Sci-Fi becomes Syfy (1 Viewer)

[Joseph DeMartino]

Regards,

Joe

 

[Stephen Orr]

I sent an email to SciFi expressing my displeasure at this. [email protected]

 

[troy evans]

It seems like Sci-Fi Channel is going down the same road MTV did. One day we're all going to sit around and say," Hey, remember when Sci-Fi played sci-fi movies and tv shows"? As far as the name change being related to being less geeky, well, that's bullshit of the highest order. They just want the freedom to show informercials and sports/non-related programing....Oh wait, they already do that. What a bunch of jackholes who thought this up.

 

[RobertR]

I hardly ever watch the channel any more. This just further diminishes my desire to watch it.

 

[Lucia Duran]

I use to enjoy the sci-fi channel, but the past few years the programming has been awful. The one good thing that came out of its many reruns of certain shows was my love of Roswell. If it weren't for sci-fi I never would have discovered it.

I agree that calling it something like Imagine network or Imagine TV is a far better idea. SyFy is just stoooooooooopid!

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I'm not sure I really care what they call themselves. They have given us 4 incredible years of Battlestar Galactica, a great show in Eureka, the US showing of Dr. Who and weekends full of the worst kind of B-Movie schlock imaginable - I love it. That and Star Trek: TNG reruns and some genuine attempts at other original programming - I think they are learning and growing still.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Dumbest move since Spike.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Did somebody say Tropicana debacle?

 

[ChristopherG]

I have two words for this: New Coke

 

[nolesrule]

I'm well aware of the difference in pronunciation, having taken several years of spanish language courses from native Latin American spanish speakers (Mexican, Cuban, Columbian and one other which I can't remember), all of whom loved to discuss this unfortunate pun in their classes.


And let's remember that while you compare spoken English to "Tarzan-speak", every language has colloquial speak and regional dialects.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Also like G4. "Remember when they used to have programming about games?" Now it's all Cheaters and . . . something else. Been so long since I've tuned in, I don't remember.

 

[Raasean Asaad]

They never learn

 

[SilverWook]

They certainly learned from the Farscape debacle that they should let a cult show reach it's planned conclusion or face angry fans!

I like schlock as much as the next guy, but how many giant monster on the loose retreads can they possibly crank out? And would it kill them to show some classic old movies once in a blue moon?

I still miss "Sci-Fi Buzz" and Harlan Ellison's weekly rants.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

 

[ChristopherG]

You know the funny thing for me in this is I participate in a program called e-rewards. They send me surveys to take on the web and I then build up "dollars" to spend on discounts from participating merchants. One was exactly on this topic - SciFi looking to change their name and market strategy. I was very blunt with my answer - stupid idea. So, I guess I was in the minority on that one....

 

[MatthewA]

SyFy? Are you kidding me? That's not a name, that's a contraction of two old Jewish guys' nicknames.

What other "untrademarkable" names will be changing: YouEsAy Network? ShoTyme? DisKoVry Channel? HizToRee Channel?

So basically any word or contraction that's in the OED cannot be made a trademark?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I think you misunderstood. Nothing that isn't already trademarked is "untrademarkable". The limitation on trademarks is that they are only protected in the business context to which the trademark applies. Thus Walmart could trademark "Always" to promote its "Always low prices" claim in the context of advertising and promoting a retail sales business in the United States and Donald Trump could trademark the phrase "You're Fired!" in the context of TV reality shows and associated promotional merchandise. But that doesn't mean they "own" the words, or that someone else couldn't trademark one or both for use in a wholly unrelated contexts.

(Although I suppose the question might then arise of confusion of dilution of the trademark. IANAL, much less an IP attorney, but I have done a little reading in the field. This leads me to suspect that if I want to use "Always" to promote my toothpaste that "Always gives you whiter teeth", Walmart might reasonably object on the ground that consumers might assume that Walmart either makes or endorses the toothpaste, given that they sell toothpaste and are closely associated with "Always" in consumer goods advertising. But if I want to use "Always" to promote my new jackhammer that "Always tears up your sidewalk", Walmart probably probably wouldn't care and almost certainly wouldn't have a case if they tried to claim trademark infringement.)

So there is no need for SFC to change its name. It is, as I suggested, more about branding.

I'm not saying it is a good idea (but then, I always hated "the Sci-Fi Channel" and the term "Sci-Fi" itself. Forry Ackerman did much to promote and preserve the heritage of the fantasy genre, broadly understood (which includes SF and supernatural horror), but his record is decidely mixed. Coining that hideous term in imitation of the equally inane "hi-fi" is definitely an act that goes onto the debit side of the ledger.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Kevin Hewell]

More like the "Hysteria" Channel nowadays.

 

[MatthewA]

Yeah. Apparently there's a huge market for "Inside the Mysteries of Hitler's Digestive Tract."

 

[SilverWook]

I don't think "Sci-Fi" had any negative connotations back when Forrest Ackerman coined it. Much like Star Trek fans didn't mind being called "Trekkies" until the media began to sour it.

There was a great piece by Ackerman published in Starlog back in the 80's where he talked about the long history of the term. (He also jokingly suggested "Cry-Fi" and "Spy-Fi" for other genres.) Wish I could remember what issue it was!