Where do I start? A recent list of "top ten" sci-fi shows that were canceled too early demonstrated, based on feedback on Fark.com's thread on the subject, that there is no such thing as a generic "top ten" where this subject is concerned. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of great shows have been cut in the middle of cliffhangers leaving some of the most loyal viewers in distress over a premature fate for their TV shows. Who decides which were the best of these? Even the most obscure shows got undying love from somebody... shows dating back into the 60s. Mostly it's from a lack of closure, as a story arc failed to deliver a proper ending, or worse, the season was canceled on a cliffhanger. That sort of thing just doesn't happen with sitcoms or even many dramas, and even when it does, it seems to upset far fewer people, and to a far less degree than the rabidly loyal sci-fi crowd.

So what is going on here? The list and all of the comments merely point ot the real problem here: network executives don't know how to properly handle science fiction. There are a number of reasons for this, but let me first say this: Science Fiction has given Hollywood it's biggest movie blockbusters (and some of it's biggest busts, but I digress); it's done this because those biggest hits were efforts lead by real science fiction fans, not pencil pushing bean counters who couldn't imagine putting off their MBA classwork in college to go catch "Star Wars" at the local theater. Movies are a far more "indivualistic" effort, because once given the green, they go, end then the next big money request doesn't come until there's a call for a sequel. TV series, on the other hand, are driven by the economics of television, and allof the shortcomings of scheduling, ratings, sponsors, and the prejudices of hundreds of network execs who have their own pet projects they'd prefer to see successful (remember, these guys weren't exactly sci-fi fans back in the day). Unless a Sci-Fi TV series is a real monster, the tight balance of budget versus ratings will lose, as the network changes schedules (sometimes to save it, but usually to write it off and cut their losses) and eventualy cancels the show. The network execs that control the show are not vested in its success... unlike movie producers and the distribution companies, which get far more accurate indicators of interest in the form of box office earnings. TV works off of ratings, a flawed system, to be sure, using a handful of homes to determine the viewing habits of millions. Worse, schedules and promotion have a lot to play in how much a show will attract viewers, but the biggest drawback for science fiction is the budget, of which will always be bigger for even the "tightest" sci-fi against the most expensive sitcom or drama. When ratings suffer, it takes nerves of steel to sit on a huge budgeted show, waiting for viewers to "find" it. Sitcoms and dramas don't have this problem.

So nervous network execs cut sci-fi shows, because ultimately mediocre ratings don't warrant keeping an expensive production going, even if the viewers are far more loyal than other shows. In fact, they may see fan loyalty as a liability... less able to "tweak" a show (remember Buck Rogers? Sliders?) without losing what few viewers they have to save a few dollars in production. Killing a favorite sitcom might bother somebody, for about a week, then they get over it; killing a fan's favorite sci-fi will send them into years of relentless letter writing campaigns, fan conventions to lament their loss, and countless voodoo curses upon anybody remotely associated with the cancellation. Network execs simply don't value a "loyal" viewer over a casual viewer, though... ratings are king, and no weighting is given to one show's viewers likelyhood of supporting sponsors more than another show's. The dynamics of television mean that expensive shows will always get the short shrift, and fans will always be wary because of this, and ikely not invest their loyalty into a show that will end in a very unsatisfying manner.

If network execs want science fiction shows to succeed, they need to be just as loyal to the viewers. Guarantee that the story will end... work with the show's producers so that at least one mini-series worth, or two, will produce a satisfying end to a story arc. Plan for the end. Tell the audience, that regardless of how the show does, they will get a satisfying ending. We see that with Lost and Battlestar Galactica, and they are tremendously successful, but others, like the recent 4400 and Journeyman got shortchanged and left viewers hanging. For every "Lost" there are a dozen "4400" disappointments, and that, Mr. Tv Executive, is why you ultimately fail to draw viewers to new science fiction shows before you cancel them. We are simply afraid to invest emotionally into a series that will come crashing down on the merest stroke of a bean counter's pen. We wait, until the second season before peeking in.... is it still there? But by then, you've moved it to Friday nights, or to a 10 o'clock slot, or even sloughed it off to a sister network. Maybe you put it on haitus in the middle of the season, leaving us cold and desperate for a fix. You think 5 minute "webisodes" that do nothing to forward the story arc or divulge juicy details wil satisfy us for the next 6 months and consider yourself such a progressive "out-of-the-box" thinker. You are not. You are not a fan. You have no concept of viewer loyalty. You might think the show is cool looking, and worth marketing a few toys, perhaps... but you will fumble it away because it is easier to dump another reality show on the schedule, or maybe a game show, or some copy of the competing network's hit comedy or drama... crime drama is cheap, even the fancy CSI shows with holographic displays of DNA helixes floating around... isn't that enough for us science fiction fans? Can't we just be satisfied with another CSI?

So where movies live on after the executives no longer have control over them, TV series have to plod on, facing the cynical, penny-pinching executives who do not comprehend what science fiction means to its fans. We, as fans, will simply have to continue suffering until some new model for media (online, perhaps?) comes along to wipe out the old guard once and for all and shifts the paradigm in favor of the loyal long-term viewer base over the casual, short-term viewers.

Later, I'll discuss the perversion of television that the Sci-Fi channel has become under the leadership of Bonnie Hammer. A waste of potential that can only be fully understood watching a Mansquito marathon followed up by an ECW cage match.