Battlestar Galactica has a return date
|
Battlestar Galactica will be back on US television on 16 January 2009. It will run for 10 weeks and end on 20 March 20 with a big finale.  We are still chasing a UK broadcast date, but for now, why not have a read of our interview with Jamie Bamber? |
Posted by David (127.0.0.1) on October 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM BST #
Posted by Nina (127.0.0.1) on October 17, 2008 at 12:35 PM BST #
Posted by Bob (127.0.0.1) on October 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM BST #
If there was an award for dragging a series out in a desperate attempt to convince people to watch it, BSG would win hands down.
I look forward to the 21st March when the sci-fi channel will show superior shows that people actually watch.
Bye BSG, wish i could say you were good but sadly you weren't. As the saying goes you can't polish a turd, and this show was a steaming pile.
Posted by Blob (127.0.0.1) on October 17, 2008 at 01:00 PM BST #
You are like a negative magnet to any BSG thread. At least this time you bothered to put a name.
Actually a lot of people watch this and enjoy it so blob off.
...
RA
Posted by The Red Avenger (127.0.0.1) on October 17, 2008 at 01:16 PM BST #
Posted by David (127.0.0.1) on October 17, 2008 at 01:26 PM BST #
Er. i don't want to dis Sci-fi channel too much cos i DO love 'em, but they don't have a huge raft of superior shows waiting in the wings...
Posted by slink (127.0.0.1) on October 18, 2008 at 11:49 AM BST #
Posted by Bob (127.0.0.1) on October 19, 2008 at 12:33 AM BST #
"More dross please"
Don't sweat it Bob, you already got it after all you watch BSG. It does have one thing in common with Flash Gordon though, that was axed due to no one watching it aswell and you were right on the tripe front.
"it's not their fault they can't realise how good this show is!"
Yea Right, so good millions don't watch it in the states and the UK which kinda explains the whole low ratings/axing thing.
So good no one watches it???
You're logic is really good!!!
Give it up, facts are facts!!!
Posted by Blob (127.0.0.1) on October 20, 2008 at 09:49 AM BST #
Ok, the Sci-Fi channel in the states is a cable channel that only gets a small percentage of the total viewing population at any one time and out of something like 500 other channels. No show on Sci-Fi gets millions and millions of viewers, because there aren't millions and millions who have Sci-Fi. But, Battlestar Galactica does get ratings as good as other Sci-Fi shows that have run a lot longer. Earlier this year, it was beating Stargate Atlantis.
Similarly, in the UK, it's shown on Sky One. Sky is only installed in about 2 million out of a total of 20 or 30 million households. No programme on Sky has ever got millions and millions of viewers. Not Buffy, not the X Files, not Lost. In that regard, BSG is no different.
Low ratings doesn't automatically mean a tv show is bad. The fact that so many critics have heaped praise upon BSG rather supports this. The opposite is also true, whether on TV or at the box office. Sex & the City took millions of dollars worldwide, which means an awful lot of people went to see it. That doesn't make it a cinematic masterpiece. If any logic is flawed here, it's the argument that poor ratings mean a poor programme.
There are dozens of example of poor ratings/box office of a perfectly good programme or movie. Blade Runner, The Thing, Near Dark all did badly at the box office. All of those films are now seen as great movies. There are just as many TV shows that were shut down because of poor ratings which are now regarded as classics. Star Trek being the obvious example.
Lastly, if Sci-Fi had cancelled Battlestar Galactica because of poor ratings, it's hardly likely they'd have gone back to do an expensive 'fifth' season after the writer's strike. They could have easily left things as they were, with the crew arriving on a desolate earth.
The 'facts' don't support it.
Posted by Bob (127.0.0.1) on October 20, 2008 at 01:22 PM BST #
Yes it is on sky over here which is indeed only available to a limited few but if the show was so good, why has no terrestrial channel picked it up. Star Trek many series was originally on satellite but was picked up by the BBC and CH4 for more people to watch. the CSI franchise is on satellite but CH5 picked it up Why? Because it was very popular so these channels knew they were on to a good thing, yet BSG isn't, why? because it isn't popular enough for any mainstream channel to risk buying. FACT!!!
Critical acclaim means bog all, how many times have critics praised various films and programmes for them to fail miserably and go the way of the dodo yet other things which they maul go onto to be massive successes. The critics opinion means nothing, it doesn't affect what people do and see. FACT!!!
And it isn't a fifth season it's the remainder of the fourth which they have split in two due to the delays of the writers strike. And yes they would commit to it, prime example: Enterprise which was axed after it's third season but was renewed for one more season so they could finish it off just like BSG. It's still classed as a failure due to the low ratings JUST like BSG. FACT!!!
Interesting isn't it:
The Bionic Woman gets axed due to low ratings, the consensus seems to be because it was a bad show and was rubbish.
Flash Gordon gets axed due to low ratings, the consensus seems to be because it was a bad show and was rubbish.
Enterprise gets axed due to low ratings, the consensus seems to be because it was a bad show and was rubbish.
BSG gets axed due to low ratings but wait it's not because it's bad, it because there bringing it to a natural conclusion BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
Just because it gets low ratings doesn't make it bad, well it don't make it good either.
Posted by Blob (127.0.0.1) on October 20, 2008 at 01:55 PM BST #
It's available, but that doesn't mean local cable operators have to take it as a feed.
Just because 75 million homes can POTENTIALLY get Sci-Fi, doesn't mean everyone will watch it. There are literally hundreds of channels in the U.S. As to BSG not even registering, neither do any of the Sci-Fi Channels other shows. There are plenty of other cable channels pumping out quality programmes that get relatively poor figures. The Tudors gets about 1 million on Showtime. The Sopranos got on average 9 -10 million on HBO, which is the exception rather than the rule for cable ratings, but still far short of the 112 million households who can receive terrestrial broadcasts. If you measure Battlestar Galactica's figures against other shows on the Sci-Fi Channel, than it's still one of their most successful, regardless of a ratings slide. Measured against other cable channels, it's perfectly acceptable, since they almost universally get low ratings.
As to BSG not being picked up here by terrestrial channels - the miniseries and season one were both in part financed by SKY. That's why they put their logo on at the end. It's perfectly possible that they bought the rights to show it for a set number of years before any other channel could get hold of it.
Star Trek: TNG started out on BBC2 in the UK. But they only paid for the rights up to season 3. Sky jumped in and bought the rights for the next few years. After a while, the BBC paid a lot of money to obtain the terrestrial rights for the remainder of the series. Nowadays, terrestrial broadcasters are a lot more cautious (particularly the BBC and CH4) about spending a large amount of money for an import when it'll only net them a few million viewers. Buffy, The X Files and Star Trek only got about 4 million or so on the BBC. Financially, it might not be worth the expense for small viewing figures.
"Critical acclaim means bog all"
That is rather part of the point I was making. The critics like BSG. That doesn't mean its going to get huge ratings. The critics savage My Family, it does well in the ratings. A good show like BSG can still be a good show while getting rubbish viewing figures while a crap show can still be a crap show and get umpteen million.
I'm perfectly aware the remaining 10 episodes of BSG are a continuation of season 4. That's why I wrote 'fifth season' in inverted commas. And no, just because season four was derailed because of the writers strike, it doesn't mean they'd commit to an extra ten episodes. If the show was doing as disastrously for Sci-Fi as you're suggesting, they'd cut their losses and run.
As to the examples of failing shows you cite, BIonic Woman was on a terrestrial network which are far less forgiving than cable networks and was in-itself, quite a poor programme. Enterprise was the last dregs of recycled plots of a show that had at that point been running in some form or another for 17 years and had over 21 years worth of episodes on a failing new network and Flash Gordon was just drivel by any standard.
Battlestar wasn't killed by low ratings ( although it is an expensive programme to make) - Ronald D. Moore and David Eick have repeatedly stated it was their decision to end the show. Other sources high up at NBC have confirmed that according to the Los Angeles Times.
As I said, poor ratings don't mean a bad programme. Equally, adding multiple exclamation marks to that word "Fact" doesn't make it true.
Posted by Bob (127.0.0.1) on October 20, 2008 at 05:05 PM BST #
So the fact it was on god knows how many websites at the times saying that the Sci-fi channel would no longer fund this series due to the low ratings as it was not cost effective to do so given no one was watching it and they would give them one more season to wrap it up means nothing. When it was reprted on this very website it was under the by line:
"BSG get the chop"
Not "BSG comes to to an end" or "Writers decide to end BSG"
THe chop ie: AXED!!!
Oh and another thing last year at some awards do, the guy who plays Adama actually was quoted as saying that he felt BSG would finish after a fourth season, this was categoricaly denied by Ronald D. Moore who was also quoted as saying there were no plans to end it after the fourth season. Then the above happened and all of a sudden we were getting all the garbage about feeling the need to end it now and it was always meant to finish it BLAH BLAH BLAH.
The decision was made to end it only because they had no choice!!! The show was axed because of low ratings.
There is a saying in entertainment
'Give the people what they want'
And the truth is they didn't want BSG!!!!
I except there are people who like it, the same as there are people who don't, it is hard when you are a fan of a series and it gets canned but that is what's happened so i hope you enjoy the rest of this series and remember it with admiration when it's gone.
Posted by Blob (127.0.0.1) on October 21, 2008 at 09:04 AM BST #
Except that's not really what I was saying. If there is an exclusivity agreement in place with Sky and the Sci-Fi Channel, then the BBC may be unwilling to shell out a fortune and buy the rights before any such deal between Sci-Fi and Sky has come to an end, simply because the BBC has to be careful with it's publicly funded budget. That's not to say they wouldn't in the future.
As to whether BSG got axed by the channel or brought to a conclusion by the producers - I read plenty of websites and don't recall hundreds of stories of the type you're talking about. I have read several which suggest it was brought to an end in a decision by Moore and Eick and others where higher powers at NBC confirm this.
The fact that SFX reported it as being given 'the chop' is simply a headline. To pull readers toward a particular story. Which reads better - "Battlestar Galactica given the Chop" or "Battlestar Galactica Producers decide to end the show after it's fourth season in order to give it a natural conclusion instead of dragging it out for seven years"?
As I've pointed out, BSG got comparable rating to other programmes on Sci-Fi which all get low ratings. Some of which ran for nearly ten years. I've yet to read an article in which anyone from Sci-Fi, NBC or Battlestar Galactica's cast or crew confirm the axed by the channel theory.
Like I said - low ratings aren't a mark of a programme being a bad one. Yes, there are millions who watch and enjoy BSG and millions more who don't. That doesn't make the programme a "steaming pile". I'll miss it when it's gone, just as in some dark, scary place someone is missing new episodes of Flash Gordon or Bionic Woman, although I don't feel the need to gloat about it.
By the way - are you sure you're not Cybos ;-)
Posted by Bob (127.0.0.1) on October 21, 2008 at 01:04 PM BST #
I really am surprised to see the dislike some people have for BSG. In terms of modern sci-fi, for the vast majority of fans i've heard and read threads on love the show and watch religiously. There is a much smaller group who HATE it, yet seen to have an almost unending stream of "facts" which are continuously thrown at fans.
BSG-dislikers, like blob, and the 3-4 regular other poster with similar views don't seem to get the fact that this is a much loved show and will continue to be.FACT!
Blob, have to agree with red avenger, you do read like another poster, who doesn't leave a name.
Posted by David (127.0.0.1) on October 21, 2008 at 04:23 PM BST #
Posted by Bob (127.0.0.1) on October 21, 2008 at 06:15 PM BST #
Posted by David (127.0.0.1) on October 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM BST #