I think its great that blogs have come about. I just started my own blog about different topics in the comic field as well as any related stuff such as...Battlestar Galactica. I feel as if this is the best sci-fi show around and everyone involved are doing such a terrific job. Please stop by my blog site to read my comments as i am totally new to blogs and would like some feedback. (sorry ebay for stealing one of your catch phases). thanks for writing about Battlestar I hope it sees a full future, one it definitely deserves.

For one I enjoyed Farscape and its outlandish plot lines and Dr.Who'esque themes (sans interdimensional time travel). It was definitely an Epic of a series that suffered from a strong underlying plotline which simply got way too confusing. You can only have certain characters die, then come back, then die again, so many times. As for the move to add Browder and Black to SG-1, I believe that this will be the ultimate jumping of the shark for the series. Now I'm an SG-1 fan through and through. I enjoy its premise, plotlines, characters as well as the general direction that the series has taken. Of my opinion, I believe that the series should have ended this season with Earth finally conquering the Goa'uld with aide from the Asgard and ascend to be the 4th race within that ultimate treaty that Thor tells O'Neil about when he first meets the Asgard. Now by having O'Neil back only in a few episodes, and bringing in 3 new characters...the series is definitely trying a bit too hard. Now granted, geeks around the world will rejoice at having cast members from two of their favorite shows together, although the series will ultimately be doomed if both Browder & Black reprise their Farscape roles. Allow SG-1 to sail into the sunset at the end of the 10th season (from what I hear sci-fi renewed SG-1 for two, not one more season)...hopefully this next step wont ruin the show. Atlantis sucks, and should sink back into the ocean where we can all forget it even existed.

Battlestar's second season will have twenty episodes, so that's even better news. I understand that there might be a bit of a gap (one or two months) between airing of the first ten and the second ten, however.

Enterprise was on Wednesday, but this doesn't negate your thesis. In fact, it reinforces it. The problems with sci-fi programming are mostly related to the Nielsen ratings concept. To wit: 1. Sci-fi appeals to higher-income, better-educated 18-49 year old males. This is ignored by the Nielsen system. This is a general problem with Nielsen ratings and show genres that appeal to high-value niche audiences (do you really think Nielsens take into account one single female in America?), which is why we should all pray for a quick and painful death to the Nielsens and the company that creates them. 2. It doesn't matter which night sci-fi is scheduled, it will either get clobbered by other programming on the prime nights, or win a Pyrrhic victory on a dead night like Friday. 3. Sci-fi programming is usually expensive to create. Channels like the reality-type cheapo shows, which are a much smaller risk. A cheap show doesn't need stellar ratings to survive and be profitable, whereas expensive shows die quickly, even with decent Nielsens. Now, if you doubt any of these points, think about this: how much money have successful sci-fi franchises geenrated for producers and licencees? Don't think Star Wars, which isn't TV. Think Star Trek, which has always been lambasted for being (mostly) mediocre (and I'm a fan). Don't consider the ads and the movie ticket sales, think also of the massive amounts of merchandise, the numerous annual conventions and the economic value of both good and bad actors/writers/producers parlaying their Trek stints into careers partially buttressed by Trek fans seeing their non-Trek work only because they are Trek alumni. A recent TV Squad post mentioned a new ratings system quietly being tested, that would provide much better demographic information on viewership. This is the only possible solution to the problem of crappy quality and poor scheduling of TV sci-fi. When you can run Galactica or even the at-best mediocre Enterprise on a Thursday at 9:00 PM, and get a next-to-zero Nielsen rating, but secure 75% of the target audience mentioned in the beginning of my post, then advertisers (and the Madison Avenue agencies that represent them) will realign their purchases.

I was thinking about something yesterday. Why is it that Sci-Fi shows are almost always shown on Fridays? Is it honestly that network executives think that sci-fan fans don't have any lives and will be the only people home anyway so they decide to air it all then or is it just a coincidence? Still look at the evidence: Firefly, Sci-Fi channel's only real programming block of Stargate and Battlestar Galactica, The X-Files (before it got popular and went to Sundays), Enterprise... it's a pretty strong list of some of the best television sci-fi in recent years (along with SG-1 and Enterprise) on multiple networks and always shown on Fridays.

Ok, well, in terms of sci-fi stuff, I must comment. I think it's hard to compare the Stargate series and Farscape because, yes, they're both sci-fi, but I don't think they're trying to be the same kinda show. Farscape ditches SO much of the kind of "standard" sci-fi stuff that Trek and B5 kept on-a largely human crew, with largely good intentions, that don't have that much internal conflict (obviously, the last one doesn't so much apply to B5, but just go with me here for a second). Farscape threw all that out the window and did, what I feel, is a much more character-based show than Stargate or Trek. Not to say there is not significant character development and all that jazz on Stargate (here I mean both Atlantis and SG-1). Just that, largely, Stargate is based, I feel, around the overarching organizations, and it's largely about that interaction. The Goa'uld System Lords, The Trust, the NID, the SGC. Where in Farscape you don't have any large organizations like that, it's all about the people. But forgive my rambling, I digress from my point. Ken, you asked if it was worth the sacrifice of Farscape for more Stargate. Personally, I'd say no. But mind you, I would have sacrificed most of what's on Sci-Fi (tell me that a few less movies of the week wouldn't have funded an extra season of Farscape?). But I also do still consistently enjoy Stargate. Does it make me scream at the screen and yell and nearly cry like Farscape did/does? No. Will I spend the money to buy SG-1 on DVD? No. But the Stargate people do tell good stories, and they are getting better. I'd reccommend anyone who didn't get into it give it a shot sometime again. The first season is kinda iffy up until the alternate universe episode, but after that kicks up a notch (though why Stargate feels the need to do clip shows every few seasons is beyond me). Anyway, forgive the rant, but I have thought about this a lot. I feel that both Stargate and Farscape have value, but I don't think you can really say one is BETTER than the other. They're very different. Tom.

R-Bro, Sci-Fi splits their shows into two mini-seasons each year, so we're really getting a full compliment of episodes, most of the time.

Ken, Yeah, Stargate SG-1 was cancelled by Showtime, but Showtime woulddn't even have tried to air something as daring as Farscape, so the fact that said pay net axed SG-1 is no judgement on its quality. They cancelled Odyssey 5 too, which in my admittedly sci-fi geekey mind was another brilliant show. SG-1 is ok, but definitely on its last legs. Methinks the shark was jumped early last season. Love your idea about Browder and Black, though!

From the If-You-Can't-Beat-'Em,-Join-'Em Dept... I find it strange that Ben Browder and Claudia Black are joining Stargate. Didn't SCIFI cancel Farscape so that they could use the money to fund another season of SG-1? Despite the ultra-yummylicious Claudia Black, I think it's going to be hard for me to get into this show. Then again, SCIFI could always turn the series on it's ear and have Ben and Claudia reprise their roles as Crichton and Ayeron, who have infiltrated SG-1 as sleeper agents trying to uncover a Skarran plot to use the Stargates to rebuild wormhole technology. Geez, I'd watch it then. Seriously though, I never got into this series. I never hear that much about it on some of the scifi boards I frequent (yes, I'm a major geek). How is it still on the air? Was it worth the sacrifice of Farscape to maintain a consistent level of scifi mediocrity? Wasn't it originally cancelled by a network because of bad ratings? My information might be incorrect so I'm hoping someone can enlighten me. Now, if they replaced the ENTIRE cast of SG-1 with the cast of Farscape, THAT would be something....

Woo! The best sci-fi show on the airwaves--make the cable-waves--returns in just two months! Anyone know if it's another 13-episode season? Obviously I'd love to see 22 or so, but I can settle for 13 if the quality remains just as high.