peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Mac Breck wrote:
>
>> jayembee wrote:
>>
>>> "Mac Breck"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> But if the usual rec.arts.sf.tv complainers aren't happy then
>>>>> it's tough to imagine how Universal could possibly be.
>>>>
>>>> And OTOH we have Bonnie Hammer cheerleaders like you.
>>>
>>> I don't think that David is a "cheerleader" for
Hammer or anyone
>>> else. He just sees things as they are.
>>
>>
>> The problem is that the way things are, *isn't good*, and if you
>> dare to speak out against it, you're a "rec.arts.sf.tv complainer"
>> and are from the twilight zone.  However, if you speak out in favor
>> of the current status quo as given to us by Bonnie Hammer on The
>> Sci-Fi Channel, you're suddenly level-headed/rational.
>>
>
>     Nobody is speaking out in FAVOR of it. They are just acknowledging
> that it is facts.




Oh, I'm not so sure about that. It seems that certain people here think
that whatever BH has to do to make more money for the channel *is
therefore right*, regardless of whether it belongs on anything called
"The Sci-Fi Channel", and regardless of whether or not it's pandering
and in bad taste or is godawful crap. Note that I am NOT objecting to
fantasy or horror being on the channel. I am objecting to programming
that is not sci-fi, fantasy or horror being on the channel. Now if they
wanted to call it something else, and have one or two nights of nothing
but sci-fi, fantasy and horror, that'd be A-OK. Maybe there are only
enough sci-fi/fantasy/horror fans to support one or two nights of that
programming per week on a relatively low rated cable channel, and the
rest has to be mainstream stuff (mainstream comedies, dramas, wrestling,
reality TV, sports, etc.) to make the channel profitable. Just don't put
stuff that has completely disparate audiences next to each other on the
same night, e.g. don't do what TNT did by putting B5 next to Wrestling
or Crusade after the basketball draft, and don't do what Spike did by
putting CSI after Wrestling, etc.



>>>> Universal is happy as long as the channel makes more and more
>>>> money, and couldn't give a crap less about whether the channel
>>>> has any decent sci-fi content.
>>>
>>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, AND IS THE WHOLE POINT.
>>>
>>> The consumers care about the quality of the programming. The
>>> executives care about the bottom line. And never the twain
>>> shall meet. I doubt it will ever be any different. And there's
>>> no use losing sleep over that fact.
>>
>>
>> If nobody speaks out against the kind of thing that The Sci-Fi
>> Channel is currently providing, if nobody gives 'em criticism and
>> feedback, if there are only *"yes men"*, what are the
odds that the
>> programming at the channel will *ever* improve?  Answer: no chance.
>> To say that "Well, that's just the way it is. That's reality.", is
>> to have given up on the channel, and any improvements in programming
>> will strictly happen by happy accident and will likely turn to crap
>> in short order.
>>
>
>
>     All true - so long as you re actually giving the criticism and
> feedback to the powers that be.
>
>    If all you are doing is posting it here, then it's just
> complaining.

Oh, I have, via both snail mail and email.

-- 
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"The Dresden Files" (2007)
Harry Dresden: [re. Bianca] What is it about bad girls?  They lie,
cheat, won't suck your blood even when you beg them to, and for some
reason, no matter how badly they treat us, we still can't walk away.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32