I admittedly have tended to avoid Sci-Fi since they canceled MST3K, as there hasn't been anything that has grabbed my attention. But I fail to see how such a bizarre name change will change this perception:
“The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.
It's just stupid. It's like changing Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC. You still know you're eating garbage.
Post by Captain Hygiene on Mar 16, 2009 10:20:16 GMT -5
No, and the new name is undeniably stupid. They say the name "Sci Fi" is pejorative (which is debatable) - how can dumbing down the spelling make it any less so? It's even worse than the common abbreviations and misspellings you see in chat-speak. RGHGHGHRHGRHGHGHGRH.
As an aside, that's a lot of caring for something I really don't care about.
Post by Don Quixote on Mar 16, 2009 11:26:55 GMT -5
The channel's still gonna suck, so I don't any difference at all. Perhaps they believe that by dumbing their name down, they'll appeal to a greater audience. But for f***'s sake, it still SOUNDS like Sci Fi. If you really wanted to mask your true intentions, call it "The Imagination Network" or something stupid like that.
Post by mummifiedstalin on Mar 16, 2009 11:43:20 GMT -5
It's obviously a complete marketing idea. First, let's let them slide on the idea that science fiction in general is only associated with geeky teenage males. The problem is that they think the NAME and not the idea of science fiction is the problem there. So they're still going to show content that's associated with geeky teenage males, but they're going to call it something else.
I really doubt that Spike TV would see a massive increase in female viewership if they just changed the name to Lifetime 2.
And as Mad Plumber says, why insult your core audience when you're worried about ratings...especially when one of your very few hit shows is just about to finish.
Post by The Mad Plumber on Mar 16, 2009 11:52:35 GMT -5
I see some of the negative responses in the original posting (or rather a lot) siting their own gripes and it reminds me of this video. I can't use the YouTube tag because it features John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" in the beginning which features profanity.
"Reality television ... let's face it, folks: it's the wave of the future. He's pitching a project to me, a really exciting reality show called 'America's Next Nickle-and-Diming Reality Producer'. You know the great thing about reality programming is ... it's not unionized." -- Frank Conniff as Moe Gaulle
Post by siamesesin on Mar 16, 2009 13:34:02 GMT -5
Universal is just trying to plug the money hemmorage that is Sci-Fi. These are the same programming wizards who tried to plug the cash bleed by bringing in "sports entertainment" to the channel. Though to be fair the acting is better than 90% of the original movies they show now. QUIT HIRING STEPHEN BALDWIN!
They could spare us all and actually save money pretty easy by paying to broadcast older series and movies, and laying out for the occasional original. Spike makes bucketloads on advertising that way.
Post by The Mad Plumber on Mar 16, 2009 16:15:29 GMT -5
Maybe this change in monicker is representative of an exodus from television. It is my perspective that many cable television channels are but shells of their former selves and are mutating into roughly the same damn channel populated with cheap, poorly-written, infantile programming. From my observation, MTV and VH1 no longer boast music videos. Spike features absolutely no traces of its country music origin. Cable is transforming from an array of channels dedicated to specialty genres and markets to an array of channels contaminated with reality television. "Let's dramatize the lives of body shop mechanics." "Let's dramatize the lives of paranormal con artists masquerading as ghostbusters." "Let's dramatize the lives of knuckle-dragging fishermen." And I suppose that if these concepts didn't render a profit, networks wouldn't employ them.
So, while the internet can continue to serve varying tastes and intellects, it is my belief that this supposed name change will represent the beginning of the Sci-Fi Channel shedding any of its former glory or fandom in an effort to become indistinguishable from the likes of other channels. As it is, I see that many of us are already putting down Sci-Fi Channel for its choice of programming and probably agree that whatever Sci-Fi Channel chooses to call itself will not change what we think of it.