# Sci Fi Channel changing name, logo



## Wire Paladin (Sep 19, 2006)

Looks like Sci Fi Channel is changing its name to Syfy in June. And a reason for it, is they can't trademark Sci Fi. Must be from the same minds that created the Spike Channel.

 
Sci Fi Channel changing name, logo


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

Wire Paladin said:


> Looks like Sci Fi Channel is changing its name to Syfy in June. And a reason for it, is they can't trademark Sci Fi. Must be from the same minds that created the Spike Channel.
> 
> 
> Sci Fi Channel changing name, logo


*SyFy* n. a genre mixing science-fiction with liberal doses of woo.

(Seriously, though, wouldn't "SyFy" be pronounced "Siff-ee" or "Sife-ee?")

-- Roger


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Oh dear. Another assault on our language. "Sci-Fi" is a catchy little neologism but "syfy?" Unforgivable. We wonder why our children can't spell. I understand it... when every corporation is doing its best to make up words or mangle existing ones. Even I have gotten to the point where the word "singular" looks wrong. I keep thinking it should start with a "c."


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Of course what they don't say in the article is that it'll be easier to add more things like wrestling to their line-up by changing the name to something that's only sorta kinda identifying itself with a particular genre. Once again as we've seen so many times we find a channel that's gained a good core audience wanting to water-down it's niche-specific programming so it can become what mostly comes down to just another general interest channel. Sure you might get a little wider audience possibly (but with so many choices these days the pie is sliced so thin its hard to imagine you'll gain enough market share to really matter), but i'm not sure that's the smart business move anymore. The thought being bigger is always better so you always want more viewers no matter what, but in todays market maybe not-so-much really. After all if I was a network I actually think I might be in a better position if I could say I have 1 million dedicated viewers that tune into my channel no matter what because they love our genre and on top of that I know the demographics of that audience so advertisers will know who they're advertising to, really allow them to target the ads to cater to the audience. As opposed to say my channel has 2 million viewers on our most popular shows but they aren't necessarily loyal to our channel just the shows so the numbers fluctuate quite a bit and different groups watch different shows so it's hard to pinpoint what advertising is going to work best. Anyway just my 2 cents here.


----------



## solmakou (Mar 6, 2009)

As soon as they drop wrestling and 6 hours of ghosts and goblins from their lineup I'll start watching again.


----------



## Talos4 (Jun 21, 2007)

solmakou said:


> As soon as they drop wrestling and 6 hours of ghosts and goblins from their lineup I'll start watching again.


Amen!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Most folks will likely think the new name's a typo....

Spellcheckers - prepare for battle. :lol:


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> Once again as we've seen so many times we find a channel that's gained a good core audience wanting to water-down it's niche-specific programming so it can become what mostly comes down to just another general interest channel.


It does appear that is where this channel has been heading, and is still headed. I wish the advertisers would see the advantage of the niche-specific channels.

I also find it funny that the artical thought that shows like Eureka were a way that they were already moving away from that niche. Eureka may not be spaced based, but it hard to see how it is not science fiction.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mark my words: some day FedEx will become FEx (since FX is more or less already taken).


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

TVSquad.com has an image of the new logo, and I believe I have the best possible comment on the situation...

y?


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

The SciFi channel's existence was what brought me to DirecTV. Then Georgia Cable (now part of Comcast) and I had a running argument over the channel. They claimed there was no room for it and I repeatedly expressed to them that if they would get rid of the 20 some odd shopping channels they would have room:lol:

DirecTV came along and that was it... they had SciFi. I told Georgia Cable to drop dead and I haven't been back since. That was 1994. 

It is unfortunate that we have seen a weakening of this channel, a sign of the times I guess, I new we were headed for trouble when they put the so called "sport" of wrestling on it.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hibbard's original article included the image:










Unfortunately, I have no problem imagining "greater". But I do understand the desire to copyright protect.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

solmakou said:


> As soon as they drop wrestling and 6 hours of ghosts and goblins from their lineup I'll start watching again.


Wrestlng on Sci-fi?? Give me a break!


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Why in the world would they do this? The channel name defined it perfectly and there's no need to get all "cute" with the spelling.

It sounds like some higher-ups were getting bored and decided to make some changes.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

This is what happens when "legal" is the decider....


----------



## Jimmy 440 (Nov 17, 2007)

Again,they're trying to fix something that is not broke.


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

How does the Science channel get away with it? Is their name and logo not trademarked?

Why couldn't SciFi change their name formally to SciFi-HD? Should be very easy to trademark that.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Much ado about nothing.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Perhaps I should have said "legal" and "marketing" were the deciders. But they knew how we'd react. From the article:


> Howe knows some fans will dislike the change and see Syfy as a rejection of the network's core viewership. More than most channels, Sci Fi has a intense relationship with its audience. Clashes are unavoidable to some degree when you combine a network making businesses-minded decisions with a genre that has the most passionate and outspoken fans around.
> 
> "Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," Howe said. "But what we're embracing is the total sci-fi landscape -- fantasy, paranormal, action-adventure, mystery ... it's imagination-based entertainment."


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Wow that's pretty lame, looks like some folks at NBC U have too much time on their hands. Looking at it, I'm surprised they didn't got with CyFi, Cyber Fiction bay-be! But as long as they still Twilight Zone marathons over long weekends thats all I really care about. I can't quite wrap my head around the trademark issue, the channel has been around over 15 years and this is just becomming a problem now?


----------



## tadtam (Apr 2, 2008)

Isn't this why NBC's programming is at the ratings bottom? The guys at the top have "KNOW KLOO"

FOX will probably come out with Sci-Fi Fox and have a hit...


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

At what point do I start feeling alienated?


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

What next for CN? *Real Kids Network?*

I tell you, NBCU is shooting itself in the foot.


----------



## GaryPotter (Apr 12, 2008)

Jtaylor1 said:


> What next for CN? *Real Kids Network?*
> 
> I tell you, NBCU is shooting itself in the foot.


Cartoon Network isn't going to rebrand itself. Stop posting that on every forum you join.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Mark Holtz said:


> At what point do I start feeling alienated?


When no more aliens are present on Sci-Fi!


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

durl said:


> Why in the world would they do this? The channel name defined it perfectly


This is a perfect example of how there is no way to "win"... Perhaps the *most common online discussion topic* regarding the Sci Fi Channel is how much of its programming *doesn't *meet hardcore science fiction fans' expectations for what Sci Fi is and what a channel ostensibly devoted to science fiction should be. This name-change very clearly distances the channel from that myopic, narrow, limited perspective of what the channel should be. The new name, while not "perfect", is *far closer *to perfection with regard to describing what the channel presents.



durl said:


> and there's no need to get all "cute" with the spelling.


That is also completely incorrect. Sci Fi cannot trademark anything using the term Sci Fi, because it is too familiar, too widely used. Syfy is sufficiently unique that they can trademark it, and therefore capitalize better on branding opportunities. Remember: NBC/U is *not a charity*. They are a for-profit enterprise. They have to answer to a "higher authority" than even their viewers: Their owners.


----------



## Wire Paladin (Sep 19, 2006)

tadtam said:


> Isn't this why NBC's programming is at the ratings bottom? The guys at the top have "KNOW KLOO"


NBC seems to want to get it's biggest bang for the buck. They tend to recycle shows/events across channels. Its amusing and sad watching the same guests appear on the same day at Today on NBC, Morning Joe on MSNBC and Squawk Box on CNBC.

It looks like at times that they want to put more emphasis on being part of the NBC universe instead of the uniqueness of the specific channel. Sometimes I get the feeling the channels should just be renamed NBC 1, NBC 2 and so on.

But on the positive side, at least they didn't have Cramer guest star on BSG.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Oh dear. Another assault on our language. "Sci-Fi" is a catchy little neologism but "syfy?" Unforgivable. We wonder why our children can't spell. I understand it... when every corporation is doing its best to make up words or mangle existing ones. Even I have gotten to the point where the word "singular" looks wrong. I keep thinking it should start with a "c."


Unfortunately, or fortunately, English is an evolutionary language as opposed to French, which seems to be a dying language because it is not permitted to evolve.

Look at how many words have changed in our lifetimes. Decimation now means total destruction, when it's original meaning was "one in ten". 20 years ago "America" was not in most dictionaries. 20 years ago "prioritize" was not in any dictionary (give or take a few years on both). I have dictionaries that cost my company a good bit of change and I made sure I got a brand new one every year. Usually Merriam Webster dictionaries or the most expensive ones in the catalogs that we used. I still have a couple. No "America", no "prioritize", etc. The spell checker I am using on my laptop right now recognizes "irregardless" as a word. "Proactive" is another word such as "irregardless" that is redundant and yet has become common in usage and has found it's way into our dictionaries.

We teach our kids on the baseball field to give "110%" or more. Can't wait until that hits the dictionaries. Nobody under the age of 50 seems to understand the meanings of simple words such as "next" and "free".

As all this bothers you, so does it bother me and yet I understand the reasoning behind adding "new'' words every time the dictionaries are updated. The freedom to change is not something we should take lightly when it comes to our language, for without it we might as well all be using a structurally rigid language such as French. And stagnating as the French are now doing.

I agree with your post wholeheartedly, I shudder every time I watch a boxing match and the announcer says Joe Blow is getting "decimated". But, the evolution of our language is important and it's just something we have to put up with.

To get back on topic, there aren't many true science fiction shows on the Sci-Fi channel any more and their movies are mostly disappointing. Once Battlestar Galactica is over, what else do they have?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Much ado about nothing.


As usual, succinct and true. And very Shakespearean, I might add.

Rich


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

rich584 said:


> 20 years ago "America" was not in most dictionaries.


I suspect that had to do with how the dictionary editors were treating geographical terms and/or capitalized words. The word "America" has existed since circa 1507, and its main current connotation (i.e., a short way to refer to the U.S.) was basically fixed in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence referred to the colonies as "the United States of America."


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

rich584 said:


> To get back on topic, there aren't many true science fiction shows on the Sci-Fi channel any more and their movies are mostly disappointing. Once Battlestar Galactica is over, what else do they have?
> 
> Rich


I'm hoping _Eureka_ will be returning and I'll still watch _Sanctuary_. I'll also check out the new _Stargate_ episodes when they start. That's about it for me, but as much as I like the genre, I've only watched about three to four shows per season anyway. When they started _Eureka_ and _The Dresden Files_, I watched more, but DF, which was my favorite, only lasted one season.

I look to this channel for more quirky shows and characters (not especially monsters) that you can't find elsewhere. I don't particularly like SyFy as the new name, but I understand the reason for it. Now if they could just have more shows that actually fit the SciFi/SyFy category, I would be happier and watch more.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trainman said:


> I suspect that had to do with how the dictionary editors were treating geographical terms and/or capitalized words. The word "America" has existed since circa 1507, and its main current connotation (i.e., a short way to refer to the U.S.) was basically fixed in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence referred to the colonies as "the United States of America."


I know what you mean. But try to find a dictionary from about the middle 80s that had "America" in it. I didn't come up with this, I read about it and couldn't believe it and hauled out a couple good old dictionaries and, sure enough, no "America".

I did some research out of curiosity and the first mention I found was of someplace on the west coast and I think it was from the 1500s. Just a section and that was preceded by another name just as "North America" is. Seems unbelievable, but try it. You'll see what I mean.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Charise said:


> I'm hoping _Eureka_ will be returning and I'll still watch _Sanctuary_. I'll also check out the new _Stargate_ episodes when they start. That's about it for me, but as much as I like the genre, I've only watched about three to four shows per season anyway. When they started _Eureka_ and _The Dresden Files_, I watched more, but DF, which was my favorite, only lasted one season.
> 
> I look to this channel for more quirky shows and characters (not especially monsters) that you can't find elsewhere. I don't particularly like SyFy as the new name, but I understand the reason for it. Now if they could just have more shows that actually fit the SciFi/SyFy category, I would be happier and watch more.


I just read something about Eureka and I think it's dead. I do watch Sanctuary and had forgotten about it when I posted. I thought Stargate was dead too, no? Stargate Atlantis finished up for good and unless they find a new way to present it...

Oh, and I do watch Doctor Who on it. But that's not many shows. FX has a good lineup and a few other channels, but SciFi seemed to get a little off track the last couple of years. Strange that a channel that can produce a really good series in Battlestar Galactica can't come up with better material.

Rich


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Eureka returns this summer. There are still 13 episodes in Season 3 that have yet to air, and there has been no decision yet about Season 4.

And many people don't consider Eureka to be science fiction, but rather a futuristic soap opera.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

rich584 said:


> I just read something about Eureka and I think it's dead. I do watch Sanctuary and had forgotten about it when I posted. I thought Stargate was dead too, no? Stargate Atlantis finished up for good and unless they find a new way to present it...
> 
> Rich


Actually Eureka will be coming back this summer and on the same day it premiers is the day they're changing the name to SyFy. As for Stargate, they're coming out with a new Stargate show, so it's not quite dead yet, whether there's any compelling stories left in that universe, well that we'll have to wait and see about I guess.


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

bicker1 said:


> The new name, while not "perfect", is *far closer *to perfection with regard to describing what the channel presents.


The channel presents "SyFy?" 

-- Roger


----------



## wagman (Jul 11, 2007)

As I mentioned in another thread, I just don't like the direction this channel has taken.

It was great, back in the day, to flip to the channel and find sci-fi content. I keep a broad definition of "sci-fi", which includes fantasy and generalized science or pseudo-science as a basis for the story (Asimov wrote quite a number of stories that were based on hard science, yet were fiction; therefore, the two came together as science fiction, as I see it).

Now, I can't pull up the ole guide and see much programming that falls into my definition of sci-fi. I don't consider ghost hunting, presented as a reality show, to be sci-fi. Ghost hunting as a fictional series would fall under fantasy to me, which I consider okay for the genre.

Wrestling? Oh yeah, there's a good fit! Get real, you morons that are making these changes...the reason your "core audience" watched for all these years and made you financially viable was that you had the decency not to put wrestling on your lineup (at least that's the way I see it)!


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

So far all articles I've seen on the name change have had the "F" as lowercase. I'm sorry, but when I see "Syfy", I can't help but think "Syphillis". Not a good association to be making!


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

rich584 said:


> I thought Stargate was dead too, no? Stargate Atlantis finished up for good and unless they find a new way to present it...
> Rich


I couldn't remember the name before, but I was referring to _Stargate: Universe_, http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-stargate-universe-lou-diamond-phillips-ming-na,0,1328377.story, which is supposed to premier in October.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

jadebox said:


> The channel presents "SyFy?"


Absolutely; a word they make up can be *whatever *they want it to be.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

wagman said:


> As I mentioned in another thread, I just don't like the direction this channel has taken.


But that, itself, totally justifies their change. You're right... they've moved away from hard-core science fiction, mostly because there isn't enough money to be made in such a narrow scope. By widening the scope, they afford themselves greater revenue opportunities. The science fiction fanatics who like to claim that there is enough interest in hard-core science fiction to justify a station for it enjoy the idea of playing around with someone else's money but do you think they'd actually put their own money on the line for something so clearly unperforming? Of course not.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Unfortunately, or fortunately, English is an evolutionary language as opposed to French, which seems to be a dying language because it is not permitted to evolve. (...)
> 
> Rich


Rich, I do love English for its robustness, and its ability to grow. I find it fascinating to trace words like "monstrous," "fabulous," "peculiar," and "blockbuster" through their gyrations. (_Monstrous_ once meant, simply, worthy of a second look; _fabulous_ once meant unbelievable, as in a fable; _peculiar_ simply meant "unique" without passing judgment; a _blockbuster_ was a horrible thing, a single bomb that could level a city block) and I love seeing language put to new uses.

What I don't particularly care for is the erosion of spelling, grammar and usage to its lowest common denominator, cutting every word and phrase to its smallest, text-message-able bit. I also deplore the idea of mangling the spelling of a word simply to make it unique enough to trademark.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> What I don't particularly care for is the erosion of spelling, grammar and usage to its lowest common denominator, cutting every word and phrase to its smallest, text-message-able bit. I also deplore the idea of mangling the spelling of a word simply to make it unique enough to trademark.


Yes! Thank you!!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Once Battlestar Galactica is over, what else do they have?


Eureka

And that will be the ONLY reason I watch "Siffy".


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I just read something about Eureka and I think it's dead.


Eureka returns 7/7/09.


----------



## Surveyor40 (Jan 5, 2006)

Soon there will be no " Sci-Fi " on SyFy.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

My proposal for their new logo:


----------



## jhollan2 (Aug 31, 2006)

Phrelin, thats awesome! LOL!!!

I understand what they think they are doing... but I have to agree with those that ask "why?" If you want to get away from the "sci fi" tag, then why change the name to something that still resembles it? I understand the trademark argument, but why do you need to TM a station name? I dont think the name change was earth shattering for courtv/truetv... why do they think this will be different?

Most people look at the guide and see a show they want. Those that dont frequent these boards may not even know what channel their show is on, they just know the DVR gets it. I certainly dont stay away from channels just because of their title, its all about the programming. If they want to rebrand themselves they should start there...


----------



## wagman (Jul 11, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> But that, itself, totally justifies their change. You're right... they've moved away from hard-core science fiction, mostly because there isn't enough money to be made in such a narrow scope. By widening the scope, they afford themselves greater revenue opportunities. The science fiction fanatics who like to claim that there is enough interest in hard-core science fiction to justify a station for it enjoy the idea of playing around with someone else's money but do you think they'd actually put their own money on the line for something so clearly unperforming? Of course not.


Well, they certainly thought it would work 16 years...and I think it can still work...if they would re-embrace what they did before and stick to content that is at least in the genre. If they would spend some money on more quality programming, like BSG, and quit putting shows like the 4400 on sister stations, they could see a good turnaround.

I understand that there looks to be good money by putting wrestling on, but it makes no more sense, to me, to put wrestling on a channel that is named "SyFy", than on one name "SciFi".

If they really wanted to breakaway from the name, they would not have named it phonetically exact.

I would be less upset if they just changed it completely and said they were going in a different direction: fine, the the scifi channel would be defunct. But, no, they want to play the cutesy game with an intelligent fanbase, that, obviously, isn't buying the stinking fish they are trying to sell.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

wagman said:


> Well, they certainly thought it would work 16 years...and I think it can still work...


Things change. The winners are the folks who foresee the future, not those who are run over by it. In the end, it is their money. *They *have a vested interest in making the best decision regarding their *financial *investment, while *viewers *only have a vested interest in getting them to broadcast the kind of programming the viewer *wants* someone to broadcast.



wagman said:


> if they would re-embrace what they did before and stick to content that is at least in the genre.


That would be a failure. There never was any money in hard-core science fiction.

Do you even remember how much people "just like you" ripped into Sci Fi for even thinking about doing BSG, and then ripped into them again when it became obvious that BSG was going to be a character-driven drama instead of hard-core science fiction?



wagman said:


> I understand that there looks to be good money by putting wrestling on, but it makes no more sense, to me, to put wrestling on a channel that is named "SyFy", than on one name "SciFi".


Remember the reason for the name change:



> Syfy -- unlike the generic entertainment category "sci-fi" - firmly establishes a uniquely *ownable *trademark that is portable across all non-linear digital platforms and beyond, from Hulu to iTunes. Syfy also creates an umbrella brand name that can *extend into new adjacent businesses* under the Syfy Ventures banner, such as Syfy Games, Syfy Films and Syfy Kids.


[Emphasis added.]

These are critical aspects of this change. Nothing you've said indicates any alternative means of achieving those financial goals.



wagman said:


> If they really wanted to breakaway from the name, they would not have named it phonetically exact.


That's just it. They don't want to break away from it completely. They just want it to *flavor *the programming, not impose a rigid set of parameters on the programming. That's what a lot of hard-core science fiction fanatics have trouble accepting, but it is very clear that it is the best financial direction for the channel.



wagman said:


> I would be less upset if they just changed it completely and said they were going in a different direction


And the fact that you're upset indicates the problem I see: You're letting your personal preferences dictate what you are implying is the best decision for them. That is simply *not* the case. They actually *know *what people will be willing to watch in sufficient numbers to justify the costs of production.


----------



## JJJBBB (May 26, 2007)

Gotta be April 1 nonsense joke, if not, somebody needs to be fired.


----------



## Wire Paladin (Sep 19, 2006)

For chuckles IESB's Full Frontal Nerdity- Darth Vadar vs Syfy. Check the link below.

*Darth Vadar vs Syfy*


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> Things change. The winners are the folks who foresee the future, not those who are run over by it. In the end, it is their money. *They *have a vested interest in making the best decision regarding their *financial *investment, while *viewers *only have a vested interest in getting them to broadcast the kind of programming the viewer *wants* someone to broadcast.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we as potential viewers have any responsibility to support a channel just because it makes good business decisions.

If it goes in a direction we don't like, surely we have the right to espress our opinion?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Agreed. Vote with your eyeballs. If you don't like what's on the channel, don't watch it.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we as potential viewers have any responsibility to support a channel just because it makes good business decisions.


No one suggested anything about "responsibility". And indeed, it works the other way... it is their good business decisions that will get potential viewers to support the channel -- but be clear: just because any one of us isn't a "potential viewer who decides to support the channel" doesn't mean that "they" did anything wrong. Each one of us is pretty insignificant.



paulman182 said:


> If it goes in a direction we don't like, surely we have the right to espress our opinion?


*Absolutely*, i.e., "I don't like the name change." Note how that differs from: labeling their action an "assault"; asserting that it isn't a good _business_ decision; asserting that the decision was the result of boredom, or that people have "too much time on their hands" -- basically asserting that there weren't *any *rational reasons for making this change; etc. These are all exhortations that are assertions _of fact_, rather than statements of opinion, without a shred of objective evidence to back them up.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Rich, I do love English for its robustness, and its ability to grow. I find it fascinating to trace words like "monstrous," "fabulous," "peculiar," and "blockbuster" through their gyrations. (_Monstrous_ once meant, simply, worthy of a second look; _fabulous_ once meant unbelievable, as in a fable; _peculiar_ simply meant "unique" without passing judgment; a _blockbuster_ was a horrible thing, a single bomb that could level a city block) and I love seeing language put to new uses.


Curiously, a woman in NYC got shot in the abdominal region with an arrow and lived (that's not the "curious" part). Good for her. So, the NY Daily News shows an archery instructor using a bow and arrow to demonstrate how dangerous arrows are (duh!). He shoots one arrow thru a bag of flour and "decimates the bag of flour".

I read this just after posting my feelings about the permutations of the language, that's the curious part. But to use "decimate" to describe a bag of flour literally blowing apart was a bit much. Really decimated me. :lol:



> What I don't particularly care for is the erosion of spelling, grammar and usage to its lowest common denominator, cutting every word and phrase to its smallest, text-message-able bit. I also deplore the idea of mangling the spelling of a word simply to make it unique enough to trademark.


Text messaging is ruining the way people spell. Kinda makes the language "phonetic" rather than properly spelled. Had a long talk with my son when he announced that he would be seeing a girl for the first time and needed text message privileges. First message I got from him was unreadable. Grabbed him and told him that all his life I'd harped on him over and over that swearing and sarcasm are tools of the weak minded and that I considered the kind of message he sent me not only unreadable but unworthy and weakminded. He agreed and I've not had a message from him that is not properly written (or close enough) since. People judge you by the way you present yourself both vocally and in print and I think you do yourself a disservice by not using the language properly.

I did spend over 4 years in the Navy and can, literally, swear like a sailor. But not around women or children. And never around any men who I think might be offended.

All that said, I'm kind of surprised that the name change of a TV channel has caused such an uproar. The wrestling part I get, that has no place on such a channel. But, I've actually known grown men who refused to believe that wrestling is and always (in my lifetime) has been choreographed. Nobody I considered very intelligent, but still.

Change in the language is gonna come and there's nothing we can do about it. I guess we just have to proactively prioritize the decimation of the language. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

ya i thnk u r rite so i betr get usta it or ill b left bhind 4evr


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> Do you even remember how much people "just like you" ripped into Sci Fi for even thinking about doing BSG, and then ripped into them again when it became obvious that BSG was going to be a character-driven drama instead of hard-core science fiction?


Can you name one science fiction book or short story that was not "character-driven"? I've been reading science fiction/fantasy all my life and I can't think of one. From Wells, to Verne, to Heinlein, to Asimov, to Turtledove, etc. and I can't think of one book or story that wasn't "character-driven".

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we as potential viewers have any responsibility to support a channel just because it makes good business decisions.
> 
> If it goes in a direction we don't like, surely we have the right to espress our opinion?


And to change the channel.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> ya i thnk u r rite so i betr get usta it or ill b left bhind 4evr


Took me a long time to decipher that. Writing like that is truly awful. And that's a great example.

Rich


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Kinda (sic) makes the language "phonetic" rather than properly spelled. (I) Had a long talk with my son when he announced that he would be seeing a girl for the first time and needed text message privileges. (The) First message I got from him was unreadable. (I) Grabbed him and told him that all his life I'd harped on him over and over that swearing and sarcasm are tools of the weak minded ...
> 
> But not around women or children. And never around any men who I think might be offended. (two sentence fragments there)


Yes, but seventy-five (or so) years ago your message style would have been considered improper as well.

Things change, no matter how much we resist.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Yes, but to paraphrase Steve Allen, there are some things up with which we should not put.


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

bicker1 said:


> Absolutely; a word they make up can be *whatever *they want it to be.


Well, personally, I think their new name is really syfy.

-- Roger


----------



## timmmaaayyy2003 (Jan 27, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Yes, but to paraphrase Steve Allen, there are some things up with which we should not put.


Hear, hear!!!


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Can you name one science fiction book or short story that was not "character-driven"?


 Could you imagine a television program that consisted of presenting a book on television -- what? with turning the page every 75 second? That's silly. Instead, they present *TELEVISION PROGRAMS* on television. And if you cannot tell the difference between how richly character-drive a show like BSG has been, as compared to shows like John Doe or Level 9 -- well then we don't have a common foundation of reality on which to carry on a discussion! :grin:


----------



## wagman (Jul 11, 2007)

To bicker1,

In case you didn't realize it, I am just trying to vent here...so, step the frak off my toes!!

I'm not arguing or debating their decision...I am stating why I don't like it. Is your pupose just to "bicker" for the sake of it. 

Why don't you just go apologize for them to someone else.


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

My vote is for SoFaux.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

wagman said:


> In case you didn't realize it, I am just trying to vent here...so, step the frak off my toes!!


People who wish to can vent by saying they don't like something. They don't have to make that into anything more than that, just to make their personal upset sound more critical.



wagman said:


> I'm not arguing or debating their decision...


Then *don't* argue or debate their decision. It's very simple.



wagman said:


> Why don't you just go apologize for them to someone else.


No apology is necessary. They didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

russ9 said:


> My vote is for SoFaux.


That's strangely close to another network's current slogan: "So Fox."


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

DarkSkies said:


> So far all articles I've seen on the name change have had the "F" as lowercase. I'm sorry, but when I see "Syfy", I can't help but think "Syphillis". Not a good association to be making!


I think I'm suffering from AOD ("Adult Onset Dyslexia"), but when I see "Syfy", I interpret it as "Stir fry"...


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

I rarely remember my dreams, but the one I had as I was waking up this morning seems worth sharing.

A bud from work and I were sitting on the couch in the back of the Sci-Fi store at the mall (it was laid out like a slightly wide KB Toys but with the open area in the back, and a huge, current, Sci-Fi logo hanging on the side wall to our left). The cashier behind us says "here, take this" as she hands my friend a toothbrush. It must have been used because he held out the small trash bag he was carrying with him for her to put it in. He then turned to me and asked "what do you make of that?"

"Seems pretty 'siffy' to me."


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I have updated the DBSTalk National HD Channel List to reflect the above name change. Also, several new or recent HD channels have been added to the list


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Bring back FTL News!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTL_Newsfeed

Reading the Wikipedia article on the SciFi channel was interesting. Gene Roddenberry and Isaac Asimov were on the original advisory board - which helps explain my initial attraction to the channel.

Yes, they are free to change their programming as they wish (I guess that "fantasy" would technically include anything that is fictional and thus opens up the programming to anything that is not non-fiction). As others have pointed out we are free to change the channel - and reflect that in the Nielsen surveys that we take. At this point I would prefer RTN over SciFi (excuse me, SyFy - which I think is just spiffy). Anytime a business makes a change they have to evaluate the risk/reward of alienating and losing existing customers vs. attracting new customers. SyFy has obviously done this analysis and determined that they will have a net gain of viewers. It's not worth wasting energy debating - instead get a Netflix account and load up on the sci-fi that you really want to watch.


----------



## oldcrooner (Feb 23, 2004)

Why not just call the channel "Imagine!" ? That would cover sci-fi, fantasy, paranormal and maybe even pro wrestling.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

oldcrooner said:


> Why not just call the channel "Imagine!" ?


You can't trade-mark English words.


----------



## solmakou (Mar 6, 2009)

They'll call it ymygyny


----------



## sorahl (Oct 24, 2002)

JUST HOW does Wrestling fit in???
"Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," Howe said. "But what we're embracing is the total sci-fi landscape -- fantasy, paranormal, action-adventure, mystery ... it's imagination-based entertainment."
I"m looking but... I don't see wrestling to fit in there.

SciFi channel has become more and more irrelevant. Yes I know a lot of people love that Battlestar show, and I too watched it up to 18 months ago when they decided to make eveyrone wait til just recently to see the final episodes. pathetic.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

Why not change the name. There is little SciFi on the channel at the moment. When they show a movie, it is of the Horror/Monster variety. When the channel first came out, I was watching it all the time. Since then, it has slowly lost it's soul and presently is on the verge of loosing it's place on my favorites list.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

sorahl said:


> JUST HOW does Wrestling fit in???
> "Our core audience will use it an opportunity to question our motives -- they always do," Howe said. "But what we're embracing is the total sci-fi landscape -- fantasy, paranormal, action-adventure, mystery ... it's imagination-based entertainment."
> I"m looking but... I don't see wrestling to fit in there.


Fantasy.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

I am a trademark attorney, and I don't understand why they think "SyFy" is any less descriptive than "SciFi." (Descriptive terms are not trademarkable on the Principal Trademark Register at the US Patent & Trademark Office.)

"A novel spelling of a merely descriptive word or term is also merely descriptive if purchasers would perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive word or term. _See In re Hercules Fasteners, Inc._ 203 F.2d 753, 97 USPQ 355 (C.C.P.A. 1953); _Andrew J. McPartland Inc. v. Montgomery Ward & Co._ 164 F.2d 603, 76 USPQ 97 (C.C.P.A. 1947); Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure 5th Edition Section 1209.03(j).


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

harsh said:


> Mark my words: some day FedEx will become FEx (since FX is more or less already taken).


It'll still be a fly-by-night company.


----------



## Tinymon (Sep 21, 2007)

They got it half right. At least wrestling is Fi...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> Could you imagine a television program that consisted of presenting a book on television -- what? with turning the page every 75 second? That's silly. Instead, they present *TELEVISION PROGRAMS* on television. And if you cannot tell the difference between how richly character-drive a show like BSG has been, as compared to shows like John Doe or Level 9 -- well then we don't have a common foundation of reality on which to carry on a discussion! :grin:


I wasn't going to reply, your lack of comprehension astounded me and I didn't think you'd be able to understand that just about every good science fiction movie ever made was the result of a book being written and a screenplay rendered of that book.

Consider "I Robot", originally a book by Asimov or the recent "I am Legend", from a novella by Richard Matheson, or "War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells and the "Time Machine" also by Mr. Wells. All character driven, all shown on TV. The "Stargate" series was first written by Roland Emmerich, and using some of Roland Emmerich's notes, Bill McCay wrote a series of five novels.

Do you understand what I meant now?

Rich


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

bicker1 said:


> You can't trademark English words.


Sneakers, Fluent, Rare, Halo, Excel, Word, Office, Outlook, Windows, etc.

(And all those are examples trademarked by just one company.) 

-- Roger


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

The most extreme example of trademarking I have seen is that UPS has trademarked the color brown.


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

Charise said:


> I couldn't remember the name before, but I was referring to _Stargate: Universe_, http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-stargate-universe-lou-diamond-phillips-ming-na,0,1328377.story, which is supposed to premier in October.


Agreed!


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I wasn't going to reply, your lack of comprehension astounded me and I didn't think you'd be able to understand that just about every good science fiction movie ever made was the result of a book being written and a screenplay rendered of that book.


I find your feeble attempt at personal insult amusing. I also find it pretty predictable that someone like you would seek to demonize the folks at NBC/U because they are doing what is best for their owners, as they are required to by law, instead of doing what you personal *WANT* them to do. You need to come to realize that the world is about a bit more than *just* you. Otherwise, you'll continually be embittered by how you repeatedly *fail *to get your way.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

jadebox said:


> Sneakers, Fluent, Rare, Halo, Excel, Word, Office, Outlook, Windows, etc.


None of those words are actually trade-marked. The trade-marks you're thinking about all include additional words.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> None of those words are actually trade-marked. The trade-marks you're thinking about all include additional words.


Wow... The ignorance on this board is amazing!

You can ABSOLUTELY trademark English words. What you can't do is trademark words that are merely descriptive or generic for the goods and/or services you want to trademark. 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1).

For instance, you can trademark "APPLE" brand computers. But you can't trademark "APPLE" brand apples.

And if you will check the registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, you will see that Microsoft owns registrations 2598381 "HALO" for "computer game software," and 1872264 "WINDOWS" for "graphical operating environment programs for microcomputers." Neither of these registrations contain additional wording or stylization elements.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

longrider said:


> The most extreme example of trademarking I have seen is that UPS has trademarked the color brown.


Situations like this are very tricky. While trademark law does not allow companies to immediately claim color schemes, they are allowed to claim the use of a color by "acquired distinctivess" under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Law.

Basically, UPS had to submit evidence that they have been successful in associating themselves with the color brown for delivery services in the mind of the American consumer. They usually do this by showing how many millions of dollars they have spent on advertising, how successful they have been at preventing competitors from using the color, and how long they have been continuously using the color.

After all that, if UPS can show that when people see a delivery guy dressed in brown, they automatically think of UPS, and that no other delivery companies have widely been using the colors, they can usually get a Trademark. These types of marks are generally considered "weak" though, and are prone to cancellation by competitors.

Colors are widely used to indicate source if you think about it. When you see a red cola can, you think of "Coke." When you see a blue one, you think of "Pepsi." You often times don't even need to read the label.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> Wow... The ignorance on this board is amazing!


I'm glad you are able to admit your limitations. That's the first step to recovery, Jason. I'm pulling for you.


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

I would tend to believe the patent attorney ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> I find your feeble attempt at personal insult amusing. I also find it pretty predictable that someone like you would seek to demonize the folks at NBC/U because they are doing what is best for their owners, as they are required to by law, instead of doing what you personal *WANT* them to do. You need to come to realize that the world is about a bit more than *just* you. Otherwise, you'll continually be embittered by how you repeatedly *fail *to get your way.


Nasty little fellow, aren't you? I see you are just trolling, looking for arguments. Don't have $15 to join?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> I'm glad you are able to admit your limitations. That's the first step to recovery, Jason. I'm pulling for you.


Way to twist his words. The true mark of a troll. And a cheap troll. Pony up the money and maybe someone will take you seriously. What kind of fool argues with a lawyer defending his specialty?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

This stops now. I apologize folks, I don't have the time to police this thread today, so I have no choice but to close it. 

In the future, please do not insult other members.


----------

