Are ALL Sci Fi TV Fans Whiners?

[fringey]

Okay, I am gonna get up on my soapbox here. I hope not to offend a lot of people, but I am sure I will offend a few. Since I work third shift and usually complete my work less than halfway through my workday, I get to spend a lot of time surfing the web. I spend a lot of time hitting different sites about movies and tv shows with a sci fi, or related genre theme. I am cosntantly amazed by the amount of whining I see in a lot of letter columns on sites like scifi.com.

Before I go any further, let me say that I think everyone has the right to be disappointed when a series they like gets cancelled. And they have the right to express it in a public forum, but, geez, some of these people! Okay, Stargate SG-1 got cancelled, and I am disappointed. But, one of the letters to scifi.com said "I don't have many friends, and I hate my life. But every Friday I can have an hour that I forget about it and I don't want to die. Please don't take that away." I did not quote the writer's name. You can see that for yourself if you want. To that writer, I would quote William Shatner, and you all know what I mean. Stargate had ten great years, but it was dropping quickly in the ratings, losing about 25% of it's average viewership in the last two years.

Anytime a series is cancelled, there is a huge outcry over it. Night Stalker, Invasion, Threshold and Surface were all cancelled due to low ratings. Yet, 99% of the letters I saw said that the networks should have given them more of a chance to find an audience. Let's face it folks, sci fi is the most expensive type of show to produce. If you are a network exec, how much money are you going to keep throwing in the toilet waiting for a show to find an audience? These people have to show a profit for their shareholders. As much as we would like to think of TV as pure entertainment, even art, it IS a business. If you ignore the bottom line for too long, it becomes mired in red ink. That is NOT a situationa TV exec wants to have to explain to the shareholders.

True, I was not a fan of Night Stalker. I thought it was a grim, humorless, completely crappy attempt at a remake of a classic. I didn't even care that is was cancelled in the middle of a two parter. I actually cheered when I heard the news, because I had kept watching hoping it would get better and I was finally given a break to escape the trainwreck it was. However, I coudl sympathize with those who were upset and am glad that they got a chance to see the rest of the eps on sci fi. Threshold just didn't do it for me, and I had kind of quit watching before it was cancelled anyway. Invasion and Surface both intrigued me, especially the latter, but I didn't cry about their cancellation and beg sci fi or another network to pick them up. Both had full seasons to find an audience, and neither did. Enterprise had four full seasons and never got decent ratings after the premiere episode, yet there was a "Save Enterprise" campaign. As if Paramount hadn't given it enough time to find an audience. And, yes, it WAS getting better, but at less than two million viewers per episode, it was just not making any money and had lost tons. How long is a network obligated to listen to a comparative handful of people?

However, if you were to read various letter columns, you would think the networks gave NONE of these shows a fair break. They ALL got a fair shot. None of them cut the mustard ratingswise. We are talking about shows that garnered less than 10 million viewers on average, in a business where 20 million on average can still get you cancelled. We aren't talking about networks like FOX, which cancels shows at the drop of a hat with maybe five episodes aired, out of order, like they did "Firefly". We are talking about shows that had an opportunity and didn't do anything with that opportunity.

As an original Trekkie, I hate to admit it, but the original series started a bad trend when it was saved by the massive write in campaign that gave it it's third, and final, season. A third season that was nowhere near as good as the first season. What did Spock say in Amok Time about wanting a thing may not be as pleasing as having a thing? Now every fan of a series, no matter how low-rated, feels they can try to save the show when it gets cancelled. Petitions fly around the internet within seconds of the news of a cancellation. Websites are littered with fans begging networks to bring their series back and give it one more chance.

That is all well and good, and I applaud your passion, at least, for your favorite shows. But, let's try to be a little more realistic and start accepting the inevitable: If it don't make money, it ain't gonna be around long. It is as simple as that. Let's try to be a little less whiney, and work more on getting the word out to support good shows BEFORE they are cancelled rather than to try and save them after the fact. I know this is not going to be a popular stance I am taking, but, again as Mr. Spock would say, it IS the logical one.


Patrick
a.k.a. Fringey, The Fringe Element
"A life lived without passion is a life not lived.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

fringey wrote: I know this is not going to be a popular stance I am taking, but, again as Mr. Spock would say, it IS the logical one.

"Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic." -- Buffy

Okay, I'll take the bait.

I am confused by you, Fringey; your motto is that "a life lived without
passion is a life not lived" but you are criticizing those who are
pursuing their passion -- who are rising up in defense of what they
love.

Who is to judge what is a worthwhile cause or struggle? If you don't
lke the cause, don't fight for it. If people say that a
particular hour on TV brings them joy in an otherwise joyless
existence, how can you make fun? Have you walked a mile
in their shoes? Do you know what their lives are like?

If people are fired up and want to do something to preserve
something that makes them happy, how is that actually
hurting you? Shouldn't you rejoice that people have found
a passion, found a way to channel their energy and their
disappoinment? Isn't it a positive thing?

Invoking the famous William Shatner line could be done to
any of us on this site -- yourself included. Shouldn't we, as a science
fiction community, try not to be divisive and condescending but
inclusive and accepting? And if people are hurting and sad because
their favorite show has been canceled, is it really a nice thing to do
to call them a bunch of whiners?

"Why don't you give me a nice paper cut, and pour lemon juice on it?"
-- Miracle Max

[cooky37]

OOh!! you called that one Fringey. I am more worried about this poor person who's life revolves around a one hour show.

For Every show That makes it on the air there are hundreds that don't. think how bad they must be?

Alot has changed in the past 38 years. The introduction of Demographics, Cable, E-mails, CGI.... if a show doesn't make it now its because it's no good.

But if someone wants to invest more than hour a week into a show let them.

Will someone shut that man up
NEVER!

[fringey]

Bug, there is nothing wrong with being passionate about a show. But, if you threaten to kill yourself over a show being cancelled, then you DO need to get a life. I am not meaning YOU specifically, but in the all inclusive manner. There is also nothing wrong with wanting to fight to save a show. But, one MUST be realistic. While we are sci fi and fantasy fans here, we do live in a real world and we have to be able to exist in it. To paraphrase Animal House, "Living in denial is no way to go through life." To many fans seem to feel a sense of entitlement to having their favorite show on the air, no matter how bad the ratings are. It just isn't realistic to live that way. I have many things I am passionate about, but I also know how to exist in the real world. Too many of the fans out there don't. If they don't want to be logical and accept that things aren't going to be the way they want it all of the time, then they aren't really people I can relate to anyway. I know it sounds harsh, but intelligence and logic are things I value in a person. Illogic is not something I value.

Patrick
a.k.a. Fringey, The Fringe Element
"A life lived without passion is a life not lived.

[scryer41]

I'm with Fringey on this. I personnally hated to see Enterprise cancelled. I didn't, however, go out and cry about it and threaten to kill myself over it. I did take offense to some people clapping and jumping for joy that it was cancelled. They were the same one's who, for ALL four seasons, B----ed and moaned about how the show was being written. It was a SHOW and they couldn't stand the idea of someone trying to do something new and creative with the Star Trek franchise. Like I said before, if these so called fans had just watched it for what it was (a purely sci-fi commentary on events in our time) and not an attempt to re-write the Star Trek Universe, they might have it still on today.

Shatner was right when he said that little phrase on SNL all those years ago. It might have been a joke, but there are just to many people out there who live and breath the stuff they're interested in.

Passion for something can be both a good and bad thing. It's all in how you handle that passion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware the beast Man for he is the Devil's pawn.
Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, or ----, or greed.
Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land.
Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert out of his home and yours.
Shun him. Drive him back into his jungle lair.
For he is the harbinger of death.

The Sacred Scrolls: 29th Scroll, 6th Verse

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

fringey wrote: Bug, there is nothing wrong with being passionate about a show. But, if you threaten to kill yourself over a show being cancelled, then you DO need to get a life.

I don't know the person in question, but in my book, that's called
"hyperbole." Like when someone is in love and they say they
can't live without the other, or like when you say you just had the
best day of your life. People use hyperbole to make a point.

fringey wrote: There is also nothing wrong with wanting to fight to save a show. But, one MUST be realistic.

Why?

"Things are only impossible until they're not." -- Picard

fringey wrote: If they don't want to be logical and accept that things aren't going to be the way they want it all of the time, then they aren't really people I can relate to anyway.

It's not logical to see something happen that you don't want to happen
and just sit around and do nothing. It's entirely logical to motivate,
take action, and try to make the world the way you want it. My
question for you is, why does it bother you so much that people
are refusing" to go gentle into that good night"?

Why are you WHINING so loudly about their "whining"?

If nothing else, the campaigns, the petitions, the complaining
by fans when their shows are cancelled can prove to be
cathartic and help people deal. Just because you choose not to
do so, or you have different priorities in your life, that doesn't
mean that it's wrong for other people to prioritize their time and
their passion differently.

Joss Whedon has done more for equality and women than a lot
of activist groups by the images of women he's created in his
shows and movies. Being passionate about keeping his shows on
the air in essence is also passion for women's rights. People
may have motivations and passions that aren't evident to you,
and they may be just as valid as your "realistic" and "logical"
pursuits.

fringey wrote: I know it sounds harsh, but intelligence and logic are things I value in a person. Illogic is not something I value.

So say I again, "Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic." -- Buffy

[tstone (deleted)]

Actually, the failure of Enterprise was that it DIDN'T try anything new and different with the franchise through most of it's history. Only when they got to the third season, did they attempt anything different, and they did it in such a way that really produced a "HUH?" when one thought about it, that is introducing elements and events that should have reverberated throughout Trek history. But they didn't.

Only in the fourth season did they truly begin taking advantage of the premise. By then it was too late.

ONLY Deep Space Nine has a Trek series attempted something truly different in the franchise.

Enterprise failed because, like Voyager, it tried to succeed through most of it's history by coasting on it's laurels. Thing is, Voyager managed to pull it off. Which gave them all that much more incentive.

Now, I agree with disappointment over the cancelling of a fav show. And I'm all about the passion to save it. But to stake your own well being on it?

People, please...





scryer41 wrote: I'm with Fringey on this. I personnally hated to see Enterprise cancelled. I didn't, however, go out and cry about it and threaten to kill myself over it. I did take offense to some people clapping and jumping for joy that it was cancelled. They were the same one's who, for ALL four seasons, B----ed and moaned about how the show was being written. It was a SHOW and they couldn't stand the idea of someone trying to do something new and creative with the Star Trek franchise. Like I said before, if these so called fans had just watched it for what it was (a purely sci-fi commentary on events in our time) and not an attempt to re-write the Star Trek Universe, they might have it still on today.

Shatner was right when he said that little phrase on SNL all those years ago. It might have been a joke, but there are just to many people out there who live and breath the stuff they're interested in.

Passion for something can be both a good and bad thing. It's all in how you handle that passion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware the beast Man for he is the Devil's pawn.
Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, or ----, or greed.
Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land.
Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert out of his home and yours.
Shun him. Drive him back into his jungle lair.
For he is the harbinger of death.

The Sacred Scrolls: 29th Scroll, 6th Verse

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

tstone wrote: Now, I agree with disappointment over the cancelling of a fav show. And I'm all about the passion to save it. But to stake your own well being on it?

People, please...

I'm not saying it's the healthiest way to be, but people stake their
psychological/emotional well being on external factors they may or
may not have control over all the time.

People let their happiness depend on whether or not their
sports team wins, whether or not they're in a relationship,
whether or not their candidate wins an election, whether or not it rains.

It's not a particularly rational or intellectual thing, but it's a gut
feeling, emotional thing. If a favorite TV show becomes a "comfort
blanket" and is then gone, it can produce a physiological response
involving neurotransmitters, chemicals, etc.

Yes, ideally, people would have their happiness dictated by no
external factors and would be happy and well-adjusted all the
time on their own. But that's not how the human organism is designed,
and I don't think grief over a TV show is any less valid than grief over
a cursed baseball team losing again, "rainy day blues," or
angst over a break up. It's emotional turmoil over something that
you can't necessarily control, or something you had come to
count on that won't be there for you any more.

[fringey]

I am editing my original response, made out of a lack of sleep and too many days working with no day off since I got back from Dragon Con. I apologize if I was insulting, Bug.

To get back on a respectful track here, I will only say that telling someone who is arguing for logic and a realistic view of the world that they are being illogical is just, well, illogical!

You and I are never going to agree on things 100% of the time, but I do listen to what you say and try to see things from your point of view. Even when I disagree, your opinion does deserve my respect.

However, I still stand by my statement that, if a TV show is so important to someone that they feel their world is gonna crash withoutit, then they have some serious issues to face. There is too much more going on in the world for a TV show to be so important in someone's lives. Child abuse, wars, world hunger, etc. If someone feels like they are losing something by having a TV show cancelled, maybe they should consider donating that one hour a week to some kind of charity. It will give them a different perspective on life. That is why I am complaining about the whiners. They could be doing something far more important and meaningful with their time.

[fringey]

You know, scryer, I did not jump and down for joy when Enterprise was cancelled, but I didn't have any love for the show. It is odd that you liked it, in my opinion, because you seem to be contradictory in the Smallville thread. You don't appreciate the fact that Smallville doesn't seem to fit in with the canon of the comic books. Yet, with Enterprise, which constantly mucked with established canon, you didn't have a problem with it. I am not saying you shouldn't, I am just curious as to why one seems okay with you, but the other isn't. I am just the opposite. I don't mind Smallville and rather enjoy it, but Enterprise grated on my nerves.

I guess, for me, Smallville works because of the fact that Superman has changed so much over the years anyway. But, Gene Roddenberry had a vision that Rick Berman and Brannon Branagh did not seem to respect, in my opinion. That vision held true through most of the other series. At least until Gene's death. In Entertprise, it seemed to be thrown completely out of the window.

I guess what it comes down to is that I believe Siegel & Shuster wouldn't have a problem with Smallville, but I can see Gene throwing fits over Enterprise. Maybe we can learn from each other on how to see a little bit the way the other sees.

Patrick
a.k.a. Fringey, The Fringe Element
"A life lived without passion is a life not lived.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

fringey wrote: telling someone who is arguing for logic and a realistic view of the world that they are being illogical is just, well, illogical!

You CLAIMED to be arguing for logic, but your reasoning and base
assumptions were far from logical. You were displaying the
same faults you were arguing against. My pointing out that
you were being illogical, therefore, was completely logical and
consistent.

fringey wrote: However, I still stand by my statement that, if a TV show is so important to someone that they feel their world is gonna crash withoutit, then they have some serious issues to face.

And I still say that if you don't know what issues they are already
facing, it is an unfair and unfounded judgment. If someone's life
is perfect, flawless, and the only bump in the road is the cancellation
of their favorite show, then yes, I would agree that their feeling
that the world is crashing around them without it is unhealthy.

However, without knowing what they have been through, how can you
be so sure? How do you know that they haven't struggled with
horrors you can't even imagine and still managed to come back
and start leading a life where they can finally care about something
outside of themselves -- even if it is a show? How do you know
until you have lived their lives or seen their pain whether or not
they are being spoiled whiners, or are actually survivors of something
far worse and actually admirable in how far they've come?

You can't. And I think the sweeping condemnation is a bit harsh
and unfounded.

fringey wrote: There is too much more going on in the world for a TV show to be so important in someone's lives. Child abuse, wars, world hunger, etc.

Case in point. If someone has been the victim of child abuse,
ation, lost everything they ever loved in the world, and managed
to pull themselves back from the edge because they found hope in a
show, so losing that show represents going over the edge, how can
you condemn their turning that into something positive like
taking action rather than retreating further? There ARE horrors in
the world, and a huge number of people retreat from them into
science fiction. It's how they survive. Is everyone who complains
about a show's cancellation like that? No. But I don't like the
idea of completely invalidating other people's feelings and saying
their whiners as a rule. It's not right.

fringey wrote: If someone feels like they are losing something by having a TV show cancelled, maybe they should consider donating that one hour a week to some kind of charity. It will give them a different perspective on life. That is why I am complaining about the whiners. They could be doing something far more important and meaningful with their time.

Okay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
you weren't trying to be condescending and insulting here, but I
find your stance extremely distasteful. You are assuming that
these people you are calling whiners aren't aware of what's
important in life or that they have screwed up priorities, and I find
this appalling. I have done a lot of volunteer work with kids, with rape
victims, etc., and I can honestly tell you that the more I see, the
more important I think it is to keep shows with positive messages
in general, and which show strong, intelligent women in particular,
on the air. Not to mention that these shows help re-invigorate a lot
of the people who do work in the trenches and who are making a
difference.

Just because people have different priorities than you do, it doesn't
mean that they're wrong, or that they haven't seen enough of the
real world. They may be just as intelligent and experienced and
have come to different conclusions. Your opinion offends me, although
I respect you and your right to hold that opinion.

Have you seen Joss's speech when Equality Now gave him an
award? I think there's a link to it from Equality Now's events page.

To quote from something else he said while praising the efforts
of Equality Now, "There are two ways to fight a battle like ours. One is to
whisper in the ear of the masses, try subtlely and gradually to change the
gender expectations and mythic structures of our culture. That's me."

TV shows are sometimes about a lot more than just an hour of
TV -- they have real power, they can slowly help society change for
the better. And sometimes their loss is far more reaching than
leaving a few bored fans with an extra hour on their hands every
week.

[ninjabear]

Okay everyone imagine for a moment a life so poor, so lonely, so dire and gloomy that a TV show really is the only reason to live. An hour of television that provides a release, an all too brief respite from an otherwise meaningless, unbearable existence.
Oh they're out there, and some of them are here; I feel it is not our right to mock them, but our duty to offer them more than "just a TV show."

[fringey]

To both Bug and Ninjabear. If there life is so screwed up that a TV show is the only thing keeping them going, then I would suggest therapy for one hour a week instead of sitting on front of the boob tube. That may sounds condescending and insulting, but it is the truth. Sitting in your home, using fictional characters and stories is NOT the way to reacha healthy life. Reaching out to others who can help you is the way. By excusing the behavior of those who would use TV as a crutch, then you are enabling their unhealthy lifestyle.

As both of you seem to have decided I am "the enemy" and take exception to my posts, I really don't see a need to respond to further replies. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Patrick
a.k.a. Fringey, The Fringe Element
"A life lived without passion is a life not lived.

[scryer41]

Hold on Pat. I don't think of you as "the enemy". I agree with you that a person who is only living to view a show lives a piss poor life and needs to find help. I think seeking therepy is a good idea. But I will always suggest a person, who is in need of help, join a church (and not a satanic one either) first. If anything, that person's life will get better just by becoming more spiritual.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware the beast Man for he is the Devil's pawn.
Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, or ----, or greed.
Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land.
Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert out of his home and yours.
Shun him. Drive him back into his jungle lair.
For he is the harbinger of death.

The Sacred Scrolls: 29th Scroll, 6th Verse

[fringey]

scryer41 wrote: Hold on Pat. I don't think of you as "the enemy". I agree with you that a person who is only living to view a show lives a piss poor life and needs to find help. I think seeking therepy is a good idea. But I will always suggest a person, who is in need of help, join a church (and not a satanic one either) first. If anything, that person's life will get better just by becoming more spiritual.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware the beast Man for he is the Devil's pawn.
Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, or ----, or greed.
Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land.
Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert out of his home and yours.
Shun him. Drive him back into his jungle lair.
For he is the harbinger of death.

The Sacred Scrolls: 29th Scroll, 6th Verse

The enemy comment was for Bug & Ninjabear, not you, Scryer. They seem to have taken the opposing view on a lot of my posts lately. And in ways that come off a little insulting sometimes. I am probably ovestating the case, it just gets annoying when the same people seem to keep taking a stance against you over and over.

Church IS another good outlet for those with a spiritual leaning. Not all will have it, but it is definitely an option to take.

Patrick
a.k.a. Fringey, The Fringe Element
"A life lived without passion is a life not lived.