From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: The SciFi Channel stinks !! (was: Re: Does SciFi Channel cut episodes????)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:27:08 GMT

I don't get the SciFi Channel, so I can't comment on its
programming. At the same time, the comments I read don't
seem very productive. It sounds like people are saying
that the channel has shows they don't like, and so it
is terrible. Since tastes differ, this would seem to
mean that there can be no good channel (every show I've
seen blasted in posts about the Sci Fi channel I've
seen promoted in other posts). I would also point out that
even the best series are not uniformly good, and that even
the worst have their moments. And finally, I suspect that
there is not enough truly "good" science fiction out there to
allow for seven days a week of 24 hour programing of only
good shows without it getting repetitive - and boring - very
quickly. In fact, I'll challenge the people who have been
writing the negative comments to come up with a schedule for
24 weeks of no rerun programming of only "good" shows (and
see if everyone agrees with their choices). That's 4032 hours
of programs you need without any B movies or less-than-Masterpiece-
Theater-quality productions. (And remember, you can't use
Dr. Who - there are people who don't like him, at least in
some of his incarnations, nor can you use Star Trek, the original
series - there are people who don't like that, and you can't use
the Next Generation, since there are people who hate that -
especially the shows with [insert character name here] in them,
and you can't use the old Outer Limits shows, since there are
people who don't like them because the special effects were poor,
and you can't use the Star Wars movies, because there are people
who think they are just cheap space opera, and you can't use...
you name it, there are people who didn't like it).

I do suspect that there is room for improvement - but I also
remember when cable was young(er) - most of the stuff on the
"superstations" was terrible. Now, some of the stuff on the
superstations is made for them, and some of that is even
halfway decent.

I'm actively lobbying my local cable system to carry it. I'm doing
this for a simple reason: it's the only game in town, and even a
bad game is better than no game. As its subscriber base expands,
it will get more money, which it can then put into better new
productions (and into getting more of the best old shows) to
further expand its subscriber base and so on. This will lead to
more science fiction being made. While we all know that "90% of
anything is crap," if more is made, the 10% that is good will
become larger in absolute terms. On the other hand, if this fails,
it is likely to be a long time before anyone tries anything like it
again, which means you'll have to hop around to find your favorite
shows, if they are aired at all anywhere in your local area. And
the market for new science fiction will be smaller by at least
the 12 movies a year the Sci Fi Channel has committed to producing.
(Of which 1 or 2 a year may just be pretty good).

To sum up, saying there are things that can be done better is
good - especially if you say them in letters to the Sci-Fi
Channel and not just on the net (which they may not be reading).
Saying there are things that can be done better and no one should
support the channel until it's perfect is not good, since it means
the channel will die before it can get better.
******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley Roberts

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv