No mention of TechTV (then "G4/TechTV," now just "G4")? It was one of the first channels to do it, and absolutely the worst.

emocomputerjock: IMDWalrus: Bladel: Throw "History Channel" into that mix.

Still haven't figured out what truckers, chainsaw lumberjacks, and ghost hunters have to do with "History."

And Cartoon Network, too. They've begun showing reality TV, and the people who did make cartoons for them are reporting empty offices and laying off their staff.

Flapjack is freaking brilliant. I can't believe they'd cancel it.

Flapjack was like Chowder, but on a very, very bad acid trip. It was aggressively farked up and horrifying.

I really liked Chowder. It was some farked up, actually clever humor. Plus, some of the stuff they did was just off-the-wall hilarious on many levels.

I mean, the main characters lost so much money that they couldn't afford animation, so it cut to the voice actors doing a car wash. What the fark? That's like driving a goddamn school bus through the fourth wall for comedy's sake, and I love it.

Also, Gazpacho is Master Shake.

I gotta agree that I watched more of the channels when Food Network told you how to prepare food and wasn't a bunch of competitions. When Home & Garden told you how to landscape. When Lifetime had shows showing operations in all their gory detail. When Mtv showed nothing but videos and maybe a few cool 1/2 shows like Liquid TV. Now I spend way more time watching streaming vids on my laptop. I wonder if there are people out there that will be looking back to the current shows as the "Good old days?"

The_Philosopher_King: I gotta agree that I watched more of the channels when Food Network told you how to prepare food and wasn't a bunch of competitions.

Or when the Travel channel wasn't a bunch of 1 hour long cruise ship commercials and shows about finding and selling shiny stones.

millia: This is what is wrong with people getting MBAs.

Let's presume CN and SciFi etc were profitable. I don't know this, but let's stipulate that just for now.

So you had a niche market, that was loyal, dependable, and dedicated. Sure, it's not as big as it could be, but you could depend on selling ads pretty much regardless. And you're employing people, and creating new content, and making people happy.

Then the MBAs come in. And much like the people who gave us G, they've got to do something to justify their existence. That means changing stuff- unless you commission a new Star Trek series, exclusively for SciFi, you're not going to increase your market- and that's only if you caught lightning in a bottle again.

Why? Why not just be happy with a nice little profit? If you've got a dozen channels, that adds up to a nice chunk of change, I'm sure.

This deserves repeating. The TBS/TNT-ification of cable networks only works for short-term. With niche programming, you can always turn in and see something you like. When you branch out into superstation territory, you get a lot more viewers but none of them will stick with you for anything. Why would you keep viewers if they can find whatever you have to offer anywhere else on the dial?

Sci-Fi has to be the saddest case of this. For all the hits they could have had, they're now reduced to bad movie marathons and the occasional Twilight Zone marathon.

eyehate: Sci-Fi - BSG is over and you call yourselves SyFy. Good luck with that. Bad taste in my mouth.

Networks really need to be run by executives who don't completely hate or aren't utterly ignorant regarding the themes and concepts of said network.

/Too early for grammar

Bloody William: eyehate: Sci-Fi - BSG is over and you call yourselves SyFy. Good luck with that. Bad taste in my mouth.

Networks really need to be run by executives who don't completely hate or aren't utterly ignorant regarding the themes and concepts of said network.

/Too early for grammar

Networks need to be run by people who understand the purpose of niche programming and not by a bunch of losers who, fresh from their MBA, feel the need to 'prove' themselves at the expense of their channel.

As long as I can catch up on shows like Dexter, Rome, and Metalocalypse on DVD, I have no reason to subscribe to cable. I was farked hard by Comcast years ago, and am no longer willing to shell out lots of money just to watch TV.

/ I stopped paying when my combined internet/TV bill hit $115/month. I hear it's much worse now...

This is one of the most depressing threads I've read that doesn't have puppies dying.

We're getting charged way too much for tv, I'm waffling between changing providers, or just cutting it all off. SyFy and CN Real is what's driving me to think about cancelling it all.

The funny thing is, if you'd asked anyone 10 or 20 years ago, they'd have told you the future of TV was to find a niche audience and make it happy. Seeing all the channels try to capture the same, bland bunch of mouth-breathers is an interesting twist.

I guess the Internet's done a good job of filling in for TV. Unfortunately, it's dangerous, because it gives those niches ideas, like, "Put on a fur costume and tell everyone you have an animal spirit trapped inside you!". Yikes.

Bloody William:

Flapjack was like Chowder, but on a very, very bad acid trip. It was aggressively farked up and horrifying.

That's the best part. The episode where Flapjack and Captain Knuckles are on the raft drinking seawater needs to be aired daily.

peachy92: AMC was originally for classic movies.

Don't kid yourself. It was for old movies, with the assumption that old=classic. (Kind of like "classic rock' stations) They always showed more than their fair share of crap mixed in with the legitimate classics. I'm OK with this as long as the movies they replace are the crap and not the legitimate classics.

Palladia shows some great concerts and is a pretty good music channel in general.
I wonder how long that's gonna last.

secularsage: I guess the Internet's done a good job of filling in for TV. Unfortunately, it's dangerous, because it gives those niches ideas, like, "Put on a fur costume and tell everyone you have an animal spirit trapped inside you!". Yikes.

Not to quibble or hammer further on a running gag, but that's two different lunatic subcultures. It's like you just said "put on chainmail and fight with lightsabers at a Klingon wedding."

The ladder group are called "otherkin," and... okay, they're so goddamn crazy even furs, hell, even fursuiters stay the fark away from them.

With a few extreme exceptions, furs are like Trekkies, but with a creepy fetish on anthromorphization. Otherkin really believe that shiat. They're like those uber-goth twatwaffles who say they REALLY ARE vampires. It's the difference between being weird and being in DSM IV.

Latter group. What the fark is wrong with me this morning?

It's alright for networks to show programs that don't fall entirely under their 'thing'.

I submit to you, in all it's Mike Rowe greatness, Dirty Jobs.

I used to enjoy National Geographic channel on my regular cable package until Comcast bought my local cable provider last year.
They promptly moved it to the higher priced digital package.
Rat bastards.

Primitive Screwhead: Palladia shows some great concerts and is a pretty good music channel in general.
I wonder how long that's gonna last.

I think they are owned by MTV (or Viacomm does, same thing) but so far they have had a fair showing of interesting concerts across a wide spectrum, some very recent and some from years ago. I've liked it.

msannomalley: I would miss The Soup, though.

The bad thing about The Soup is I'd never had learned about Kendra, the Kardassians or however you spell that, or the two scourge of the earth from the hills. Flesh colored beard boy and his dumb blonde bimbo and her friends.

It's nice to go through life fat dumb and happy when it comes to that. It gets to the point now I skip through those segments because even making fun of them is impossible to watch.

That and that tyra lunatic. Proof positive we need to go back to the late 80s/early 90s of swapping porn GIFs because god damn they were hot when they didn't open their mouth.

I'm looking right at you Jenny McCarthy. If anyone should never been handed a soapbox it's that crazy hot biatch.

I'd get rid of cable but I really enjoy live sporting events. Streaming sports over the Internet just isn't up to par yet for me to pay for it.

secularsage: The funny thing is, if you'd asked anyone 10 or 20 years ago, they'd have told you the future of TV was to find a niche audience and make it happy.



Recent trends may dispute my opinion, but I think it will eventually go this way; largely because of said trend. This trend of turning from niche audiences will either prompt most people to drop their cable services entirely or the internet will fill the market. The latter is more likely in the long run, but in the short term, the former will happen to prevent the latter. Hell, I think most of us would at least be satisfied if we could at least pay for what channels we want to watch rather than a lump sum for a handful of channels and dozens of other we don't watch.

RoxtarRyan: I submit to you, in all it's Mike Rowe greatness, Dirty Jobs.

Mike Rowe is awesome but I would say Dirty Jobs could still fall under the heading of "Discovery Channel". You're still learning something not many did; while being heavily entertained.

/Anyone who paddles around in an ancient rowboat in a lake of shait isn't getting paid enough.

NuclearPenguins: I'd get rid of cable but I really enjoy live sporting events. Streaming sports over the Internet just isn't up to par yet for me to pay for it.

True, but while we're on the subject, when the fark did POKER become a sport to be shown on ESPN?

msannomalley: Cable should institute the "a la carte" package.

Please, for the love of dog, yes!
I do NOT need or want 4 sports channels, two religious ones, the Mexican station, BET, and if that's not possible at all, please somebody move whatever channel has got "what not to wear on" and the drama show with the bridal dresses to the most expensive package there is.

Bloody William: emocomputerjock: IMDWalrus: Bladel: Throw "History Channel" into that mix.

Still haven't figured out what truckers, chainsaw lumberjacks, and ghost hunters have to do with "History."

And Cartoon Network, too. They've begun showing reality TV, and the people who did make cartoons for them are reporting empty offices and laying off their staff.

Flapjack is freaking brilliant. I can't believe they'd cancel it.

Flapjack was like Chowder, but on a very, very bad acid trip. It was aggressively farked up and horrifying.

I really liked Chowder. It was some farked up, actually clever humor. Plus, some of the stuff they did was just off-the-wall hilarious on many levels.

I mean, the main characters lost so much money that they couldn't afford animation, so it cut to the voice actors doing a car wash. What the fark? That's like driving a goddamn school bus through the fourth wall for comedy's sake, and I love it.

Also, Gazpacho is Master Shake.

And Schnitzel is Bender!

TheGhostofFarkPast: I never understood why CN took a turn for the worse and did their current lineup. Well I can understand it from a budgetary accountant stand point, since reality TV is really cheap to produce and develop, but the fact that you are a network that says CARTOON in the name and you are taking that away is just mind boggling. It's basically like MTV getting rid of music videos and dropping everything they use to stand for.

I think the reason lies in that Time Warner wants Cartoon Network to be their own version of Nickelodeon and Disney. Classic cartoons these days only appeal to the folks who grew up with them, and even modern cartoons can only reach so many viewers, hence why Cartoon Network has broadened into live-action.

Not that this excuse makes it suck any less. Cartoon Network used to be one of my favorite channels that had a wicked sense of humor about itself - its commercials that made fun of classic animation tropes were hilarious - but now it caters to the lowest denominator and basically craps all over its legacy for the sake of a few measly ratings.

So, is the tag off for the fourth?

Bloody William: Latter group. What the fark is wrong with me this morning?

Haha. I wondered about that in the original post.

WFern: I no longer trust the History Channel either, as some have mentioned. Aside from the ghost hunting and trucking shows, there are massive blocks that treat the Bible as fact (until the last 10 or 15 minutes where they admit it's speculation).

The entire channel has become sensational.

The only time actual history is portrayed involves programming no the Nazis. Not bad in itself, but that's all they ever show.

This so this. The thing that suchs is that if you go to thier online store they have some really good DVD's. I have Terry Jones History of the crusades and I watch that every couple of months. Also I hate when they claim to have a new show on a subject I'm interested in only to have it be a montage of clips and commentary from previous shows on the same subject spliced together. If your lucky you may get new commentary or narration.

Arxane: Not that this excuse makes it suck any less. Cartoon Network used to be one of my favorite channels that had a wicked sense of humor about itself - its commercials that made fun of classic animation tropes were hilarious - but now it caters to the lowest denominator and basically craps all over its legacy for the sake of a few measly ratings.

I usually boil this down to a simple fact: if you're doing something *for money* odds are that it's going to be crap. Do something you love, and the money will usually happen. It was very apparent that the people who started CN loved cartoons. They had fun with them; they poked fun at them sometimes, yes, but they still respected the (sometimes) art and production.

My father-in-law used to be in charge of engineering for Hunter fans. Wife tells about coming home to find a forest of people standing around listening to a fan, and deciding that the completely inaudible fan was too loud. That's not the way to make easy money. It's the way to making something you can be proud of, that you can point to and say, I did that, and not feel ashamed.

How often does that happen at CN today? Yes, the number of people who could appreciate somebody saying "I made that cartoon!" is smaller than it should be. I wish it were larger. But, maybe, it's just not going to get larger, and they should just admit it and resign themselves to making buckets of cash instead of dumptrucks of cash.

suchs=sucks. Spelling is not my strong suit.

USA used to suck.
Now, with MONK, PSYCH, BURN NOTICE and it's 3x NCIS, I almost don't watch anything else.
Problem with Sci-Fi is, NO NEW people will come.

It's like a comic book store suddenly selling romance novels.

I canceled my cable last month so im really getting a kick out of these replies

As much as Viacom overall sucks, this channel has stayed pretty true to its post-exclusively-standup format:


And this channel is just pure win (although I'd prefer a little less Michio Kaku.)

sy-fy needs to put the stargate franchise to rest for a couple of years and go with something new like a live action Cowboy Beebop series or a reimaganing of Robocop with a more cyberpunk transhumanist feel.

CanisNoir: Mike Rowe is awesome but I would say Dirty Jobs could still fall under the heading of "Discovery Channel". You're still learning something not many did; while being heavily entertained.

Good point.

Heroic Poser: USA used to suck.
Now, with MONK, PSYCH, BURN NOTICE and it's 3x NCIS, I almost don't watch anything else.

Royal Pains is good, too.

The Blipverts can't arrive soon enough.

I am going to have to side with the evil network heads here. Methinks they know more about TV programming than we do.

These people know their audiences. They cater their programming to their audiences. Therefore, if the name of the network interferes with reaching the audience, what do you do? Do you serve the audience or disregard the name? Easy answer.

The people running History know that their audience is largely adults with an interest in history, technology, and the like. They don't come up with the idea of showing a bunch of lumberjacks on a whim. They know their audience and they show programs they will watch; no history be damned.

Same goes with CN. They know the audience is kids. That audience is pretty loyal, and they will watch shows that interest kids. They are not trying to reach ironic 20 somethings, so they program shows that kids will watch, even if it is not animated.

The reason TLC stopped being about learning is because no one was watching. That market was cornered, so they branched out to make money...and it worked. It was a smart move. Keeping unpopular programming to uphold the networks name would be the stupid move.

BilltheThrill: Methinks they know more about TV programming than we do.

Yes, because the changes "Syfy" have been making have certainly been pulling in the viewers. They haven't been leaving in droves, not at all.

BilltheThrill: I am going to have to side with the evil network heads here. Methinks they know more about TV programming than we do.

These people know their audiences. They cater their programming to their audiences. Therefore, if the name of the network interferes with reaching the audience, what do you do? Do you serve the audience or disregard the name? Easy answer.

The people running History know that their audience is largely adults with an interest in history, technology, and the like. They don't come up with the idea of showing a bunch of lumberjacks on a whim. They know their audience and they show programs they will watch; no history be damned.

Same goes with CN. They know the audience is kids. That audience is pretty loyal, and they will watch shows that interest kids. They are not trying to reach ironic 20 somethings, so they program shows that kids will watch, even if it is not animated.

The reason TLC stopped being about learning is because no one was watching. That market was cornered, so they branched out to make money...and it worked. It was a smart move. Keeping unpopular programming to uphold the networks name would be the stupid move.

I don't know that your argument is completely correct. I see it moreso as "mission creep." They replace one show that is a "core mission" type show with another, non-related show that gets 0.1 higher in the ratings, or is more cheap to produce. Over time, as this dilution goes on, the core viewers have been ghettoized and know when to turn the channel. They are still fairly loyal to the channel, they just ignore the pro wrestling, for instance. The longer the creep continues, the loyal viewers quit watching as much, and the undifferentiated hordes make up a large, but shallow fanbase.

I thought "the long tail" was supposed to finally generate specialized content.

As a child I hated live action shows. As a teen I hated the shows marketed to teens.

s

So which one of these cable giants will have the courage and the vision to be the first to air a real version of 'Ow, My Balls'?

/So glad I don't pay for TV

Bloody William: No mention of TechTV (then "G4/TechTV," now just "G4")? It was one of the first channels to do it, and absolutely the worst.

That channel is just awful now. All day marathons of COPS, Cheaters, and Ninja Warrior. Occasional long blocks of commercials broken up by parts of a B-movie. X-Play and maybe Attack of the Show are all that's left.

BilltheThrill: I am going to have to side with the evil network heads here. Methinks they know more about TV programming than we do.

A google search of Bonnie Hammer will convince you otherwise.

msannomalley: Cable should institute the "a la carte" package. For so much a month, you get all your local and local digital channels, plus X amount of any channels of your choice. If you want to watch a show that is not on one of the channels you subscribe to, you can watch it on a pay-per-view basis.

When the cable networks have to compete for the viewer to add their channel to their package, the programming will get better. Fewer channels=better quality.

That's the theory anyway.

Cable won't do it, though. They should, but they won't.

I used to, but no longer think this is economically viable. Programming quality would not improve, because without enough subscribers, NONE of the niche networks (including the ones you or I like) would be profitable. Their only shot would be to cater to the lowest common denominator, with hopelessly derivative "pseudo-reality-du-jour" or absurdly overwrought game shows.

In the end, the landscape of programming would be much less diverse, which IMO is not better. I don't even think the almighty Disney channel could survive losing the portion of child-less subscribers no longer forced to subsidize them.

Cable companies aren't ever going to charge less, so would you rather pay for 100 channels, 10 of which actually appeal to you or 20 channels of mostly the same crap?

BilltheThrill: I am going to have to side with the evil network heads here. Methinks they know more about TV programming than we do.

These people know their audiences. They cater their programming to their audiences.

Have to respectfully disagree here. Programming does NOT reflect what the audience wants. Programming reflects what's cheap to produce and might attract advertisers. Programming isn't about making audiences happy, it's about making shareholders happy.

Kicking back yesterday at night, click MTV and see Terminator 2 !!

WTF ? Maybe a musical movie or biopic of a singer i can understand on the carcass that is MTV. But what my state's gov. doing on MTV? Does Sarah Connor break into a song ?

/RIP SciFi Channel
//SyFy will probably be wresting 24/7

Primitive Screwhead: Palladia shows some great concerts and is a pretty good music channel in general.
I wonder how long that's gonna last.

the secret to that station is that they just play live DVDs that bands put out. There isn't any original programming it's just literally someone getting the DVD from the store and playing it for you. They have been dong that since before the name change.

I hate to tell you guys this, but we are a Neilson family. Yep, we fill out the shows that we watch, and get paid to do it. That being said, my wife, (god bless her) watches all those crap shows. 'What Not to Wear' 'Deadliest Catch', all the huge-family shows (Duggers, Goeslins, Midgets) The stupid ghost chasers, etc. Seriously. I spend most of my time in the basement nowadays, on the computer. But she is possibly the part of the reason that this kind of stuff is so 'popular'.