"Mac Breck"  wrote:

> jayembee wrote:
>
>> 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.

The problem you're having here is that you insist on tying the
value of Hammer to the NBC-U executive to the quality of the
product instead of to NBC-U's bottom line.

*They* don't care if the stuff Sci Fi shows is any good, or has
any rational connection to the SF genre. All they care is that
the numbers in the ledgers are in black, and keep going up.

They didn't hire Hammer to make good TV shows. They hired Hammer
to make them money. And as long as she does that, they will
consider her a valuable asset regardless of what anyone here
thinks of her.

I'm not in favor of the current status quo. I can't speak for
David, but I would guess that he isn't, either. We're just
looking at it objectively.

> 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.

Why throw so much effort into caring about any given channel?
Me, I don't. All I care about are individual shows. If it's a
good show, I watch it and support it. If it's a bad show, I
don't. Regardless of what network it's on.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if Sci Fi produces a lot of awful Saturday
night movies, and puts faux psychic bullshit and wrestling on.
Because I don't feel any great compulsion to watch any more of it
than I already do.

If they don't produce more than one or two watchable series at any
given point in time, I really don't care. I like EUREKA, I like
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, and I like STARGATE ATLANTIS, so it's working
for me.

> They need somebody who knows both the business and sci-fi over
> at The Sci-Fi Channel, and right now, they don't have that. All
> they have is somebody that knows *business*.

And as long as they have that, they aren't going to change, because
they have no incentive to change.

The fact is that more people are watching the channel now than
when its schedule was filled up with LOST IN SPACE and SIX MILLION
DOLLAR MAN reruns. Why would they want to lose money by appealing
to a smaller audience?

That's a common problem across all of the cable specialty channels.
They're all giving up on their specialties and programming more
and more for a wider audience. Because they've discovered that
niche programming isn't profitable anymore.

-- jayembee
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32