Sci-Fi Channel finally discusses Farscape’s cancellation

Whodat

First Post
Sci-Fi Channel finally discusses Farscape’s cancellation

TV Guide Online recently interviewed Bonnie Hammer (Senior Vice President of Programming on The SciFi Channel) on SciFi’s cancellation of Farscape.

The transcript from that interview follows.
Quote:

The Sci Fi Channel finally talks about why FARSCAPE was cancelled and is heading into its final season.
TV Guide had the interview:

Since the Sci Fi Channel announced that the 11 new episodes of Farscape that begin airing Friday (at 8 pm/ET) will be the cult hit's last, the critics have spoken, the producers have spoken, and Lord knows, the fans have spoken. (Although Jim Henson Co. is developing a Farscape feature and anime project at starburst speed, and looking into syndication options, alienated viewers are nonetheless calling for a boycott of the cable network that shot down their favorite space opera.) In fact, just about the only entity that hasn't put in its two-cents' worth is Sci Fi... until now, that is. "We really tried to take the high road," says the cabler's president, Bonnie Hammer. "Instead of going out there and in any way belittling our partners, we kind of remained quiet." However, at last she is ready to break her silence and, in an exclusive interview with TV Guide Online, explain why the intergalactic castaways' star trek had to come to an end. — Ben Katner

TV Guide Online: So, what gives? Why would you want to cancel such a rad show?
Bonnie Hammer: We never wanted to cancel it. What we were trying to do was do 13 more episodes, not 22. The ratings had softened, and it was getting increasingly expensive to produce. We just couldn't make the financial deal. But we never wanted it to end when it ended. We had all intentions of doing 13 more episodes [beyond these 11] — we wanted to keep it in '03 and end it in '03. But financially, it was just too difficult to do.

TVGO: In that case, why not at least do a proper wrap-up, a TV movie or something?
Hammer: We looked at all the options. But with the speed in which it would have had to be done — because the set had to be broken down and the cast had to come back [from Australia, where shooting took place] and the scripts weren't written — [the cost] would have been enormous. [It would] have been almost as if we were doing [the upcoming epic miniseries] Children of Dune — and with less potential upside. We love the series... and would have liked nothing more than for it to have had a little bit more of a broad appeal. If all of those incredible fans who wrote in and sent notes and flowers and [whatnot] had actually watched it every week, we would have been able to do the 22.

TVGO: You mean to tell me that Farscape doesn't have the numbers to merit a fourth season, but Stargate SG-1, which you just renewed, is attracting a big enough audience to deserve a seventh?
Hammer: Yes. Take a look at our numbers on Monday nights just for the Stargate repeats. It's crazy! Before we ended the season on Stargate, we were getting a very high 1 [rating] and peaked at, I think, a 2 or a 2.1. That was for new, original episodes. [Now] our average for Stargate repeats has been unbelievable — 1.7 and 1.8 [ratings]. When Farscape was repeating, we were lucky if we got a .8. So there's a huge difference.

TVGO: But Farscape is so cool. How can that be?!
Hammer: Even though Stargate is sci fi, it's very broad sci fi. It's not serialized. Every episode, you can come to it whether you've watched the one before [or not]. They are self-contained. My husband is kind of an absentee watcher, and he would tune in every fifth or sixth episode and have absolutely no issues [with following the plots]. Farscape, on the other hand, got very, very serialized. It got very "in."

TVGO: And that's a bad thing... ?
Hammer: They had brilliant and sophisticated writing, but it was so narrow that it basically was an invitation to not tune in if you weren't totally familiar with the show. It was brilliant when you got it, and some of the characterizations were truly amazing, but it took a little too much work.

End quote.

The transcript for this interview can be found here:
http://www.zentertainment.com/article.php?sid=6703&mode=thread&order=0
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Re: Sci-Fi Channel finally discusses Farscape’s cancellation

Originally said by Bonnie Hammer
If all of those incredible fans who wrote in and sent notes and flowers and [whatnot] had actually watched it every week, we would have been able to do the 22.
They WERE!

* shakes head *

@$$#0|3$!!
 

My first reaction after reading this interview was outrage. I have a Nielsen box – and I watched Farscape… every week. Bonnie Hammer thinks that perhaps the people who are signing these online petitions are newcomers who haven’t watched the show when it mattered.
She is wrong.

But it doesn’t matter.

I started thinking about what she said. The more I though about it, the more I could see her point of view.

As I said, I watched Farscape. Every week. But so too did a lot of my co- workers. So too did friends that I hang out with. The problem isn’t that these people aren’t watching. The problem is that Bonnie Hammer can’t prove that they are watching. She can’t wave a sheet of paper at her advertisers saying, “Look! Millions of Farscape fans! Fork over the dough!”

Consider this: Nielsen Media Research is in business to sample a portion of our population, and find out what programs they watch. They compile this information, which is then given to the networks, who now know how much to charge advertisers for their ads. The higher the viewership, the more money networks can charge for ads.

The system sounds good on paper. One problem is that it hinges on a company who polls a miniscule portion of the population. Another problem is that there doesn’t seem to be another accepted rating system which anyone could counter her arguments. If Bonnie Hammer’s only source of information is inaccurate, her decisions are going to be woefully wrong.

Instead of wasting our time and money in massive online campaigns to save Farscape and Firefly, what we need is a massive online campaign to change the rating system itself. Something which is accessible. Something which samples a larger portion of the viewing audience. Something that can get the networks’ attention if it has to.

Think about it. How many times did Joss Whedon have to pitch Buffy the Vampire Slayer before it was finally picked up? The reason? Network executives said to themselves “There’s nothing like this on TV… therefore no one wants to see it.”

Networks and advertisers don’t really know how to respond to fan-based petitions. They have been trained to gauge a show’s success by its ratings. So, it doesn’t matter if Bonnie Hammer is wrong. As long as Nielsen is the accepted ratings system real fans cannot be heard.
 

If you don't have a Nielsen box then it doesn't matter what you watch because nobody knows. As far as Farscape goes the end all be all was that it wasn't cheap to make. Stargate SG1 is a old sindicated show, it can't be that expensive and the cost are spread out more.

SciFi channel has some of the crappiest shows I have ever seen, Farscape was wonderful but it was generally surrounded by crap, without Farscape i see no real reason to watch SciFi channel anymore, of course I don't have a Nielsen box so it doesn't matter if I watch SciFi or not.
 

I don't think the exec is wrong. I honestly think the ratings were accurate. While I did write the execs asking that the show be not be cancelled, I hadn't actually watched the show for several seasons. I tried it pick it up again recently, and simply could not follow everything that was going on. She's right, the show got to be too serialized. New entry into the show became nearly impossible, while dropping out stayed at a staic rate. That is an equation that dooms a show.

However, that said, there is one easy way to obtain additional viewer data from a much higher number of viewers (though biased towards a higher income level) - TIVO. Tivo keeps track of what you like and dislike already, and already communicates with that data on a daily basis. Currently there are 460,000 subscribers, FAR more than the 5000 nielsen boxes out there.

The flaw of course is that Tivo users are not as broad a segment of society as Nielsen choices, and there is less data about the viewers (like age and gender and race), though I am unsure if the deviations are dramatic, or if the deviation actually is harmful to advertising concerns (since a higher socio-economic strata might be actually beneficial for advertisers, for example).
 

Originally posted by Mistwell However, that said, there is one easy way to obtain additional viewer data from a much higher number of viewers (though biased towards a higher income level) - TIVO. Tivo keeps track of what you like and dislike already, and already communicates with that data on a daily basis. Currently there are 460,000 subscribers, FAR more than the 5000 nielsen boxes out there.

The flaw of course is that Tivo users are not as broad a segment of society as Nielsen choices, and there is less data about the viewers (like age and gender and race), though I am unsure if the deviations are dramatic, or if the deviation actually is harmful to advertising concerns (since a higher socio-economic strata might be actually beneficial for advertisers, for example). [/B]
You also have serious invasion of priviacy issues if you were to try and do this (or simply make all tvs have a built in Nelson Box. A fine solution to the ratings problem, but quite intrusive).
 

Destil said:
You also have serious invasion of priviacy issues if you were to try and do this (or simply make all tvs have a built in Nelson Box. A fine solution to the ratings problem, but quite intrusive).

How is it intrusive to report the raw number of people who ranked your show with three stars on TIVO? It wouldn't be a report of any individual, just the entire user base at once. Its the same thing as Morrus reporting the number of hits to his website every day - do you feel violated by site stats?

[Edit] By the way, I just discovered Tivo is already doing this. It is right there in your user agreement "Anonymous Viewing Information. We use Anonymous Viewing Information to develop reports and analyses about what programs, advertisements, and types of programming our subscribers (as a whole or in subgroups) watch or skip, or for other programming or advertising research. For example, we use Anonymous Viewing
Information to develop inferences that people who watch show X also watch show Y. "

Ha, those sneaky devils! Tivo is already being developed into a Nielsen supplement or replacement I would guess!

[EDIT 2] Wow, I hit the mark pretty close! Neilsen is already running a test right now to try and pull data from Tivo units. The experiment is running on only 10 Tivo units to begin, however "The software was downloaded to TiVo devices across the country but remains inactive..."

See also:
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/2000/Tivo.htm
 
Last edited:

TV Guide Online: So, what gives? Why would you want to cancel such a rad show?
Bonnie Hammer: We never wanted to cancel it. What we were trying to do was do 13 more episodes, not 22. The ratings had softened, and it was getting increasingly expensive to produce. We just couldn't make the financial deal. But we never wanted it to end when it ended. We had all intentions of doing 13 more episodes [beyond these 11] — we wanted to keep it in '03 and end it in '03.But financially, it was just too difficult to do.


Right, they had to use the money to make Tremor: the Series. At least Michael Gross has steady work now.
 

I'm not directly up on TV technologies. However, I find it hard to believe that my digital cable box (which has the ability to carry info to and from my cable company for purposes of buying pay-per-view shows) couldn't also act like a Neilsen box if they so wanted. It'd be a paltry amount of information, and need only be sent when I change channels, or when I turned the thing off.

And, there's no privacy issues with making a TiVo (or any other box) into a neilsen-ratings-counter if you simply allow the user to choose if his data is included. Really, including that sort of thing is a no-brainer.
 

Sorry but this a company line and she is sticking to it.

Star Gate SG1 reruns are new shows to most viewers and it would get good ratings on Monday nights as veiwers caught up to the new shows on Friday.

What happens if ratings for the last 11 shows are high?

I am just disappointed SciFi did not take the high road and finish what was started with Farscape. What they did by keeping silent all this time was hope the fans would stop bothering them.
 

Remove ads

Top