Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Tom   said:
>> Well, look at it this way.  The further they move away from SciFi the
>> closer we come to another channel filling that niche.  Sci Fi
>> programming may not deliver huge ratings, but it generally delivers
>> stable ratings, so it will always be worthwhile to someone.
> 
> That's doubtful.  The TV executives see it as the Sci-Fi failed to
> attract enough audience to make a go of it as a channel dedicated to
> genre programming.  And honestly, they are probably right (at least at
> this point in time).

I don't think SyFy (or SciFi, as it was in the beginning) ever really 
tried to stick to the genre.  In the early days, they weren't able to 
get the rights (either because of cost or availability) and so they went 
with what they could get--I never considered Dark Shadows to be be 
related to the sf genre, but it was cool to see it again.  There were 
early additions of wrestling and non-genre programming back then.

I'd love to see a channel that really stuck to its guns (energy or 
otherwise) and really *tried* to explore the sf genre.  No horror, no 
paranormal, just plain ol' ordinary science fiction.  It would, 
admittedly, be a very small audience but--as you state--stable (as 
stable as we can be knowing that we're all a little unhinged).

> As the Internet allows more people to find smaller and smaller groups
> with ever more specific like interests, TV is going the opposite
> direction, turning more homogeneous.  We're going to have 150 channels,
> and the _same thing_ on all 150 of them.
> 

Which brings us ever closer to the world of "Max Headroom", where 
networks fight over infinitesimal ratings changes...

Blair
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32