Farscape rumors poping up again

[LightPhoenix]

I'm pretty sure uit was just canceled. Out from under everyone as I understand it. I remember the cast having a farewell party at Vincent Ventresca's apartment the night the final episode aired and talking to the main fan forum members over the phone. It was a very fan friendly show and the cast was unbelievably cool. The reason they added the I-Man animation at the end of the intro during the second season is because thats what it was called by the fans on the internet.

Actually, there's a long and drawn out story of what exactly happened with the show, which was confirmed by a couple of the actors on from show.

Sci-Fi didn't feel the show's ratings were good enough for the amount of moeny spent on it. After all, those effects were expensive. Instead of cutting down I-Man's budget and letting the show deal on it's own, some executive at SFC decided to step in. Cue Alex Monroe.

Alex Monroe's only purpose was to bring in the young male demographic. Now, the 18-35 male demographic has been shrinking steadily across the board, but this executive decided to try. The writers simply couldn't handle the forced addition of her character, and in fact many people on the staff resented it, according to one actor. The show suffered badly, losing ratings because of poor writing (especially in regards to working Alex Monroe in) as well as natural trends.

Now, I don't think anyone knows where Bonnie Hammer fits into all of this, but it appears she wasn't a big fan of the show. And I don't mean the fanboy meaning of "she wasn't a big fan", I mean the "she didn't like it" meaning. This part is personal conjecture, but I think she probably helped to force the executive's ideas through, and then cancelled it because the executive's grand idea (who some believe to be Bonnie Hammer herself) didn't work, and because there was bad blood between the crew and the network.

So really, I think it was a combination of pride, cost, and an inability to adapt. Basically, there wasn't one specific person to blame.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The problem here is a simple one. Some genre fans like to think that the channel should be full of intelligent stuff. But, lo and behold, there's lots of people who'd prefer stupid stuff, so that Crossing Over and it's ilk actually last a while.

And that stuff definitely has it's place, as much as many people would hate to deny it. It's easy profit for a station.

The whole reality TV thing didn't happen out of a need for profit though. The writer's strike some odd years ago left a lot of stations without programming of any kind, so pretty much any amateur writer could come in and pitch a show. The reality TV idea, borrowed from Britain, happened to stick and stick hard, which was an unexpected benefit for the stations. That's why there was the proliferation of them several years back.

The actual problem is the Neilsen Ratings System, which has destroyed modern television by stifling all sorts of creativity. Which is why we see many of the good shows on HBO or Showtime - because they're less willing to put stock in the ratings.

Beyond that moot argument though, take a look at some of the ratings from SFC during Farscape's run. It was repeatedly one of their top ten shows, and often times in their top five. It was obviously an advertising giant, especially on their Friday night lineup. No, it wasn't as good as Stargate ratings wise, but it consistantly got over a 1.0 rating, which is exceptional for most shows on a station of SFC's size.

What went wrong? Well, I'll argue it wasn't the writing, nor the inclusion of the characters Jool and Sikozu. Mostly this is because I believe the writers did a better job handling characters who I suspect were added at the behest of SFC... especially Jool.

That leaves two things - the network and the costs. The latter shouldn't have been a problem given the profits that John Edwards and Scare Tactics and all that were pulling in. Picking up Stargate probably wasn't much of a strain on their budget, since it was doing so well in the ratings. Even Farscape proved that they could write good stories with a lesser budget - just look at the episodes where they were on Earth. So I don't buy the idea that the cost of the show was really a problem.

So the network. And I've said this before, and I'll say it again. There was almost no advertising of the show going into the fourth season. Instead, they chose to focus everything on Stargate. Was that a bad move? I don't know how spreading out their advertising would have affected things. I suspect though that putting a little money into advertising Farscape and some of their other big shows (Babylon 5 comes to mind) would have helped out their ratings "problem" a good deal. Well, that and not wasting shows by showing them at midnight and nine in the morning, respectively.

I chalk it up to the fact that the advertising department isn't getting enough money, or is getting orders to blatantly ignore things. I also think that the people in charge of programming just aren't trying at this point - there's no reason not to be showing Farscape and Babylon 5, among others, at a reasonable time in the afternoon (between 5-8 PM) where they might help bolster evening ratings by acting as lead-ins. They wouldn't be losing any money that way at the very least.

All of this is in my opinion, of course. Except the origins of reality TV, you can trace that directly back to the writer's strike.

 

[Look_a_Unicorn]

Just to whack in my $0.02 (though I don't think I'm adding anything new), in Australia Prime TV was responsible for showing both Stargate & Farscape. I'm guessing they did a reasonable job of advertising both shows (don't watch enough tv to be sure), but the area that truly killed Farscape off in Australia, even before it had a chance, was scheduling.

Farscape looked like it was going to be very big, the Move-length Premier had great ratings, with the 2nd & 3rd almost as good. Things rapidly went downhill after that. Why?

Because it was on in a different timeslot EVERY SINGLE WEEK. Interested fans aren't going to stay hooked if they can't ever see the show. Yes, it's not hard to check a TV guide, but to do that the correct time has to be IN the TV Guide.

Now they're doing the same to Stargate. Nominally it's on at 9:30 Thursday nights. In the last two months the start time has ranged from 8:30 to 11, or not at all.
And this for a show that they are now HEAVILY advertising for.

I guess it doesn't matter if your an eagle when you can only fly with turkeys.
{/Rant}

Edit: Quick question: Does anyone know to what degree DVD sales have affected the potential Farscape mini-series (ie improved it's chances or unrelated). Although I've borrowed the DVD's for Seasons 1-3 off a friend (and enjoyed them immensely), I'd consider buying them if I thought it might encourage the corporate world to go through with the mini-series.

 

[jdavis]

The actual problem is the Neilsen Ratings System, which has destroyed modern television by stifling all sorts of creativity. Which is why we see many of the good shows on HBO or Showtime - because they're less willing to put stock in the ratings.

Beyond that moot argument though, take a look at some of the ratings from SFC during Farscape's run. It was repeatedly one of their top ten shows, and often times in their top five. It was obviously an advertising giant, especially on their Friday night lineup. No, it wasn't as good as Stargate ratings wise, but it consistantly got over a 1.0 rating, which is exceptional for most shows on a station of SFC's size.

I've heard a whole lot of people griping about the Neilsen rating system and with good reason. I mean when they tell you to watch a show and the ratings will go up, well that only works if you got a Neilsen box, if you don't have a box then they don't know or care about what you are watching, they are taking a sample and getting the ratings through statistics. I don't know what their sample size is or what the standard deviation they are working with is but I got to wonder just how well this system works with hundreds of channels and millions of viewers.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I've heard a whole lot of people griping about the Neilsen rating system and with good reason. *snip*

Well for one thing, I imagine the sampling size is adequate and somewhat balanced distribution-wise. It's in their best interests as well as those of the advertisers and the networks, so I imagine they try to get it as statistically accurate as possible.

But as I said before, ratings tend to stifle creativity. It's extremely hard to be creative when you're forced to meet certain baselines, which generally means pandering to as broad an audience as possible. Balancing the need to be as broad and simplistic as possible with trying to write an engaging, complex story, let alone a series, is nigh impossible. One of the biggest complaints with Farscape was that it was really hard for people to get into. That was an even bigger one with Babylon 5. And that adversely effects ratings. So most writers are caught between a rock and a hard place. Not to mention executive interference, actors coming and going, and Kevin Sorbo, who is the devil. I do not envy them their jobs.

The other branch of ratings which really kills creativity is focus groups, which are used to gauge what sort of ratings a show might get. These groups are rarely large enough to constitute an unbiased sample, unlike actual Neilsen ratings. These also tend to be excuses to allow executives to strong-arm writers into doing things that people want, as opposed to what is best for the show. For an example, take Spike from Buffy, and now Angel. He has a pretty high rating in these focus groups, so there's a lot of pressure to include him as much as possible - regardless of whether it's best for the show or not.

Without the ratings system, and focus groups, networks would have to do something that actually requires effort. That is, determine the success of their shows by actually keeping in touch with the general viewing audience. But, it's another moot point because unfortunately ratings systems were invented, so shows that might be good but need time for word to spread, or shows that build up to success are pruned before they get even the merest of chances. And since the system is so completely intergrated into the entertainment industry, removing it would require a total restructuring of the industry, which will never happen. Ah, but to dream...

 

[jdavis]

The Nielsen system sample size is 5000 households. The company explination of Nielsen ratings is here: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/whatratingsmean/

If your looking for complaints about it just goggle search Nielsen Rating System and you'll get a bunch.

As far as being ingrained in the entertainment industy, well the company has been around since 1923 for Radio and has been the official TV ratings system since 1950. The industry relies on them heavily: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/10/10-14-03tdc/10-14-03dscihealth-05.asp

Another article on the history Nielsen system: http://nene.essortment.com/televisionratin_repp.htm

Television ratings begin with the sample. The viewing habits of only about 5000 households (about 13,000 people) are used to represent 270 million Americans. The sampling home is recruited for two years and the sample is staggered so about 300 homes enter and leave each month. Sampling technique is constantly refined so the sample of 5000 best reflects the composition of America as determined by the United States Census and other government organizations. The sampling is so sophisticated that each People Meter represents about 20,000 people. From that small sample comes out television ratings.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The Nielsen system sample size is 5000 households.

Well, I was wrong. 5000 seems like a terribly low sample size for 270 million.

 

[jdavis]

take the 13000 person sample size and you come up with every person in the sample is the equivilant of about 20769 viewers. It seems to be a very complicated system but I wonder how well it deals with so many different channels and choices available now? And what if a family of four goes on weekend vacation during sweeps week?

 

[Umbran]

But as I said before, ratings tend to stifle creativity.

Yes, but the primary purpose of TV is to make money. Creativity is only one possible means to that end. If it isn't a terribly effective means, you won't see it much.

Without the ratings system, and focus groups, networks would have to do something that actually requires effort. That is, determine the success of their shows by actually keeping in touch with the general viewing audience.

Yeah, and that viewing audience, in total, is something like 100 million households. Do you want to try to keep up with 100 million pen pals?

Let's not oversimplify. I'm not a fan of the Neilsen's small sample size, but proper and accurate market research isn't easy, or cheap. You're talking about tracking viewing information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across a nation of 260+ million people. If you ask that each network try to gather that information for itself, you're talking about a lot of duplicated work. And the expense may be more than independant stations can handle on their own. Centralizing the operation so that it is more efficient and affordable makes all kinds of sense.

The Neilsen operation desperately needs to use a larger sample size, and networks probably ought to supplement the Neilsen information with more market research, but the basic idea is pretty sound.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Yes, but the primary purpose of TV is to make money. Creativity is only one possible means to that end. If it isn't a terribly effective means, you won't see it much.

You'd see it more if creativity wasn't stifled by networks trying to make instant fortunes. Every network, especially the main ones, but not limited to them, is trying to find that magical show that rakes in millions if not billions of dollars. Now, I'm not saying that's it doesn't work, because unfortunately it does. I wouldn't even say that it's completely unwarranted, because often times these shows are the reasons that shows with lesser ratings can stay on the air.

The problem is that networks, and again mainly the big ones, but the little ones too, are so focused on finding these shows that they'll cancel without a thought shows after five or six episodes. The amount of shows staying on after one season is pretty low. For big networks this works alright, because they have so many viewers. For smaller networks that try to emulate the big ones, it doesn't. Smaller networks need to be more willing to take chances and let stuff grow. They need to be willing to accept that the lilypad approach isn't going to work, because they don't get the numbers of viewers or writers that the big ones do.

In the long run, neither the big stations nor the little ones are willing to take chances on something creative because of this. They find one fad show that's a huge success, and then try and emulate its success - all you need to do is look at the prevalence of reality TV (from Survivor), or the stress-filled game shows (from Millionaire).

How does this relate to Farscape? I really don't know what crack the executives at SFC were smoking when they cancelled the show, because it was not getting the ratings they wanted. I think SFC is blinded by this lilypad approach to programming, simply because numbers weren't good enough.

I blame the Neilsen ratings for disillusioning network executives by enabling this lilypad approach more easily. I will admit, it is unfair of me to blame the system for bonehead executives. So in that, I'm wrong, and again I admit it.

Yeah, and that viewing audience, in total, is something like 100 million households. Do you want to try to keep up with 100 million pen pals?

Let's not oversimplify. I'm not a fan of the Neilsen's small sample size, but proper and accurate market research isn't easy, or cheap. You're talking about tracking viewing information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across a nation of 260+ million people. If you ask that each network try to gather that information for itself, you're talking about a lot of duplicated work. And the expense may be more than independant stations can handle on their own. Centralizing the operation so that it is more efficient and affordable makes all kinds of sense.

No, it's not easy, or cheap. And I agree that some sort of centralization is realistically necessary.

I'm not trying to please 100 million people. They are. Knowing your audience is the key to success in entertainment, and the best way to do this is to be in contact with everyone. I think you gain some respect by allowing suggestions from your audience. I'm not saying the audience runs the show, but letting them know they're being listened to is important.

With ratings, they can slack off in this area. It leads to a network detached from it's audience. If you were trying to run a store, would you keep yourself detached from your customers? No, obviously not. Same principle applies to any business, entertainment included.

I did imply this was an idealistic approach, though.

The Neilsen operation desperately needs to use a larger sample size, and networks probably ought to supplement the Neilsen information with more market research, but the basic idea is pretty sound.

I agree with all of this.

What I would like to see, actually, is for there to be more than one big ratings group. After all, the Neilsen group is pretty much a monopoly on the TV ratings systems. I think with more competition, both the Neilsen group and the networks might be pressed to enact some of these changes.