|
The geniuses at the Sci-Fi Channel have apparently decided on a name change to something more hip and cool.
Personally, I hardly ever watch the channel anymore (except BSG). Still, this is sad. I remember when the channel first started, it was one of my favorites.
Sounds pretty pointess to change the name, but I guess they feel like they are in the SciFi 'ghetto' that authors and actors complain about. I don't see how this change would help that.
I still enjoy Ghosthunters on SciFi, but only watch the occasional Twilight Zone or ST-TnG on it at this point besides that.
Early April Fool's joke? If not, my second guess is just another decision by the people that have been running the channel into the ground since they decided to cancel Farscape.
If they want to reach a broader audience they should put on better programs instead of all the terrible movies with scripts of ad-libbed, random entries from the Monster Manuel
|
Sci Fi Channel, which is set to end its award-winning run of Battlestar Galactica later this week, announced plans today that it will change its name.
Sort of.
Sci Fi will undergo a transformation that will render its new name as Syfy beginning in July. Which is pronounced the same as... Sci Fi. Its tagline? "Imagine Greater." And the cabler's familiar Saturn logo will now be a more "down to earth" rounded three-dimensional font that doesn't immediately signal to viewers that it is a science-fiction destination.
"While continuing to embrace our legacy and our core audience, we needed to cultivate a distinct point of view with a name that we could own that invites more people in and reflects our broader range of programming," said Sci Fi president Dave Howe in a statement. "Syfy allows us to build on our 16 year heritage of success with a new brand built on the power that fuels our genre: the Imagination. Syfy ushers in a new era of unlimited imagination, exceptional experiences and greater entertainment that paves the way for us to truly become a global lifestyle brand."
The changes are expected to be announced as part of a wider channel rebranding at the cabler's upfront presentations today in New York. The Syfy moniker will coincide with the channel's launch of new drama Warehouse 13 this summer.
"We love being sci fi and we're still embracing that," Howe told The Hollywood Reporter. "But we're more than just space and aliens and the future – the three things most people think of when they think of 'sci fi.' What we love about this is we hopefully get the best of both worlds. We’ll get the heritage and the track record of success, and we’ll build off of that to build a broader, more open and accessible and relatable and human-friendly brand."
Besides, according to some the closeness in terms between Sci Fi and science fiction, isn't a good thing, despite the types of programming the channel has traditionally offered. "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, speaking to TV Week. It's worth noting that Brooks himself helped launch the network sixteen years ago.
(Is it just me or is that comment particularly insulting to Sci Fi's core audience?)
Apparently, the decision behind the moniker change is also related to worldwide business opportunities and not just audience perception, says Howe. "We're going to have upwards of 50 Sci Fi Channels in various territories and yet you cannot trademark 'Sci Fi' anywhere in the world," Howe told the Hollywood Reporter. "A new logo design would not solve that particular challenge. We needed a brand name that was own-able, portable and extendable."
And also brief. According to The New York Times, the name Syfy was developed by a team at Sci Fi and Landor Associates, a "corporate and brand identity consultancy." The Times points that the brevity of the name "echoes the one-word names of other NBC Universal cable channels like Bravo, Chiller, Oxygen and Sleuth, not to mention channels owned by other companies including Flix, Fuse, Logo, Starz and Versus."
Which is fine, except that it's only two letters shorter than the original name... and sounds the same. (TV Week says that 300 other possibilities were discussed before the channel settled on Syfy.)
"The testing we’ve done has been incredibly positive," Howe said of the Syfy name, sharing with The New York Times one comment from a focus group participant: "If I were texting, this is how I would spell it."
Still, Howe was quick to admit that some fans will dislike the new name and perhaps see it as a rejection of their viewing base. "Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," said Howe in The Hollywood Reporter. "But what we're embracing is the total sci-fi landscape – fantasy, paranormal, action-adventure, mystery... it's imagination-based entertainment."
And also
The Sci Fi cable channel, soon to be renamed Syfy, says it is moving into the youth market by forming a partnership with Acclaim Games and ZooKazoo to develop a series of online games and entertainment destinations.
The partnership will be a part of Sci Fi Ventures, an effort to move the channel into a lifestyle brand that transcends the TV screen.
Alan Seiffert has joined Sci Fi as senior VP of Sci Fi Ventures, effective in May. Mr. Seiffert is now senior VP for business development and partnerships for CNBC Asia Pacific in Singapore. Both Sci Fi and CNBC are owned by NBC Universal.
Acclaim will be creating a Sci Fi label for games with plans to extend those properties to other platforms, products and forms of media. The first Sci Fi game, “Tales of Magic,” is expected to launch on Scifi.com this spring.
ZooKazoo, a virtual world for kids 6 to 12 years old, will create a Sci Fi Club within Zookazoo.com.
“We strive to entertain our consumers with unique imagination-based content across all platforms,” Dave Howe, president of Sci Fi, said in a statement. “Acclaim’s expertise in game development will enable us to provide a deeply immersive and engaging game experience. We are also extremely pleased to partner with ZooKazoo in a historic first move for Sci Fi into the kids market, building a virtual laboratory for young imaginations.”
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
It's pretty obvious there are two issues underlying this change.
1. They need a name they can trademark. Without this, there essentially is no legally defensible Sci-Fi "brand". Even if you consider "Sci-Fi Channel" the brand, that specifically pigeonholes it to a specific media. In this era of failing newspapers and new web applications every minute (to say nothing of mobile phone technology), they need a brand they can use on multiple platforms.
2. They're obviously paving the way to move away from science fiction into a broader "entertainment" category. This will no doubt include more reality programming, paranormal shows, and wrestling. Stuff that doesn't cost much but gets the kind of numbers they need to sell ads. I suspect this programming will pay lip service to their current audience of "fans" (in the way that a show like "Ghost Hunters" already does, at least in their minds), but if more mainstream fare gets better ratings, there is no longer a branding reason why not to shift in the direction of higher ratings and more money.
|
|
Sci Fi Channel rebrands as SyFy; angers Twitter users everywhere:
For the many people who still don't get Twitter, just think of it as the world's largest water cooler (and superfluous word eliminator).
This morning, NBC Universal's Sci Fi Channel released the news that it would be changing its name to SyFy in an effort to "feel much cooler, much more cutting-edge, much more hip", according to Dave Howe, president of the channel.
TV Week spoke to Tim Brooks, who helped launch the channel 16 years ago:
“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... We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi."
Howe further explained that:
We really do want to own the imagination space. We want to get the credit for the range of content that we already have on our air and that we’ll be doing more of in the future. When we tested this new name, the thing that we got back from our 18-to-34 techno-savvy crowd, which is quite a lot of our audience, is actually this is how you’d text it... We’ll get the heritage and the track record of success, and we’ll build off of that to build a broader, more open and accessible and relatable and human-friendly brand.
And here's where Twitter comes in. That same "18-to-34 techno-savvy crowd" also inhabits the world's most popular microblogging tool. And they've congregated around the water cooler to vent their distaste. After an informal poll conducted at 12:45pm, and about five pages of entries under #syfy, it was tough to find even a few slightly positive remarks.
Here are some selected excerpts from the #Syfy tag:
tewha: BREAKING NEWS: Sci Fi to skip SyFy name, go directly to "Channel nobody watches."
LennyPost: SyFy -- Really? It isn't April 1st yet. Ick! In Canada maybe they should consider a name change too! Space could become " ". Arrgh!
EMcCutchan: RT: @krisstraub: wow, syfy, really? SYFY? i don't see vowels. i want to read it as "siffy." it's like a colloquial british adjective
Jon_Kleiven: "SyFy" sounds like an anti-establishment movement against arts & crafts in Norwegian. What's wrong with "The Sci-fi Channel" anyhow?
jhicks: @davekellett Syfy. O RLY?
shawnr: Worst idea of the day: http://www.syfy.com
mebobyounot: Sci Fi channel is now SyFy? Sounds way to close to Syfylis/syhphilis
sebFlyte: SyFy = Fail. That is all.
stitzelj: How long do you think it'll be before the SciFi Channel decides to do away with their new 'SyFy' brand due to the general outcry against it?
VoltjanStevens: SciFi Channel is changing their name to Syfy? That is TERRIBLE. That is SO. STUPIDLY. AWFUL.
jenn2d2: The day that the Sci-Fi Channel becomes "SyFy" is when I stop consuming their content. I guess they don't need geeks with disposable income.
LOL ... Where have I heard outcry like this before?
SciFi grognards unite!
They should go talk to the execs at Hasbro about the perils of engaging in 'rebranding' with the finicky geek culture ...
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I completely understand wanding a copyrightable name, and beyond that, the rest of their reasons are PR. I could care less what they call the channel - it's all about the shows. If they have good shows on that I want to watch, I'll watch them. If they don't, I won't. There's no shortage of good sci-fi themed shows on the air right now, and I'm happy to watch them on whatever channel airs them. I even watch a show on CW! (Reaper) If SyFy changes their name to "Channel for stupid social misfit geeks", I'd still watch a show on it if it was as good as BSG, Doctor Who, or even Sanctuary (which admittedly isn't as good as the other two, but still entertaining enough.) If they change their programming enough that these types of shows aren't on the air anymore, replaced with Ghosthunters and wrestling and reality shows, then I'll stop watching. The same goes for ABC, Fox, or any other network.
|
|
Lame, Why not just change the name to wrestle mania? SyFy=StPd
What moronic exec decided Sci-Fi fans love wrestling?
I agree it's been downhill since Farscape...And the cancelling of SG-1 and now Stargate: Atlantis...barely gave those actors a chance to get the characters down...
90% of their Sci-Fi originals are complete Crap...
Twitter=TWIT...err?
Oh and I love Sanctuary, it takes an original spin on some great myths...
Sci-Fi can't claim Doctor Who, that's a BBC show.
|
|
Without BSG, SG-1, and Atlantis I don't think I'll be watching this channel anymore either. I rarely if ever tune in for Ghost Hunters (I don't really like International and don't watch it at all). This makes me think that the parent companies want this channel to die.
I would hope that they have some pretty compelling shows in the works, but stuff like Moonlight and their cruddy movies just don't draw me in at all. I'd much rather watch the reruns of the Simpsons, The Daily Show and Colbert Report I saw the night before than new episodes on Sci-Fi in the prime time slot.
If they did something like they did years ago with the recreation of Dune I'd probably tune in though. Episodes of TNG just don't cut it though!
|
|
Without BSG, SG-1, and Atlantis I don't think I'll be watching this channel anymore either. I rarely if ever tune in for Ghost Hunters (I don't really like International and don't watch it at all). This makes me think that the parent companies want this channel to die.
I would hope that they have some pretty compelling shows in the works, but stuff like Moonlight and their cruddy movies just don't draw me in at all. I'd much rather watch the reruns of the Simpsons, The Daily Show and Colbert Report I saw the night before than new episodes on Sci-Fi in the prime time slot.
If they did something like they did years ago with the recreation of Dune I'd probably tune in though. Episodes of TNG just don't cut it though!
That Dune series was pretty good, so was Tin Man for that matter.
Their problem is one of advertising, they figure if we put it on our DVR that doesn't count for the advertisers...
Also for some reason they think we like wrestling...I outgrew wrestling when I was like 11...and I really only watched GLOW, cuz those chicks were hot...and for the occasional (body part) slip...
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
"Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," said Howe in The Hollywood Reporter.
"We know our core audience won't like it, but they don't trust us and we think they're a bunch of losers, so we're willing to annoy them if there's even the tiniest chance that we can get a new and larger audience," said Howe in Read Between the Lines Weekly.
|
|
The thing with wrestling (WWE RAW) is that it's one of NBCUniversals biggest rated programs. When the WWE wanted to expand the brand and bring back ECW, NBC wanted to keep the program instead of them finding a home on another nework (CW, MYNETWORK).
But since the Tuesday timeslots were filled on USA, and the program wouldn't fit on NBC, they put it on Sci-Fi. The only catch orignally was that ECW try to incorporate some Sci-Fi into their programming. So the for the first four weeks I think you saw aliens, zombies, fish-men entering the squared-circle. That didn't last long though as the few fan that were tuning in just as quickly tuned out.
Now ECW is one of Sci-Fi's highest rated (1.2-1.4 ratings) on tuesday night. The hope now is if the MyNetwork ends up getting the boot (which looks likely) WWE SMACKDOWN will move to the newly branded SyFy, and bring with the ratings it had (average of 2.4) to the newly branded station.
So other than new programs they're hoping wrestling will bring in the big rating, like RAW does for USA (3.3 average)
This hoopla is funny. I remember a time when there was a hot debate whether SF or SciFi was the best shortening of the term 'Science Fiction'.
In reality, the concept of Sci-Fi as a brand was lost decades ago in bookstores when fantasy literature began crowding out Science Fiction. These days, the SF shelves are mostly vampire romances and LOTR wannabes. The Sci-Fi Channel has long followed the trend by offering up any number of monster movies, sword and sandal epics, and high fantasy (seen in that light, I suspect wrestling is the illegitimate love-child of sword-and-sandal and high fantasy).
The switch to Syfy makes as much sense as (for example) Pioneer changing its name to Geneon, or any number of similar renamings--a non-word that can be trademarked, because all the good names have been used up. Yet in the end, it only reflects the change in programming that has already been in place for a long while. 'A rose by any other name...'
My only concern is that when a network broadens too much, it can lose the niche audience that it appealed to. OTOH, if the viewership of the niche audience can't keep the network afloat, it's adapt or die. I'd rather have Syfy than no channel that values Speculative Fiction...
|
|
That Dune series was pretty good, so was Tin Man for that matter.Their problem is one of advertising, they figure if we put it on our DVR that doesn't count for the advertisers...
Also for some reason they think we like wrestling...I outgrew wrestling when I was like 11...and I really only watched GLOW, cuz those chicks were hot...and for the occasional (body part) slip...
I also used to watch the channel because it didn't resort to running Anime to keep its audience. Cartoon Network lost my viewership for the same reason. Even the History Channel (with shows like UFO Hunters and Battles BC) has had me down lately. Where can a person go today for high brow television?
I really think the show started to go down hill when they first aired "Tripping the Rift". Its had its ups and downs, but generally has been going downhill ever since.
|
|
Now ECW is one of Sci-Fi's highest rated (1.2-1.4 ratings) on tuesday night. The hope now is if the MyNetwork ends up getting the boot (which looks likely) WWE SMACKDOWN will move to the newly branded SyFy, and bring with the ratings it had (average of 2.4) to the newly branded station.
Is that AFTER SG-1 went off the air? And doesn't BSG have bigger ratings than that?
StudPuffin,
"Anime is Cartoon at least, Wrestling is not sci-fi..."
|
|
"We know our core audience won't like it, but they don't trust us and we think they're a bunch of losers, so we're willing to annoy them if there's even the tiniest chance that we can get a new and larger audience," said Howe in Read Between the Lines Weekly."Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," said Howe in The Hollywood Reporter.
Those are actual quotes from the head of Sci-FI? wow...I bet the Hasbro headhunters are trying to get him on Staff....
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"We know our core audience won't like it, but they don't trust us and we think they're a bunch of losers, so we're willing to annoy them if there's even the tiniest chance that we can get a new and larger audience," said Howe in Read Between the Lines Weekly."Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," said Howe in The Hollywood Reporter.Those are actual quotes from the head of Sci-FI? wow...I bet the Hasbro headhunters are trying to get him on Staff....
I was biting my tongue, so thank you for crossing the line first ;-)
Kinda sad, but kinda unimportant.
I agree that since Farscape its been downhill.
But I aslo agree that they needed a tradmarkable name.
Don't like the choice but whatever. The real problem is that they giving up the core more and more. I don't like BSG nor SG1/Alantis but at least the latter two were fun real sci-fi, but BSG was really really bad.
Enter Personal Rant Ignore if you wish: I realized this when I was visting my mom when BG had its first season. I was giving it a shot. Then she said something I hadn't picked up on really, lest not at first. She said "you know its not really BG, I mean they got it all wrong. Look at the Presidents assist. He has a tie on. Why would they have ties, their effectively aliens right? And her ship is called Colonial One, like Air Force one but in space. This was just the West Wing in space. Yeah yeah they did a lot of sci-fi stuff later but I gave up when starbuck (which I really liked as a character BTW, her and the Vipers were the only things they got correct) flew a Raider and hey tin cans that humans developed breath air, sure only the six emulate humans but why not. Then she wiggled the wings. That was it I threw the remote at the screen. And BTY do any of you yonger viewers know just how disturbing it is for a fan of the real BSG to say Boomer is hot? In Either case the show became very very popular and a hit because it was a show with so much sci-fi washed out that it was little more then a pop-west wing/desperate house wives drama that made since to poeple who don't like or wacth Sci-Fi, wacth that show. Then if you ask what's sci-fi about it they'll say, well their in space, and they have robots. Right?
End of Rant:
The real problem is BSG not as a show (See rant) but as a success. They have nothing else, and from what they are putting on (Ghost Hunters, which I like, but really shouldn't be on Sci-Fi) they are not intrested in creating anyting else. Okay BSG is over how about a new fresh and really good new show? Maybe someting set in the Fire Fly Universe, maybe a new Farscape movie, or maybe just maybe something no one has thought about yet, I mean sure their aren't many creative people in hollywood but their has to be one or two who've come up with some cool idea. No? Anyone? Okay go for WWE stuff, least you'll keep the BSG audiance who'll say, yeah sure its Sci-Fi it has a bunch of robots. Right?
Oh well still have DR. Who
TTFN DRE
Yet, another genius move by the people who canceled Firefly.
Wow, more silliness from this horrible channel.
This has been a long and mostly painful process for the fans who have supported this channel since it's creation. Slowly and surely they have been moving away from the core fan base their channel has had. Starting with shows like Invisible Man (good show) and Farscape (need I say more?), which were dropped. Only Farscape having actually run it's course.
They did not pick up any Babylon 5 spinoffs, despite several offers. Nor did they pick up Firefly. Both having huge and loyal fan bases. The excuse was wanting to go more "hard science". And what do we get? SG1. Good, but hard science? Then we get SG-Atlantis which was a rehash of SG-1. Different actors, same characters. And what do we get? Very poorly done CGI in terrible modern day version of a "rubber monster movie". BSG would have been fine called anything but BSG. I still can't sit through more than 5 minutes of it.
I for one am glad they've made the decision to come clean on a decision they made a long, long time ago. It seems they're aware they've chased off their 2 remaining fans. And do not care.
I just hope it works out for them. Someone let me know though, because I won't be there to watch it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yet, another genius move by the people who canceled Firefly.
I don't think it's fair to blame NBC/Universal for FOX's actions. As far as not picking up another network's failure - I can't fault them for that. That's more a "it would have been nice" than a "how dare you".
I also used to watch the channel because it didn't resort to running Anime to keep its audience. Cartoon Network lost my viewership for the same reason.
As a sci fi (and animation) fan that really likes anime, please allow me to say, "Ouch, man."
I'm not saying you have to watch that type of programming, just that I'm glad it's available to those of us that do.
Personally, as long as it's sci-fi/fantasy anime, I don't see the problem with it on Sci-Fi. If it's just random anime because they figure it'll grab new numbers, that's one (rather annoying) thing, but if it's germaine stuff, heck I'd love to see animation (of whatever nationality) not exiled to Saterday morning CBS.
The best of anime deserves to be spread around, and the dreck isn't worse than the Made for TV stuff Sci Fi Networks puts out.
(Though... to be fair, I usually actually kind of respect sci fi channel's made for TV stuff... just because they keep on trying, no matter how goofy they must know it is going to turn out. And you know, bad CGI is the new rubbery monster suit.)
... as for the name change... Mnyeh. Whenever I hear the word 'Brand' bandied about, I get the shudders. It's such a soulless word. When a group starts using it, I get the distinct impression that they don't really care about what they create anymore... just the numbers they can get out of it from as many people as possible. I think there's a boundary zone between perfectly acceptable concern about profitability and whoring out what was once a creation, and proud use of the word 'Brand' is the cold, mechanical taskmaster standing watch over the checkpoint.
... meh, but that's just a kneejerk reaction to the word. Actually... now that I think about it, most of this post is a kneejerk from feeling a bit marginalized. Sorry for the rant. :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
"We know our core audience won't like it, but they don't trust us and we think they're a bunch of losers, so we're willing to annoy them if there's even the tiniest chance that we can get a new and larger audience," said Howe in Read Between the Lines Weekly."Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," said Howe in The Hollywood Reporter.Those are actual quotes from the head of Sci-FI? wow...I bet the Hasbro headhunters are trying to get him on Staff....
Sorry—only the first one was an actual quote. The second one was merely my personal interpretation of the first quote. I thought that attributing it to Read Between the Lines Weekly would make that obvious, but I guess people skip attributions...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sorry—only the first one was an actual quote. The second one was merely my personal interpretation of the first quote. I thought that attributing it to Read Between the Lines Weekly would make that obvious, but I guess people skip attributions..."We know our core audience won't like it, but they don't trust us and we think they're a bunch of losers, so we're willing to annoy them if there's even the tiniest chance that we can get a new and larger audience," said Howe in Read Between the Lines Weekly."Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," said Howe in The Hollywood Reporter.Those are actual quotes from the head of Sci-FI? wow...I bet the Hasbro headhunters are trying to get him on Staff....
Considering the number of net magazines out there... you're surprised?
I must be lonely in my little world of loving cheesy and/or bad sci-fi movies.
Those movies and shows were so much fun to watch. I, for one, will miss them. :(
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I must be lonely in my little world of loving cheesy and/or bad sci-fi movies.
Those movies and shows were so much fun to watch. I, for one, will miss them. :(
Hey we get to watch The Chairman play I am Legend in a few weeks :-)
*smacks a vampire with a club* Tonight's secret ingredient... Gar-LIC!
SFC lost me (for the second time!) when they canceled "Dresden Files" for no strong reason (it had average ratings for a 1st season cable show) *and* held off making the announcement until the next year's ad sales were done. They didn't even tell the TV press folks. It's one thing to jerk your audience around, but that just feels like shifty business all-round.
The rebranding and refocus to a general-audience cable channel is bound for failure, mostly b/c that market is already dominated - USA/TNT/A&E/TBS etc. If the folks at SFC wanted to bring more non-sff-fans into their audience, they could do more stuff like "Taken", which didn't appeal to me but had the best ratings they ever had, and they could be more aggressive in their company about getting sci-fi shows. "Heroes", "Chuck", "The 4400", "Bionic Woman", "Journeyman", "Dead Zone" - these were all NBC-Universal shows, but the "Syfy" folks weren't interested. Heck, Comedy Central is doing a swords-and-sandals parody, why the heck didn't the folks at Sci-Fi think of that first? *mind boggling*
|
|
I also used to watch the channel because it didn't resort to running Anime to keep its audience. Cartoon Network lost my viewership for the same reason.As a sci fi (and animation) fan that really likes anime, please allow me to say, "Ouch, man."
I'm not saying you have to watch that type of programming, just that I'm glad it's available to those of us that do.
I don't consider Anime to be cartoons. They seem to fall out of the genera entirely. While animated, that doesn't make them a cartoon.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Looney Toones, Dexter's Lab... those are cartoons. Anime, not so much. Even outlandish stuff like FLCL just doesn't seem to fit the mold.
I think that when a company resorts to using the overly "tried and true" method of using Anime to fill time slots that it is a clear sign that their content directors aren't thinking. Especially so in SyFy's case.
They've clearly proven that they're insane. :D
SyFy, hmm. Well, it's copyrightable. To me, that's the main point. As to their programming, well, it's been laughable for years, and a lot of decisions that have affected more respectable science fiction shows as a whole(operative words there) were NOT theirs to make. Still, I see SyFy, whether it's good or bad, being an easy target for a lot of nerdrage out there and failing as a result, unless they can find another audience to tap.
And hey- I love my anime too...
I miss the good old sci-fi fridays. Farscape, SG1, and LEXX. They've had entertaining shows (Atlantis, BSG, Eureka, Dresden are/were all good shows), but has anyone else had the experience of tuning into the channel only one night a week and pretty much ignoring it at all other times?
|
|
SFC lost me (for the second time!) when they canceled "Dresden Files" for no strong reason (it had average ratings for a 1st season cable show) *and* held off making the announcement until the next year's ad sales were done. They didn't even tell the TV press folks. It's one thing to jerk your audience around, but that just feels like shifty business all-round.
They canceled Dresden? Aw man, and I've been waiting all this time for the second season... :/
It sure seemed like the wait was getting long, now I know why. I just figured they were putting in extra time to make it good.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I don't consider Anime to be cartoons. They seem to fall out of the genera entirely. While animated, that doesn't make them a cartoon.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Looney Toones, Dexter's Lab... those are cartoons. Anime, not so much. Even outlandish stuff like FLCL just doesn't seem to fit the mold.
Cartoon has more to do with length than content, other than it being animated. Dragonball is cartoon-length animation, for example (assuming you consider a 20-30 tv show length episode to be cartoon-length). And most people would consider it pretty cartoony in general too. One Piece as well.
Anime is definitely animation, whether it is a short (i.e. cartoon) or not depends on length of the movie / episode / item. Not that there is a hard and fast definition, but movie-length animation is not properly called a cartoon.
As far as seriousness of content, that varies widely for any form of animation.
Some argue that continuity makes short-episode anime not cartoon animation, but in that case, Justice League ain't a cartoon either...
And really, cartoon isn't an insult unless you make it one. In any case, just my take on it...though the split between cartoon / animated movie/feature is real...
Cartoon has more to do with length than content, other than it being animated. Dragonball is cartoon-length animation, for example (assuming you consider a 20-30 tv show length episode to be cartoon-length). And most people would consider it pretty cartoony in general too. One Piece as well.
[...]
I'd consider a cartoon to be an animation of short format (often more than one story in a half-hour block), where there is little to no continuity between episodes, and where there is a lighter (most often comedic) tone. I would consider something like Dragonball or One Piece to be a light hearted animation that take some of their comedic cues from classic cartoons but they certainly aren't cartoons.
I'd say that Justice League (which despite being in my early twenties I still greatly enjoyed) and similar shows are simply stories that can't be practically told in any format other than animation. Basically, animation is cheap in comparison to a live action show that succeeds in protraying the same tone and visual breadth.
Is this splitting hairs? Sure. Is there anything wrong with cartoons? Not at all.
|
|
Cartoon has more to do with length than content, other than it being animated. Dragonball is cartoon-length animation, for example (assuming you consider a 20-30 tv show length episode to be cartoon-length). And most people would consider it pretty cartoony in general too. One Piece as well.
Anime is definitely animation, whether it is a short (i.e. cartoon) or not depends on length of the movie / episode / item. Not that there is a hard and fast definition, but movie-length animation is not properly called a cartoon.
As far as seriousness of content, that varies widely for any form of animation.
Some argue that continuity makes short-episode anime not cartoon animation, but in that case, Justice League ain't a cartoon either...
And really, cartoon isn't an insult unless you make it one. In any case, just my take on it...though the split between cartoon / animated movie/feature is real...
Totally in agreement here. Something can be animated and not be a cartoon, while a cartoon must necessarily be animated. Style becomes the big issue here. While done in Anime style I would consider Dragonball to be a cartoon, but not Z or GT. One Piece kind of flits that line, but Naruto and Pokemon seem to fall on the Anime side of things. I'd lump One Piece there as well.
As for SyFy I hope this works out for them. Generalization of your business tends to help during economic downturns, but I wonder if this isn't a sympton of waning ratings in general. Freshness is what kept people coming back to shows like Heroes and Lost. Just taking on those shows for reruns tells me that SF is having trouble competing.