically dismissed. The reason _some_ of them stick around is because they do have a fair amount of validity.)

And I don't think we're talking adolescents here, but _permanent_ adolescents... those who don't mature emotionally; the sorts who really don't see anything wrong with the misogynistic nature of so much of the slasher genre, but who simply love the gory effects; and the ones who don't just enjoy _Star Trek_ (or _Star Wars_), but who make it a permanent way of life rather than becoming involved in the real thing make changes in what they don't like.

Unfortunately, "sci-fi" still tends to attract huge numbers of such (which is why sf, horror, fantasy, and splatter films all get lumped together so often, in my opinion); more so than any other branch of literature or the visual media. So I'll stick with using "sf" for science fiction, to stress the encouragement of critical thinking, use of science, and questioning nature of the field and differentiate between that and the often "bubble-gum" mentality that, sadly, remains not only the general public's view of the whole thing, but is all-too-often well-merited.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jun 18, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> Is it just me, or is anyone else having "issues" with the Sci-Fi Channel lately?



Three letters:

*NBC*

May those corporate mongloid idiot jerkface rot in the 18th level of Chinese Hell of Avici and be unlucky enough to fall into the fiery pit of eternal flames where thier immortal souls will never come back to destroy my beloved sci fi shows ever ever again.

If I see GHOSTHUNTERS advertised one more time, I'm going to flip out and stab them with my ANTIREALITYTV blades of doom!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Although, they still play some good shows!


----------



## Quokka (Jun 18, 2007)

We're lucky atleast in Oz that the SFC doesn't carry the wrestling and why the smeg did they get lumped together? I don't see Nascar on the Hallmark channel (atleast I assume not I dont watch it.... honestly).

Having only recently got pay tv does the SFC ever do movie marathons like what SJ sugested in the first post? That's what I'd really like to see. The ABC in Oz did a run of movies on about midnight and each month or so it was a particular theme, it was great I managed to see _Invaders from Mars_ (1953), _Day of the Triffids,_ and _The Thing from Outer Space_ as well as the original _The Fly_ and _The Blood Beast Terror_ durring a latter horror collection.

I'd really enjoy the chance to see more of those movies even if they're on at 3am.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jun 18, 2007)

Quokka said:


> Having only recently got pay tv does the SFC ever do movie marathons like what SJ sugested in the first post?



In the U.S. those movie marathons are almost always gore-fest marathons.  Right now monsters are back in, and you can expect to see such riviting jems as _Anaconda, Anaconda II, Anaconda Versus Python, Maneater, and Lake Placid,_ run in that order... then repeated... for 3 solid days without a break.

Joy.

Dustinzgirl, don't forget that USA Network owned and created SFC before NBC bought it.  In fact, quite a bit of the early cheap-a** content on SFC was USA material the year before.  So they started this travesty.  NBC, never having an original thought in its miserable life, could never think of something as insipid as SFC... they could only buy it.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jun 18, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Well, the reason I brought Ellison up on this is that he made the point rather well...
> 
> And I don't think we're talking adolescents here, but _permanent_ adolescents...
> 
> ...So I'll stick with using "sf" for science fiction, to stress the encouragement of critical thinking, use of science, and questioning nature of the field and differentiate between that and the often "bubble-gum" mentality that, sadly, remains not only the general public's view of the whole thing, but is all-too-often well-merited.



Some people simply never grow up.  Others embrace something that's considered by others to be kids' stuff, and make it a hobby.  But in so many cases, those people are being badly-judged by those interests and hobbies, and in others, the need for intervention is being ignored.  Labels simply become easy ways to dismiss others, instead of engaging with them and perhaps helping them to see other ways, or perhaps learning why their ways aren't as bad as you might think.  As someone whose had such labels applied to him in his youth (and a few today!), I know how hurtful and unhelpful such labels are, and actively avoid them all.

(That's why I dismiss Ellison, who delights in labeling and dismissing everything.)

Personally, I'm not nearly as concerned about what label is planted on science fiction, as much as I am interested in lifting its overall quality and competence, so there are no more "idiot brothers" out there to deride.  But when it comes down to it, to follow that analogy: Family is family.  Ya gotta deal with the whole family, not just the ones you like.  It's ALL part of science fiction.  Not a label... a name.


----------



## Vladd67 (Sep 15, 2007)

When it comes to labels etc it anoys me that people face insulting comments and are thought of as geeks or nerds if you show the slightest interest in any sci fi series, however it is perfectly acceptable to have a worryingly complete knowledge about the goings on in a fictitous borough of London or the lives of people in a fake street in a northern english town.


----------



## Pyan (Sep 15, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> I wanted to sleep with Barbara Luna when I was a kid (you figure out which Trek episode she was in!).  Did that make me a Trekkie, or just a girl-loving adolescent?)


_*Mirror, Mirror.*_. - and it makes you normal, Steve - at least as normal as me!


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 7, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> (That's why I dismiss Ellison, who delights in labeling and dismissing everything.)
> 
> Personally, I'm not nearly as concerned about what label is planted on science fiction, as much as I am interested in lifting its overall quality and competence, so there are no more "idiot brothers" out there to deride. But when it comes down to it, to follow that analogy: Family is family. Ya gotta deal with the whole family, not just the ones you like. It's ALL part of science fiction. Not a label... a name.


 
I agree. Semantics have never been a solid basis for enlightened discourse. When I was a young man (don't ask how long ago) I used to listen to "modern jazz" (not to be confused with "traditional jazz"). then came "jazz fusion". Later it was "smooth jazz" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). Now, if I want to talk about "modern jazz", I must refer to it as "mainstream jazz".

Excuse me. I think I have come to the conclusion that I'm not interested in the fine points of labeling. Sci-Fi works for me just as well as SF as a term of reference. Both of them beat spelling the whole thing out.

Regards,

Jim (Imaginative Fiction Fan)


----------



## Steve Jordan (Oct 7, 2007)

Heh... I'm a jazz fan from way back, too, and went through pretty much the same labeling stuff you went through.  Today, when the subject comes up, I just say, "Jazz.  _Not_ jazz-_y_.  Just jazz."

I could start an entirely new thread on "What happened to the _Jazz_ in Jazz?" But actually it's a similar issue as the SFC: Jazz for radio and SF for TV have both been reduced to lowest-common-denomenator, purely commercial products, little experimentation, few chances taken, very little of the spirit of the genre left intact.  SFC's _Eureka_ is a good example of that thinking (and as much as I enjoy watching that show, serious SF it _ain't_).  

The rest is remakes of old themes (monsters from space, mutant animals, vampires, post-apocalypse, ghosts) with little thought to more modern ideas and concepts.  The best-produced example of this is _Galactica_ (again, I like to watch it, but let's face it: Old concept, and a pretty silly one at that), but their constant playing of cheap monster sci-fi is more typical.  

Someone comes up with an original concept, like _Firefly_ or _Polaris_, and everyone in charge sort of cocks their heads sideways and says, "Yeah, but where're the chicks in tight uniforms and heels?"  They go on to greenlight the newest season of _Ghosthunters_.  Then they go home to listen to jazzy radio stations, and think they're actually listening to jazz.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 7, 2007)

Jim, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that. The problem isn't "just semantics"; it goes much deeper, into what lies behind the _choice_ of phrasing. Another problem with it is one we see with so many other aspects of language today -- people simply don't know what words mean, most of the time, and therefore use them inappropriately, and therefore communication becomes increasingly garbled and choppy, with the result that there is a huge increase in misunderstandings and a resulting rise in interpersonal tensions that could easily be clarified by a clear definition of terms... which, of course, is one of the things semantics is very concerned with.

"Sci-fi" and "sf" may well be a minor point in this; but the origin of the first of these terms was geared toward a much more juvenile type of story, and those connotations have, in the main, stuck with the field because of that. Sf is much more neutral, and doesn't carry the baggage of such associations, either with long time readers/writers or the general public. The general public may not be quite sure what "sf" is, but they almost automatically identify "sci-fi" with an immature, "Buck Rogers"/"Green Slime" mentality, and therefore see it as, at best, bubble-gum literature. This does the genre a disservice and, fond as I am of Forry Ackerman in many ways, he was one of the ones who most solidified that identification in the public's mind.

And, after all, that's the point -- to me, at any rate: Why hang onto a label that gives such an impression to so many, when there's a much more neutral label not only at hand, but already having had wide use within the field itself? It seems very much a distinction of the sort that Colin Greenland once made, in *The Entropy Exihbition*:



> Commercial genres exist by exclusion.... Some less parochial enthusiasts would be happy to open the gates and encourage visitors to enjoy the peculiar virtues of the region, its climate, geography, flora and fauna -- the critical benevolence of C. S. Lewis and Kingsley Amis, for example. Others want to keep the walls closed, prize the esoteric delights of belonging to a clique, and relish exchanging conspiratorial grins while the outsider stands baffled -- the nationalist zea of Sam Moskowitz and Donald A. Wollheim. Moorcock's programme amounted to knocking down the walls and trading local resources with countries far and wide. (pp. 21-22)


 
I'd say there's still no small amount of that sort of "us-vs.-them" mentality where imaginative literature -- whether it be science fiction, fantasy, or horror -- is concerned; and that seems to me very much a case of (to use a hackneyed old saying) "cutting off your nose to spite your face".....


----------



## Steve Jordan (Oct 7, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> I'd say there's still no small amount of that sort of "us-vs.-them" mentality where imaginative literature -- whether it be science fiction, fantasy, or horror -- is concerned; and that seems to me very much a case of (to use a hackneyed old saying) "cutting off your nose to spite your face".....



True... and SF is probably more guilty of that than sci-fi is, as many of its concepts are approached in such a way as to alienate all but the most hardcore fans (who else is going to read a three-page dissertation on how a faster-than-light drive works, or an entire chapter on the dangers of terraforming to indigenous life, for example?).  That kind of writing says, "We can handle this kind of stuff.  You're not into _serious_ SF... you'd never understand _or_ appreciate this."

At least the material generally referred to as sci-fi tries to be a lot more approachable (usually by dumbing down concepts and going for cheap thrills, unfortunately).  Some of the most successful SF has managed to _clarify_ concepts and quickly move them to the background, so you could get on with the story (lord knows I've tried to do this!).


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 7, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> True... and SF is probably more guilty of that than sci-fi is, as many of its concepts are approached in such a way as to alienate all but the most hardcore fans (who else is going to read a three-page dissertation on how a faster-than-light drive works, or an entire chapter on the dangers of terraforming to indigenous life, for example?). That kind of writing says, "We can handle this kind of stuff. You're not into _serious_ SF... you'd never understand _or_ appreciate this."
> 
> At least the material generally referred to as sci-fi tries to be a lot more approachable (usually by dumbing down concepts and going for cheap thrills, unfortunately). Some of the most successful SF has managed to _clarify_ concepts and quickly move them to the background, so you could get on with the story (lord knows I've tried to do this!).


 
Good post, Steve... very good. And I suppose you're right, to a great degree... certainly about more recent sf, which has tended to stress the "hard" in "hard sf"..... I think they, in turn, have lost sight of Campbell's idea behind the shift into the Golden Age of balancing science and storytelling, just as so much of what is known as "sci-fi" has tended to go for the 1950s "an alien monster is eating my kid brother" scenario.....

So... a compromise? What sort of label should it have, to avoid both blind alleys? I've got to admit that "sf" is one I prefer because it can be (and has been) used for the broader "speculative fiction" (Heinlein did that first, I believe, before the New Wavers picked up on it, no?) and therefore it's not entirely chained to science fiction in the hard, or physical sciences, sense....

(Incidentally... just for purposes of clarification: I have a fondness for a wide variety of the stuff, including both of the types noted above... and a lot of things in-between.....)


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 7, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> So... a compromise? What sort of label should it have, to avoid both blind alleys? I've got to admit that "sf" is one I prefer because it can be (and has been) used for the broader "speculative fiction" (Heinlein did that first, I believe, before the New Wavers picked up on it, no?) and therefore it's not entirely chained to science fiction in the hard, or physical sciences, sense....


 
I'll go along with whatever you guys decide as long as it doesn't involve a secret handshake. There's too much elitism in just about any recreational collective you can name. And, of course, the "naming" seems to be the sticking point. SF, to me, can also mean "Smokers Forums" (Google it. I wouldn't make something like that up). So, I probably won't be too passionate about the controversy.

As far as the evolution of SF/Sci-Fi is concerned, an intensive read of stories, novels, etc. from, say, the 1950s and 1960s yields a much "softer" brand of prose than what we're getting today. And I think the change is good. I don't want to be required to have a degree in quantum physics to be able to read a book, but I like things to be rooted in science. There is a broad spectrum of younger writers who honor the old traditions, but also make us think beyond ray guns and rocket ships. Unfortunately, as this thread originally started out to discuss, IIRC, the "Sci-Fi" channel doesn't have much of that spectrum.

Regards,

Jim


----------



## Steve Jordan (Oct 7, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> So... a compromise? What sort of label should it have, to avoid both blind alleys?



My only suggestion is this: If we use labels among ourselves (especially if we apply "SF" or "Sci-Fi" to specify a genre level of science fiction), it's okay as long as we understand what we are using the labels for.  So I can call my book _Evoguia_ "SF," and _Sol_ is "Sci-fi," and everyone here will understand what I'm saying by the labels I apply.

Among others, especially those who aren't "in" science fiction circles, I'd suggest we dispense with the labels and call it what it is:

*Science Fiction.
*
After all, it's two words, four syllables.  It's not as if we're abbreviating "[SIZE=-1]Heuristically-programmed Algorithmic computer[/SIZE]"  or "[SIZE=-1]Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency".[/SIZE]​


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 10, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> My only suggestion is this: If we use labels among ourselves (especially if we apply "SF" or "Sci-Fi" to specify a genre level of science fiction), it's okay as long as we understand what we are using the labels for. So I can call my book _Evoguia_ "SF," and _Sol_ is "Sci-fi," and everyone here will understand what I'm saying by the labels I apply.
> 
> Among others, especially those who aren't "in" science fiction circles, I'd suggest we dispense with the labels and call it what it is:
> 
> ...




Suits. And on the last... don't give 'em any ideas!​

​


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 15, 2008)

My girlfriend and I joke about the weekend programming. "Let's see, is it snake weekend, or mythical beast weekend, or crocodiles..."


----------



## Joe Meils (Dec 8, 2008)

Your best bet seems to be to buy all those movies on DVD... Sci Fi doesn't play them, and TCM won't, unless it's one they have in their library. 

Remember when Sci fi channel first came on the air, and they had classic movies, and TV shows? They would have that "Pilot Playhouse" once a year, and we could record stuff like the Genisis II pilots, or Spectre, or the original Lost in space pilot (without Dr. Smith or the robot) Or how about "Trailer Park?" Or "Retro TV?" Or their collectors roundup show?

Now it's all turned to CRAP!

Ghost hunters, Cha$e, Wrestling, nothing but the crappiest movies that even Roger Corman and Burt I. Gordon would be embarassed to be associated with... 

Someone needs to buy that channel away from USA, fire the retards they have calling the shots, and get some real talent behind those desks! Cripes, I could do better with my eyes closed.


----------



## Michael01 (Jan 22, 2010)

While I still like the channel in general, I have to wonder what's going there too.  It seems the only thing close to a science fiction series on SYFY these days is *Battlestar Galactica*.  It's spin-off, *Caprica*, also looks pretty good, since I've already seen the pilot.  *Stargate* is still on, I know, but, as Melanie said, it probably won't last much longer.  What bothers me is that half the movies on SYFY are actually fantasy (which I love in fiction and only when it's done well on tv or in film), and then I hear my niece say movies with dragons are _science fiction_!  While there might be some exceptions, "dragons" are usually a convention of fantasy, and it really irks to hear them lumped together like that.


----------

