SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
-
tscards
- Veteran Player
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: April 20 06, 6:28 pm
- Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
Farscape totally rocked, though!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haven't been interested in anything on there since then.
Haven't been interested in anything on there since then.
- omaha_red
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 12963
- Joined: April 18 06, 7:53 am
- Location: toning it done
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
i like "ghost hunters" and "scare tactics"..
and they used to show "dark shadows" in the mornings..
and they used to show "dark shadows" in the mornings..
- ghostrunner
- GOAT
- Posts: 30870
- Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
Yeah, I think the foreign take is always solid on these kinds of things too. I saw Independence Day on cable the other day. Lord, is that bad.G. Keenan wrote:Total crap ones. Stuff that never even makes it to theaters. You'd be amazed how much money they make. Not like $100 million or anything, but when you consider how low budget they are the return is quite good.Arthur Dent wrote:Like which movies?G. Keenan wrote:The thing about all the bad sci fi movies is that they're supposed to be bad. They keep making them because they make a lot of money, believe it or not, from DVD sales.
This is true.cpebbles wrote:Sci-fi and horror movie fans have a long, long history of being willing to sit through crap. Hard to blame the Sci-Fi Channel for churning out the kind of crap that sci-fi fans have shown a willingness to sit through for 60+ years.
-
maddash
- is eerily well-versed on Project Runway and irony
- Posts: 8508
- Joined: June 26 06, 3:07 pm
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
That's where he makes his money. The first 10 digits are free, the rest you pay for.AdmiralKird wrote:What a pansy; if he's going to go down to the exact dollar he might as well go all out and give us the final tally down to the cent. Wuss.G. Keenan wrote:My brother is working on some sort of project to track horror movie box office receipts.....Their theatrical take, over $7 billion. $7,041,665,676, to be exact. And that doesn't include DVD sales.
-
BenNX74205
- All-Star
- Posts: 2541
- Joined: April 18 06, 2:57 pm
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
It's a shame that Sci-Fi as a network hasn't used the bank of credibility that Galactica has brought them through things like the Peabody Award to up the overall level of programming and continue to draw in viewers from outside their traditional demographic. And I mean in a way other than putting wrestling on one night a week.
I gotta stand up for Eureka a bit, though. I wouldn't classify it as a B-movie. It's generally a lighter piece of science fiction. I view it as the other side of the coin from BSG. BSG is compelling human drama, so the setting of outer space with killer robots, while adding to the mystique, isn't the driving force of the show. That is the human drama, at least for me. Eureka uses science fiction ideas with a more comedic approach. Both shows are basically saying "here's a group of characters, let's put them all in this world." Eureka got a lot darker and more serious in season 2, which I liked, but that wasn't what I liked most about Eureka. For season 3 they're moving back towards the "lighter" stuff, and I'm glad it'll be getting back to that style.
Plus, without Sci-Fi making those awful awful movies, we never would have gotten "BLACK HOLE," the story of scientists opening a black hole in St. Louis, only to unleash a creature that wreaks havoc on our fair city. That movie probably pushed tourism .00042% on its own. You can't BUY that kind of advertising!
I gotta stand up for Eureka a bit, though. I wouldn't classify it as a B-movie. It's generally a lighter piece of science fiction. I view it as the other side of the coin from BSG. BSG is compelling human drama, so the setting of outer space with killer robots, while adding to the mystique, isn't the driving force of the show. That is the human drama, at least for me. Eureka uses science fiction ideas with a more comedic approach. Both shows are basically saying "here's a group of characters, let's put them all in this world." Eureka got a lot darker and more serious in season 2, which I liked, but that wasn't what I liked most about Eureka. For season 3 they're moving back towards the "lighter" stuff, and I'm glad it'll be getting back to that style.
Plus, without Sci-Fi making those awful awful movies, we never would have gotten "BLACK HOLE," the story of scientists opening a black hole in St. Louis, only to unleash a creature that wreaks havoc on our fair city. That movie probably pushed tourism .00042% on its own. You can't BUY that kind of advertising!
- ghostrunner
- GOAT
- Posts: 30870
- Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
I should probably watch some more. I saw a few episodes over the first season, thinking it looked awesome. But it felt unfinished and the zaniness seemed a little forced. Also the acting wasn't great, with the lead being kind of ho-hum. A good idea, but so-so execution.BenNX74205 wrote: I gotta stand up for Eureka a bit, though. I wouldn't classify it as a B-movie. It's generally a lighter piece of science fiction. I view it as the other side of the coin from BSG. BSG is compelling human drama, so the setting of outer space with killer robots, while adding to the mystique, isn't the driving force of the show. That is the human drama, at least for me. Eureka uses science fiction ideas with a more comedic approach. Both shows are basically saying "here's a group of characters, let's put them all in this world." Eureka got a lot darker and more serious in season 2, which I liked, but that wasn't what I liked most about Eureka. For season 3 they're moving back towards the "lighter" stuff, and I'm glad it'll be getting back to that style.
I wish The Lost Room had been made a series. It's easily one of the best miniseries I've ever seen.
-
BenNX74205
- All-Star
- Posts: 2541
- Joined: April 18 06, 2:57 pm
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
You should give it another chance. Sometimes the zaniness would get a bit much, but a lot of times the first season of a series has the writers/producers searching for the the right "zone" for the show to sit. The second season they moved into a more serious direction, which I thought the show didn't need, but that was mostly relegated to the underlying thread of the whole season, so it only predominated a couple episodes.ghostrunner wrote:I should probably watch some more. I saw a few episodes over the first season, thinking it looked awesome. But it felt unfinished and the zaniness seemed a little forced. Also the acting wasn't great, with the lead being kind of ho-hum. A good idea, but so-so execution.
I wish The Lost Room had been made a series. It's easily one of the best miniseries I've ever seen.
Try and Netflix or rent (or go here) the first season and give it a fuller chance. Season 3 starts up at the end of July, so you've got some more time.
- JL21
- NPR & THT Contributor
- Posts: 36109
- Joined: April 18 06, 7:44 am
- Location: Chocolate City
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
I'm not sure it had an effect.BenNX74205 wrote: That movie probably pushed tourism .00042% on its own. You can't BUY that kind of advertising!

- StatmanCrothers
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 6461
- Joined: April 17 06, 6:50 am
- Location: Boston burbs
- Contact:
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
yes.tscards wrote:Farscape totally rocked, though!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
now, battlestar is great.
they can apparently only afford one well budgeted show at a time.
- ghostrunner
- GOAT
- Posts: 30870
- Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Re: SciFi and the SciFi channel - why so bad?
I thought Farscape looked interesting and I liked that they went further in making different races than Star Trek. By that I mean they didn't just use a forehead prosthetic. However, that little mustachioed puppet character scared me off.

