Scifi SLAG!
Jan. 7th, 2003 07:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amezriHm.. lied. Here's a bit I found from TVGuide.com on the cancellation of Farscape.
-----
Farscape: Sci Fi's Murder by Numbers?
Tuesday, January 7, 2003
Since the Sci Fi Channel announced that the 11 new episodes of Farscape that begin airing Friday (at 8 pm/ET) will be the cult hit's last, the critics have spoken, the producers have spoken, and Lord knows, the fans have spoken. (Although Jim Henson Co. is developing a Farscape feature and anime project at starburst speed, and looking into syndication options, alienated viewers are nonetheless calling for a boycott of the cable network that shot down their favorite space opera.) In fact, just about the only entity that hasn't put in its two-cents' worth is Sci Fi... until now, that is. "We really tried to take the high road," says the cabler's president, Bonnie Hammer. "Instead of going out there and in any way belittling our partners, we kind of remained quiet." However, at last she is ready to break her silence and, in an exclusive interview with TV Guide Online, explain why the intergalactic castaways' star trek had to come to an end. -- Ben Katner
TV Guide Online: So, what gives? Why would you want to cancel such a rad show?
Bonnie Hammer: We never wanted to cancel it. What we were trying to do was do 13 more episodes, not 22. The ratings had softened, and it was getting increasingly expensive to produce. We just couldn't make the financial deal. But we never wanted it to end when it ended. We had all intentions of doing 13 more episodes [beyond these 11] — we wanted to keep it in '03 and end it in '03. But financially, it was just too difficult to do.
TVGO: In that case, why not at least do a proper wrap-up, a TV movie or something?
Hammer:We looked at all the options. But with the speed in which it would have had to be done — because the set had to be broken down and the cast had to come back [from Australia, where shooting took place] and the scripts weren't written — [the cost] would have been enormous. [It would] have been almost as if we were doing [the upcoming epic miniseries] Children of Dune — and with less potential upside. We love the series... and would have liked nothing more than for it to have had a little bit more of a broad appeal. If all of those incredible fans who wrote in and sent notes and flowers and [whatnot] had actually watched it every week, we would have been able to do the 22.
TVGO: You mean to tell me that Farscape doesn't have the numbers to merit a fourth season, but Stargate SG-1, which you just renewed, is attracting a big enough audience to deserve a seventh?
Hammer: Yes. Take a look at our numbers on Monday nights just for the Stargate repeats. It's crazy! Before we ended the season on Stargate, we were getting a very high 1 [rating] and peaked at, I think, a 2 or a 2.1. That was for new, original episodes. [Now] our average for Stargate repeats has been unbelievable — 1.7 and 1.8 [ratings]. When Farscape was repeating, we were lucky if we got a .8. So there's a huge difference.
TVGO: But Farscape is so cool. How can that be?!
Hammer: Even though Stargate is sci fi, it's very broad sci fi. It's not serialized. Every episode, you can come to it whether you've watched the one before [or not]. They are self-contained. My husband is kind of an absentee watcher, and he would tune in every fifth or sixth episode and have absolutely no issues [with following the plots]. Farscape, on the other hand, got very, very serialized. It got very "in."
TVGO: And that's a bad thing... ?
Hammer: They had brilliant and sophisticated writing, but it was so narrow that it basically was an invitation to not tune in if you weren't totally familiar with the show. It was brilliant when you got it, and some of the characterizations were truly amazing, but it took a little too much work.
------
Um.. So, you cancelled Farscape because you thought your audiance was too dumb to understand what was going on.. and kept Stargate because it was a show for people with simpler minds... and are funding Children of Dune, Tracker, and Tremors: The Series? What the hell?! And as for thoe Stargate repeats... that's probably because for 6 years it was on Showtime with syndication at strange times during the week and weekends - now you have this show on 2-3 hours a day, plus new episodes every Friday. I think that's verging on over-saturation.
::kicks Scifi:: Twits.
-----
Farscape: Sci Fi's Murder by Numbers?
Tuesday, January 7, 2003
Since the Sci Fi Channel announced that the 11 new episodes of Farscape that begin airing Friday (at 8 pm/ET) will be the cult hit's last, the critics have spoken, the producers have spoken, and Lord knows, the fans have spoken. (Although Jim Henson Co. is developing a Farscape feature and anime project at starburst speed, and looking into syndication options, alienated viewers are nonetheless calling for a boycott of the cable network that shot down their favorite space opera.) In fact, just about the only entity that hasn't put in its two-cents' worth is Sci Fi... until now, that is. "We really tried to take the high road," says the cabler's president, Bonnie Hammer. "Instead of going out there and in any way belittling our partners, we kind of remained quiet." However, at last she is ready to break her silence and, in an exclusive interview with TV Guide Online, explain why the intergalactic castaways' star trek had to come to an end. -- Ben Katner
TV Guide Online: So, what gives? Why would you want to cancel such a rad show?
Bonnie Hammer: We never wanted to cancel it. What we were trying to do was do 13 more episodes, not 22. The ratings had softened, and it was getting increasingly expensive to produce. We just couldn't make the financial deal. But we never wanted it to end when it ended. We had all intentions of doing 13 more episodes [beyond these 11] — we wanted to keep it in '03 and end it in '03. But financially, it was just too difficult to do.
TVGO: In that case, why not at least do a proper wrap-up, a TV movie or something?
Hammer:We looked at all the options. But with the speed in which it would have had to be done — because the set had to be broken down and the cast had to come back [from Australia, where shooting took place] and the scripts weren't written — [the cost] would have been enormous. [It would] have been almost as if we were doing [the upcoming epic miniseries] Children of Dune — and with less potential upside. We love the series... and would have liked nothing more than for it to have had a little bit more of a broad appeal. If all of those incredible fans who wrote in and sent notes and flowers and [whatnot] had actually watched it every week, we would have been able to do the 22.
TVGO: You mean to tell me that Farscape doesn't have the numbers to merit a fourth season, but Stargate SG-1, which you just renewed, is attracting a big enough audience to deserve a seventh?
Hammer: Yes. Take a look at our numbers on Monday nights just for the Stargate repeats. It's crazy! Before we ended the season on Stargate, we were getting a very high 1 [rating] and peaked at, I think, a 2 or a 2.1. That was for new, original episodes. [Now] our average for Stargate repeats has been unbelievable — 1.7 and 1.8 [ratings]. When Farscape was repeating, we were lucky if we got a .8. So there's a huge difference.
TVGO: But Farscape is so cool. How can that be?!
Hammer: Even though Stargate is sci fi, it's very broad sci fi. It's not serialized. Every episode, you can come to it whether you've watched the one before [or not]. They are self-contained. My husband is kind of an absentee watcher, and he would tune in every fifth or sixth episode and have absolutely no issues [with following the plots]. Farscape, on the other hand, got very, very serialized. It got very "in."
TVGO: And that's a bad thing... ?
Hammer: They had brilliant and sophisticated writing, but it was so narrow that it basically was an invitation to not tune in if you weren't totally familiar with the show. It was brilliant when you got it, and some of the characterizations were truly amazing, but it took a little too much work.
------
Um.. So, you cancelled Farscape because you thought your audiance was too dumb to understand what was going on.. and kept Stargate because it was a show for people with simpler minds... and are funding Children of Dune, Tracker, and Tremors: The Series? What the hell?! And as for thoe Stargate repeats... that's probably because for 6 years it was on Showtime with syndication at strange times during the week and weekends - now you have this show on 2-3 hours a day, plus new episodes every Friday. I think that's verging on over-saturation.
::kicks Scifi:: Twits.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-07 10:54 pm (UTC)Even though Stargate is sci fi, it's very broad sci fi. It's not serialized. Every episode, you can come to it whether you've watched the one before [or not]. They are self-contained. My husband is kind of an absentee watcher, and he would tune in every fifth or sixth episode and have absolutely no issues [with following the plots].
Say WHAT? Excuse me? Bonnie, have you even been WATCHING the damn show, or just sort of fly-by the lounge room when it happens to be on??
I've been watching it from day one, and I can tell you there IS serialization to it. Granted, not so much as something like Farscape or B5, but there is. I'd really like to see her try and handle something like "The Fifth Race" (fully) if she hadn't already seen "Torment of Tantalus". Or ANY of the eps which have a huge follow on. Like, say, for instance ANY episode with Apophis. Because, hell, he wasn't in the movie, and you'd have to watch from the very first season to know he's the Big Bad. *rolls eyes*
Dumbasses. Complete lot of them. Have absolutely no time for Sci-Frelled, whatsover... *glowers*
Re:
Date: 2003-01-08 10:48 am (UTC)