View Full Version : A *small* fan base?
Mike Wright
December 23rd, 2003, 10:02 AM
Someone else on this forum said "Apparently the Miniseries is garnering a small fan base, and they are attacking the fans of the old series."
First of all... I don't know how you can call it small, unless you aren't looking at all. I've talked with guys on SFM, 3DG, Galactica2003.net, most of everyone in SFI Region 5, and well, everyone I know that I either work with or just hang with. Everyone who's seen it loves it. And not one of them had anything bad to say about fans of the original, or about the original itself. I've seen like one person who said "Wow, its better than the original!" It isn't better than the original. That's just their opinions. We all have them. I don't think its fair to attack each other over it. And, as I've seen some people comment on this board, the vast majority of you here don't mean to and don't. Which is cool. I've seen one guy who looks like he's mounting a campaign to contact advertisers and complain about the mini. Which is a bunch of BS. People have a right to their opinions, but damn, don't ruin it for the rest of us. The people I've talked to about this, we all agree... We LIKED the original. It was great. We'd love to see a continuation of it, and don't doubt that it will come about. Look at the Brady Bunch, and the Adams Family. Both successfully pulled off both continuations AND reimaginings and did very well. My father is a huge Galactica fan, it was one of the few things we ever did together. But you know what, this new one is kinda cool too. I don't want to see it replace the original, no one does. And I don't think that was the intention.
If there is ANYTHING I'd like to see it replace, its Star Trek. Give us Trek fans a break, something else to watch while Paramount rethinks the stupid mistakes its made, ousts Brannon Braga and can put something back on the air that won't suck.
I mean seriously. We'll watch a continuation, and we'll like it, and we'll support it just as much as you hardcore original fans do. But please. Don't take away the one thing thats gonna clear the stink of Trek. Chances are if everyone keeps bashing each other over this, not only are we not going to see a Ron Moore Galactica series, we'll have no chance of a continuation. Thats a very real possibility guys. There are a hell of a lot of Trek fans here in Spokane Washington, and we used to have conventions... Until a small number of clubs started attacking each other because they disagreed about a variable number of things, and eventually Spokane was blacklisted. Now we have no conventions here, and none of them will ever consider coming back.
Now I didn't come here to attack the users of this board, I see the vast majority of you guys are sane individuals, in fact many of you I've known for years from the other forums. I'm just trying to make a plea for something that I happen to really like. I've been writing the Scifi Channel ever since this thing aired (And BTW, I was there with most people when they announced it, I hated the idea... But unlike some people, I gave it a chance when I saw the previews) and have heard nothing back from them. I've seen rumors on Galactica2003.net that the series is being greenlighted and they have to announce it before the end of the year or the actors options will expire. That rumor makes sense to me. Then I see a rumor here that it won't pick up because it will be just too expensive to make. That makes some sense, but then I also disagree with it. With todays technology, production like that costs a whole lot less. The sets did not look THAT expensive. They actually reminded me of the original Star Trek series, they looked so cheap. And CG is a whole lot less expensive than the model compositing they did in the original series. So I don't think cost is such an element.
And to tell you the truth, I seem to recall for years the stigma Star Trek fans held as being extremists and trolls and what not. Yet we can't seem to get rid of that show. As Ron Moore said in the beginning, people are gonna watch this thing whether they like it or not. And the ratings proved that. The first two airings were impressive, being the third highest in the channels history. But some of you guys don't know about the third airing on Sunday, which took in a 6.8 or something, which was by far the highest in the channels history. Word of mouth baby. People saw it, liked it, recomended it to friends.
Don't be too hard on the mini. It is bringing in new fans of the series, that are going to look back at the old and say "Hey, that was impressive for a TV show from the 70s." Then you'll have even more support for the continuation. My hand is still raised in support of that one. (Well except for the whole thing where the Vipers land and turn into Mechs... I'm sorry, but that just sounds stupid) And many more will too when the new series airs. I say bring it all on. Great series, both of them. Lets see it all. And get rid of Enterprise. I love Bakula, but please. They couldn't write an exciting plotline if it flew up and hit them in the face.
So please, PLEASE, PLEASE... Give us a chance. Give us a series that we can enjoy in place of these other crappy TV shows. And we'll help you with the continuation. We won't say nay. We say bring it. Bring it all. :)
Michael Hinman
December 23rd, 2003, 10:33 AM
Hard to have a "small" fan base of around 4 million.
DCRabbit
December 23rd, 2003, 11:18 AM
Umm.. the best ratings number the thing got was 2.9 for the 9 PM airing of ep2. That's straight from Neilsen.
And just cos 4 million watched it doesn't mean it has a fanbase of 4 000 000. Not everyone that watches it is gonna like it. For everyone that says their friends, co-workers, etc love it there's someone that says they all hate it.
DC
Micheleh
December 23rd, 2003, 11:58 AM
"Someone else on this forum said "Apparently the Miniseries is garnering a small fan base, and they are attacking the fans of the old series."
First of all... I don't know how you can call it small, unless you aren't looking at all."
Once upon a time, there was this show going on 25 years old that many, many people liked, an they wanted to see more of that show, or at least a 'where are they now' approach. However, the networks said there were only a tiny handful of us who meant nothing.
Welcome to the club. ;)
Antelope
December 23rd, 2003, 01:04 PM
Like you I think many of us are SCIFI (and I don't mean the channel) fans and we're cheering for a good show. Like you I loved Star Trek but quit watching because of the weak storylines on Enterprise. I love Star Gate SG1. I think the new Battlestar if it happens has a great opportunity. It does frustrate me when I see the boycott movement. Why ruin it for someone else. If there is a large initial audience and then the stories get weak it may actually help get a continuation. If the stories are good why should anyone complain!
DCRabbit
December 23rd, 2003, 04:04 PM
Cos they made Starbuck a guy.. that's why. :P We all liek what we like. I don't like the change. So I complain. As do countless others.
DC
BST
December 23rd, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Micheleh
"Someone else on this forum said "Apparently the Miniseries is garnering a small fan base, and they are attacking the fans of the old series."
First of all... I don't know how you can call it small, unless you aren't looking at all."
Once upon a time, there was this show going on 25 years old that many, many people liked, an they wanted to see more of that show, or at least a 'where are they now' approach. However, the networks said there were only a tiny handful of us who meant nothing.
Welcome to the club. ;)
Nail hit squarely on head!
Folks,
What it boils down to is this: will a potential series make money for Universal? That is the ONLY item that will be considered when the decision is made regarding a series.
They proved that, quite frankly, they don't give a damn about the fans' wishes or desires. Just look around. The problem that WE had and that YOU might have is thinking that a fan's voice will mean something to Universal. It won't.
So, we all, myself included because I have been known to hurl biting remarks toward the mini-series folks, should enjoy what we enjoy. If a continuation is meant to be, it will happen. By the same token, if a mini-series is meant to be, it, too, will happen.
My argument and frustration is not toward the folks that enjoyed the mini but, with those who produced it.
Sorry to sound so negative but, I'm just trying to be, shall we say, "realistic".
BST
The Rain
December 24th, 2003, 02:27 AM
*sigh* I simply don't understand the negativity towards the mini. It was the best sci-fi I've seen on TV in years. And TOS was just sooooo hokey-dokey silly. Even when I was 12, I knew a laser blast from Ice Planet Zero shouldn't bend when it was shot. I knew the space battles were recycled low budge @#$% and I knew Hector and Vector were so dumb they made "Spock's Brain" look like "2001: A Space Odyssey".
C'mon...
Baltar is believable, intelligent but shallow and gullible.
Adama is believable, strong but with feelings.
Kara has the swashbuckle and is a deeper character.
The President is actually intelligent and courageous.
The Cylons are far more evil and dangerous.
The FX were incredible.
etc. etc. etc.
I just don't get the negativity. :confused: I don't miss TOS at all.
DCRabbit
December 24th, 2003, 03:33 AM
What's not to like about it?
Political correctness.
Starbuck is a guy's name. To make the role into some cigar chomping grrrl power part is just as hokey as anything in the orginal.
DC
beeker
December 24th, 2003, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by DCRabbit
What's not to like about it?
Political correctness.
Starbuck is a guy's name. To make the role into some cigar chomping grrrl power part is just as hokey as anything in the orginal.
DC
I've noticed that people seem to use the PC label as a wide brush to denounce what they don't like. I don't see anything PC in the role of Starbuck. A PC Starbuck would have been a gay man (really PC he would have been married to Apollo).
Starbuck was changed to a woman for many reason, none of which had anything to do with political correctness. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the reasons for that decision, but I think that simply dismissing them as PC is a disservice to Moore.
As for Starbuck being a guys name that rule went out the door when those names were changed to call signs. There are only two rules that I am aware of when it comes to giving a nickname (or call sign) in the military. One, a person can't give themselves the name. Two, it has to be unique (at least in the unit). Nothing in there about gender identification.
Dennis
December 24th, 2003, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by beeker
I've noticed that people seem to use the PC label as a wide brush to denounce what they don't like.
That, in fact, is about the only thing it's been used for in over a decade. I agree.
"Starbuck" is not a "man's name" -- honestly, I've never met anyone with the given name "Starbuck". Calling it a "man's name" is like calling "Mork" or "The Great Gazoo" a man's name -- in what cultural, religious or family tradition is that so?
It's a nickname at best. I've known women nicknamed Timmy, Charlie and Fred.
Of course, that's setting aside the whole discussion of traditional male given names which have shifted in the last century into primarily women's names -- "Leslie", anyone?
The PC charge is without merit.
sihirvyth2
December 24th, 2003, 07:37 AM
Feelings run high because fans of the original show never got their ending. The 'rag tag fleet' never found Earth.
Alot of people want to see Benedict and Hatch in BSG again. Many people simply respect Hatch because he put a hell of a lot of work keeping the BSG 'brand' alive in people's minds.
The mini didn't really make a great attempt to win over the fans that have been 'keeping the dream alive' so to speak. At the same time Moore didn't do that bad of a job with the writing on his script. People need to understand, especially with the Starbuck character, that there is no male actor who could have done that role as half as good as Dirk. Given what Moore was trying to do, having a female Starbuck was the right way to go.
Fans of the mini need to understand where alot of the anger is coming from. Fans of the original need to understand a successful mini and series is their best shot for the studios greenlighting a Larson movie. It's all about respect and keeping the criticism constructive.
BST
December 24th, 2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by sihirvyth2
Fans of the mini need to understand where alot of the anger is coming from. Fans of the original need to understand a successful mini and series is their best shot for the studios greenlighting a Larson movie. It's all about respect and keeping the criticism constructive.
No argument here! Although, the prospect of a Larson/DeSanto continuation movie is not necessarily dependent on the success of the mini. The main ingredient in the recipe is Interest. If there is interest in the franchise, as a whole, the chances for the movie are enhanced.
Overall, folks on "both sides" need to understand that the argument is not one that should be amongst ourselves. Each of us is entitled to his / her own likes and dislikes. To echo sihirvyth2, "it's all about (mutual) respect and keeping the criticism constructive". Those are very good words and very sound advice.
:thumbsup:
BST
Dennis
December 24th, 2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by sihirvyth2
Fans of the mini need to understand where alot of the anger is coming from.
Believe me, I've seen enough of this anger and understood "where it's coming from" long enough to be thoroughly...weary of and unmoved by it.
BST
December 24th, 2003, 09:43 AM
Sorry to bore you with such things as people's feelings, Dennis. Perhaps a good book would be more enjoyable.
To echo sihirvyth2, "it's all about (mutual) respect and keeping the criticism constructive". Those are very good words and very sound advice.
crash4587
December 24th, 2003, 10:04 AM
DVD sales, nuff said
Darth Marley
December 24th, 2003, 10:05 AM
I just asked elsewhere,what are the dvd sales numbers???
BST
December 24th, 2003, 10:14 AM
I've been searching, high and low, for some definitive numbers. Nothing concrete, so far, for USA. But, check the Sales Figures thread in BSG Discussion
http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4837
If anyone finds anything, please update it there. Thanks.
:)
Dennis
December 24th, 2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by BST
Sorry to bore you with such things as people's feelings, Dennis. Perhaps a good book would be more enjoyable.
I've no doubt that it would, and will be.
Yeah, the anger is boring -- as an excuse for bad behavior, it's beyond that -- and it's also entirely counterproductive to what the old time fans keep saying they want to accomplish.
You can claim that "righteous" anger somehow motivates and fuels change, but I've been watching TOS fandom chase its tail and shoot itself in the foot, repeatedly, for quite a while now. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a group of sf fans successfully generate so much negative mention for themselves in the mainstream entertainment press. No one involved in this mess has "beaten" TOS fandom the way it's beaten itself.
Micheleh
December 24th, 2003, 10:23 AM
Comparing sales figures of the DVD and viewership of the mini is totally innacurate, anyway. You have to pay money for the DVD and go through the ordering process. All you had to do to get the mini was push a button on your remote.
25 years from now, if they sell DVD's of the mini/whatever to the fanbase that's held out hope for a return all that time... then we'll compare numbers. ;)
Micheleh
December 24th, 2003, 10:28 AM
Dennis- if you want to discuss the show, fine. Please leave off on the urge to pass judgement on the membership while you're here. That isn't what this forum is for.
Dogface
December 24th, 2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Mike Wright
Someone else on this forum said "Apparently the Miniseries is garnering a small fan base
Generally, fanatics wish to portray anything they dislike as being an aberration only liked by a tiny group of disposable perverts. This is also known as "sour grapes". The miniseries garnered a large positive response, especially for cable. Were this not the case, we'd have already heard that there would be no regular series.
However, there will always be those who, when confronted with reality, will retreat into conspiracy theory...
Dogface
December 24th, 2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by sihirvyth2
[B]Feelings run high because fans of the original show never got their ending. The 'rag tag fleet' never found Earth.
Sure it did: Galactica 1980!
:devil
Alot of people want to see Benedict and Hatch in BSG again.
So would I, but I don't get enraged over what is ultimately a trivial matter. My children do not starve over this.
Fans of the mini need to understand where alot of the anger is coming from.
I do understand it. That doesn't mean that it the least bit acceptable.
peter noble
December 24th, 2003, 11:03 AM
*SIGH*
Bored now.
Dennis
December 24th, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Micheleh
Dennis- if you want to discuss the show, fine. Please leave off on the urge to pass judgement on the membership while you're here. That isn't what this forum is for.
I'm not the one who brought up the usual "anger" and complaints. Perhaps if people want to discuss their anger rather than the show, they ought to take that elsewhere as well.
So, what's the forum for -- baiting fans of the miniseries with remarks about "waiting 25 years for DVD sales" to compare the size of the two groups?
Originally posted by Dogface
I do understand it. That doesn't mean that it the least bit acceptable. [/B]
Exactly. Thanks.
Micheleh
December 24th, 2003, 11:43 AM
You know the rules. I was pointing out that comparing televised ratings and DVD sales is not going to give you an acccurate picture. That's debating, not baiting.
(Edit)I reread the anger comment... if you come in here after such a long absence and say that you're weary of the jsutification here, more or less, and a moderator asks you tot one it down... there you go.
Don't say "well, you fussed at me but not him, so I'm okay", that's tiresome and leads to pointless justification, which I have no intention of doing.
Micheleh
December 24th, 2003, 11:44 AM
"Generally, fanatics wish to portray anything they dislike as being an aberration only liked by a tiny group of disposable perverts."
Dogface- same for you. Leave off the name calling and finger pointing.
Darth Marley
December 24th, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Micheleh
Comparing sales figures of the DVD and viewership of the mini is totally innacurate, anyway. You have to pay money for the DVD and go through the ordering process. All you had to do to get the mini was push a button on your remote.
25 years from now, if they sell DVD's of the mini/whatever to the fanbase that's held out hope for a return all that time... then we'll compare numbers. ;)
I grant that it is not an accurate comparison.
Sales of DVD does indicate size of TOS fanbase,and does not discriminate to correct for fans of both incarnations that want to see an RDM series.
Ratings of mini does not discriminate to correct for those that watched in horror vs those that enjoyed and want more.
I had seen a few threads basking in the glory of successful DVD sales.I don't think anyone has detracted this trend.
I do see those attempting to undermine the relevance of ratings in hope that RDM series never exists.Some of the arguments are correct in points of fact.And of course,a bit of cheerleading on the part of the anti mini faction is to be expected.
Happy viewing everyone.
Dogface
December 24th, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by DCRabbit
Starbuck is a guy's name.
It's not a name, it's a nickname. And can you prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a woman can't have that nickname?
I know women who are called "Sam", "Mike", "Wrench"...
sihirvyth2
December 24th, 2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Dogface
So would I, but I don't get enraged over what is ultimately a trivial matter. My children do not starve over this.
I guess I'm not seeing the rage, I'm seeing people with a preference disappointed they didn't get what they wanted, and still hoping they can.
After the mini, alot of the bad feelings from fans of TOS seemed to dissipate. If anything I'm seeing the pendulum swing back the other way. Reviews and supposed 'fans of the mini' acting like there are a bunch of bespectacled 30 year old TOS fans living in their mother's basement plotting to get all the people who like the mini. It's just ludicrious.
There are a few people who aren't on any 'side' but are just out there to stir the pot. To say they reflect on the average fan of the TOS or the mini is just wrong. I'm uncomfortable with people being in one camp or the other in general. Amost everyone I know likes both.
Micheleh
December 24th, 2003, 12:02 PM
I'll give you that, Darth- there has been perhaps too much concentration on numbers. I think everyone here should allow each other their own hopes, and if they don't want the mini to succeed, that's fine, just respect thse who do.
I do think a great deal of it, however, was based on the fact that the Scifi channel has been guilty of dispensing false information for so long that anything they say is imediately suspect, and people will try to verify it one way or the other. We do not, however, condone gloating on anyone's part.
Amd as you all know, but I think it seems to need mentioned here- if anyone takes exception to a post or statement, use the "report this post" feature, please.
Dogface
December 24th, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
I had seen a few threads basking in the glory of successful DVD sales.I don't think anyone has detracted this trend.
I do see those attempting to undermine the relevance of ratings in hope that RDM series never exists.
I've seen this, too.
So, then, is it right to denegrate the ratings of the miniseries as meaningless and wrong to denegrate the sales of the DVD as meaningless?
What's the policy on that?
Micheleh
December 24th, 2003, 12:04 PM
The policy is report any questionable posts to a mod.
Dogface
December 24th, 2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by sihirvyth2
[B]I guess I'm not seeing the rage
You've been keeping yourself to places like this, where there are many who are willing to smack people like me on the nose when necessary. I applaud your wisdom.
Micheleh
December 24th, 2003, 12:07 PM
All right, that's it. I'm closing this until everyone can get back on track.
Dogface- keep it about the subject, please. If you have a problem with sonmeone's statements, report it.
Corwwyn
December 26th, 2003, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by The Rain
*sigh* I simply don't understand the negativity towards the mini. It was the best sci-fi I've seen on TV in years.
You've got to realize it's not the mini itself, it's the whole concept of the mini.
If it had been the greatest work of SF in the history of TV, there would still be negativity from those that liked BSG, because of the mini's contempt for BSG.
And TOS was just sooooo hokey-dokey silly.And untrue generalizations like this certainly don't help. They just fan the flames.
Even when I was 12, I knew a laser blast from Ice Planet Zero shouldn't bend when it was shot. I knew the space battles were recycled low budge @#$% and I knew Hector and Vector were so dumb
So it had dumb moments. Is a droid in ANH getting hot irons applied to the soles of its feet high art? What about the asteroid worm in TESB? The ewoks? Jar Jar? The really big underwater things in TPM? A planet having a water core in TPM? How 'bout the dodgeable slow phasers in early ST:TNG? The list is endless and strewn throughout every SF series I can think of.
C'mon...
Baltar is believable, intelligent but shallow and gullible.
Adama is believable, strong but with feelings.
D'oh, I thought you were described BSG characters until your next line! :eek:
Kara has the swashbuckle and is a deeper character.
Kudos to you, and much appreciation for actually referring to the character by name rather than calling her "Starbuck".
Darth Marley
December 26th, 2003, 06:39 AM
Honesty is great.It's not the mini,its the concept of the mini,eh.
Contempt for BSG?
Not so as I see it. I respect the opinion of those of you that oppose it,and wish it were something else. Like it or not,it is BSG,just like all the fantasy one-shot comics with Batman as,for example,a vampire IS Batman.Some may not have a taste for it.That doesn't make it some other character.
That some would still take issue with the mini if it were the greatest work of SF in the history of TV admits that these waters are muddy,and personal opinion will prevail,not serious objective criticism.
While"hokey-dokey silly" is an opinion,it is a widely held opinion,not an untrue generalization.And one I share.Myself,and The Rain,still enjoy watching TOS,but silly (Hector and Vector) is a legitamate description.TOS is also good sf for the late '70s.
Hey,what's wrong with Jar-Jar? He's my hero.
dec5
December 26th, 2003, 10:36 AM
But I think both versions can exists like different versions of the Anime Gundam can exist. It is one of the most succesful franchises that have versions that have nothing to do with each other and yet have the same sci fi theme.
callsignfalcon
December 26th, 2003, 02:35 PM
Jar Jar and Ewoks are what you get when Lucas isn't being held in check by other people. (the first 2 SW movies there was another guy helping and Steven Spielburg also helped... (spl?))
Anyway back to BSG and BSG03... I like both. Both are well done for their times. I support both.
Quote:
"Don't be too hard on the mini. It is bringing in new fans of the series, that are going to look back at the old and say "Hey, that was impressive for a TV show from the 70s." Then you'll have even more support for the continuation."
Very true, its the reason I'm here. :D
BST
December 26th, 2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by callsignfalcon
"...Anyway back to BSG and BSG03... I like both. Both are well done for their times. I support both.
Quote:
"Don't be too hard on the mini. It is bringing in new fans of the series, that are going to look back at the old and say "Hey, that was impressive for a TV show from the 70s." Then you'll have even more support for the continuation."
Very true, its the reason I'm here. :D "
:thumbsup:
And that, callsignfalcon, is what it's all about, continued interest in the franchise - Battlestar Galactica. If the interest is there, regardless of which incarnation preferred, the better the chance of a movie being produced and the better the chance of the franchise being continued.
BST
Michael Hinman
December 28th, 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by DCRabbit
Umm.. the best ratings number the thing got was 2.9 for the 9 PM airing of ep2. That's straight from Neilsen.
And just cos 4 million watched it doesn't mean it has a fanbase of 4 000 000. Not everyone that watches it is gonna like it. For everyone that says their friends, co-workers, etc love it there's someone that says they all hate it.
DC
However, while I can agree to some point ... I can't completely do it.
The mini got about 3.6 million viewers, where another 2 million watched the first part when it reran on the second night. Then 4 million watched the second part.
Pretty damn good for an expanded cable television broadcast.
Dennis
December 28th, 2003, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Micheleh
Don't say "well, you fussed at me but not him, so I'm okay", that's tiresome and leads to pointless justification, which I have no intention of doing.
Don't concern yourself -- I'll say what I consider appropriate. How you justify your moderators' decisions is not something that concerns me too much. :)
DCRabbit
December 28th, 2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Michael Hinman
However, while I can agree to some point ... I can't completely do it.
The mini got about 3.6 million viewers, where another 2 million watched the first part when it reran on the second night. Then 4 million watched the second part.
Pretty damn good for an expanded cable television broadcast.
It all depends on how you look at it. They reran the first ep before the first airing of the second ep so those that liked the first could tell their friends and neighbours and whatever to watch the thing right thru.. clever trick, I might add.
But what counts to the money people are how many they can count on continuously watching a series. And it looks like they'd get anywhere between 1.5 and 2 Neilsen household rating.. if you assume they keep one half to two thirds the audience.. which I think is realistic but I could be wrong.. around Stargate numberts, I would think. Which is good.. not bad at all. But not enuff to jusitfy the cost to anyone that might fund it.. hence the problem getting funding.
And if they go with a cheap version.. they'll get even less of a viewership once those that watch it for the space battles and effects drop off.
It needs to be on regular braodcast TV to succeed, in my opinion. I honestly think ti would do 4-5 regularly on there. But that's not enuff to get interest going in a media that can churn out Survivors to no end.
But a series of movies would make a killing. And if they had Katee as Dirk's daughter or such to give some *reasonable* expalanation for her being Starbuck other than erasing the male womanizer character from BSg canon cos it's not politically correct nowadays.. I'd go see it. Katee's hot but political correctness makes me gag.. as I've said ad nauseum.
DC
BST
December 29th, 2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Micheleh
Don't say "well, you fussed at me but not him, so I'm okay", that's tiresome and leads to pointless justification, which I have no intention of doing.
Originally posted by Dennis
Don't concern yourself -- I'll say what I consider appropriate. How you justify your moderators' decisions is not something that concerns me too much. :)
Dennis, agreed. Considering that you admin a website as well, you know the necessity of ensuring that the debate stays with the topic and doesn't get "personal". Mutual respect is the key -- we would all do well to remember that the disagreements should be with the "topic of discussion" and not with each other. :)
TwoBrainedCylon
December 29th, 2003, 06:29 AM
You can claim that "righteous" anger somehow motivates and fuels change, but I've been watching TOS fandom chase its tail and shoot itself in the foot, repeatedly, for quite a while now. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a group of sf fans successfully generate so much negative mention for themselves in the mainstream entertainment press. No one involved in this mess has "beaten" TOS fandom the way it's beaten itself.
Dennis,
I agree with you ... mostly. I think you're being very narrow in your statement. The Star Trek fans got similar if not worse press while they were fighting for a revivial of Trek. That attitude changed when Trek was successfully revived. Fan groups of other shows often gain equal disregard from those who didn't like the original show until the revival efforts succeed. At least that's been my experience.
I personally don't buy into the righteous anger theory either. Other people's bad behavior is never a justification for your own. I'd argue that goes both ways. The most vocal pro-miniseries supporters on the boards have engaged in some very, very bad conduct wholesale. Claiming that the original fans have acted badly only recognizes a slice of the problem. Since Languatron was often taken as the representation of the whole fanbase, I'd content that even that was a very skewed slice. In my experience, the real core of the fanbase has acted fairly respectfully. I don't think you're recognizing that.
Two-Brain
Dennis
December 29th, 2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by TwoBrainedCylon
I personally don't buy into the righteous anger theory either. Other people's bad behavior is never a justification for your own. I'd argue that goes both ways. The most vocal pro-miniseries supporters on the boards have engaged in some very, very bad conduct wholesale. Claiming that the original fans have acted badly only recognizes a slice of the problem. Since Languatron was often taken as the representation of the whole fanbase, I'd content that even that was a very skewed slice. In my experience, the real core of the fanbase has acted fairly respectfully. I don't think you're recognizing that.
Two-Brain [/B]
Oh, I agree that it's true that most of the fanbase behaves fairly well, as this tends to be true of most political, sporting, or social factions. The Catch-22 to behaving like adults, unfortunately, is that the Silent Majority phenomenon gets you ignored by most folks who are only passingly interested in your movement. The majority of soccer fans aren't hooligans, and there's are probably such things as civil Yankees fans.
In the case of BSG, or Trek, those "passingly interested" include everyone from newspaper columnists to studio executives to the guy surfing the internet on his lunch hour who watched "Galactica" on tv one evening, Googled it and finds himself wading through avatars of young Hollywood blondes and shaggy-haired writers with bullet-holes and hatchets badly painted onto their heads.
When a group feels beleagured and unable to influence the outcome of events to their satisfaction it's that much harder for them to disassociate from or even express consistent disapproval of emotional, extremist or even unbalanced members who behave really badly. There was one particular incident in which Apothis long-time bad behavior was countered in a particularly inappropriate and frankly somewhat dangerous way, and of course everybody is so furious at Apothis that the responding behavior was tolerated rather well.
Someone like this Lowry fellow at "Variety" -- now, he doesn't have a big deal rooting interest for or against BSG fandom. What happens is that he watches this stuff go forward from -- oh, I'm guessing the time of Olmos performance at the Television Writers presentations, which is when BSG became a story of any interest to the mainstream this year -- has some really nasty encounters in email with fans, adds that up with previous observations, and writes a column which mixes up some facts about how tv works and how the studios really evaluate fan compaigns these days with his personal annoyance at his brush with these antics. By far the most interesting thing about his article was the knee-jerk reaction to it by some folks: describing such a piece along the lines of dripping "hatred and bitterness" is reacting to the echoes in one's own head rather than what's on the page. The worst that can be said about Lowry's article in fact is that it "drips" condescension, impatience and mild frustration with a passing nuisance. He'll forget about BSG in a week; the "Languatrons" of the world will add him to the list of Black Tower Black Ops Squad Anti-Galactica Commandos and will never forget.
Something about Apothis is that he was ultimately a home-grown problem in the same way as Languatron -- the former may not have been a long-time fan but he didn't actually spearhead an invasion of provocateurs from Trek fandom or the SciFi offices (as he initially convinced everyone he was doing, under the "Milton James" screen name). He and Scooter and Languatron are all "fans" fouling their own nests.
Michael Hinman
December 29th, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by DCRabbit
It all depends on how you look at it. They reran the first ep before the first airing of the second ep so those that liked the first could tell their friends and neighbours and whatever to watch the thing right thru.. clever trick, I might add.
Well, I hate to say "trick" as if they tried to unknowingly get people to do something. It's a strong strategy, especially if you're running a limited marketing budget.
But what counts to the money people are how many they can count on continuously watching a series.
I totally agree.
And it looks like they'd get anywhere between 1.5 and 2 Neilsen household rating.. if you assume they keep one half to two thirds the audience.. which I think is realistic but I could be wrong.. around Stargate numberts, I would think. Which is good.. not bad at all. But not enuff to jusitfy the cost to anyone that might fund it.. hence the problem getting funding.
You make this sound like Sci-Fi is run by PBS. They aren't out looking for corporate grants, or funding from "viewers like you." They will get their money from advertising. But you're right, that advertising will have to come from specific ad dollars, which are generated by ratings.
I believe BSG could easily break even at a 1.2 rating, based on my limited knowledge of Sci-Fi's ad rates. The question is not whether they would lose money. The real question is how much money are they going to make?
I seriously doubt each episode will cost more than $8 million. I keep reading on message boards that the space battles will be few and far in-between. That's expected. But there will be space battles, and thanks to technology, there not as expensive as they used to be. Hell, anyone can invest some money in software and create the CGI themselves. Ask the guy who did "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow."
And if they go with a cheap version.. they'll get even less of a viewership once those that watch it for the space battles and effects drop off.
But to determine that people will only tune in to science-fiction (or anything) because of space battles, etc., is inaccurate.
Look at the Nielsen Top 15.
24.7 million viewers tuned in to see CSI. How many gun battles and such do you see there? How many car chases?
14.5 million saw Law & Order. How many car chases/gun battles do you see in that series?
12.5 million saw "Judging Amy." I'd love to see how many gun fights she and Tyne Daly end up in.
If you want good ratings, give your viewers something to tune in to. Like great stories. Most shows resort to battles and such because the writing sucks. Sometimes, however, it's nice to see some. I bet once in a while, you do see a car chase, or a gun fight or something on those shows listed above. But you don't need a weekly space fight in order to do it.
TNG did great ratings in first-run syndication. How many space battles did you see there? Not as many as you think.
You CAN do a lower-budget BSG. Some episodes will have space battles and heavy CGI, others won't. That's the way ALL sci-fi TV shows have been done since the 1960s when "Lost In Space" and "Star Trek" helped create the small-box genre.
It needs to be on regular braodcast TV to succeed, in my opinion. I honestly think ti would do 4-5 regularly on there. But that's not enuff to get interest going in a media that can churn out Survivors to no end.
I am not sure I can agree, but I can see the logic of your opinion.
But a series of movies would make a killing. And if they had Katee as Dirk's daughter or such to give some *reasonable* expalanation for her being Starbuck other than erasing the male womanizer character from BSg canon cos it's not politically correct nowadays.. I'd go see it. Katee's hot but political correctness makes me gag.. as I've said ad nauseum.
DC
I don't see that happening. How would you then get around other changes to the BSG canon that were made?
Michael Hinman
December 29th, 2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by TwoBrainedCylon
[B]Dennis,
I agree with you ... mostly. I think you're being very narrow in your statement. The Star Trek fans got similar if not worse press while they were fighting for a revivial of Trek.
Ummmm ... no. The original TOS campaign from the 1960s did not use negativity.
However, one group that did -- at least in the beginning and to some extent today -- is the more modern Bring Back Kirk campaign.
Although in that instance, and in the original BSG continuation instance, that is more from fans acting on their own, than a true organization.
I personally don't buy into the righteous anger theory either. Other people's bad behavior is never a justification for your own. I'd argue that goes both ways. The most vocal pro-miniseries supporters on the boards have engaged in some very, very bad conduct wholesale.
I agree, which continues the point of people acting individually, rather than as a group. What's sad is that those people are the loudest, and end up giving both sides a bad reputation, which continues the cycle even more.
TwoBrainedCylon
December 29th, 2003, 02:33 PM
Hell, anyone can invest some money in software and create the CGI themselves.
Response posted at CA out of respect for Thomas.
Two-Brain
Dennis
December 29th, 2003, 07:04 PM
Say, Michael, I have an off-topic question about SyFyPortal:
Do you do minimal research before quoting news items from other sites?
I ask because you're leading today with some quotes by William Shatner that date back to August. You picked them up (with attribution) from TrekNation this morning; they evidently appear in a current magazine.
However...whatever magazine this thing just appeared in, everything in it is quoted from a Q&A Shatner did on his official website at the beginning of August -- it's almost five months old! Here's the link to that:
August Q&A (http://www.williamshatner.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=134&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
And, TrekNation duly reported on the Q&A at that time...
Original TrekNation Article (http://www.trektoday.com/news/220803_01.shtml)
Does everyone just forget what these people say, and what they themselves have presumably researched before writing their reports, that quickly? I sure didn't have any trouble remembering that I've read this whole thing before and doing two minutes of Googling to locate the sources.
callsignfalcon
December 29th, 2003, 08:07 PM
I aggree on the fact that cgi animation for both movies, tv shows, as well as cartoons is becomeing cheaper. The company that turned out such kids shows as: Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Reboot and Shadow Planets (?) has done an excellent job at making the shows within thin bugets but making the graphics quite awesome for a saturday morning cartoon slot. If they can manage that then I think that the people doing BSG03 could, most likely, turn out a few good quality space scenes per episode.
TwoBrainedCylon
December 29th, 2003, 08:29 PM
Dennis,
You've made very good points about the fans on all sides. In fact, I agree with everything you said. I don't consider the bolded names to be fans personally. When your intent of creating trouble overrides being a fan you're jumped out of the boat in my definition. My narrow assignment of the term includes a sort of very loose fellowship with others who like the same subject and none of the names you listed fall into that category for me.
I think my biggest difference in perception for your earlier statements probably lies in the fact that I never before saw any studio show such disregard for the fans. I can't recall Paramount ever making a documentary that explained how wrong or stupid the Trek fans were. I certainly never heard any statements about how stupid or unwanted the fans were from any Paramount official. They might exist. I've just never heard them. I've heard a number of such statements from the execs for BSG. This is the only franchise I know of where fans were berated for actually liking the original show. If that's occurred before, I've never seen it. When the studios have this sort of attitude, its no wonder that the media folks center on the worst players in the game. It fits the theme they've already been presented.
Problem children exist in all fanbases. Excluding insights from "Triumph the Dog", I've not seen any media personality say that the fans are a problem that must be dealt with for a new, great show, based on an old show that royally bite the big one. That is a message I'm getting now.
Seriously, do you know of another case where this has occurred?
Two-Brain
Corwwyn
December 30th, 2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Michael Hinman
However, while I can agree to some point ... I can't completely do it.
The mini got about 3.6 million viewers, where another 2 million watched the first part when it reran on the second night. Then 4 million watched the second part.
Pretty damn good for an expanded cable television broadcast.
Michael, using your figures, I dispute that "another 2 million" watched the first part when it reran. At the very least, some of that 2 million is comprised of viewers who watched the first night and chose to watch the rerun too.
As for the numbers themselves, 4 million is an exaggeration.
DCRabbit
December 30th, 2003, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Dogface
It's not a name, it's a nickname. And can you prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a woman can't have that nickname?
I know women who are called "Sam", "Mike", "Wrench"...
Those do not specifically refer to gender.
A 'buck' is a *male* deer. As in 'man' is a male human.
'Starbuck' equals 'Star *male* deer'.
Somehow I don't think they're referring to 'Star dollar bill'.
DC
Dennis
December 30th, 2003, 07:12 AM
Ah, nicknames are nicknames, DCRabbit. "Wrench" refers specificially to either an action or an inanimate object. Seriously, I think you should withdraw graciously on this one. ;)
Originally posted by TwoBrainedCylon
I never before saw any studio show such disregard for the fans. I can't recall Paramount ever making a documentary that explained how wrong or stupid the Trek fans were...
Seriously, do you know of another case where this has occurred?
Two-Brain
Out in public? I sure don't.
The SciFi people have absolutely given fans reason to be angry; the only person I've seen at all open to communication back and forth from the other side during this whole thing is Moore.
That said, I know that I can't control the behavior of other people, and that's doubly true of people who choose to be adversarial with me. I've almost never been effective in getting to a goal, especially a creative goal, by acting out of my anger -- as you said, other people's behavior doesn't justify mine...but beyond that, reacting to other people in that way is like one of those finger puzzles where pulling harder just traps one more.
I remember that one of the pro-continuation leaders (I'm not sure if it was you) observed a while ago that a point was reached during last year's dust-up where all the SciFi people felt they had to do to "discredit" the fans was provide the url to the SciFi BSG message board.
Now, a natural reaction to that kind of observation is "well, what are we supposed to do, just take it?" And honestly -- beats me; I'm not trying to be prescriptive. It seems to me, though, that the point where SciFi basically told fandom "like it or lump it" was passed quite a while ago. If particular kinds of expression of anger put the hatchet into the hands of the people who want to cut one down, what victory is there in that particular kind of defiance?
TwoBrainedCylon
December 30th, 2003, 08:26 AM
Dennis,
Good words.
Two-Brain
Michael Hinman
December 30th, 2003, 08:53 AM
I just wanted to quickly clarify, and also apologize for something I said on this board.
I said "anyone" can do CGI. That is inaccurate, and insensitive. I didn't intend it to be, but every time I re-read it, my original meaning is not there, so it was not said properly.
I know that it takes considerable talent, training and other things to do CGI, and I didn't mean to say that everyone and their mother can do it.
Please qualify my initial statement with "anybody with talent, training or what-not ..."
Thank you.
Darth Marley
December 30th, 2003, 08:56 AM
About the Starbuck gender issue, didn't Scully's dad call her Starbuck in the X-Files?
Michael Hinman
December 30th, 2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Dennis
Say, [b]Michael, I have an off-topic question about SyFyPortal:
Do you do minimal research before quoting news items from other sites?
It depends on the item. I try to read as much of the genre news as I can. We normally reject things that have been rehashed, but if I haven't heard it before, I usually let it continue.
We do corroborate the source of material, so if a story originated in a magazine, we do our best to make sure it was really there.
I ask because you're leading today with some quotes by William Shatner that date back to August. You picked them up (with attribution) from TrekNation this morning; they evidently appear in a current magazine.
It's quite possible that these quotes have been around for a while, and that TrekToday may have used them once already. They have a habit of posting Trek stories no matter what their significance is, and how many times it has been repeated. I know that Robert Beltran was going from con to con a few years ago, complaining about "Voyager." He said the same thing each time, but TT reported it as if it were new each time.
I know my site didn't report on this at all (or if we did, my memory really IS slipping, lol!), but you're right. TrekToday has a habit of doing that. I don't know if it's because they have multiple writers or what-not and little communication among them. But I can definitely see where that may have happened here.
In any event, thanks for pointing that out. :)
Michael Hinman
December 30th, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by TwoBrainedCylon
[B] I can't recall Paramount ever making a documentary that explained how wrong or stupid the Trek fans were.
You've never seen "Trekkies" then.
But seriously, where is this documentary against BSG fans you refer to?
I certainly never heard any statements about how stupid or unwanted the fans were from any Paramount official. They might exist. I've just never heard them.
There has been one common denominator I have seen in regards to fan groups in association with many shows and movies. No matter what, people feel that TPTB of whatever they are passionate about don't hear them, or simply disregard them. BSG is not the only one where fans think that. In fact, every show my site has ever covered, I can tell you that fans feel that way.
Why do they feel that way? It's because you are not the ONLY fans, and many times, networks, channels, etc., have to look at the bigger picture ... they have to look at viewership.
Fans of Bring Back Kirk (and of the old Bring Back Boone from EFC) will tell you that they never get listened to by their respective companies. While I cannot vouch for Sci-Fi or anyone else, it's impossible to follow the wishes of every person that decides to correspond, even if they are with a group of like-minded people. There are many variables that have to be weighed, and the variables a fan group or an individual fan presents is not the sole variable to consider.
When "Tarzan" premiered, I had about 80 e-mails asking me why I didn't cover the show on my site, on how much better my traffic would be if I did. When I still did not carry the show, I bet they felt I didn't listen to them, either. It's not that I didn't care what they said, it's that they were not the only variable.
Maybe Sci-Fi Channel is dissing you more than others. I don't know ... I'm not the one being dissed. But most likely, you are being treated just as many other fan groups have been treated in the past. Maybe they are listening, maybe they are not. But no matter what, what you are championing is just one of many variables to consider.
I've heard a number of such statements from the execs for BSG. This is the only franchise I know of where fans were berated for actually liking the original show.
They were berated by Sci-Fi, or the BSG production? In what way?
To be honest, I had stayed out of the entire BSG "battle," and didn't even know one existed until about four or five months ago when another webmaster started sending me Richard Hatch comments. When I visited the Skiffy boards to see what was up, I didn't see Sci-Fi or anyone slamming TOS fans. In fact, I saw it the other way around.
Of course, that was only my perspective, and who knows what happened before that. Maybe mini fans, or Sci-Fi or someone did something to set it off. But that's the first thing I saw.
If that's occurred before, I've never seen it. When the studios have this sort of attitude, its no wonder that the media folks center on the worst players in the game. It fits the theme they've already been presented.
The media's only agenda is to get readers or viewers. Whatever they consider news, which is what people might consider news to tune them in, they will use that. Negativity always is a safe bet.
Create negative attention, and you've got attention from the media.
Michael Hinman
December 30th, 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Corwwyn
Michael, using your figures, I dispute that "another 2 million" watched the first part when it reran. At the very least, some of that 2 million is comprised of viewers who watched the first night and chose to watch the rerun too.
As for the numbers themselves, 4 million is an exaggeration.
If we're talking about in terms of a fanbase, I can see your point. But if we're talking about in terms of ad revenue, and possible interest in a story, even repeat viewership is good. In fact, in terms of a series, that's even better.
I do not know if Nielsen tracks repeat viewership or not. But it might.
lordpenquin
December 30th, 2003, 12:24 PM
I don't know if I'm bored to death or secretly facinated by the shooting war between fans of TOS and fans of the mini. If we could focus the anger between the two factions towards universal instead, perhaps we would see the old galactica rise from the ashes.
slider
December 30th, 2003, 02:24 PM
I always thought "Trekkies" was an affectionate look at the Star Trek fans. It did show some fans that were pretty far out there. But I don't think there was any contempt for the fans.
The cost of CGI is debatable. The cost for hardware has gone way, way down. However we have come a long way from the CGI in "The Last Starfighter". The complexity and the amount of realism that is expected today is pretty high. These extremely complex and highly detailed scenes take a lot of time and really increase the cost.
Zoic did a good job on Battlestar Galactica. (There has been some discussion about the panning shots but that was presumably the directors’ decision.) Even then I believe they had to use some of the original space footage created with physical models and stop motion cameras. (The original BSG did not use CGI.) Lee Stringer at Zoic had a team of 14 animators to work on BSG. This high quality talent does not come cheap.
sihirvyth2
December 30th, 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
About the Starbuck gender issue, didn't Scully's dad call her Starbuck in the X-Files?
This is hiliarious, because you're absolutely correct. Nice one pointing this out! :thumbsup:
DCRabbit
December 30th, 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Dennis
Ah, nicknames are nicknames, DCRabbit. "Wrench" refers specificially to either an action or an inanimate object. Seriously, I think you should withdraw graciously on this one. ;)
Yes, wrench does mean inanimate object or action. None of the examples you quoted refer to gender.. they're gender neutral, like I said. Starbuck has a gender descriptor in it. A specific one.
Nicknames are either familiar, descriptive or some combination of both. Some nicknames, like Sam.. are familiar.. shortened versions of full names. Wrench is descriptive.. commonly referring to a person's profession. Starbuck.. see above.
You can call She-Ra 'He-Man' if you want.. but a misnomer is still a misnomer.
Now, if Kara was a lesbian, there'd be some grounding for the name along the same lines as all those guys in prison being referred to as 'bitches'. But she isn't. Maybe in the future.. but not now so there's no reasoning for it.
Other than political correctness, of course.
DC
Michael Hinman
December 30th, 2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by slider
I always thought "Trekkies" was an affectionate look at the Star Trek fans. It did show some fans that were pretty far out there. But I don't think there was any contempt for the fans.
The cost of CGI is debatable. The cost for hardware has gone way, way down. However we have come a long way from the CGI in "The Last Starfighter".
There is CGI in "The Last Starfighter"? Wow ... that's pretty cool. Now I have a little more respect for those special effects. :)
The complexity and the amount of realism that is expected today is pretty high. These extremely complex and highly detailed scenes take a lot of time and really increase the cost.
Zoic did a good job on Battlestar Galactica. (There has been some discussion about the panning shots but that was presumably the directors’ decision.) Even then I believe they had to use some of the original space footage created with physical models and stop motion cameras. (The original BSG did not use CGI.) Lee Stringer at Zoic had a team of 14 animators to work on BSG. This high quality talent does not come cheap.
I'm not sure whose decision it was to pan the shots, but I liked it. It was a "Saving Private Ryan" feel. :)
SAR Pilot
December 30th, 2003, 04:08 PM
You can look at aviators today, male and female, and see callsigns for men which are of a female nature and women which are of a male nature. Callsigns, for the most part, are gender neutral, and are most often assigned as a result of something stupid you did. . . not about how cool it makes you sound!
Perhaps Kara has a "male-like" callsign because she likes to smoke cigars, drink heavily and play poker, all things predominately male in nature.
SAR Pilot
December 30th, 2003, 04:17 PM
This has been the most constructive debate I have seen yet. People are not slinging personal attacks back and forth, but are bringing forth their ideas and opinions in a more constructive manner.
The fact remains that the "Vocal Majority", no matter how true of a minority that group is, is the group that will get the most attention by others. If the calmer fans sit back quietly, letting the only message heard by the media and other PTB is that spoken by a few slingly maliciousness around the web and in letters and interviews, then they will react to only that!As the saying goes, "the squeaky wheel always gets the grease!"
One thing I have observed across the various Forums, including this one, has been a general consensus by the "True TOS fans" that if you like the Mini, you cannot be a true fan of TOS. I know that is a pretty broad stroke I made, but that is the feel I have been getting from a majority of people I have tried to interact with regarding people like me who enjoyed both.
I thank everybody here for bringing more sanity back to the issues at hand. I truly hope that the violent storm is behind us, and now we can move forward toward a continuation, a series, whatever!
Michael Hinman
December 30th, 2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by SAR Pilot
This has been the most constructive debate I have seen yet. People are not slinging personal attacks back and forth, but are bringing forth their ideas and opinions in a more constructive manner.
The fact remains that the "Vocal Majority", no matter how true of a minority that group is, is the group that will get the most attention by others. If the calmer fans sit back quietly, letting the only message heard by the media and other PTB is that spoken by a few slingly maliciousness around the web and in letters and interviews, then they will react to only that!As the saying goes, "the squeaky wheel always gets the grease!"
One thing I have observed across the various Forums, including this one, has been a general consensus by the "True TOS fans" that if you like the Mini, you cannot be a true fan of TOS. I know that is a pretty broad stroke I made, but that is the feel I have been getting from a majority of people I have tried to interact with regarding people like me who enjoyed both.
I thank everybody here for bringing more sanity back to the issues at hand. I truly hope that the violent storm is behind us, and now we can move forward toward a continuation, a series, whatever!
Well, I agree. It's good to see such positive discussion. Of course, there are others who will take it elsewhere in their own little playground. But those children can stay there. :)
Antelope
December 30th, 2003, 04:38 PM
I never heard of a reason behind the name Starbuck in TOS. I assummed it is just a name. Unlike Apollo, Athena, etc. I don't know of any Greek or Latin derivation for the name. In the TOS episode where Starbuck ended up on the prison planet the inmates mockingly asked him what "starbucking" was. I think he replied it was just a "name". Colonel Tigh mentions something about how Kara got the call sign during the card game scene. We don't get an explanation. He actually appeared to mock the call sign.
Here's an idea: How about starbuck derives from somebody who acts like a cowboy in space. You ride a bucking bronco. She would ride a bucking star. Star seems to be a word used for ships in space, for example BattleSTAR and of course in other scifi we have STAR fighters. Maybe starbuck is someone who flys a viper like someone handles a bucking bronco. It may be our equivalent of saying someone acts like a "cowboy". Starbuck may imply she is a brave dangerous risk taker. I think the name Starbuck is a gender nonissue since no one is named Starbuck in our society. Since in TOS we never meet another Starbuck the name could have been the equivalent of Jeff, Chris or Leslie for all we know. Maybe Starbuck (an orphan in TOS) was left on the steps of a coffee house in Caprica City. You never know and you can't prove it!
Gemini1999
December 30th, 2003, 05:11 PM
antelope526 -
I like your take on the "Starbuck" name genesis - it makes total sense to me...
I did notice something on your post that caught my eye - your location! We're practically "next-door neighbors" - I think that's a first to see someone posting from right around the corner!
A belated welcome to Fleets - I hope you enjoy it here!
Best regards,
Bryan
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)
BSG_Sci_FiPulse
December 30th, 2003, 06:34 PM
The name Starbuck, ok not sure where it comes from in terms of Battlestar Galactica, but one thing everyone knows is Glen Larson is a pretty well read individual.
The name Starbuck before anyone heard of Battlestar Galactica whether it be original show or mini series comes from the novel 'Moby Dick' Starbuck was the name of Ahabs First Officer. So my guess, and this is a guess. Is that Larson at some point in his life read Moby Dick, liked the name Starbuck and chose to name one of his characters as a backhanded homage to the classic book.
Another well known fact, this one pertaining to trek, is that When Gene Roddenberry was looking for a Captain for TNG and Original series, he has a Captain Heratio Hornblower type of Captain in mind. So it is fair to say that most Sci Fi series owe a little something to classic lit, and always find ways to pay tribute to it.
slider
December 30th, 2003, 07:03 PM
Well, Call me Ishmael. You are correct sir.
Dennis
December 30th, 2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by DCRabbit
Nicknames are either familiar, descriptive or some combination of both. Some nicknames, like Sam.. are familiar.. shortened versions of full names. Wrench is descriptive.. commonly referring to a person's profession. Starbuck.. see above.
Uh-uh. Nicknames are whatever people agree is a nickname. Strain all you want -- there are no such "rules" in the real world, as anyone with their ears open for any length of time can attest, and therefore no need to try to pretend that they ought to apply in fiction.
BTW, the name of the coffee company is also derived from the Moby Dick character.
Mike Wright
December 30th, 2003, 11:34 PM
Wow, I forgot I posted this... So many replies...
Originally posted by BST
Sorry to sound so negative but, I'm just trying to be, shall we say, "realistic".
BST
I didn't feel your comment was negative at all. Quite the opposite, I think its constructive criticism like this that is what's needed in a situation like this.
But a series of movies would make a killing. And if they had Katee as Dirk's daughter or such to give some *reasonable* expalanation for her being Starbuck other than erasing the male womanizer character from BSg canon cos it's not politically correct nowadays..
That's so funny, I was thinking the other day, a great way for Dirk Benedict to get into the series would be to have him play Katee Sackoff's father... Either that, or he'd make one hell of a Cain!
You make this sound like Sci-Fi is run by PBS. They aren't out looking for corporate grants, or funding from "viewers like you."
*lmao*
Battlestar Galactica is brought to you by The Cheat, and viewers like you.
*lol*
Sorry. I love that site. :)
You CAN do a lower-budget BSG. Some episodes will have space battles and heavy CGI, others won't. That's the way ALL sci-fi TV shows have been done since the 1960s when "Lost In Space" and "Star Trek" helped create the small-box genre.
See to me there is only one factor that will make Galactica cost more than the typical Scifi show. The fact that it has SO MANY supporting cast members. But then look at DS9, how many main characters it had. It took nine episodes just to wrap up their arcs. I dunno guys, the "It will cost too much" thing just sounds like an excuse to me. But then, they've also got a point in that all Treks, besides TOS have been syndicated, which is why they have been so successful. Farscape, and I don't want to offend any of those fans because I also liked that show and respect all those guys, that show probably died out of two things... The fact that it wasn't syndicated, and the "opinion" that it was too alien for the general public to get into. (I say opinion because thats all it is, it probably has no actual bearing in anything) But then the likelyhood of Galactica getting syndicated is probably minimal at best. SG1 started on cable, but it was on Showtime, a totally different network. I'm not aware of how they got it syndicated, but thats what they need to do with Galactica. The fact that Scifi has SG1 now may help them come to realize the importance of syndication. But you never know.
Isn't it funny how its been two weeks since this thing has aired, Scifi hasn't said WORD ONE about the thing, yet so much has been said, so many rumors have been abound... You'd think Scifiwire would have said SOMETHING. I mean I know they're out till the 4th, but it makes you really wonder what's going on behind the scenes...
I think my biggest difference in perception for your earlier statements probably lies in the fact that I never before saw any studio show such disregard for the fans.
Neither have I, though I doubt their spokespeople are gonna issue statements like "The fans suck," or "Why don't those people shut up" but I can imagine that those opinions are held by certain execs. Hell, if I were Ron Moore, I'd certainly be thinking it. No offense to anyone, seriously! Don't yell at me for saying it. I'm just sayin'. I'm a manager at Burger King, and I hate most of the customers. I know its a wierd comparison, but you should hear some of the crap these people say about me. It drives you crazy. But you do your best to not take it personally, and you've got the "Work two weeks, get paid" mantra, so you keep doing it. And you go to ITT Tech so that in two years you don't have to put up with that crap.. But basically its the same for these guys I think. They get hate mail all the time I think, and probably very little to support them. If 90% of the mail you got from fans was "You suck" wouldn't you hate them too?
At any rate... Back on track... Also Brannon Braga has made MANY disparaging comments in chat sessions about the fans, which is why the fans hate him so much, and probably why Trek is failing. Well, also because everything he wrote after his first year involved in Trek has sucked, with the exception of First Contact, which didn't suck for the first fifteen minutes, and then resumed sucking. (Of course wouldn't that honor go to ILM? Hm.)
I can't recall Paramount ever making a documentary that explained how wrong or stupid the Trek fans were. I certainly never heard any statements about how stupid or unwanted the fans were from any Paramount official.
Depends on who you call official. There was Brannon Braga, like I mentioned. That was the most direct offense. But then there was Bill Shatner, who when he went on Saturday Night Live told Trek fans to "Get a life," (which honestly, was funny as hell, I'm sorry... He shouldn't have apologized for that... he didn't write it, it was just a sketch...) and then there was Leonard Nemoy who wrote a book called "I am not Spock," trying to isolate himself from the character. I think some of the producers of DS9 said they'd never return to Trek because of fan reaction... Which is probably why we'll never see a DS9 movie.
As far as Galactica is concerned, I recall when Richard Hatch first started Second Coming, Larsen said he'd sue both Hatch and Universal if it went through. I'm not sure if that sentiment ever changed because I know Larsen was involved in the DeSanto project, but I never heard Hatch support that one. As far as the Mini is concerned, I have never heard anything about the producers outright attacking fans. I have seen comments from actors and producers that they have recieved a lot of negative feedback about the mini before it aired, but a lot less after it had. That is the extent I've seen. But as I said above, I hope I've impressed upon some of you guys the importance of looking at things from the other guys shoes. Hell, if I ever get to Hollywood and produce some of my Scifi, the last thing I'm gonna think about is the fans, unless it actually produces loyal ones. I'm not going to listen to the people who want to bring me down with their so called "Constructive Criticism" or "Do it the fans way because we are many and our voice is strong." I'm going to do what I do because I have a dream and I'd like to see it in pictures. Sure the studio is gonna chance it a bit more to their liking, but crap, thats what happens when you want to do something and get a paycheck. The signature on that thing says "Do it my way." Not "Do it the fans way."
Anyway... Hope I don't offend anyone with that. I'm just sayin... Look at it from the other guys perspective. :)
I said "anyone" can do CGI. That is inaccurate, and insensitive. I didn't intend it to be, but every time I re-read it, my original meaning is not there, so it was not said properly.
No, I think your original comment was somewhat accurate. Anyone CAN do CGI, just by downloading a pirated copy of some program off Kazaa or something and then downloading a mesh off of Scifi-meshes and then pressing Render. The question is, can they do GOOD CG? ;)
I always thought "Trekkies" was an affectionate look at the Star Trek fans.
That movie scared me to death. I ran a Trek club here in Spokane for a year. We couldnt' gain any new members because at all our events people kept arguing with other fans about whether we were "Trekkies" or "Trekkers." I kept telling them "It doesn't freaking matter, just make friends with them and get them to join so we get more money." Nobody listened. I guess you just can't run a fan club professionally. ;)
BTW, the name of the coffee company is also derived from the Moby Dick character.
If it goes to series, it would be funny to see a call sign like "Angry Fan." Or "Delux247."
Wait, scratch that last one... :)
DCRabbit
December 31st, 2003, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Dennis
Uh-uh. Nicknames are whatever people agree is a nickname. Strain all you want -- there are no such "rules" in the real world, as anyone with their ears open for any length of time can attest, and therefore no need to try to pretend that they ought to apply in fiction.
BTW, the name of the coffee company is also derived from the Moby Dick character.
Okay.. I looked up the definition of 'nickname' online and that is what I got. And it makes sense.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nickname
Also, I myself have never heard anyone female referred to as 'buck'.. nor has anyone I know.. nor the people I work with. In fact, when I explain why I'm asking.. those that don't laugh and do the usual butch guy wanna be cracks think well.. it's a stupid thing to call a girl. Some of the girls I know told me that anyone that kept referring to them as that wouldn't be able to say it again for awhile.
How many times have you heard, say, a social worker called 'Wrench'?
It's not a rule or law no.. it's just looked upon as common sense, really. And Starbuck's coffee being named after the Moby Dick character is relevant to this how? Now, if it was called Starbuck's Orange Juice and they still sold coffee it would be relevant. And it would also be a misnomer. Starbuck's Coffee is an actual name, though.. and you said we're talking nicknames here.
DC
Dennis
December 31st, 2003, 06:25 AM
The Starbuck coffee/Moby Dick remark was relevant to BSG_Sci_FiPulse's post, not yours -- others of us are having a conversation too.
Resort to "common sense" is always a failure, since other than don't-put-your-hand-in-the-fire most people's definitions of "common sense" vary without limit.
But enough of this silly gainsaying of opinion -- I'm curious: if we were all to suddenly agree that you're Absolutely Right(TM), that you've always been right and that No One Has Ever Been As Right As DCRabbit...what very important thing would you do with that "victory" that made it worth pursuing so doggedly and narrowly? ;)
Darth Marley
December 31st, 2003, 06:44 AM
And he either doesn't watch X-Files,or thinks Gillian Anderson is a man.
beeker
December 31st, 2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by DCRabbit
Also, I myself have never heard anyone female referred to as 'buck'.. nor has anyone I know.. nor the people I work with. In fact, when I explain why I'm asking.. those that don't laugh and do the usual butch guy wanna be cracks think well.. it's a stupid thing to call a girl. Some of the girls I know told me that anyone that kept referring to them as that wouldn't be able to say it again for awhile.
How many times have you heard, say, a social worker called 'Wrench'?
This argument on the name of Starbuck is getting almost silly. In the first place it doesn't matter is the name is a stupid thing to call a girl (or anyone else). In fact that is how such names are often "awarded" in the military. Someone does something really stupid, and there are witnesses who remember.
No matter how many times that it is explained that nothing in the rules of giving callsigns (such as they are) that would prevent a female from being called Starbuck, you stick you heels in.
I've never know anyone who has studied the etymology of a word before giving it as a nickname, but for this discussion I will. The hangup seems to be the second syllable "buck". Your entire case rests on the fact that buck means a male deer (never mind that "star-male deer" makes no sense at all to call someone). The problem is that that is not the only thing that buck means. My dictonary (a rather old Webster's) has 12 definitions of the word. Only one of which is male deer.
What is interesting is that when one of the non gender definitions of buck is combined with star one can make a nickname that actually makes sense.
Buck n.: an object formerly used in poker to mark the next player to deal: a token used as a mark or reminder.
We know Starbuck is a poker player (or whatever that game is called). She could have become known for a star shaped marker she took to the games (a lot of people use good luck charms). Such an item could well be called a "starbuck". From there it would be a simple case of transference for people to start calling her Starbuck. That type of thing actually happens all the time.
BTW while we keep using the term nickname, we are really talking about callsigns. For all of the joking and teasing that goes on when people are tagged with such names callsigns do serve an important function. At its most basic it is to minimize confusion at a tactical level. If you get enough people together (say a fighter squadron) there are likely to be people with the same names (either first or last or both). Everyone HAS to have a unique identifer that can be a) said quickly and b) not be confused with any other. Proper names won't work, and normal nicknames won't work for the same reasons. That leaves the wonderful world of name giving as only the military can do it (trust me you are not missing much if you haven't been a receipent of this) where caring about proper gender of the name ranks far down in importance.
BSG_Sci_FiPulse
December 31st, 2003, 08:46 AM
To be honest this arguement is as old as I am Birthdays. Starbuck in the original was the guys name. In the mini it is Kare Twrace's callsign. So when you getting into an argument about a name, you talking semantics.
TwoBrainedCylon
December 31st, 2003, 09:34 AM
Well, I agree. It's good to see such positive discussion. Of course, there are others who will take it elsewhere in their own little playground. But those children can stay there.
Which specific children or playgrounds are you referring to Hinman? Can you clear this up please? I'm not really sure what this was supposeed to mean.
Two-Brain
BSG_Sci_FiPulse
December 31st, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Michael Hinman
Hard to have a "small" fan base of around 4 million.
In Global terms 4 Million is a small fanbase. Lest you forget the support that Star Trek has in most of europe, specifically countrys such as Germany, France and the UK.
Sure 4 Million is a healthy start, but you also forget that even the 1978 show has both fans and casual veiwers in those same european countrys which I have mentioned above. For many of those European countrys the classic show is still run in syndication as well, and the mini as far as I know hasn't done the rounds in the rest of europe as of yet. But 4 Million, good enough to allow Sci Fi Leeway to make a decision to make a series or indeed perhaps another mini. But that is where the buck stops. As in you are referring to a niche fanbase in the US and not any of the other countrys who also share the passion for either the remake or the original show.
Darth Marley
December 31st, 2003, 10:29 AM
Seems I recall,and will certainly be corrected if wrong,that the BSG mini got highest ratings for SciFi Channel except Children of Dune,and maybe Taken.
This seems to indicate that shows such as Farscape and SG1 get lower numbers week to week than the mini got with a few showings and a lot of hype.
By the same reasoning used by those that wish to downplay the mini's popularity,all the other shows on the SciFi channel should be cancelled due to relative lack of interest.
Any thoughts on this? Is this really what anyone wants?
Are there any people out there that hate the network sooo much they would like to see it fail?
TwoBrainedCylon
December 31st, 2003, 10:35 AM
Darth Marley,
That's not really a proper comparison. Miniseries gain different ratings than a regular series and this miniseries was very, very heavily advertised.
Personally, I would like to see Skiffy fail. There's a definite benefit for a science fiction channel and this channel is failing that in so many ways. Its run by people who at best don't understand their audience and at worst, have disdain for them. If Skiffy dies the death I think it deserves, someone is going to pick up the ball and do a proper job.
So yes, I would like to see the current channel fail. The only other answer would be a complete sweeping of the management and replacing them with folks who appreciate and embrace their viewers.
Two-Brain
Darth Marley
December 31st, 2003, 10:52 AM
I grant that the viewership for a heavily hyped mini does not graft to viewership for a series.
However,we are dealing with the upper limit of viewers in these cases.
If the mini ratings are less than impressive,then the lower ratings for series that ARE being continued would be the result of faulty cost/benifit analysis.
Clearly,if SG1 can survive and be spun off with ratings below 4 mil,then a BSG03 series might actually be a commercial success,at least in comparison with other shows SciFi has chosen to keep in the stable.
I certainly will not fault you for your opinion regarding the failure of SciFi.I stand on the other side of the aisle.
My first memory of SciFi is bad sf reruns,a network run on the cheap,and ridiculous ads for ST:TOS VHS tapes selling for $25 USD a pop (I really hoped my fellow nerds were smarter than that).
I don't want them to fail,because I do like having another channel that airs shows I like to watch being on the dial.
I doubt that if it fails today that someone will pick up the ball.
If there were competition on the air within the genre,then some reform might be forced.If it fails without competition,I believe investors will see it as a bad business model.
I go with the "rising tide raises all ships" approach on this.I certainly do not approve of every programming decision they make,but they do deliver some product I enjoy.If they become a financial success,then we might see SciFi2.
Perhaps some one out there will chime in with info about something like "The Horror Channel" or such that I do not have in my TV market.I would love to hear about it.
Darth Marley
December 31st, 2003, 11:07 AM
And another point,I really don't care about who sits at the helm of a network.As long as progamming choices improve,I see no reason for heads to roll.
SAR Pilot
December 31st, 2003, 11:37 AM
Beeker, you're right on the money with the "military issued" callsigns. There was a female intel officer who always had some radical political thing to say, if you know what I mean. . . so the squadron she was assigned to gave her the callsign, "SUMAT" which was an acronym for Shut Up Men Are Talking. I don't agree with it, and it certainly was not PC by any means, but she got it for stupid things she said.
There was a male NFO who was effeminate by nature, he got the callsign "Sashay" for his hip swaying walking style.
Callsigns are just identifiers for others to place with you as an individual. Starbuck in the mini is just a callsign, NOT A NAME. It doesn't have to make sense, like a nickname does. For example: a pilot named Gary had the callsign "Ace'N", it made sense in a context with an SNL skit, but it's not a proper name. Another pilot always said the stupidest things at the wrong time, so his callsign was "Shed", which was short for S**t head.
It's just a callsign, people, don't read too deeply into it! Aviators don't put great amounts of time or energy into callsigns, they look for things you do, say, habits you have, things which annoy you, or which go with your name. . . no deep hidden meanings. :salute:
TwoBrainedCylon
December 31st, 2003, 11:37 AM
I'm probably not the best person regarding Skiffy. I liked the original concept. It was a channel where you could tune in and see all of the old Sci-Fi shows that nobody played. That idea has died. I don't watch any of their original shows so they are of no value to me. I've seen evidence that they disregard their viewers and think that's irresponsible for any media outlet.
If another channel picked up what Skiffy original seemed to be, I'd watch it all the time.
I also recognize that I'm probably a minority considering viewership but that's my personal feeling.
Two-Brain
Darth Marley
December 31st, 2003, 11:42 AM
Ah,yes,I do see a very different viewpoint than mine.
I like many of the reruns.But I don't get the reruns I would really like...Blake's 7,Dr. Who,even the short lived Sword of Justice,though it really wasn't sf.I don't think Knight Rider is sf.
A lot of their original programming seems flat to me.
Don't think of it as being "not the best person regarding Skiffy" as I am soliciting opinions opposite my own.
Michael Hinman
December 31st, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by DCRabbit
[B]Okay.. I looked up the definition of 'nickname' online and that is what I got. And it makes sense.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nickname
Also, I myself have never heard anyone female referred to as 'buck'.. nor has anyone I know.. nor the people I work with.
But it was used as a nickname for Agent Scully on "The X-Files," I believe someone pointed out here. :)
Michael Hinman
December 31st, 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by TwoBrainedCylon
Which specific children or playgrounds are you referring to Hinman? Can you clear this up please? I'm not really sure what this was supposeed to mean.
Two-Brain
You're a bright guy. You figure it out.
TwoBrainedCylon
December 31st, 2003, 12:00 PM
I'm not that bright. I'm still trying to figure out how an open theft can be interpreted as anything but stealing.
You're always anxious to explain things. Why the reluctance in this case?
Two-Brain
jjrakman
December 31st, 2003, 12:27 PM
You're a bright guy. You figure it out.
Mr. Hinmann,
Please do not bring your gripes from other boards here. They are not wanted, nor welcome. Thank you for your cooperation.
Antelope
December 31st, 2003, 01:05 PM
SCIFI always seems to follow great nautical books and movies. Moore may have picked the names from Battlestar Galactica but most of the characters are lifted straight out of the World War II naval classic movie, "In Harm's Way". Since Moore and crew didn't credit the movie it would be nice if he found a way to give a name or call sign to someone in a future episode as a way of paying homage. I am surprised this subject isn't mentioned much. The mini is more a remake of "In Harm's Way" than "Saga of A Star World". The setting is Galactica not the story. How about making "Cain" the call sign of Commander Rockwell Torrey, captain of the Battlestar Pegasus. That would be fitting.
Gemini1999: Thanks for the welcome! We are practically neighbors.
Antelope
December 31st, 2003, 01:23 PM
When I was deployed in the Army during Desert Shield/Storm the LTs acquired nicknames used by their peers. In some cases they were derivations of their real names. In some cases they they applied to real life incidents or personality traits. Three examples with totally different derivations were:
Lancer -- Officer who had a first name of Lance.
Heater -- Officer who was known for his cruelty in peacetime to his soldiers by not letting them run their heaters in tracked vehicles during training in the winter.
Homer -- Officer who told a humorous story about his times in college and ended up with a nickname based on a rhyme in the story referred to as "Homer the Hooter Hater". Partly based on Homer Simpson.
In other words, don't worry about "Starbuck". Maybe one day we will hear Kara's story if they make a series.
Mike Wright
December 31st, 2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
I like many of the reruns.But I don't get the reruns I would really like...Blake's 7,Dr. Who,even the short lived Sword of Justice,though it really wasn't sf.I don't think Knight Rider is sf.
Yeah, neither do I. I loved Knight Rider as a kid, but that was the 80's, when fast cars and that hairstyle were the In thing. I just can't get into it anymore. The whole concept seems silly to me. (Interesting though that its another Glen Larson project)
I don't even have cable anymore... Comcast moved in and took over AT&T Broadband, and moved their prices from $40 a month for digital cable to about $67. Now there's a shitty company. They pulled all their US Call Center contracts too and moved them over to India. Thanks to them, my best friend is out of a job. I hope that company goes bankrupt.
I'm hoping that this summer I can move into a place where I can get Dish Network. I've always liked them. If you get the Superstation package, you can watch Angel like three times on Wednesday.
But at any rate... I was none too imrpessed with Scifi's lineup back when I had it either. I had heard from people that Farscape was pretty good, but I've never been a Friday night TV watcher so I could never catch it. I really wasn't happy that they dropped MST3K. But then thats one of those shows, you get kind of tired of it after a while.
I can remember when it first came on the air and they had Buck Rogers. Now theres a show they should bring back, or re-imagine. Show of hands, how many Buck Rogers fans here?
I can remember seeing shows on that channel that I never would have imagined existed... REAL scifi if you ask me.
Actually that reminds me, we do have one thing to thank Scifi for... The re-airing of Battlestar Galactica classic. I'd have never known about the show if they hadn't done all those Thanksgiving day marathons.
I dunno. I don't harbor any ill intent towards the Scifi-Channel... How could I, I want to see this thing go series. But I can see a lot of your points... Their lineups have been pretty gay. (Scare Tactics anyone?)
BST
December 31st, 2003, 04:54 PM
They pulled all their US Call Center contracts too and moved them over to India. Thanks to them, my best friend is out of a job. I hope that company goes bankrupt.
A lot of companies are doing this, Mike, and it's a damn shame. They're only paying these people "pennies", in other countries, and taking away good paying, primary household income jobs from folks in this country. My condolences go out to your friend. I KNOW what your friend went through!
On the Skiffy issue, I think that they would be best served by a return to their core which, based on the name, should be Sci-Fi. They've gotten too far away from that. While it's necessary to bring out new shows, to build and maintain viewership, it's also important to recognize what got you there, in the first place, and to give those shows prominence as well. I don't think very much of Bonnie Hammer's abilities when she makes remarks like "getting away from shows that are too 'sci-fi' ". Did she forget the name of her network? :D
Antelope
December 31st, 2003, 05:23 PM
MTV hardly ever plays music, SCIFI is now the part time SCIFI channel and TLC is now the home improvement channel with TLC programming when they run out of "Trading Spaces". It seems like more and more all the cable networks forget their roots and try to latch onto the show of the moment (Scare Tactics is a good example--How the hell is that SCIFI?).
Why can't MTV just play music like they did during their early years? Why can't SCIFI play the limitless variety of SCIFI already out there when they aren't developing new SCIFI shows? Between Battlestar TOS, all the Star Trek incarnations, all the anime SCIFI, the thousands of SCIFI movies out there, Buck Rogers, all the Stargate, Farscape, Babylon 5, Dune, and the new Battlestar I just can't understand what goes through their minds. Their only question is what old stuff do we want to drop this year so we can make some room for a new series or two.
Dennis
December 31st, 2003, 07:26 PM
Same answer for both: costs versus return. When the novelty went out of music videos, MTV and VH1's viewership took a downturn. SciFi does better with their current programming than with the programming they were running three years ago, and so forth.
Yminale
January 2nd, 2004, 12:18 AM
What I like to know is why people still believe in destructive nihilism (to be honest I am as guilty as everybody else). If Sci-Fi fails what incentive is there to do another channel dedicated to science fiction and fantasy. Look at Dr. Who. The fans got their wish and the series was cancelled. Now it's comming back re-imagined and the fans are all up in arms. Personally I think Sci-Fi does a decent job. Sure they do thing that are stupid (cancelling Farscape, John Edwards, endless horror films), but they do a lot of good (Stargate, Taken, Dune mini-series). I think one of the problems with modern science fiction is that it's become too insular and to smug with itself, therefore it's a good thing to get a wider audience.
Darth Marley
January 2nd, 2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Mike Wright
Their lineups have been pretty gay. (Scare Tactics anyone?)
If I want to ogle Shannon Dougherty,I'll pop in my VHS copy of Heathers,or tune in Charmed reruns. :devil:
Still,I did see a demographic breakdown that showed Scare Tactics bringing in the adolescent audience.
callsignfalcon
January 3rd, 2004, 11:57 AM
The only reason I deem sci-fi not needing to be canceled is Stargate... and a possible future for BSG on its channel. Of course I do hold a gruge for them canceling farscape...
As for Nick names, my online nick for the most part is: Falcon-Rider , which I derived from a book series I read once and wrote a fanfic for. I have other friends with names that can be considered a 'male' name that are female. Really it doesn't seem to matter to me what the nick is as long as it fits them from a conversation, or a personallity trait. Or perhaps their obsessed with something.
sleer
January 4th, 2004, 07:34 AM
I like the comments about Star Trek, it really needs a rest. I am a fan of the mini and think it is where BSG needs to be today. I watched the original when it was on, enjoyed it, and was sad when it was canceled. But I think it would be a mistake to try and revive it now, especially with the original cast.
Corwwyn
January 4th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by sleer
But I think it would be a mistake to try and revive it now, especially with the original cast.
Yeah, it didn't work for Star Trek after all, oh wait...
koenigrules
January 4th, 2004, 05:54 PM
Yeah- Star Trek worked well for the first 3-4 movies, but boy, as they aged- it was getting tiring to see how they could evade anyone or anything. One was wondering when they would die. Oh I forgot, one did (Kirk)!
On a whole, they looked like Captain Pike in Menagerie!
A younger cast is the way to go as the demos are not in the 60 plus age range.
Dennis
January 4th, 2004, 05:56 PM
"Star Trek" had a much larger fan base interested in the original actors, the revival got on track in less than a decade (effectively, 1977 when folks started getting signed to contracts) and all of the performers were alive.
jjrakman
January 4th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Yeah- Star Trek worked well for the first 3-4 movies, but boy, as they aged- it was getting tiring to see how they could evade anyone or anything. One was wondering when they would die. Oh I forgot, one did (Kirk)!
On a whole, they looked like Captain Pike in Menagerie!
A younger cast is the way to go as the demos are not in the 60 plus age range.
I can understand your point. Althought I think ST 6 was pretty good. But consider this. The movies really served to transition the fans to The Next Generation, which DID feature a younger cast. So the question is, would the trekkers have welcomed the Next Generation without first getting some sense of closure with the original cast? Maybe, but not likely. I think it would have been much harder to move on with a younger cast and sell it to the fans, without first transitioning with the original characters.
The reason I say this is because as I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, The Motion Picture was actually initially a production for a new TV show with a new cast, and that's what spurned on the campaigns for the original cast.
TwoBrainedCylon
January 4th, 2004, 06:08 PM
Dennis,
How do you measure a fanbase for a cancelled show? I know there are a lot of claims that there are lots of BSG fans and other claims that there are only a handful of BSG fans but in reality, how can that be measured and what's the criteria for a fan?
When I hear about a large Trek fanbase that brought back the series I wonder who anyone knew it was large and whether anyone knows if the TNG audience was composed primarily of the original fans or new fans that flocked to it and then warmed up to the original.
Sandy
Darth Marley
January 4th, 2004, 06:25 PM
It would be interesting for a trek historian to chime in about the old Save Trek efforts.
What strikes me as strange about the ongoing BSG controversies is the effort to downplay the "enemy side" of the argument.
Clearly,by the various petition drives,the are tens of thousands of outraged BSG fans rebelling against the RDM version.This is most likely the vocal minority,and by this I mean there are likely many thousands that share that view but are not activist fans.
It is hard for me to judge just how many RDM fans like myself are out there.Best test of that would be ratings for an RDM series.
I imagine with Trek,there were some "focus group" types of surveys.And of course,there was the animated series.I am sure there is someone in "the business" that can come forward with a brief on how these decisions are reached from a production point of view,and I bet you would know just who to ask among your contacts in the biz.
I have my own reasons for favoring the RDM effort vs an original cast continuation.Others seem to share that view,but I am at a loss about how to gauge that support short of ratings for a new series.
Darth Marley
January 4th, 2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by jjrakman
The reason I say this is because as I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, The Motion Picture was actually initially a production for a new TV show with a new cast, and that's what spurned on the campaigns for the original cast.
That was my recall on the subject.I thought it was a script for a TV movie that got bumped to theatres after the success of SW.I think there were contracts for a series on the cast selections before filming got underway.
The Rain
January 5th, 2004, 12:07 AM
I was never really in the business nor am I a Trek historian. But I am a life long fan of the show.
The original show's pilot was shot in 1964 which the studio rejected. They recasted it and made a second pilot in '65 titled " Where No Man Has Gone Before". That was accepted by the network and the show premiered in September of '66 with "The Man Trap". It was actually cancelled due to cost and ratings after it's second season ended. But a letter writing campaign started by a gal named Bjo Trimble got it a third season. Still, the ratings weren't high enough and NBC cancelled it for good. The animated series was done in the early 70's. I don't remember exactly what year. Through repeats the original show found an audience. Fans started conventions all over the U.S. I went to my first around '75 or '76. It was just before Logan's Run came out. Pre-production started in '78 for a new series called Star Trek: Phase Two. That turned into the first movie. The last original cast movie was released in 1992, 23 years after the series was cancelled.
The original Galactica series was cancelled in '79. It's been 24 years. Personally, I don't much see the point in a continuation story. Sure you bring back Benedict and Hatch but... as what? I can't see anything other than the Captain and XO. On that note... Boxey in command!?! C'mon, even Hatch didn't like that idea.
Still, if a movie is made, what the frak, I'll go see it.
Darth Marley
January 5th, 2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by The Rain
I was never really in the business nor am I a Trek historian
Man,did you stay in a Holiday Inn Select last night,or what?
The Rain
January 5th, 2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Darth Marley
Man,did you stay in a Holiday Inn Select last night,or what?
Damn, busted again. :laugh:
:salute:
Dennis
January 5th, 2004, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by TwoBrainedCylon
Dennis,
How do you measure a fanbase for a cancelled show? I know there are a lot of claims that there are lots of BSG fans and other claims that there are only a handful of BSG fans but in reality, how can that be measured and what's the criteria for a fan?
When I hear about a large Trek fanbase that brought back the series I wonder who anyone knew it was large and whether anyone knows if the TNG audience was composed primarily of the original fans or new fans that flocked to it and then warmed up to the original.
Sandy
Good questions.
Paramount felt that they had a fairly good estimate of the fandom for Trek in the 1970s based on a number of things.
Bear in mind that fan-to-fan communication in the 1970s was not what it is now -- the only effective ways to communicate about upcoming events or campaigns were based on Postal mailing lists, telephone trees, newsletters and local advertising via flyers, etc.
-- Merchandise sales of toys, comics, novels, magazines and so forth based on the original series.
-- Ratings in local markets for the original series, which was running pretty constantly in syndicated strip fashion on hundreds of local unaffiliated television stations around the U.S.
-- The constancy and volume of letters the studio received over a period of years asking for a revival of the series. Again, in a time when letter-writing campaigns had to be organized mainly by mail and person-to-person communication, a steady flow of mail from a lot of (apparently) unique addresses mattered a good deal more than such things do now.
-- Attendance at Star Trek conventions. These events sprang into existence full-blown in the early 1970s; locally-organized and publicized events often drew thousands of attendees, and that kind of response continued through most of the 1970s.
That's leaving aside all of those "spontaneous" expressions of collective enthusiasm for the series that didn't directly impact the series itself or the studio that owned it, such as the campaign to have the first U.S. space shuttle named "Enterprise".
All of this activity, TTBOMK, started to tail off toward the end of the 1970s. By that time Paramount was pretty much committed to figuring out a way to revive the series in some way or another and therefore jump-start the merchandise sales and enhance the value of their television syndication contracts (many local stations had nailed TOS down for ten years, at relatively low rates, at the beginning of the 1970s. Those contracts would be up, "coincidentally", around 1979).
All of that said, the best estimates (IMAO) I've seen for "hard core" Trek fandom in the late 1970s were about three to four million people in the U.S. Interestingly enough, that's about the same number of folks who still watch "Star Trek Enterprise" every week. :lol:
TNG is a different matter -- many, many people watched that series that had never been interested in "Star Trek" before, never bought a ticket to a Trek movie or bought Trek merchandise. Ratings indicated a weekly audience averaging over twelve million viewers a week; some estimates (including the second weekly airing of new episodes that was permitted by Paramount's contracts with the stations running the show) placed the weekly audience at twenty million viewers. From the studio's POV, TNG is the "gold standard" for "Star Trek". That huge audience (for a weekly scifi series) began to disintegrate when TNG left the air, and has dropped steadily year-by-year ever since 1994 regardless of which spinoff (DS9, Voyager or Enterprise) one looks at the ratings for.
TwoBrainedCylon
January 5th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Dennis,
Thanks. That was a great explaination.
Sandy
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.