# SCI FI Channel Has A New Name - Now, It's Syfy



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

It's about time that other shoe dropped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/media/16adcol.html












> March 16, 2009
> Advertising
> Sci Fi Channel Has a New Name: Now, It's Syfy
> By STUART ELLIOTT
> ...


[copyright infringement]


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

I wish they would work on improving their programing rather their name and logo.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

wedgecon said:


> I wish they would work on improving their programing rather their name and logo.


You and me both. But at least now they're doing what they'd planned all along. The programming will still be terrible, no doubt, but now the fact that the emperor has no clothes is in the forefront.

What I like to call "Bonnie Hammer syndrome" has been pervasive at that channel ever since she failed upward. They see no profit motive in the genre so they're "branching out". But why retain the name with different spelling? That's just bizarre.

In any case, it's all good, IMHO. I can count on one hand the number of times I've watched that channel in the past few years. What it was once to the genre has been dead and buried for more than a decade now. So now their intent is laid bare - once their new branding campaign and the relaunch happen - for all to see, and they can continue to program pablum with a shiny new moniker.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The History Channel might as well change its name to Hystery with all the crap it airs now.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> The History Channel might as well change its name to Hystery with all the crap it airs now.


All of these channels start out as niche. Then new management is installed and the channels want to become TV channel-equivalents of Swiss Army knives.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> All of these channels start out as niche. Then new management is installed and the channels want to become TV channel-equivalents of Swiss Army knives.


They look at USA and its success and become near-clones...


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> They look at USA and its success and become near-clones...


Yep.

Coincidentally, USA is owned by NBC Universal (as is Syfy 'nee SCI FI).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

So sci-fi is space, aliens and the future; sy-fy is space, aliens, the future, ghost-hunters, and wrestling.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Yep.
> 
> Coincidentally, USA is owned by NBC Universal (as is Syfy 'nee SCI FI).


And the one place where Bonnie Hammer actually achieved some level of success.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

This just seems like a silly change, but I guess it is one step closer to changing it to something more generic so it can be just another cable channel.

I don't particularly like "Imagine Greater" either. It's not bad, but it seems similar to "Characters Welcome" which I never liked at all.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

*syfy*
_imagine if we actually aired science fiction_​


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So sci-fi is space, aliens and the future; sy-fy is space, aliens, the future, ghost-hunters, and wrestling.


According to SCI FI/Syfy President David Howe...



> If you ask people their default perceptions of Sci Fi, they list space, aliens and the future, he added. That didnt capture the full landscape of fantasy entertainment: the paranormal, the supernatural, action and adventure, superheroes.


Hmmm...I notice he didn't mention wrestling. It'll still air, no doubt, but he didn't mention it. I guess mentioning it steals the thunder of their trainwreck-in-motion.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Hmmm...I notice he didn't mention wrestling.


Sure he did: "fantasy entertainment"


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

As bizarre as this channel is probably going to become, I might as well start calling it "siffy".


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

My God this is stupid.


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

I wonder who they had to lay off to afford this.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dswallow said:


> *syfy*
> _imagine if we actually aired science fiction_​


There's no "if" in "syfy"...


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Marc said:


> As bizarre as this channel is probably going to become, I might as well start calling it "siffy".


Well, I know of a word that rhymes with "siffy" that aptly describes the programming and the channel. 

Might as well call it "Siffy"; it'll be interesting to watch, in the ensuing months, people discovering this alleged change and calling it "siffy" when all they did was change two letters and push the words together. And someone got paid a handsome sum for that. That level of inanity boggles the mind.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

WhyTrySyFy?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> The History Channel might as well change its name to Hystery with all the crap it airs now.


It has its flaws, but I think it does a lot better these days that a few years ago when I liked to refer to it as the "WW2 Channel".


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Jeeters said:


> It has its flaws, but I think it does a lot better these days that a few years ago when I liked to refer to it as the "WW2 Channel".


And that was what A&E was called when it first went on the air, IIRC.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> Sure he did: "fantasy entertainment"


Its still real to me.


----------



## WinBear (Aug 24, 2000)

I'm guessing Showtime squashed their intent to become "Beyond" although I've never seen much carriage of Showtime Beyond.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Their programming has become so bad. I'm ready for BSG to end. It just became such a mess. But I'm guessing what they will replace it with will be even worse. 

I'm looking forward to SG: Universe. But I don't have any plans to watch any of their other programming. It's too bad.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Might as well if they're going to have "UFO Hunters" and ghost hunters on the *History* Channel..

At least dropping "Sci" is truth in advertising.

Might have to drop SyFy from my favorites as with G4.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> My God this is stupid.


Agreed. I never understand how a big corporation can make such a poor branding choice, yet it happens over and over and over and...


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Mars Rocket said:


> Agreed. I never understand how a big corporation can make such a poor branding choice, yet it happens over and over and over and...


And I don't know what's worse - this non-rebranding rebranding or the inane love letter David Howe, SCI FI/Syfy President, kept giving to text messaging in that New York Times article. What is he, fourteen?


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

I'm optimistic about this change .. 

I'm hoping that now in 2 or 3 years a new channel can come on called "The Science Fiction Network" .. and not have to deal with infringing on this current channel's trademark .. 

Who knows, maybe someone else can deliver some pure sci-fi ..


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

MirclMax said:


> I'm optimistic about this change ..
> 
> I'm hoping that now in 2 or 3 years a new channel can come on called "The Science Fiction Network" .. and not have to deal with infringing on this current channel's trademark ..
> 
> Who knows, maybe someone else can deliver some pure sci-fi ..


Yep, I'm right there with you with that line of thinking.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Wow, that didn't take long.

http://www.syfy.com


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

After this friday, Sci-Fi/"Syfy" is dead to me anyway, so who cares, really?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mars Rocket said:


> Agreed. I never understand how a big corporation can make such a poor branding choice, yet it happens over and over and over and...


...and people get paid obscene amounts of money to make these horrible decisions...


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

dswallow said:


> *syfy*
> _imagine if we actually aired science fiction_​


+1

What a stupid decision. Can anyone say "new coke"?


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

I wonder if they're somehow trying to cash in on the (non-existent) cache' of that new energy drink with the annoying ads? ("Syke")


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

I just don't know what they were thinking. Who watches a cable channel based on the logo? Or even the name?

I've never once said, "wow, that channel's new logo is amazing, I need to watch more original programming involving giant crocodiles and wrestlers."


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> The History Channel might as well change its name to Hystery with all the crap it airs now.


His story channel


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Maybe it was done simply to create a recognizable brand and name for the channel that can be separated from the genre. Not that they don't plan to air science fiction, but because the term "sci fi" is widely used as a description of science fiction in general, it didn't work very well from a trademark and intellectual property standpoint. This way, when you see it in writing, it's obvious they're referencing the TV network and not just the genre in general.

From that standpoint, it seems like a pretty sound decision to me.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

But people aren't going to pronounce it like SciFi - in English it just doesn't come out that way. "Sci - fee" or "Sifee" maybe, but not SciFi.

Are there *any* English words that end in Y that are pronounced with a long i at the end?

Not to mention that the word looks stupid and hard to pronounce. They really would have had to try hard to come up with something *worse* than Syfy.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mars Rocket said:


> But people aren't going to pronounce it like SciFi - in English it just doesn't come out that way. "Sci - fee" or "Sifee" maybe, but not SciFi.
> 
> Are there *any* English words that end in Y that are pronounced with a long i at the end?
> 
> Not to mention that the word looks stupid and hard to pronounce. They really would have had to try hard to come up with something *worse* than Syfy.


By, sky, try, fly, my - to name a few.

I agree that someone looking at the name for the first time and not knowing what it was referring to might not pronounce it correctly, but given what the channel used to be named and what its primary content is, I don't think anyone will really have any trouble knowing how to pronounce it correctly.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

OK, any multi-syllable words?

OK, my original comment was a bit of hyperbole - there probably are some words (like butterfly), but not as many as end in an ee sound.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

aintnosin said:


> After this friday, Sci-Fi/"Syfy" is dead to me anyway, so who cares, really?


I assume you mean because of _BSG_...well, then what about _Caprica_?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I understand if they want to change the focus of the station away from strictly Science Fiction. But WHY keep the name essentially the same then with a cutsie spelling? To me this just smells of hype, trying to get people talking about the station and trying to launch a new ad campaign. Outside of Eureka, I hardly ever watch this station anyway.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I understand if they want to change the focus of the station away from strictly Science Fiction. But WHY keep the name essentially the same then with a cutsie spelling? To me this just smells of hype, trying to get people talking about the station and trying to launch a new ad campaign.


From the article, seems they want to keep the name, but they've never been able to trademark the word(s?) "Sci Fi".


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Jeeters said:


> From the article, seems they want to keep the name, but they've never been able to trademark the word(s?) "Sci Fi".


It's hard to believe that hurt them any more than this will. The cost of rebranding alone will probably eat up more money than they ever potentially lost.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mars Rocket said:


> It's hard to believe that hurt them any more than this will. The cost of rebranding alone will probably eat up more money than they ever potentially lost.


I don't think it's as much about having lost money as it is about protecting intellectual property. As I said above, their corporate name is not unique, and that can create problems. I'm sure they simply wanted something that was uniquely theirs, something that could be differentiated from descriptions of the genre in general.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Skiffy. It should have been skiffy. I have heard SF fans make fun of the word SciFi by saying "skiffy" rather than "syfy".


----------



## Bulldog7 (Oct 6, 2002)

Hooked on Phonics!!!

Sy as in sigh
Fy as in fly without the L....

Yeah, what the "L" are they thinking? Give us better programs, please!


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/viewers-bash-sci-fis-name-change.html


> "Sounds like slang for syphilis," a viewer wrote, with fans agreeing "siffy" seems a more appropriate pronunciation for the network's new name than "sci fi."


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

More proof that network executives are overpaid.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

If the name Sci Fi Channel was a problem, I can't wait to see the response from the History Channel and the Weather Channel. Or the Cartoon Network. Or the Travel Channel. Don't EVEN get me started about the Golf Channel.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Even CyFi would have worked better, and would have tied in to their most popular show in years...but SyFy? 

Unbelievable. When I first saw this thread I ignored it because I thought it was a joke. If only.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Whoever came up with this idea was probably suffering from dementia brought about by syfyllys.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I suppose this is why The SyFy Portal changed their name recently. Hopefully the pay-off was worth it...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

People keep ragging on the wrestling but that's probably their best show.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> People keep ragging on the wrestling but that's probably their *highest-rated* show.


FYP


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

"The Network With No Name" would've been a better choice.


----------



## dilbert27 (Dec 1, 2006)

dswallow said:


> "The Network With No Name" would've been a better choice.


How about "The Network Formerly Known As SciFi"

And they could come up with some symbol as the new name.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

dilbert27 said:


> How about "The Network Formerly Known As SciFi"
> 
> And they could come up with some symbol as the new name.


I vote for Entropy. They've already cornered the market.

The logo can be of a person shrugging their shoulders.


----------



## AlphaDelta (Jan 9, 2007)

Does this mean in June we'll have to change our TiVo season passes since SciFi won't exist?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

This whole dust-up just convinces me that a lot of complaints are founded on nothing more than hate -- personal animosity, the result of simple frustration that one's own personal wants aren't placated. I say this because, for years, people have been complaining about how Sci Fi has been presenting more than just science fiction, but still call the channel Sci Fi. Now that they've made a change that moves them away from calling the channel Sci Fi, people are complaining about that. 

Also, I think a lot of people forget what the point of cable television networks are.

(Money.)


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

When TNT went to Spike I did not have to change any SPs or channel lineups.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> Also, I think a lot of people forget what the point of cable television networks are.
> 
> (Money.)


How exactly are they supposed to make money by spending money to change the name of their network to a name no one can pronounce correctly? 

Putting "money" above in parenthesis is apropos as parenthesis normally indicate loss when dealing with money.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> How exactly are they supposed to make money ...?


Merchandising.

(The rest of your comment was inaccurate.)


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> When TNT went to Spike I did not have to change any SPs or channel lineups.


TNN, not TNT. (Originally The Nashville Network, then The National Network. Talk about a channel that abandoned its mission!)


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Press release:



> New York, NY - March 16, 2009 - Building upon sixteen years of water cooler programming and soaring ratings growth following its most-watched year ever, SCI FI Channel is evolving into Syfy on air and on-line beginning July 7th, it was announced today by Dave Howe, President, SCI FI.
> 
> By changing the name to Syfy, which remains phonetically identical, the new brand broadens perceptions and embraces a wider and more diverse range of imagination-based entertainment including fantasy, paranormal, reality, mystery, action and adventure, as well as science fiction. It also positions the brand for future growth by creating an ownable trademark that can travel easily with consumers across new media and non-linear digital platforms, new international channels and extend into new business ventures.
> 
> ...


The fifth paragraph is the crux of the issue, but I still read it as "Sifee".


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

It's idiocy. Does any viewer care about the "brand name" of any channel? Well, maybe "The Sci Fi Channel" -- that might, ironically, be the only one that anyone still cares about. And the suits are intentionally killing it. MORONS. They're not broadening their base, they're just alienating their core. And the core are the only ones who care about it as a _channel_. For everyone else, it's just a random collection of shows from which they'll pick and choose, just like all the other channels. They won't be buying "Syfy" merchandise.

I know people (myself included) complain constantly about Sci Fi, but that's because they still _care_. This will put an end to the complaints, because no one will even care anymore. Like how I don't bother complaining about MTV now -- it's too dead to even hope for.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I just don't understand all the hatred in this thread. IMO, it's a smart move from an intellectual property standpoint. They simply don't have ownership of the term "sci fi" but they can have ownership of the word "Syfy." That alone is enough of a reason as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it will be a rough transition, but it's something that needs to be done at some point, so now's as good a time as any.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> They simply don't have ownership of the term "sci fi" but they can have ownership of the word "Syfy."


And that gets them what, exactly? Tell me, do you own any "USA Network" merchandise? Do you consider yourself a fan of ABC, or of CBS?

A brand is only useful if it's got an identity. They _had_ an identity. They're trashing it.



> _it's something that needs to be done at some point_


Why? It's been 16 years already.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> And that gets them what, exactly? Tell me, do you own any "USA Network" merchandise? Do you consider yourself a fan of ABC, or of CBS?
> 
> A brand is only useful if it's got an identity. They _had_ an identity. They're trashing it.


It's not about consumer merchandising. It's about ownership of their intellectual property.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> This whole dust-up just convinces me that a lot of complaints are founded on nothing more than hate -- personal animosity, the result of simple frustration that one's own personal wants aren't placated. I say this because, for years, people have been complaining about how Sci Fi has been presenting more than just science fiction, but still call the channel Sci Fi. Now that they've made a change that moves them away from calling the channel Sci Fi, people are complaining about that.
> 
> Also, I think a lot of people forget what the point of cable television networks are.
> 
> (Money.)


Welcome to the thread, bicker. 

David Howe, SCI FI/Syfy President, said in the Syfy press release they want to steer the channel away from that image, i.e. space, aliens, etc., thus the rebrand.

Which, again, makes no sense if all you're doing with said rebrand, aside from an all new imaging campaign, is mispelling the channel's name. The only reason they're doing this, so they say, is so they can have an identity that's able to be trademarked but that theory still doesn't hold water, as they said went through 300 other names and chose this out of all of them. I'm sure *one* out of those 300 was also able to be trademarked.

I stopped watching a long time ago. I'm very glad this is happening, as the channel I once knew and loved as The Sci-Fi Channel died and was buried a decade ago, but I just wish NBC Universal had chosen another name. They couldn't have chosen Beyond, as CBS Corporation owns Showtime Beyond, but Tomorrow or some other name (hell, they said they went through 300!) would suffice.

Their choice, Syfy, is lazy and just plain stupid. As I stated earlier, the emperor's truly had no clothes ever since Bonnie Hammer sunk her fangs in and drained the passion and energy this channel once had, then failed upward. Now, it has a "new" name to go with its principles - to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Again, the issue I and many others have is that if NBC Universal wants to rebrand the channel - DO SO. Don't just mispell its name and launch a new imaging campaign. Science fiction fans like myself gave up on this channel what feels like centuries ago. Rebrand entirely, continue programming pablum to mouthbreathers, and I and millions of others will get our science fiction fix elsewhere and keep ignoring this channel. Win, win.










http://www.spacecast.com

I *really* wish we here in the U.S. had a channel like SPACE; hopefully with NBC Universal giving up the ghost and finally admitting they no longer want to program to the science fiction demographic, another conglomerate can lay the foundation and launch an actual science fiction channel.

Viacom, Time Warner, Liberty Media, Comcast, et al, the ball's in your court.


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

I have my own sci-fi channel it's called now playing. I could care what they call themselves, I will record the one or two shows I care about and ignore the rest. It is funny that the new name sounds like slang for Syphilis.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not about consumer merchandising. It's about ownership of their intellectual property.


I repeat: And that gets them what, exactly?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> It's idiocy. Does any viewer care about the "brand name" of any channel? Well, maybe "The Sci Fi Channel" -- that might, ironically, be the only one that anyone still cares about. And the suits are intentionally killing it. MORONS.


I think you've got it backwards. They're not morons. What you think is important is actually something negative, from a financial perspective. There wasn't money to be made in hardcore science fiction. There never has been.



wmcbrine said:


> They're not broadening their base, they're just alienating their core.


Bull. The folks you are asserting are their core never were. They were constant critics -- people who never watched the channel anyway, because they wouldn't sully their eyes watching a channel that didn't stick solely to their own religious perspective about what science fiction is.



wmcbrine said:


> And the core are the only ones who care about it as a _channel_.


Again, bull. They never cared about the channel. They cared about what they wanted, and nothing else.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Awesome and oh so true. 










http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_c...5&Itemid=99


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Keep tapdancing, Dave.

(Maybe he asked that the interview be conducted at that exact location so the din of the adjacent crowd would mask his explanation of the rebranding.)

I like that last part - "This isn't an excuse to put _Law & Order_ on our air every night. It isn't. Trust me."

_Law & Order_ every night? Of course not, Dave. That's just silly; that's your sister channel USA Network's job. At the most, _Law & Order_ will probably air every other night on Syfy.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

bicker said:


> Now that they've made a change that moves them away from calling the channel Sci Fi, people are complaining about that.


Because that's not what their doing - the channel is meant to still be called "SciFi", they just want to spell it weird so they can trademark it. What do they think "SciFi" means, anyway? If their trying so hard to get away from that genre why name it something that supposedly sounds exactly the same? And if they're not trying to get away from the genre connotations then why not come up with a better name than SyFy like Tomorrow or FutureChan or anything else, really?

Either the viewer doesn't care what the channel is named, in which case they should have gone with something easier to read & pronounce, or the viewer does care, in which case they should have gone with something not so idiotic. Clearly "SyFy" is a poor choice - the response to it on the Internet seems to be overwhelmingly negative.


----------



## Crash_Corrigan (Feb 27, 2004)

I'm underwhelmed with the new name/logo, like I've been underwhelmed with almost all of their programming from day one (with the exception of saving Mystery Science Theater 3000 only to kill it a couple years later and BSG).

If they want to show a broader or different range of programs, they should have changed the name completely.

A unique (and incorrect spelling) of a word or words (or phrase or acronym for that matter) to make it your own is a weak approach. It reminds me of a homebuilder here in St. Louis in the 1980s. I think they must have been a fan of He-Man. They used the name "Rowles - The Bildor" to promote their business. I'm sorry but unless you're He-Man or Tarzan, builder is spelled b-u-i-l-d-e-r not b-i-l-d-o-r. And, frankly I don't want someone who can't spell builder correctly to be building my home. The same can be said for the girl who decides to spell her name Stacy with three e's on the end (Staceee) to be different...or the guy that decides his name Lloyd isn't cool but pronouncing both L's is cool "L-Loyd".

At least Sy-Fy would have been better with a hyphen to indicate the syllables. Syfy could just as easily be pronounced Syf-y as some have pointed out already.

As silly as the name SPIKE is, at least it makes sense and ties into the new direction the channel took.

Does the same cr*ppy mix of shows and cr*ppy made for TV movies they offer make anymore sense shown on Syfy than they do on the Sci-Fi Channel? I don't think so, but that's just me.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Mars Rocket said:


> If their trying so hard to get away from that genre why name it something that supposedly sounds exactly the same?


Because they want to capitalize on the unique characteristics of their programming *without being rigidly bounded by it*.



Mars Rocket said:


> Either the viewer doesn't care what the channel is named, in which case they should have gone with something easier to read & pronounce


Like what? Suggest something so we can take baseless pot-shots at *your *idea! 



Mars Rocket said:


> Clearly "SyFy" is a poor choice - the response to it *on the Internet *seems to be overwhelmingly negative.


Holy cow, did you *really *write that?  Hey -- I've got a bridge for sale. You interested?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Crash_Corrigan said:


> At least Sy-Fy would have been better with a hyphen to indicate the syllables.


I believe one of the objectives was to ensure that they wouldn't have problems using the name across all platforms and infrastructures. In some, the dash is a reserved character. Similarly, that would preclude a blank space as well.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

So, if we decide to boycott the channel, does that mean we're going SYFY-less?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

"Eye took mi kat 2 the vett the uther dae and he kneeded shotz." This sentence is  Morac. 



bicker said:


> Merchandising.


Syfy the breakfast cereal.
Syfy the flame thrower.
Syfy the doll.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

bicker said:


> I think you've got it backwards. They're not morons. What you think is important is actually something negative, from a financial perspective. There wasn't money to be made in hardcore science fiction. There never has been.
> 
> Bull. The folks you are asserting are their core never were. They were constant critics -- people who never watched the channel anyway, because they wouldn't sully their eyes watching a channel that didn't stick solely to their own religious perspective about what science fiction is.
> 
> Again, bull. They never cared about the channel. They cared about what they wanted, and nothing else.


I have disagree with you here. there is plenty of money to be made with hardcore science fiction... but only if it is done right and not in a manner that insults people's intelligence. Mainstream Hollywood has typically treated SF fans as nerdy geeks with no lives that will watch whatever pablum they feel passes for SF.

Take Sci-Fi's take on Riverworld. It is a series of books that is just ripe for a weekly series. So what does Sci-Fi do when they make a movie from it?

They gut it and change so many things only the basic premise is recognizable.

But look at something like the old PBS version of Lathe of Heaven. Well done (on a budget no less) and it is a success. there are a few others in SF/Fantasy where it is done right, but for the most part no. I think if they did something like Robert Heinlein's books seriously or Ringworld, or treated Asimov's work with respect there would be no problems making money off of it.

We cared about the channel when it started and pretty much until Bonnie Hammer took over and ruined it.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

bicker said:


> Holy cow, did you *really *write that?  Hey -- I've got a bridge for sale. You interested?


Yes, I did *really *write that. Perhaps you're under the impression that the Internet is entirely populated by 30-something single males with no social skills. It's not. The demographics are hugely broad these days, ranging from teenagers to 50+ housewives. For popular culture, the response on the Internet is a fairly accurate predictor of the populace in general. For something with a probable youth-orientation it's even more so.

BTW, I did suggest at least one alternative. And I would hardly call "can't figure out how to pronounce it" a baseless pot-shot. It's a real problem for them. I suspect they just lived with the idea for so long while working on the rebranding issue that they lost perspective on it. A few focus groups would have done wonders for their process.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

My apathy is pretty high on this. As with any channel, I watch the programs I am interested in and ignore the other ones. I know they will be playing Eureka and probably Caprica and probably some of their stupid original movies that I ocassionally watch.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mars Rocket said:


> BTW, I did suggest at least one alternative. And I would hardly call "can't figure out how to pronounce it" a baseless pot-shot. It's a real problem for them. I suspect they just lived with the idea for so long while working on the rebranding issue that they lost perspective on it. A few focus groups would have done wonders for their process.


I don't get the "can't pronounce it" issues. Everyone who is claiming it's hard to pronounce is just being obtuse. There's nobody who doesn't actually know it's supposed to be pronounced the exact same way that "Sci Fi" was pronounced. It's just petty to use that as a reason to claim the rebranding was poorly thought out.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't get the "can't pronounce it" issues. Everyone who is claiming it's hard to pronounce is just being obtuse. There's nobody who doesn't actually know it's supposed to be pronounced the exact same way that "Sci Fi" was pronounced. It's just petty to use that as a reason to claim the rebranding was poorly thought out.


I'm never said it was *hard* to pronounce, just that it's hard to figure out *how* to pronounce it. The correct pronunciation is not what first comes to mind when I read the word. My last name is mispronounced all the time because English doesn't usually put letters together in the way it's supposed to sound. Same thing with SyFy - if you ask somebody who didn't know how it was supposed to sound or where it came from how to pronounce it I doubt that "SciFi" would be the first (or second) thing they came up with.

Part of rebranding is marketing. There's going to be new advertisements to people who *don't* know who the channel is or what they do, and those people won't know how to pronounce it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't get the "can't pronounce it" issues. Everyone who is claiming it's hard to pronounce is just being obtuse. There's nobody who doesn't actually know it's supposed to be pronounced the exact same way that "Sci Fi" was pronounced.


That's certainly true for people who were aware of the channel before the change.

I can, however, see how someone coming to the channel for the first time, with no knowlege of the channel's previous incarnation and no context from which to work, could look at "SyFy" and not be clear on what it means.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

They should change it to include a line over each y so people get some clue how the pronunciation is meant to be.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> My apathy is pretty high on this. As with any channel, I watch the programs I am interested in and ignore the other ones.


+1 This is a very weird discussion from a bunch of people who own TiVos. I don't even know what channel most of the shows I watch air on, and I don't care, either. I have a basic understanding of what's on broadcast and what's on cable b/c it affects SP priorities, but beyond that I really have no clue which channel a show comes from. I certainly don't care what the channels are called or what their logos look like! I just tell the TiVo what shows I want to see and it finds them for me.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

dswallow said:


> They should change it to include a line over each y so people get some clue how the pronunciation is meant to be.


Or better yet, an umlaut over each y so they can attract heavy metal fans too.


----------



## Crash_Corrigan (Feb 27, 2004)

It could have just as easily been:

SiFi
SighFigh
SeyeFeye
SeiFei
PsyFy
PsiPhi

Why not SF or SFTV?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

The Random Channel.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Then they would have gone with Ryndym, because, you know, trademark is so important.


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

busyba said:


> Or better yet, an umlaut over each y so they can attract heavy metal fans too.


Nah. They should put the umlauts over the consonants, to catch the Spınal Tap fans.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> Do you consider yourself a fan of ABC, or of CBS?


That's why "branding" the network with a transparent logo in the corner is so stupid. The morons who run these networks don't seem to understand that nobody is a fan of a _network_, they are only a fan of a _show_. Demanding you care about the network is a display of raging narcissism, something I imagine is not in short supply in Hollywood.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Craigbob said:


> I have disagree with you here. there is plenty of money to be made with hardcore science fiction...


Where is your proof that there is plenty to be made broadcasting hardcore science fiction on cable? Stated as you have, it sounds like just wishful thinking.



Craigbob said:


> [snip]


Instead of providing proof that your assertion was wrong (which is what you proceeded to do for the rest of your message), perhaps you could provide some proof that it was correct?



Craigbob said:


> But look at something like the old PBS version of Lathe of Heaven. Well done (on a budget no less) and it is a success.


Based on *what*? Please present the financials proving that. (Hint: PBS generally does not make money on its endeavors. They make ends meet with donations, not profit.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Mars Rocket said:


> Yes, I did *really *write that. Perhaps you're under the impression that the Internet is entirely populated by 30-something single males with no social skills.


Great Straw Man you got there.

Back to reality: Sorry, Mars, but basing anything on your personal impressions of what reactions on the Internet are is not a valid way of determining anything. Your implication that the reactions you see on the Internet are anything close to representative of anything important is, literally, ridiculous.



Mars Rocket said:


> For popular culture, the response on the Internet is a fairly accurate predictor of the populace in general.


Bull____. What you get on the Internet are the very small minority who are willing to talk about something.

Again, literally, ridiculous.



Mars Rocket said:


> A few focus groups would have done wonders for their process.


Your arrogance, at projecting that they didn't apply appropriate measures, simply because you and some fanboys don't like the result, is again, literally, ridiculous.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> Your arrogance, at projecting that they didn't apply appropriate measures, simply because you and some fanboys don't like the result, is again, literally, ridiculous.


To go through 300 names, focus group testing, and the best you can come up with to "rebrand" is mispelling the channel's name speaks not just of creative bankruptcy but of a basic misunderstanding of the concept of rebranding as a whole.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Great Straw Man you got there.
> 
> Back to reality: Sorry, Mars, but basing anything on your personal impressions of what reactions on the Internet are is not a valid way of determining anything. Your implication that the reactions you see on the Internet are anything close to representative of anything important is, literally, ridiculous.
> 
> ...


And tell me again, which marketing survey did you commission to back up your "ridiculous" statements?  Personal attacks on everyone you disagree is not going to make your point, you know. (And yes, I can read usernames.) You may not like the reactions, but those opinions are just as valid as your own. Arrogance, indeed.

What, did you win the contest for renaming the channel or something? 

Don't confuse trademarking with marketing.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I don't work for NBC/U, wise guy. Geez. Get a grip.

And if you want to see their research, apply for a job with them.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Personally, I have no problem with the name SyFy or it's spelling. I'll pronounce it the way they want it pronounced. Makes no difference to me. It's just like people who have alternate spellings for their first name. You pronounce it the way they tell you to. As far as content, SciFi has and SyFy will broadcast crap because more people like to watch crap than good tv. They're going where the money is.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

So let me get this straight, they want to rebrand because they think a lot of people are turned off by the name Sci-Fi because they think it's only about space and aliens, so they change their name to something that is spelled different but sounds the same... a completely made up name that has no history or or meaning to anyone... and this is going to attract more people to their network how exactly?


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

jking said:


> So let me get this straight, they want to rebrand because they think a lot of people are turned off by the name Sci-Fi because they think it's only about space and aliens, so they change their name to something that is spelled different but sounds the same... a completely made up name that has no history or or meaning to anyone... and this is going to attract more people to their network how exactly?


They're counting on all the non-geeks out there to be too dumb to figure out that "Syfy" refers to Science Fiction 

...That way, they can watch all that wrastlin', and an occasional "killer giant [animal]" movie, without their tiny brains being bothered by worry of being mistaken for a "nerd".


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

dcheesi said:


> They're counting on all the non-geeks out there to be too dumb to figure out that "Syfy" refers to Science Fiction
> 
> ...That way, they can watch all that wrastlin', and an occasional "killer giant [animal]" movie, without their tiny brains being bothered by worry of being mistaken for a "nerd".


I get what you're saying, but what about the name "SyFy" says wrestling and killer giant animal movie? It's not a name that means anything to anyone, so how is it going to magically attract the people they want to attract? I mean, if they named it the Fantasy channel or the Variety channel or the Miscellaneous Crap channel or something like that, at least those are words and phrases that people know. But I am not going to be channel surfing one day and see "SyFy" and say, "Hey, I recognize that word! I bet that means wrestling is on this channel!!"


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jking said:


> I get what you're saying, but what about the name "SyFy" says wrestling and killer giant animal movie?


Obviously you don't watch wrestling or all the movies previously on SciFi about giant flying bugs.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Dave Howe, SCI FI/Syfy President, justifies the name change, answers questions submitted to SCI FI Wire.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/03/sci-fi-president-dave-how.php


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

dcheesi said:


> ...an occasional "killer giant [animal]" movie, without their tiny brains being bothered by worry of being mistaken for a "nerd".


Occasional? every other night it's killer gator or killer anaconda or giant shark or killer gator....

I don't much care about the name change because I just don't watch it like I did a few years ago.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Dave Howe, SCI FI/Syfy President, justifies the name change, answers questions submitted to SCI FI Wire.
> 
> http://scifiwire.com/2009/03/sci-fi-president-dave-how.php


However, you need to be able to read, understand and internalize what other folks present, and accept the possibility that reasonable people could actually disagree with you and still be reasonable, in order to make any use of the link provided.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> However, you need to be able to read, understand and internalize what other folks present, and accept the possibility that reasonable people could actually disagree with you and still be reasonable, in order to make any use of the link provided.


Hmmm...I believe I posted this link without any comment.

And maybe in person Dave Howe's a swell guy; he and the upper management just fail to understand the basic tenets of the concept of "rebranding".

I'm thirsty. I think I'll grab a Dyet Pepsee. After all, that's how hip people spell it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Absolutely. My comments, in that reply, were *not* directed *at you*, but rather clarified the necessities associated with making use of the link you graciously provided.

I suspect that Dave Howe and the upper management do 'understand the basic tenets of the concept of "rebranding"' -- they just have different objectives from you.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> Absolutely. My comments, in that reply, were *not* directed *at you*, but rather clarified the necessities associated with making use of the link you graciously provided.
> 
> I suspect that Dave Howe and the upper management do 'understand the basic tenets of the concept of "rebranding"' -- they just have different objectives from you.


Since they want the channel to branch out (which has been obvious for quite some time now), I think those objectives would be better served with a rebranding that changes the channel's name, rather than merely mispelling it, as they're obviously no longer intend to program to the science fiction demographic; it'd be like DVD renaming itself DeeVeeDee and manufacturing frozen breakfast foods.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

There is no indication that they plan on changing the programming from what it is today. Again, the name change simply allows them to trade-mark it, and makes it clearer to the fanboys who haven't gotten the message up until now that they aren't the "channel of hardcore science fiction". So it is nothing like what you suggested.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> There is no indication that they plan on changing the programming from what it is today. Again, the name change simply allows them to trade-mark it, and makes it clearer to the fanboys who haven't gotten the message up until now that they aren't the "channel of hardcore science fiction". So it is nothing like what you suggested.


Obviously this move was necessary for the reasons you describe since so many different channels of science fiction have popped up on US cable systems since SciFi began broadcasting in September 1992 that people have no idea anymore which one is the real SciFi Channel.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Indeed, no hardcore science fiction channels have popped up because that kind of channel would never have attracted enough viewers to warrant it.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> Indeed, no hardcore science fiction channels have popped up because that kind of channel would never have attracted enough viewers to warrant it.


Canada's Space being at least one exception.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I truly believe that in a few years from now, there won't be any genre specific channels any more.

You already have SciFi (SyFy) airing wrestling, Cartoon Network airing live action movies and the History Channel airing X-Files inspired reality shows.

At some point instead of complaining about 500 channels with nothing on, people will complain about having 500 channels with the same thing on all of them.

I expect other channels with follow the SciFi to SyFy route. We'll have:
1. Cartune network - airs shows about auto repair as well as cartoons
2. Hystery channel - airs shows about forklifts as well as about history
3. Whether Channel - airs shows about making choices as well as about weather.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> There is no indication that they plan on changing the programming from what it is today. Again, the name change simply allows them to trade-mark it, and makes it clearer to the fanboys who haven't gotten the message up until now that they aren't the "channel of hardcore science fiction". So it is nothing like what you suggested.


Science fiction fans got the message that The Sci-Fi Channel/SCI FI died and was buried well over a decade ago; the alleged "renaming and rebranding" is a misnomer, trademark-worthiness or not, as it's the same name spelled differently.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

They should have gotten that message longer than a decade ago, I believe, but given that the channel is only 17 years old, it cannot be much more than a decade ago.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> They should have gotten that message longer than a decade ago, I believe, but given that the channel is only 17 years old, it cannot be much more than a decade ago.


What I mean is that the channel began its slow descent into entropy a decade ago.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Yes, I know; what I meant is that I believe that slow "descent" began 17 years ago. 

Perhaps a decade ago you first noticed it?


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> Yes, I know; what I meant is that I believe that slow "descent" began 17 years ago.
> 
> Perhaps a decade ago you first noticed it?


The first signs of the channel diverting from its origins began in 1999.

From this:






To whatever it currently is now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16104172&postcount=32088


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Yes, I know; what I meant is that I believe that slow "descent" began 17 years ago.
> 
> Perhaps a decade ago you first noticed it?


Approximately 14-15 years ago (1994-1995) the channel was still relevant. There was an excellent show called "Sci-Fi Buzz" that really served the fans of the genre.

I consider the cancellation of that show as the beginning of the decline into the sad shell of a channel we now have.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not about consumer merchandising. It's about ownership of their intellectual property.


Wouldn't there have to be something "intellectual" about it? I see no intellect at all. Now property could be another matter. After all, a junkyard or a vast wasteland is still property.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Crash_Corrigan said:


> It could have just as easily been:
> 
> SiFi
> SighFigh
> ...


To quote Sean Connery "Shy Fie"


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Personally, I have no problem with the name SyFy or it's spelling. I'll pronounce it the way they want it pronounced. Makes no difference to me. It's just like people who have alternate spellings for their first name. You pronounce it the way they tell you to. As far as content, SciFi has and SyFy will broadcast crap because more people like to watch crap than good tv. They're going where the money is.


So I guess we'll have "Martian Idol," "Survivor Neptune," "So you think you can Necromance?" and maybe "Dancing with the Supernovas"
And "Galactic Federation Venusian Mud-Pot Wrestling" ???


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

wtherrell said:


> "So you think you can Necromance?"


Hmmm. Finally a reality show I'd watch.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I'd prefer to watch "Dancing on the stars".


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

morac said:


> I'd prefer to watch "Dancing on the stars".


Personally I far, far prefer watching "Dancing on the Bars".


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/sci-fi-channel-founder-bashes-name-change-.html


> A co-founder of the Sci Fi Channel is taking offense at NBC Universal's plan to change the network's name.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

morac said:


> I'd prefer to watch "Dancing on the stars".


I assume all the dancing would be done at night?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Malcontent said:


> http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/sci-fi-channel-founder-bashes-name-change-.html


I found this comment particularly interesting:



> The continued claim that "Sci Fi Channel" or variants thereof couldn't be trademarked is patently (if you'll pardon the pun) false. In fact, "Sci-Fi Channel" *used* to be trademarked for various products by USA Networks (the original founders of Sci Fi) and was later assigned to Universal City, the predecessor to NBC-Universal. The lawyers failed to file a required Statement of Use in 2001-- after five(!) extensions-- and the trademark was then abandoned.
> 
> See: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75151175
> 
> ...


So apparently the "SciFi Channel" used to be trademarked, but was abandoned. It could be reclaimed, but instead of trying NBC-Universal just decided to change the same to "SyFy".


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

morac said:


> So apparently the "SciFi Channel" used to be trademarked, but was abandoned. It could be reclaimed, but instead of trying NBC-Universal just decided to change the same to "SyFy".


Well that would require a cogent thought.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I bet it all comes down to some suit deciding that "Sci Fi" was too geeky and wanted something more "trendy". Everything else is just excuses and rationalizations.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

morac said:


> I found this comment particularly interesting:
> 
> So apparently the "SciFi Channel" used to be trademarked, but was abandoned. It could be reclaimed, but instead of trying NBC-Universal just decided to change the same to "SyFy".


I think the point is that the channel stopped using the word "channel" quite a while ago. Most news reports and references to the network only use the words "Sci Fi" which refers both to the network and the genre in general. Had they wanted to continue using the cumbersome term "Sci Fi Channel," that would have been perfectly fine from an intellectual property standpoint. But clearly they wanted something shorter, and since "Sci Fi" is too general for them to get ownership of, they had to come up with something similar, but different.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> [...] and since "Sci Fi" is too general for them to get ownership of, they had to come up with something similar, but different.


Like "USA"?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Like "USA"?


I'll grant you that, kind of. First, USA uses the name "USA Network," so that's different. Second, in context it's kind of difficult to confuse USA (the TV network) with USA (the country). However, that's not the same with SciFi, which shared a name with the genre it aired, so that in many references in written media, it could be difficult to distinguish between references to the network and references to the genre.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Second, in context it's kind of difficult to confuse USA (the TV network) with USA (the country).


Obviously you've not tried to communicate with John or Jane Average recently.


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

aintnosin said:


> Approximately 14-15 years ago (1994-1995) the channel was still relevant. There was an excellent show called "Sci-Fi Buzz" that really served the fans of the genre.
> 
> I consider the cancellation of that show as the beginning of the decline into the sad shell of a channel we now have.


Yup. I agree.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Behold the inanity!

http://www.syfy.com/Imagine/

I guess their inital ad budget was spent at Gawker.

http://gawker.com/


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Here's SCI FI/Syfy's new brand film to promote their *ahem* name change.

http://www.syfy.com/imaginegreater

A press release? Why, I thought you'd never ask.

http://nbcumv.com/scifi/release_detail.nbc/scifi-20090630000000-tomarkjuly7thbra.html



> NEWS TO MARK JULY 7TH BRAND EVOLUTION TO SYFY IMAGINATION CELEBRATIONS KICK OFF WITH COAST TO COAST MARKETING CAMPAIGN
> Published: 06/30/2009 02:16 PM
> 
> TO MARK JULY 7TH BRAND EVOLUTION TO SYFY IMAGINATION CELEBRATIONS KICK OFF WITH COAST TO COAST MARKETING CAMPAIGN
> ...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

What a horrid press release about a horrid series of "events" about a horrid name change. It reeks of desperation and complete idiocy at the highest levels of management.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Actually, it's a pretty decent press release about a pretty interesting series of events, and about a smart name change. It reeks of responsibility and intelligence at the highest levels of management.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I still think it looks like it should be pronounced as siffy (rhymes with silly).

The fact that they have to give out free "wyfy" seems to indicate that most people don't know how to pronounce it either.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

morac said:


> I still think it looks like it should be pronounced as siffy (rhymes with silly).


How does "siffy" rhyme with "silly"?

"billy" / "silly", yes. "siffy" / "iffy", yes.

"siffy" / "silly", no.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> How does "siffy" rhyme with "silly"?
> 
> "billy" / "silly", yes. "siffy" / "iffy", yes.
> 
> "siffy" / "silly", no.


Ok, try "rhymes with spiffy." Better?


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Does the design scheme remind anyone of Apple?

http://www.syfy.com

Wow.

Everything's all shiny and new-looking, save for the forums.

I really hope that, with the launch of Syfy, they don't foresake the genre they were founded on. Hopefully I won't turn on Syfy in three years and see reruns of _Perfect Strangers_.

But as the aforementioned brand film illustrates, I think they want Syfy to be a quirkier genre-tinged version of their sister channel USA Network.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

Uggh, seeing the stupid name actually in use makes me sort of ill. For some reason I hate it that much.

SciFi used to be THE channel that I would often watch live. If I didn't have anything in the can I would go to SciFi and see what was on there. It was my first choice as they would usually have some movie or show playing that I could get interested in. I never do that anymore. Now everything else but the handful of shows I record, is crap not worth watching. (I suppose Discover is where I go now for the occasional live viewing.) I know this doesn't have anything to do with the name change but for me it's symptomatic of where the channel has been going for the past few years.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> I really hope that, with the launch of Syfy, they don't foresake the genre they were founded on. Hopefully I won't turn on Syfy in three years and see reruns of _Perfect Strangers_.


You can turn on SyFy now and see Professional Wrestling.

_Perfect Strangers_ would be several steps up.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

appleye1 said:


> SciFi used to be THE channel that I would often watch live.


By comparison, I never watched Sci Fi, even being a fan of the genre, until ten years ago. Over time, though, they've moderated the content, introducing great shows -- first Farscape, then Stargate, then BSG, then Eureka, Taken, The Lost Room, Tin Man, and now Warehouse 13.



FilmCritic3000 said:


> What I mean is that the channel began its slow descent into entropy a decade ago.


Sure seems to me like that put them in the right track. :up:


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

bicker said:


> By comparison, I never watched Sci Fi, even being a fan of the genre, until ten years ago. Over time, though, they've moderated the content, introducing great shows -- first Farscape, then Stargate, then BSG, then Eureka, Taken, The Lost Room, Tin Man, and now Warehouse 13.
> 
> Sure seems to me like that put them in the right track. :up:


Thank you, bicker, for posting a reply like this. I look forward to engaging with you in civil conversations in the future.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

I know its just me but the name "SyFy" sounds like an acronym for an STD.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DouglasPHill said:


> I know its just me but the name "SyFy" sounds like an acronym for an STD.


You're right.....it IS just you.....


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

While I don't really care that much about the name change. The new logo in the corner of the screen will take some getting used to.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Behold everyone! Kevin Murphy, a writer and actor on _Mystery Science Theater 3000_ (he played Tom Servo) is rebranding his name to Myrfi!

http://myrfi.net/



> Think Betterer.
> Welcome to the brand evolution of Kevin Murphy (www.kevinwmurphy.com) to MYRFI.


----------



## Crash_Corrigan (Feb 27, 2004)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Behold everyone! Kevin Murphy, a writer and actor on _Mystery Science Theater 3000_ (he played Tom Servo) is rebranding his name to Myrfi!
> 
> http://myrfi.net/


That put a smile on my face. Kevin is clearly on to something. Let the age of rebranding begin!


----------



## routerspecialist (Jun 19, 2008)

After losing BSG and the Stargate series, and with precious little to replace them, I think of Syfy as DEADfy......as in they got nothin.....


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

routerspecialist said:


> After losing BSG and the Stargate series, and with precious little to replace them, I think of Syfy as DEADfy......as in they got nothin.....


They're premiering _Stargate Universe_ in October, FWIW.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Warehouse 13 was pretty enjoyable; sort of like a Eureka-in-a-warehouses instead of a little town.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dswallow said:


> Warehouse 13 was pretty enjoyable; sort of like a Eureka-in-a-warehouses instead of a little town.


And they'll probably get out a lot more.

I was surprised at how not-Vancouver Iowa looked. No mountains or anything.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I can't be mad at SyFy even if they have wrestling, especially after seen about three episodes of MonsterQuest listed in last night's guide on the History Channel.


----------



## TiVoJedi (Mar 1, 2002)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> I really hope that, with the launch of Syfy, they don't foresake the genre they were founded on. Hopefully I won't turn on Syfy in three years and see reruns of _Perfect Strangers_.


Maybe they will be showing Mork and Mindy or Alf


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

DouglasPHill said:


> I know its just me but the name "SyFy" sounds like an acronym for an STD.


Siffy- it's catching on


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

The new Syfy has problems with their program guide data. I search for new series or season premiers about once a week and I missed the airing of Warehouse 13, it must not have had the 'series premiere' tag. I also never would have realized that Eureka's season would be starting soon if I had not seen it here.

i don't believe I had these problems when they were called SciFi.

Since I don't watch commercials or seek out new series info online (since the TiVo/DVR catches them for me, normally) I may miss all their new content, not a good move when they are trying to launch a new brand name.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Imagine . . Gooder

Bob


----------



## rloper (Mar 25, 2002)

Did any else catch the 2 minute "House of Imagination" trailer for Syfy? It was on at the beginning of Warehouse 13. I personally thought it was a somewhat surreal and pretty neat short.


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

Well, I just noticed this. And I must say that the new lame is pretty lame and the new font is pretty cheez. Though the whole thing seems to go well with the B movies they have been putting out, so I can't really say I expected anymore from them these days.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

lofar said:


> Well, I just noticed this. And I must say that the new lame is pretty lame and the new font is pretty cheez. Though the whole thing seems to go well with the B movies they have been putting out, so I can't really say I expected anymore from them these days.


It goes well with The CW's crappy font, though.


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

I'm spending way too much time t-shirt shopping...

We spell it SCI-FI
http://www.cafepress.com/+scifi_kelly_shirt,398690888


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

SyFy made Time's Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes List.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

morac said:


> SyFy made Time's Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes List.


Pft. They didn't even include Borland -> Inprise -> Borland.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> Pft. They didn't even include Borland -> Inprise -> Borland.


Weirder still, even they admit that ValuJet -> AirTran was a good change...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It would be interesting to know how many times specific name-changes have appeared as "good" and "bad" depending on the year. It seems that such lists aren't really evaluating whether name changes are "good" or "bad" but rather are putting together lists that will stroke their readerships' egos.

I thought it was especially telling that Time couldn't even comprehend the rationale for the name-change, i.e., branding, rather than their ridiculously-fabricated "name of an entire genre" idiocy. Clearly a mental-midget wrote that blurb.


----------

