In article ,
 "Mac Breck"  wrote:

> Obveeus 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.
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > I agree that she is doing a generally good job.  If anything, she
> > should be given more/all of Ben Silverman's job.
> >
> > While I do agree that the Sci-fi channel has turned much more towards
> > monster/horror movies than Sciece fiction in the last couple of
> > years,
> 
> Mostly, they've turned toward trash movies that are sci-fi and/or
> monster/horror.  Even calling them B-movies is extremely generous.
> They're very low budget, populated by D-list and below actors, and the
> CGI *looks painfully like* CGI.
> 
> 
> > I'd also add that I don't remember Sci-fi channel ever doing
> > anything as good as Battlestar Galactica or Tin man in the past.
> 
> Oh come on, Battlestar Galactica is a trashy soap opera set in space.
> Haven't seen Tin Man yet.

Tin Man wasn't nearly as good as BSG, and I gave up on BSG some time ago.

-- 
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32