SciFi history?

[crich70]

Good point, I had forgotten about Pygmalion and his Galatea (the female robot in Bicentennial Man is named for her I think).

Originally Posted by Roger Parkinson

The fantasy women stories go back a little further. Don't forget Ovid's Pymalion about a fellow who carved a woman out of marble (he didn't like the live offerings) and the statue came to life with a little help from the gods.

[Strolls]

Originally Posted by crich70

... What I don't like myself is the ScyFy (I think I've spelled it right) that they show on the Science Fiction channel now days. It's plain sloppy spelling I think, and not at all attractive.

The reason for this is that "sci-fi" is a generic term, so they couldn't use it (or at least defend it) as a trademark.

And presumably "The Science Fiction Channel" is too long - it takes an extra second or two longer to say that when announcing "next on this channel" or "later this week on this channel" than it does to say "sci-fi" or something that sounds like it. Not only is a shorter name snappier and more appealing, but those extra seconds add up, increase viewer disattention, and it's time that could be spent on revenue-generating advertising instead.

So, anyway, the channel was left with the option of branding themselves in some other way that was synonymous with science-fiction or choosing to "misspell" their name. There's a lot of hate for this "ScyFy" branding (and I've read a lot of hate for the channel in general) but I can see why they did it.

What other brand name could they have chosen that would be so recognisable? They want the name to be recognisable to viewers as being related to science-fiction, without being in any way confusing - with no possibility for being mistaken for anything else. That way even irregular enthusiasts of science fiction will be attracted to the channel, "oh, cool, I fancy a bit of sci-fi right now". Calling the channel "robot" or "space" or "moon" - nothing else I can think of right now that would have such instant recognisability.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by crich70

I remember hearing about an interview that Leonard Nimoy gave someone yrs back where the writer used the term SciFi and Mr. Nimoy took some heat for it from some fans so it's not too unbelievable that some people are easily irritated. What I don't like myself is the ScyFy (I think I've spelled it right) that they show on the Science Fiction channel now days. It's plain sloppy spelling I think, and not at all attractive.

I think they just did it so they felt a little more justified in showing all the damn wrestling. *shudder*

Originally Posted by Strolls

The reason for this is that "sci-fi" is a generic term, so they couldn't use it (or at least defend it) as a trademark.

And presumably "The Science Fiction Channel" is too long - it takes an extra second or two longer to say that when announcing "next on this channel" or "later this week on this channel" than it does to say "sci-fi" or something that sounds like it. Not only is a shorter name snappier and more appealing, but those extra seconds add up, increase viewer disattention, and it's time that could be spent on revenue-generating advertising instead.

So, anyway, the channel was left with the option of branding themselves in some other way that was synonymous with science-fiction or choosing to "misspell" their name. There's a lot of hate for this "ScyFy" branding (and I've read a lot of hate for the channel in general) but I can see why they did it.

What other brand name could they have chosen that would be so recognisable? They want the name to be recognisable to viewers as being related to science-fiction, without being in any way confusing - with no possibility for being mistaken for anything else. That way even irregular enthusiasts of science fiction will be attracted to the channel, "oh, cool, I fancy a bit of sci-fi right now". Calling the channel "robot" or "space" or "moon" - nothing else I can think of right now that would have such instant recognisability.

interesting theory. any substance? can you back it up?

[Strolls]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

interesting theory. any substance? can you back it up?

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comment..._syfy_channel/

http://www.syfy.com/faq/

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by crich70

I remember hearing about an interview that Leonard Nimoy gave someone yrs back where the writer used the term SciFi and Mr. Nimoy took some heat for it from some fans so it's not too unbelievable that some people are easily irritated. What I don't like myself is the ScyFy (I think I've spelled it right) that they show on the Science Fiction channel now days. It's plain sloppy spelling I think, and not at all attractive.

It gets more convoluted in Star Trek fan circles, where I believe the preferred descriptor is Trekker, as "Trekkie" connotes all that has been caricatured about Trek fans in mass media.

And the Syfy rebranding is deliberate and not sloppy spelling. It happened in part because they couldn't trademark "SciFi".

There was a lot of "What were they thinking?" in SF fan circles about it, and while they've gone through a whole branding exercise, what the brand stands for is still a good question.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

I was just reading Time for the Stars by Robert A. Heinlein (1956). The crew on the space ship are out in deep space and needing to either grow or recycle everything to survive. It made me smile to be reading a SciFi story on electronic paper about the crew of some future space craft who were having to recycle paper for their morning newspaper

There's a similar bit in C. M. Kornbluth's "Shark Ship". It's set in a future where Earth is overpopulated, and a chunk of humanity has chosen to put to sea in giant ships, living primarily off of what they can catch in great nets. Paper is one of the things recycled, as they have no convenient way to get more.

That's a side bit, as the plot of the story concerns a ship that suffers the worst possible disaster: it loses its net in a storm. Faced with starvation preceded by cannibalism, the crew chooses the previously unthinkable. They return to land. They return to a situation very different than the one they left.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by crich70

lol. Sounds like he really was a character. I've read Helen O'loy many times and enjoyed it. He was a very talented writer. One collection that Helen O'loy appears in is "18 Greatest Science Fiction Stories."

Yeah, Lester was. He also caused controversy in pro ranks. He'd been an editor for the pulps as well as a writer, and favored more intrusive editing to handle things like "widows and orphans" than may writers were comfortable with. "Now wait a minute, Lester..." was a common response to him from fellow pros.

In some respects, he reminded me of the late John W. Campbell, editor of Astounding/Analog during its prominent years. Both liked a good argument, and would provoke one if it didn't already exist.
______
Dennis

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by Strolls

What other brand name could they have chosen that would be so recognisable? They want the name to be recognisable to viewers as being related to science-fiction, without being in any way confusing - with no possibility for being mistaken for anything else. That way even irregular enthusiasts of science fiction will be attracted to the channel, "oh, cool, I fancy a bit of sci-fi right now". Calling the channel "robot" or "space" or "moon" - nothing else I can think of right now that would have such instant recognisability.

When I was little, librarians would sometimes put a sticker on the book spine for "mystery", "fantasy", "science fiction", etc. The most common science fiction sticker showed a stylized image of the planet Saturn, which was the most instantly recognized icon of science fiction.

Which, you may remember, was the original logo of the SyFy channel.

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Much appreciated. I'll have to track down that story.

The Internet Speculative Fiction Database is your friend.
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi

Helen O'Loy
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?48141

And when you decide on a book, out of print dead-tree books can be located at bookfinder
http://www.bookfinder.com

[nyrath]

hmp.

"A Wife Manufactured to Order" by Alice W. Fuller (1895)
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1893

can be read online here
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...ublic&part=all

[Penforhire]

D, funny you mention Trekker because that always sounded lame to me. I'm a Trekkie, always was, and always will be.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

D, funny you mention Trekker because that always sounded lame to me. I'm a Trekkie, always was, and always will be.

I'm not. I'm old enough to remember The Original Series, and watched it happily because it was the best SF on TV at the time, but never became enamored enough to read the tie-in novels or comics, and have seen perhaps a third of the movies. I liked Next Generation, once it developed its own identity. They seemed to be writing for a more adult audience.

I liked some of DS9, especially when they got into the Cardassian War. (I understand Rick Berman had to fight hard to convince the suits at Paramount to go in that direction. ST always had a split personality. Star Fleet was a military organization, the Enterprise was a capital ship, and if a war broke out, Star Fleet would have to fight it, but that wasn't a direction Roddenberry wished to go, so we never saw purpose built warships or big nasty fleet marines.) Doing so let them further explore their universe, and explore the moral choices and consequences of actions that were explicit in the premise.

I avoided Voyager like the plague, and felt similarly about Enterprise. There were interesting possibilities in going back in the chronology and exploring the founding of the Federation, but for the most part, Enterprise didn't go there.

I understand ST is being rebooted. It's certainly not a franchise Paramount will want to let lie fallow for and long period. But the history of TOS demonstrates they never really understood the audience or what they were producing. They simply knew it had turned into an unexpected hit, and were reluctant to change anything for fear of losing audience. (From what I've heard from people who were involved, the best stuff often happened precisely when the suits weren't looking.)

I know folks who consider themselves Trekkers, and others who think they are Trekkies. The motivation for the former seems rooted in the same reasons that many fans disliked calling the genre SciFi and preferred to call it SF. They felt the term SciFi, as used by the broader audience, connoted everything people who didn't like the genre looked down upon. "Trekkies" were perceived as people who wore funny clothes and fake Spock ears, and substituted a love for Star Trek and activities related to it for anything like a real life. Trekkers loved Star Trek, but were more balanced in their appreciation.

For myself, I'm neither. There are possibilities is a revived Star Trek, but I have no confidence Paramount will recognize them, and no desire to see yet more of the same.

If it pleases you to call yourself a Trekkie, enjoy. I have no strong feeling one way or the other.
______
Denniso

[Penforhire]

Ever see the original Star Trek Technical Manual from 1975? That was a book I spent a LOT of time with in my youth.

The last movie did an excellent job of laying the groundwork for a new series or, more likely, movies because of the explicitly changed timeline. Can't say I liked the Romulans though (Bird of prey! Not an f'ing squid of prey).

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Ever see the original Star Trek Technical Manual from 1975? That was a book I spent a LOT of time with in my youth.

Yep. Hard to avoid in the circles in which I travel. I don't own a copy, but I know folks who do.

The last movie did an excellent job of laying the groundwork for a new series or, more likely, movies because of the explicitly changed timeline. Can't say I liked the Romulans though (Bird of prey! Not an f'ing squid of prey).

I missed the last movie, and am not familiar with the ship design. "Squid of prey?" Maybe they were taking cues from the Shadows vessels in Babylon 5.
______
Dennis

[Roger Parkinson]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

::applause:: (for Roger for mentioning Pygmalion)

Remember, the Greeks invented everything --- all else is variation.

William

Why, thank you. I wish I could claim the benefits of a classical education but sadly no. I read it in a book of my wife's (who really does know everything).

I must, again sadly, disagree with your second comment. The Chinese invented everything. Well, just about. Gunpowder is only the start. Stirrups, the compass, the seismometer (very relevant here in NZ just now), paper (real paper, not the Egyptian stuff) incl toilet paper, the overshot water wheel, the water clock, the list goes on and on and on.

We've touched on alternate time line stories in this thread* and I sometimes wonder what might have happened if Admiral Cheng Ho had sailed past the African Cape and continued on to the straights of Gibraltar. If was only a short time after he was near there that Vasco Da Gama from Portugal sailed around the Cape in the other direction to 'discover' the Indian Ocean. Da Gama had about 300 grim faced men, Cheng Ho's fleet was the size of a decent city. They even brought their own hair stylists with them. They were so far ahead of Europe by then

Someone should write that story... maybe I will one day.

*edit: I meant the thread about time, sorry.