A *small* fan base?

[Micheleh]

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.

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]

The policy is report any questionable posts to a mod.

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.

[BST]

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. "

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

And, TrekNation duly reported on the Q&A at that time...

Original TrekNation Article

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Dennis,

Good words.

Two-Brain

[Michael Hinman]

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]

About the Starbuck gender issue, didn't Scully's dad call her Starbuck in the X-Files?

[Michael Hinman]

Originally posted by Dennis
[B]Say, 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]

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.