Honestly, I’m baffled by both AEM and JF, it remains an utter mystery to me how they were unable to make something good out of something so easy to make good with apparently a fair amount of talent behind them.

As for X-Files being science fiction “because it has aliens”, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Aliens were pretty much a MacGuffin, they never interacted with the story, the story that involved them was about the “conspiracy”. Am I being pedantic? Perhaps, but honestly it all boils down to “What do you expect to see on something called “The Sci-fi” channel”, to which the answer is not paranormal shows that might have something involving an alien, but not actually centered around the alien, once in a blue-moon.

And no, pseudo-science (or “fringe” science) is not science, by definition. There is a specific thing science fiction is or was, and “stuff that isn’t science” isn’t one of them. The problem with stretching the definition of science fiction to “anything that has the letters s, c, i, e, n, c, e in that order in the plot” is that you’re not generally attracting the same audience or interesting the same people. In particular, the basic “What if” question posed by science fiction is hollow if the technologies that form the base are just ludicrous.

Anyway, I see I’m fighting a losing battle here, but understand this: the deliberate redefining of the term and application to shows like Fringe does not help anyone, it doesn’t ensure more science fiction is made (quite the reverse) and it reduces the probability of anything intelligent in that genre appearing on TV. The X-Files appears to have opened the crack, and Fringe appears to be widening it. It’s not good.

And this is what IMDB says about the “Black Dahlia” project:

Screenwriter Josh Friedman, years ago, had completed drafts of “The Black Dahlia” for director David Fincher and “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” for director Jay Roach. But both drafts have been stuck in development and rewritten by other writers.

So that’s yet ANOTHER screenplay that went no where. So where does he get this rep for being a great screenwriter?

And I don’t know where anybody gets the notion Friedman is good outside TSCC, since he HASN’T DONE ANYTHING outside of TSCC!

This is his filmography:

Filmography

* Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2007) (developer)
* The Black Dahlia (2006) (screenplay)
* War of the Worlds (2005) (screenplay)
* Return to Paradise (1998) (uncredited)[citation needed]
* Chain Reaction (1996) (screenplay)

The War of the Worlds credit is for a screenplay that was NEVER USED!

He’s done four things, two of which went no where, in 13 years! How the hell did he even get the TSCC job?

As for the X-Files or Fringe not being science fiction, please. ALL science fiction is “pseudo-science” by definition, except the most hard of hard science fiction which uses plausible science to support a fictional story.

Look, faster than light travel is by all conventional physics PURE PSEUDO-SCIENCE. Nobody has ANY clue how to do FTL, let alone time travel. So ANY story involving spaceships using FTL is by definition pseudo-science and not science fiction – by your definition.

And saying the aliens on X-Files was more political conspiracy is hair-splitting to a degree. If it’s got aliens in it (treated seriously, not as comedy), it’s science fiction. X-Files was science fiction, Star Trek was science fiction, Star Wars is science fiction, by any commonsense definition.

So are shows dealing with the paranormal as long as it isn’t treated as fantasy (such as Hellboy or Constantine). Just because science doesn’t regard the paranormal as fact doesn’t mean such topics can’t be treated “scientifically”.

Fringe in particular is almost entirely about such “fringe science” – it’s inherent in the name of the show. “Fringe science” and “pseudo-science” are just as much “science fiction” as hard science fiction. There may be “hard science fiction” purists who disagree but they are a tiny, tiny minority of science fiction readers and as such their opinion isn’t worth considering.

Fringe incidentally is getting Ashley Edward Miller on the writing team. You may remember him from Terminator…

(Actually he, like Friedman, appears to be extremely talented outside of T:SCC, and adds to the mystery of how such talented people could have created such an awful television series.)

You can check out the ratings at TVbythenumbers.com. Sci-Fi hasn’t been doing well – they weren’t even in the Top 20 Cable Channels for the end of June.

Are any of us surprised??!

Oh, and David4, I was referring to currently airing series – of which there are 2: Eureka & Warehouse 13.

Fringe has about 10 million viewers. You don’t call that a hit nowadays?

With all the superheroes, Transformers, and the recent Star Trek, film sci fi is BIG and successful. The question is whether it can break even with its big expense. I’M LOOKING AT YOU, TERMINATOR 4!

On cable and broadcast though, I agree with you. The current “hits” are few, far between, and usually $1 million an episode filmed in Canada. Lost has time travel so *that* TV Sci Fi seems to be doing all right. Nothing else comes close today.

Your point is most dramatic when looking at TV budgets: How can Heroes go on with $4 million episodes?

This is another network run by suits that have no clue. Sounds like they want to emulate Dawn Ostroff and go after a demographic that will never make them any money.

OTOH, apparently science fiction is incapable of making a buck no matter where it’s shown, cable, broadcast or film, so perhaps they’re right to abandon it.

They claimed that was from an actual focus group. Of course, if you pronounce “Syfy” they way they want you to, it sounds the same as “Sci Fi” so their own points don’t even make sense. It was quite a read.

They glossed over the Three Rs that form the bulk of their network (Reruns, Reality, and ‘Rasslin) and made a big deal of the fact that they have about 5 dramas a year. They didn’t make a big deal of the small episode orders that reduce the network to The Three Rs plus one new hour of drama a week and a teen monster flick.

Does anyone remember when they had a Law and Order SVU marathon due to the INCREDIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL PARANORMAL HORROR of the crimes? Now that’s science fiction!

Then again, they also ran Braveheart as the sci fi movie of the week. Beats a teen monster flick, but how does that fit into the brand?

I really wish the channel would do more inventive programming, like it did in the old days. Stop spending money on campy C rate movies and spend it on new original programming.

Syfy is all surface, smoke and mirrors– with no depth or substance.

I don’t think there has been so significant a name change since the Anaheim Angels became the much more easy on the senses “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim”

Robert, Bill
Do I get at least a B- for my mocking skills?