>1. First and foremost, how do you define science fiction? Does it
>encompass Science Fantasy, Horror and Speculative Fiction?
Although it's often linked to fantasy, I define science fiction as fiction
with a strong element of science--or speculative science. I wouldn't object
to fantasy programming on the Channel, but it should be limited--pigeonholed,
maybe--to particular times or showcases. Otherwise, the channel's identity
stands to become further muddled than it is.
>2. Why is science fiction growing? Why are more and more people
>interested in sci-fi? Is it a societal issue?
I think that science is getting interesting to the masses because more and
more of its implications are making it to market faster--from speedier
turnaround of medical breakthroughs (like those used against AIDS and
cancer)...to the high-tech gizmos and technologies (like the World Wide Web)
that scientists and techies are bringing to bear on everyday life.
>3. Where would you like to see the Sci-Fi Channel go in terms of content,
>programming, etc.?
Fewer junky '70s TV series and more (new, or recent, or classic) cutting-edge
movies and TV series. (Why isn't the new "Outer Limits"--or similar
programming--airing on the SF Channel?)
And dump "Sci-Fi." Although I'm not one of those who'd rip out the throat of
anyone who uses it, that phrase *is* often used as a put-down; why would a
channel want to be associated with a phrase so many people equate (unfairly,
but still--) with "junk"?
If they're serious about re-launching the channel, "SF-TV" would be much
cooler/hipper sounding. (No one calls M-TV "Music TV," hm?)
Charles Meyerson
|