Will dumb audiences kill genuine science fiction broadcasting for good?

[YJ02]

I believe that as long as writers and associates continue to draw their inspiration from shows of the past-instead of their imagination-then the scifi arena will just keep being dragged down.

Yes, they have to make money-and that can be done with new ideas with maybe a little help form old stuff. Look at all the shows/movies we like-someone had a genuine new idea at one time to get it moving.I don't think anyone out there is doing that anymore. The pressure to make money is overiding the need for a show to actually be good. They just keep churning out crap, throwing upo "against the wall" and see what sticks.

As to Amazon Prime--that is what I am using to watch all the SG stuff now. Problem is, though there is quite a lot of "prime" content, there is far more that isn't. the only new stuff on prime is stuff like sgu-things that got cancelled or were only mildly successful.

And as far as the "prime" discount/expedited shipping on purchases--done several since i signed up and I have seen no discounts nor faster shipping (not that it would matter-our fedex guy is an idiot and a liar-can never find our house and scans in that we weren't home-had to drive 30 miles to their warehouse last time to pick up...oh,diff subject) yet.

They do seem to have a better pic quality then Netflix though.

 

[Bluce Ree]

"So called" Pirating??!!??
You take something you have nither paid for nor have any rights to use, WTF is "so called" about that??

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

Technically speaking, how is downloading a TV show any different from recording it to view later?

For sure on that, we live in a 24/7 work world now and not everyone is home at the "traditional viewing times" we were just 20 years ago.

If a show fails on broadcast/cable, it is unlikely to survive via streaming media or DVD.

Which is why I qualified it as a successful show.

For sure, but the internet thus far has just proven to be a place where they lose money, so it;'s not really any wonder they are suspicious of it.

Can you say that a little louder? Hulu didn't hear you.

Show me one network that has lost a single dollar on the Internet. They tend to stay away from it because they fear change. Remember that networks are behemoth dinosaurs run by dinosaurs. The only thing they are constantly told by the MPAA and RIAA is that Internet = piracy.

Well there is the rub isn't it? You don't mind em, I don't mind em, but plenty of people do.

Plenty do but not a significant segment of the general population or TV would be dead right now.

 

[Gatefan1976]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

Oh, so "I can't get it NOW" is justification is it?
I won't deny people *want* to do the right thing, and they make it stupidly hard sometimes, but the state of affairs as it stands is, it's illegal.

Technically speaking, how is downloading a TV show any different from recording it to view later?

You mean the mechanics of it? No different at all and we had the same issues back when VCR's came onto the market. The mechanics of it is not the issue however, it's how it is defined by law.

Which is why I qualified it as a successful show.

Indeed, but it's not successful shows that are going to suffer here, it's the ones that are on the bubble of cancellation.

Can you say that a little louder? Hulu didn't hear you.

yes, NETWORKS SEE THE INTERNET AS A PLACE THEY LOOSE MONEY.
Hint, Hulu, netflix, Amazon Et al are NOT networks, they are 3rd party on-sellers.
They will become networks if and when they can afford to program hundreds of hours yearly of original content, but until then, they really are not much chop.

Show me one network that has lost a single dollar on the Internet.

Pick one, any one. Oh sure they may not have lost money directly, like if you go to supermarket B instead of A for example, but they have lost out potential sales. Is some of that thier own fault, for sure.

They tend to stay away from it because they fear change. Remember that networks are behemoth dinosaurs run by dinosaurs. The only thing they are constantly told by the MPAA and RIAA is that Internet = piracy.

Are they misinformed? If I took a quick poll of all the regulars here and asked them if they have downloaded anything "for free" I bet the majority will fall on the "yes" side. I agree with you 100% that then need to change thier view of the internet and integrate it into thier strategies, but *for now -legally speaking-* every person who said yes would be liable for some kind of legal action.

Plenty do but not a significant segment of the general population or TV would be dead right now.

*looks at the swathe of cheap arse reality shows and 20 variations of the same premise on his Cable line-up*
Ya sure it isn't or at least deserves to die anyway??

 

[Bluce Ree]

Oh, so "I can't get it NOW" is justification is it?
I won't deny people *want* to do the right thing, and they make it stupidly hard sometimes, but the state of affairs as it stands is, it's illegal.

You mean the mechanics of it? No different at all and we had the same issues back when VCR's came onto the market. The mechanics of it is not the issue however, it's how it is defined by law.

Ok, but you take issue with the morals. Laws can be challenged on technicalities, especially when they make absolutely no sense like protecting the rights of the content providers to limit what devices on which you can watch the content. This one is coming to a boil and will explode all over their faces in the next little while.

Indeed, but it's not successful shows that are going to suffer here, it's the ones that are on the bubble of cancellation.


yes, NETWORKS SEE THE INTERNET AS A PLACE THEY LOOSE MONEY.
Hint, Hulu, netflix, Amazon Et al are NOT networks, they are 3rd party on-sellers.
They will become networks and can afford to program hundreds of hours yearly of original content, but until then, they really are not much chop.

Hint: Hulu plays in the same sandbox as the networks, streaming new content within 24 hours of its live broadcast with commercial breaks and is free (unless you want to watch it on a smart tv or smart phone or tablet, in which case they make you pay $7). It's exactly like watching TV on a DVR, sometimes more annoying. Lately, Hulu has been injecting more commercials into some shows than the TV networks do when they broadcast them. You also can't skip commercials on Hulu. You're forced to sit through them.

Pick one, any one. Oh sure they may not have lost money directly, like if you go to supermarket B instead of A for example, but they have lost out potential sales. Is some of that thier own fault, for sure.

Your analogy isn't applicable because going to supermarket B instead of A is akin to flipping the channel as well. They haven't lost money with the Internet due to direct involvement. If they've lost money with the Internet it's due to a LACK of involvement, which is my point. They fear the Internet because they have a feeble understanding of how to harness it.

Are they misinformed? If I took a quick poll of all the regulars here and asked them if they have downloaded anything "for free" I bet the majority will fall on the "yes" side. I agree with you 100% that then need to change thier view of the internet and integrate it into thier strategies, but *for now -legally speaking-* every person who said yes would be liable for some kind of legal action.

Hulu broadcasts the same shows you watch on TV for FREE. With services like it, there is no need to download TV shows.

TV networks rely on broadcast aggregaters to bring their content into your home. A big part of that delivery is branding and this may be where they get lost. Hulu would be the equivalent of an aggregater like a cable TV service. The problem networks have with services like Hulu is that their branding is lost. You browse to Hulu and click a show rather than a channel like traditional TV. If they can get a handle on all that, I can see them diving right in.

*looks at the swathe of cheap arse reality shows and 20 variations of the same premise on his Cable line-up*
Ya sure it isn't or at least deserves to die anyway??

I hear ya, brother!

 

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, but you take issue with the morals.

Actually, not really. I choose not to do it because thats the way I see it, you are quite right, but I do not feel it is my place to tell "you" how to do things, nor would I "dob" on someone for doing it. We are all big boys and girls, we all know the legalities.

Laws can be challenged on technicalities, especially when they make absolutely no sense like protecting the rights of the content providers to limit what devices on which you can watch the content.

Ahhh, now this is interesting. I agree with you on what you watch the content on, because selling someone a DVD is not selling them a DVD, it's selling them the rights to use the content within thier paramaters. It's exactly why I have a HUGE issue with buying DVD's twice for the same content. I purchased a licence to use, not for the "expected life of the physical media used"

This one is coming to a boil and will explode all over their faces in the next little while.

Indeed it will, and this goes to your observation that people will do the right thing "by default".

Hint: Hulu plays in the same sandbox as the networks, streaming new content within 24 hours of its live broadcast with commercial breaks and is free (unless you want to watch it on a smart tv or smart phone or tablet, in which case they make you pay $7). It's exactly like watching TV on a DVR, sometimes more annoying. Lately, Hulu has been injecting more commercials into some shows than the TV networks do when they broadcast them. You also can't skip commercials on Hulu. You're forced to sit through them.

That does not make them a network, that makes them a 3rd party provider, just like I said. Networks and studio's produce the stuff that we watch, Netflix/hulu are *getting* into that field (and worse than TV with ads by that account). Do you recall all the shit that went down (well, here at least ) with Hulu dropping stuff like stargate and such for months and people bitching about that as well? The studio's/networks could CRUSH stuff like hulu merely by refusing to sell thier content to them, OR they could buy them out like this:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...tribution-channel-storage-and-bandwidth-costs

Your analogy isn't applicable because going to supermarket B instead of A is akin to flipping the channel as well.

Not exactly, cause in this case Supermarket A also makes the product.

They haven't lost money with the Internet due to direct involvement. If they've lost money with the Internet it's due to a LACK of involvement, which is my point. They fear the Internet because they have a feeble understanding of how to harness it.

I can't argue with that except to say that they are looking at history, and history shows they lose potential sales. Do they all desperately need someone to explain to them how to make it work for them rather than against them? HELL YES!

Hulu broadcasts the same shows you watch on TV for FREE. With services like it, there is no need to download TV shows.

They broadcast what they have bought the rights to broadcast dude, you keep missing that step.

TV networks rely on broadcast aggregaters to bring their content into your home. A big part of that delivery is branding and this may be where they get lost. Hulu would be the equivalent of an aggregater like a cable TV service. The problem networks have with services like Hulu is that their branding is lost. You browse to Hulu and click a show rather than a channel like traditional TV. If they can get a handle on all that, I can see them diving right in.

For sure dude, and yes this is entirely the networks fault. They see no way to monetize it based on history, rather than the reality that is front of them.

 

[shavedape]

I tend to agree with OM1 -- audiences are getting dumber. I just watched a couple STNG episodes today, one from 1989 and the other from 1990. As I sat there it occurred to me that they just don't make scifi shows like they used to. There was something intelligent about STNG. The writing was clever and they assumed an intelligent viewership. Now though I just don't see anything comparable.

I should add that this doesn't just apply to scifi audiences but to people in general; how they live their lives in toto. Their food choices are dumber. Their educational choices are dumber. Their financial decisions are dumber. Emotions rule the day and logic is something to be laughed at and derided, if it's even considered at all (it's usually not). Is it any wonder that scifi programming has shifted to soap operas in futuristic drag? There are cable networks entirely comprised of shows that are collections of highly dramatized emotional scenes between "real" people (The Real Housewives of A-holeville). Turn on the TV and all you'll see is overwrought melodrama being pushed as entertainment (this applies to the "news" channels also believe it or not). So is it any wonder that the genre of scifi has been tainted?

Personally I blame Guy Fieri, not that he has anything to do with scifi, rather, he's just a giant douche that deserves to be blamed for many things. Putting the destruction of scifi TV shows on this greasy turd's resume seems fitting.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Actually, not really. I choose not to do it because thats the way I see it, you are quite right, but I do not feel it is my place to tell "you" how to do things, nor would I "dob" on someone for doing it. We are all big boys and girls, we all know the legalities.

Ahhh, now this is interesting. I agree with you on what you watch the content on, because selling someone a DVD is not selling them a DVD, it's selling them the rights to use the content within thier paramaters. It's exactly why I have a HUGE issue with buying DVD's twice for the same content. I purchased a licence to use, not for the "expected life of the physical media used"


Indeed it will, and this goes to your observation that people will do the right thing "by default".

Hulu, for example, restricts the free version to what they consider conventional PCs (laptops, desktops) and makes you pay $7/month to let you watch their content on smart phones, tablets, smart TVs, etc. They look at some identifying info sent by your browser to figure out if you're using a PC or a "restricted" device and block content based on that. It's trivial to defeat with Android and iOS devices but it's still above most people's pay grades.

I won't get into a nitty-gritty technical discussion but this kind of thing would get shredded in a court of law as there is no clear language that can technically differentiate a tablet running Windows 8 or Linux, which would be seen as conventional by Hulu, vs a tablet running Android or iOS.

That does not make them a network, that makes them a 3rd party provider, just like I said. Networks and studio's produce the stuff that we watch, Netflix/hulu are *getting* into that field (and worse than TV with ads by that account). Do you recall all the shit that went down (well, here at least ) with Hulu dropping stuff like stargate and such for months and people bitching about that as well? The studio's/networks could CRUSH stuff like hulu merely by refusing to sell thier content to them, OR they could buy them out like this:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...tribution-channel-storage-and-bandwidth-costs

Netflix has no ads, Hulu does. Technically speaking, they are licensing the same content as the broadcast networks in a syndicated fashion, which is different than what Netflix does. A new episode of your favorite TV show on Hulu would be available for a couple weeks then it's gone. You'd have to wait until it's either rebroadcast or Hulu acquires long-term licensing for it, which they have for many shows on the $7/month deal.

Hulu is a joint venture between Fox and NBC Universal.

Not exactly, cause in this case Supermarket A also makes the product.

I can't argue with that except to say that they are looking at history, and history shows they lose potential sales. Do they all desperately need someone to explain to them how to make it work for them rather than against them? HELL YES!

You keep repeating that but how do they lose potential sales? When you say "history shows" are you talking about piracy or legitimately engaging the market with online content? Because they are not actively doing the latter except for latest episodes of their shows and through content aggregaters like Hulu.

They broadcast what they have bought the rights to broadcast dude, you keep missing that step.

What you keep missing in my point is Hulu is paying the content rights owners and the rights owners are not losing money. They're not licensing out these rights for free or doing Hulu any favors. The revenue they make through licensing are, in most cases, as good as their advertising revenue for a single show.

For sure dude, and yes this is entirely the networks fault. They see no way to monetize it based on history, rather than the reality that is front of them.

There it is again. What history and what losses? Please don't say piracy because that's a risk whether they're on the net or not.

 

[Overmind One]

I hate to say this but we are turning into a dying breed. There is no one left to watch Sci-Fi as we have all died off. What the kids see in the movies is not sci-fi but moving comics. There appears to be nothing in common between the two genres except for the shiny new props that the special effects people like to use.

Primeval is a special case as it was not shown on the main TV network CTV, with very little outside advertising that I noticed, along with the grinding gears that the first few shows produced it was unfortunately destined to almost fail from the beginning.

As Showcase and SyFy have developed some sort of incestuous relationship in the last few years. I can see that becoming more intertwined if Primeval has a successful run outside of the Canadian market. Would there be an opportunity for one of CTV's main competitors to poke them in the eye if they gave it a go and did a successful re-boot of Primeval with SyFys assistance? Now that would be rich if they could pull it off.

So far, the same people who are making Continuum were supposed to be making a pilot called High Moon for SyFy. As far as I know that project must of slipped out of Vancouver or has found itself hiding in a paper basket somewhere.

Sci-Fi on TV is deeply in trouble with no one willing to go and seek it out. If there is no word of mouth, or FaceBook, or Twitter then things just don't make it anymore.

I think you may have nailed it here, Gate_Boarder! We are a dying breed. This same thing happened to the westerns genre. At one time, the westerns genre defined successful broadcast television in a very big way. The popular heroes were from westerns, the action and battles were in westerns, the romance and drama were in westerns. Then the 1960s and early 1970s gave way to cop dramas, cop shows, etc. The dying of westerns came because the audience (as you said) became a dying breed. Those people are now in their 70s and 80s.

I think that science fiction (as we know it) is a passing genre. Yes, we will have it happening on the big screen and we will continue to see some scifi shows come out for cable, but they will be hybrid shows which lean heavily towards drama or we will see elements of other genres within them. Drama, unlike all other genres, seems to be impervious to death. It is the most closely related to the way all people live their real lives and it can tell stories which are firmly anchored in the familiar.
--- merged: Mar 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM ---

Why are they dead?

Why? Because people are watching more media on their mobile devices and tablets and internet connected TV sets than are renting DVDs. Evidence of this is the steady and rapid decline of Video Rental stores. Besides Redbox and Netflix DVD, you do not really have a growing market for them in the US and countries like Japan and China and the EU. New laptops and ultrabooks are being designed without DVD drives at all. This is very apparent in the US. DVDs are made from fossil fuels, they are not "green". They are easily degraded by scratches and breakage.

OK, if that is so ameniable, why instead of buying the DVD's for your shows or renting them on a pay per watch basis do you have them all downloaded?
And how much are you prepared to pay per episode? It would take 4 million viewers 6 dollars per ep to pay for a standard ep of a scifi show, and before you say 4 mill is not hard across the world, that won't work because whatever local classification group will delay it for review, giving people a chance to copy and distribute it anyway.

Nah, the high cost of these shows does not come from their production as much as it comes from having to pay Union wage to actors (THE biggest cost by far), renting large studios, building sets, shooting on location...oh, and did I mention the ultra high Union wage costs? We have seen shows which eliminate much of this and use CGI sets. Even with real sets, the cost of production could be cut in half if actors were not members of the Union (and get high wages as a result). Then there is the cost of distribution. The internet as a distribution conduit cuts out DVD manufacturers/suppliers, eliminates warehousing and printing costs and distribution to retail outlets. Im thinking more like $2.00 to $5.00 per episode, which is the range you find on Amazon Prime. As an example, each episode of SGU cost 2 million to make. If the same 1 million viewers it once had would pay $2.00 per episode, that is the 2 million right there.

And when that time comes, will you be prepared to pay 30 bucks to watch a movie at home, because I don't think the studio's will accept less money than they are getting now

The movie theaters are the ones making the most money on theatrical releases, not the studios. Cutting out the theater would bring the cost of seeing first run movies to around $5.00 per movie. At $10.00 per streamed first run movie, the studios would still be making a fortune.

Prove this market exists, because I honestly cannot see it happening.

The existence of Netflix, Hulu+ and Amazon Prime is the proof. And it is Amazon Prime and Netflix who have outrun Hulu+ and the online versions of cable channels (available to subscribers to cable only) because people just do not like commercials. Sure, people will TOLERATE them if they like the shows they are watching, but tolerance is the highest level of acceptance for them. Many like myself have a strong aversion to them and will not watch them under any circumstances unless by choice...there are some cool commercials which come out sometimes.

 

[Rac80]

[begin rant] I blame the US educational system.... we are educating less and and asking them to regurgitate rather then actually THINK! most universities (and all 2 year schools) have remedial english, math, and science classes. SAT scores are so low that they had to "adjust them upwards" a few years ago. our high schools and jr high schools are failing- but boy they can all use a condom---NOT! we are not exposing our kids to thoughtful literature - we are exposing them to crap and/or snippets of real literature re-worded for "understandability" (yeah that 's not a word but teachers love it! ) took a english lit class a few years ago for lit majors- the idots in the class had a hard time understanding the social structure of Pride and Prejudice! in my shakespeare class(graduate level) I was the only one who had read shakespeare on my own! It was a very easy "A"! snookie took a class on sci-fi as literature and loved it- the teacher was excellent but she found the other students thought it was going to be an easy class and they would be reading comic books. wow it was eye-opening for them!
In the 70's in high school I read 1984, Brave New World, the Planet of the Apes, Foundation, The Time Machine, and the Martain Chronicles for english classes. We had a very diverse reading list each year. by the time snookie was in high school, I was the one who would give her a reading list each summer of the books the school had over-looked for crap! She was exposed to shakespeare (not just snippets of plays but the entire plays) science fiction, british lit, and even american lit by the time she graduated. I was appalled that what were considered "the classics" by my teachers were ignored by hers. Wonderful books like the Jungle (she still won't eat sausage ), the Grapes of Wrath, Green mansions, Sense and sensibilty, the list is endless for me, were ignored infavor of mindless drivel! [/end rant!]

 

[mzzz]

It's not really the educational system in place but rather the ones that control it through political influence and what have you. Naturally, you'd think its the politicians then. But no, it goes higher (when I say higher, I don't necessarily mean better, just the scumbags up top). The master puppeteers have no interest in non-conforming students. They want to output students that have this and that knowledge to continue the society in which they dominate. They want you to continue and maintain the current structured society. Education has just simply become for the purposes of outputting functional workers for their machinated profiteering. Outputting students in the most efficient and functional workers in a factory like method. Child goes in with initial fascination with the world, goes through indoctrination, comes out mindless and efficient machine for purely functional purposes to serve the interests of those up top. Of course, once you get into college, there's more diverse forms of knowledge you can pursue. However, once you've become indoctrinated in the early stage, you rarely diverge from that. And the ones up top again make it difficult for you to pursue other fields of knowledge by emphasizing and throwing funding at what they want you to do, become mindless worker bees.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Hulu, for example, restricts the free version to what they consider conventional PCs (laptops, desktops) and makes you pay $7/month to let you watch their content on smart phones, tablets, smart TVs, etc. They look at some identifying info sent by your browser to figure out if you're using a PC or a "restricted" device and block content based on that. It's trivial to defeat with Android and iOS devices but it's still above most people's pay grades.

I won't get into a nitty-gritty technical discussion but this kind of thing would get shredded in a court of law as there is no clear language that can technically differentiate a tablet running Windows 8 or Linux, which would be seen as conventional by Hulu, vs a tablet running Android or iOS.

Good, cause you would seriously lose me duder

Netflix has no ads, Hulu does. Technically speaking, they are licensing the same content as the broadcast networks in a syndicated fashion, which is different than what Netflix does. A new episode of your favorite TV show on Hulu would be available for a couple weeks then it's gone. You'd have to wait until it's either rebroadcast or Hulu acquires long-term licensing for it, which they have for many shows on the $7/month deal.

It is still reliant on studios/networks to provide content though, that was my point dude. Yeah they are getting into it, but at best they can provide only a few shows at best *at this stage*.

Hulu is a joint venture between Fox and NBC Universal.

Which means any other content provider could screw with them if they chose to yeah?

You keep repeating that but how do they lose potential sales? When you say "history shows" are you talking about piracy or legitimately engaging the market with online content? Because they are not actively doing the latter except for latest episodes of their shows and through content aggregaters like Hulu.

Piracy only dude, why pay 7 bucks a month to get a few shows for a few weeks when you can get it all for nothing? This is what I have meant before when that the target audience for "high end" scifi is "exiting the market", they know ALL the ways to get what they want for for nothing, so why not do it?

What you keep missing in my point is Hulu is paying the content rights owners and the rights owners are not losing money. They're not licensing out these rights for free or doing Hulu any favors. The revenue they make through licensing are, in most cases, as good as their advertising revenue for a single show.

Right, but if people do not use hulu or whatever because they have what they want, hulu cannot afford to pay for the licencing for content without raising thier prices, which drives people away (remember the discussions when netflix(?) went from all incluse to movies and TV being seperate?). As to how much they make, I cannot comment with any certainty because I simply don't know the revenue stats.

There it is again. What history and what losses? Please don't say piracy because that's a risk whether they're on the net or not.

Do you lock you car? Theft is a risk weather you lock your car or not, so why bother locking it?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Why? Because people are watching more media on their mobile devices and tablets and internet connected TV sets than are renting DVDs. Evidence of this is the steady and rapid decline of Video Rental stores. Besides Redbox and Netflix DVD, you do not really have a growing market for them in the US and countries like Japan and China and the EU. New laptops and ultrabooks are being designed without DVD drives at all. This is very apparent in the US. DVDs are made from fossil fuels, they are not "green". They are easily degraded by scratches and breakage.

I only have one thing to ask, are they watching it legally, or illegally? NOthing else matters in the context of this discussion.

Nah, the high cost of these shows does not come from their production as much as it comes from having to pay Union wage to actors (THE biggest cost by far), renting large studios, building sets, shooting on location...oh, and did I mention the ultra high Union wage costs? We have seen shows which eliminate much of this and use CGI sets. Even with real sets, the cost of production could be cut in half if actors were not members of the Union (and get high wages as a result). Then there is the cost of distribution. The internet as a distribution conduit cuts out DVD manufacturers/suppliers, eliminates warehousing and printing costs and distribution to retail outlets.

WTF does this have to do with what I said? Eliminating cost? How about ultra high cost of tech support for your feild? Would you accept less money?

Im thinking more like $2.00 to $5.00 per episode, which is the range you find on Amazon Prime. As an example, each episode of SGU cost 2 million to make. If the same 1 million viewers it once had would pay $2.00 per episode, that is the 2 million right there.

Then why do people not buy it and instead pirate it if the cost is "so acceptable"?

The movie theaters are the ones making the most money on theatrical releases, not the studios. Cutting out the theater would bring the cost of seeing first run movies to around $5.00 per movie. At $10.00 per streamed first run movie, the studios would still be making a fortune.

Yes they would, but that relies on people buying it in the first place doesn't it? You and Bluce of all people here know just how easy it is it copy and manipulate data. 2-10 hours after digital release, you hop onto wherever and download it for free.

The existence of Netflix, Hulu+ and Amazon Prime is the proof. And it is Amazon Prime and Netflix who have outrun Hulu+ and the online versions of cable channels (available to subscribers to cable only) because people just do not like commercials. Sure, people will TOLERATE them if they like the shows they are watching, but tolerance is the highest level of acceptance for them. Many like myself have a strong aversion to them and will not watch them under any circumstances unless by choice...there are some cool commercials which come out sometimes.

Thats proof that people are inclined to do the right thing if you make it easy enough for them, but once it's "too hard" or "not worth it", they will just "aquire it", and why not, they (the makers) haven't lost anything, have they?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Piracy only dude, why pay 7 bucks a month to get a few shows for a few weeks when you can get it all for nothing? This is what I have meant before when that the target audience for "high end" scifi is "exiting the market", they know ALL the ways to get what they want for for nothing, so why not do it?

Then my point stands. Hulu is FREE on Windows / Linux / Max OSX. It's 7 bucks if you choose to play it on your smart phone or tablet or other such mediums that are not Windows / Linux / Mac OSX.

They've lost nothing on TV shows. Most will stream the latest episodes directly from the network's website or through aggregaters like Hulu. Downloading TV episodes is not an epidemic in the US and is nowhere near the problem it is for movies and music. Where this becomes more prevalent is overseas where they either have no access to the shows at all (no networks broadcasting domestically and geolocked out of Hulu and the networks' websites) or the domestic networks licensed to play these shows don't make them available on the web domestically.

The point you're trying to make that sci-fi viewers are, for the majority, geeks with the ability to hack the system is a non-argument. If I missed the latest episode of Continuum and wish to catch it at a later date then I simply point my browser to Hulu or syfylys.com and watch it. It costs nothing and is a hell of a lot easier and faster than finding the torrent and downloading it, which is more time consuming.

OM1 used a VPN to watch Continuum when it was only available on Showcase in Canada last year. It was easier and much faster than searching torrents. Circumventing geolocking caused absolutely no loss to Showcase or even the show creator because a) it was not available anywhere in any manner or medium other than Showcase b) it was watched on their website with ads intact and c) the ads he watched are irrelevant anyway because OM1 doesn't live in Canada.

Technically capable "geeks" who are motivated to screw the system will take on the challenge of circumventing the contents' geolocking, not torrents, if the purpose is to hack the system, which is trivial. It incurs no loss whatsoever.

Right, but if people do not use hulu or whatever because they have what they want, hulu cannot afford to pay for the licencing for content without raising thier prices, which drives people away (remember the discussions when netflix(?) went from all incluse to movies and TV being seperate?). As to how much they make, I cannot comment with any certainty because I simply don't know the revenue stats.

Yeah, but the discussion is about content owner and network revenues, not about how Hulu can die. That's really another discussion.

By the way, their revenues last year exceeded $695 million.

http://blog.hulu.com/2012/12/17/a-big-2012/

Another interesting discussion would be the moral implication of circumventing Hulu's device lockout. Is it really immoral to force Hulu's free content onto your smart phone or tablet?

 

[Overmind One]

I only have one thing to ask, are they watching it legally, or illegally? NOthing else matters in the context of this discussion.

Dude, piracy is just not that much of an issue as you are making it out to be. Less than 10% of the viewers of media (video) are downloading it illegally. There are not just too few outlets to do it, but those who are trying to do it are a small part of the audience.

WTF does this have to do with what I said? Eliminating cost? How about ultra high cost of tech support for your feild? Would you accept less money?

YES, if my competition was charging less. That has already happened at least twice. IT guys used to be able to get $175.00/hr EASILY. Today, independent contractors better be at around $75.00 or they will be passed over. This is why I took a staff job instead of remaining independent.

Then why do people not buy it and instead pirate it if the cost is "so acceptable"?

What beats FREE? Like I said, it just is not as widespread as you are making it out to be.

Yes they would, but that relies on people buying it in the first place doesn't it? You and Bluce of all people here know just how easy it is it copy and manipulate data. 2-10 hours after digital release, you hop onto wherever and download it for free.

Yes, but we are advanced geeks. We are less than 10% of the viewing market.

Thats proof that people are inclined to do the right thing if you make it easy enough for them, but once it's "too hard" or "not worth it", they will just "aquire it", and why not, they (the makers) haven't lost anything, have they?

Bolded is true, but that crowd is just not as large as you would like to believe.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Lets put some context back into my points.

1: I am not talking about movies.
2: I am only talking about *hard scifi TV shows*
3: "people like you guys" do NOT make up 10% of the people interested in hard scifi, in fact "you" probably make up a majority of the people interested in such things.

At any rate, far be if from me to challenge the contention that America is getting dumber

 

[YJ02]

Lets put some context back into my points.

1: I am not talking about movies.
2: I am only talking about *hard scifi TV shows*
3: "people like you guys" do NOT make up 10% of the people interested in hard scifi, in fact "you" probably make up a majority of the people interested in such things.

At any rate, far be if from me to challenge the contention that America is getting dumber

you down under! we aints as stupidz as you luk

 

[YJ02]

I am going to use everyones "favorite" show to make some points--only because I am watching it now.

SGU

The TPTB clearly have no originality, when one looks at the show -form a non SG fanboy perspective-you can see parts and pieces of about a dozen previous shows. The ideas were introduced in them and the SGU TPTB just lifted them, put their 'stamp' on it and called it their creation.

Look at some of the s2 eps. In the ep where Chloe falls asleep on stone duty and picks up Ginn and the other womans consciousness--we get a mix of several shows and themes. The implication of ghosts, the introduction of AI tothe ships computer and the use of them to monitor the ships functions and appear to crewmembers seems to be a direct lift from ANDROMEDA for one.

Throughout I see the use of the following shows: BSG-obvious in some plot and in the "dark" perspective of the production; ANDROMEDA; STAR TREK-Space battles; Dr Who-mainly in the "i know everything" attitude of Dr Rush; FIREFLY-broken ship always needing repair; any show with paranormal alien interaction (x files,etc), and though I never watched an ep- i am guessing EUREKA with the innovations and inventions that Brody and others make

Now, by no means am I saying these are good things; though they lifted good plot ideas and character types they did not execute. So not only were these particular TPTB imagination-less, they were also bad at story boards, directing and everything else to produce the product.

It is a good thing that this show failed--hopefully someone-anyone, will learn from it and that habitually copying either oneself or other shows is not just lazy, but the viewers can see through it. they see the inability to create new concepts; hell, when you can go to a forum and read posts desribing fan written ideas on how a particular ep or series SHOULD have been and its way better then anything you can see in action-then you know there is a huge problem.

I don't believe in the "death of imagination/ideas" but the field is getting tight-so much has already been done, bad and good-that it is going to force any new players to really dig down and come up with great stuff-it has been done before and can be done again. it may not be until this financial problem clears up and studios are willing to 'gamble' again though.

There are some good ideas and pre-production (way pre production) shows out there that we have a slight chance of seeing

one is "rage of angels" with christopher judge-an example of what seems to be,an original idea

the other is "st;cpt worf" this too, is a show I would like to see but it represents what I call a re-use of an old concept

all of these reboots/remakes are just further evidence of a lack of imagination. the new star trek movies for one. yes some originality in the alt timeline concept, but their base idea seems to come form the ST we already know.
And spiderman--just how many re-dos of spidey are they going to make?

Like I said-and others elsewhere have said--sgu COULD HAVE been a much better show. But after say, the first 5 minutes or so of ep 1 and the inconsistencies from SG1 and SGA Canon and production (no use of Asgard beam weapon/ sex in the broom closet)-it was nothing but downhill

a small example of what could have been better and more acceptable as sg--they conveniently get 2 working shuttles back-one from the "hand of god/powerful aliens" (another lift from another show-this time BSG and the reappearance of starbuck in a new viper). the 2nd one with a time jumping destiny-and the spare parts.

I would have been much better with them discovering either a onboard shuttle bay or parts to shuttles that they had to assemble to get them back. That would have been in better keeping with say when in sga they got some jumper replacements from the under water bay and from another planet...

 

[Gatefan1976]

You lost me at never having watched an ep of Eureka

 

[YJ02]

You lost me at never having watched an ep of Eureka

Saving it to watch in total through either Amazon or Netflix.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Eureka is over, so someone should have it
.................... Or you could buy the DVD's................