Farscape Canceled (1 Viewer)

[Todd Terwilliger]

My question is: post-Farscape, what is the SciFi Channel today?

 

[Jason Seaver]

"Alternate Reality TV". It's going to be horrific.

(God, do I wish I was kidding)

 

[SpenceJT]

SCI-FI channel boasts a big increase in viewers and cancels a popular show.
NICE WAY TO SHOW YOUR APRECIATION TO YOUR VIEWERS SCI-FI!

 

[Sean Bryan]

I just called the Farscape cancellation line at Jim Henson Productions. The save Farscape website had this number (323-802-1609) listed as on that you call call to voice your support.

When I called the number I got a recording stating the Farscape is "The flagship show of The Jim Henson Company" and despite the Sci-Fi channel's failure to pick up the 5th season, The Jim Henson Company is "actively working on" developing a new Farscape feature film, animated projects, and syndication deals (which I take to mean syndicated production and distribution of new Farscape episodes ala ST:TNG and DS9).

Also, word is that although the sets are being dismantled they are not being destroyed.

Keeping my fingers crossed and continuing to show my support,

Sean

 

[Lee Jamilkowski]

http://www.farscape.com/news/index.html

Farscape is a flagship show for The Jim Henson Company. We are proud of its achievements over the past four years, which have included international critical recognition, three Saturn Awards, and a recent Emmy nomination. As always, your show of support is a true inspiration for our company and has been integral to our success.
Although SCI FI Channel has chosen not to pick up a fifth season, The Jim Henson Company is in active development on a new Farscape film, an anime project and is currently discussing syndication of this highly acclaimed series. We are eager to move forward with the Farscape creative team in developing new projects that will resonate with our overwhelmingly loyal fan base.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

It shows a lot of hope

 

[Sean Bryan]

"Wait for the wheel."

 

[Brian Ford]

Wow.

Sci-Fi's counter-programming was actually very interesting and seemed to work for the most part, I cannot wait to see what they think of the ratings in January for Farscape. The problem, much like with my other favorite show, Futurama, is that the time schedule was thrown around. It was aired at 8 PM EST, then 9 PM EST, now at 10 PM EST. Give me a break.

A million households tuning in on a basic cable channel at 10 o'clock on a Friday night is downright impressive. Most people are out at entertainment establishments by that time, not at home watching television. I can understand Sci-Fi's concern over budget costs, this is a business, however walking away from the table and throwing the show away is not the correct action. Bargain, budget and complete something for once.

I believe Farscape had at least one good season left to air and then Sci-Fi should move on THEN, not now when it is not complete and not later when we are in season 9 and everything just is no good (X-Files?). I can only say thanks to the great cast/crew for the excellent entertainment.

 

[Jason Seaver]

A million households tuning in on a basic cable channel at 10 o'clock on a Friday night is downright impressive.

Especially if Tony Shaloub isn't involved.

 

[TimG]

Well, count me in as another who won't be watching Sci-Fi anymore. Farscape was the only show I "had" to watch every week. Hopefully someone will pick it up, or at the least give the fans a little closure with a series rap-up. No wonder I don't watch tv anymore.
TimG

 

[derek]

some info found on the net from JMS supposedly...makes sense.

SciFi, Farscape, and misc.

Here's a post or two that J. Michael Stracynski posted on the whole Farscape
cancellation thing:



From (Jms at B5) Date: 09 Sep 2002 21:32:49 GMT Lines: 37

I don't think the Farscape situation much impacts my stuff with SFC one way or
another. I suspect there were a number of factors, including the cost of the
show (which was the highest on the network, from what I've heard, but that's
second-hand and may not be accurate) combined with the fact that SFC (via their
parent company USA Networks) didn't own the show.

Lemme splain....

If a network owns the show they air, they can reap long-term profits from
syndication of the program. More and more, USA Network (and other cable
outlets) is under pressure to own what they produce, otherwise they're paying
huge sums of money to produce shows that they air a few times, then the money
goes to the studio that did the actual production. The higher the cost, the
iffier the proposition.

So that may have been an issue here. They needed Farscape to help build their
audience, but now that this seems to be coming together for them, the logical
(for a network) thing would be to start paring away what they don't own, and
which is costly, to replace it with their own stuff.

One of the things you can never allow yourself to forget is that TV is a
business designed around making a profit, and determining who owns what
long-term revenue streams.

Doesn't affect Polaris one way or another, since if that goes, it would be
under the aegis of the network.

* * * *

and

From: (Jms at B5) Date: 09 Sep 2002 23:37:12 GMT Lines: 38

>So shouldn't the studio that owns a show be giving Sci-Fi a better deal to
>offset that, and get a studio's show on the air? That way, everybody can
>win.

That's the logical thing, but logic and show business rarely dine at the same
table.

Most studios would rather own 100% of nothing than 50% of something. That
sounds outrageous, but it's all a part of that all-or-nothing profit thing that
they ALL have going. And they're all in competition with one another.

This came into play on the Rangers situation, where WB was reluctant to let SFC
own a part of the show, since SFC is owned by Universal Vivendi, and WB is in
competition with Universal.

So it's a real balancing act. If Rangers had gotten a higher rating (had it not
been killed on the East Coast by the biggest football playoff in the last
decade), even though it was owned by WB, they would almost certainly have
committed to a series, since that rating would balance out not owning the
show...on the flip side, had Rangers been owned by SFC/Universal, and gotten
the same rating that it actually got, they would've been able to say "Okay, let
it grow, because we own it and we're willing to take the risk and we're losing
less money in license fees since we're paying them to ourselves in any event
and we can get the merchandising revenues," which only the studio gets.

Studio logic is kind of like looking at the gorgon...too close and you're
turned to stone.

 

[TheLongshot]

So that may have been an issue here. They needed Farscape to help build their audience, but now that this seems to be coming together for them, the logical (for a network) thing would be to start paring away what they don't own, and which is costly, to replace it with their own stuff.

That would make sense...if they actually were able to develop and promote their own shows. What do they have? SG-1 isn't owned by them. Taken is a miniseries. John Edwards is going into syndication. That leaves "The Dead Zone" (Which I think they messed up promoting by having it at 8:00 Fridays. It would work better with a proper lead-in.) and "The Outer Limits". Not exactly much to hang your hat on.

Funny, if they stuck with "The Invisible Man" and/or "The Chronicle", that might not have been a bad move. Too bad there is no real reason for me to watch anymore...

Jason

 

[DavidDeane]

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to reach a broader audience, Farscape has been unable to grow beyond its core fan base.

What gall. I never saw any evidence of them trying to broaden the Farscape audience; quite the reverse. For six months out of the year, I'd tell people how great Farscape was, and they were completely unable to see it, because Sci Fi was not even airing reruns, let alone new shows. How exactly does this broaden the audience? Farscape was always the red headed stepchild of the Sci Fi channel, and Sci Fi made no effort to conceal this. I'll bet most of the vast potential audience for Farscape probably think the show was cancelled a year or two ago, since it has been virtually invisible. Cancelling it now, when it is too late to rewrite season four, simply confirms Sci Fi's contempt for its fans.

 

[Roberto Carlo]

Too bad there is no real reason for me to watch anymore...

The fact is that, aside from its Friday night line-up, which it is in the process of blowing up, Sci-Fi is little more than TNN.

 

[Adam Nixon]

There's no point watching this network anymore - I only stuck around for SG-1 simply because Farscape aired after it, as I'm sure will be the case for the majority of viewers. Sci-fi can argue the semantics of business all they wish, but the bottom line is that they weren't getting what they considered to be a "fair share" of the Farscape profits. This makes zero business sense -- now they've alienated a large majority of their devoted viewers and eliminated their only critical hit. Woe be to the show that replaces Farscape on Fridays -- can't wait to see those ratings plummet.

 

[Sean Laughter]

If a network owns the show they air, they can reap long-term profits from
syndication of the program

But what's this I'm hearing about SCI-FI owning all the rights to air the first 88 episodes? Doesn't that prevent it from being syndicated elsewhere? And they still get the advertising dollars from airing them again. Seeing as how they never ran reruns with any regularity anyway I don't see why they'd want to hold onto those rights, unless they're just moronic or vindicitive or both. I really liked the show, but honestly never got to watch it much mainly because I NEVER knew when the show came on.

So I'd also have to agree that I think they have a HUGE amount of gall to try and play this off like the show wasn't pulling in numbers that they were desperately trying to get. They NEVER did anything proper enough with this show to try and expand the audience. This network is just a slodge podge of crap aside from one or two shows (one now, if that). Look for them to start putting " TNN moron bars" on every show pretty soon, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Sean Bryan]

The Save Farscape website has this interesting RUMOR.

SCI FI NEGOTIATING?!?!
This just in from our mole at the Sci-Fi channel, thanks to BG2 for getting this to us.
My mole told me this.Scifi is negotiating. Construction workers on the set were told to stop dismantling the sets for now

A possible glimmer of hope here? Who knows? I'm certainly continuing to send 3 faxes and one letter to Sci-Fi each day all this week (and possibly next week).
If you love the show, keep e-mailing/faxing/calling/mailing Sci-Fi!

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I'm in the same boat with Adam and others: Farscape was the main reason I watched the Sci-Fi Friday lineup and that was the only night I watched Sci-Fi because the rest of their programming, in my opinion, is awful.

I hope the Save Farscape rumor is true. Who knows but SciFi is definitely stirring up alot of bad blood over this incident and they deserve every ounce. They were underhanded and it shows.

 

[Craig P]

alt.tv.farscape had some chat transcripts from show people who indicated that there was some civil dialog ongoing, which was said to be a good sign. One of the links earlier in this thread is said to say that a two-hour wrap-up movie might be funded by Sci-Fi, which wouldn't be ideal but it would be better than getting left completely stranded.

Also saw something somewhere about Henson almost talking Sci-Fi into re-upping for thirteen episodes. Which, I just realized, clicks with something that hit AICN a month or two back about Farscape getting only another half-season -- I wrote it off as simple confusion when Sci-Fi starting calling the last episode of the first half of season four the "season finale."

 

[Lee Jamilkowski]

The person claiming to be David Kemper speaking about the two-hour finale was a fraud. The real DK stopped by and chatted, alongside Ben Browder.
http://farscape.wdsection.com/dkchattrans2.html