AirLockAlpha.com

Why is it that big announcements about shows we cover always come out when I'm almost done writing my column for the week?

Seriously, I was just putting the final touches on a column I was writing about how campiness does have a place in great television shows, and then Ronald D. Moore and David Eick had to ruin it. They made an announcement that was as stunning as Ellen Degeneres' big announcement a decade ago that the fourth season of "Battlestar Galactica" will be the last.

Normally, I don't gloat, especially when it involves the impending death of my favorite television series of all time. But I've taken a lot of heat ever since our first story back in late February when we reported what no one else was reporting -- if SciFi Channel orders a full 22 episodes, then you might as well say your goodbyes now because "Battlestar Galactica" will be no more after that.

I know such news is hard for any fan to take ... it was hard for me to take. But the truth is the truth is the truth. And trust me, when we made that first report back in February, we knew it was the truth.

While I will miss "Battlestar Galactica," I do have to say that I'm glad that it's ending the way it's ending. I am not sure how much of a story can sustain the series much past a fourth season anyway, and I would rather this series end because the story is ending, not because the network has decided it can't squeeze any more dollars out of it. So the end of BSG should be bittersweet ... sad to see it go, but happy that it will go out in a blaze of glory.

Both Moore and Eick are talking to reporters Friday afternoon about all this, something I caught wind of yesterday. Quite interestingly, we were left off that list -- which is odd, because we normally get invited to things like that. But while it's interesting, it's not exactly surprising as Hollywood types don't usually want to encourage reporters to hold them accountable, and I think it's clear that my first question in that situation would be, "Mr. Eick ... when exactly did Edward James Olmos predict that the show would end before he did last month?"

And it would be a fair question. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Eick for telling fans that there was no decision made yet (when every single one of our sources disputed that), because that's his job. Networks deserve the right to announce news on their own terms, but hey, we're the media for a reason. The only thing I didn't like is that it just seemed that Eick threw Olmos under the bus, as if it were some crazy old man talking about inventing his very own ray gun or something and was going to use it to stop the Kennedy assassination.

I doubt Olmos has any hard feelings about that. He's not that kind of guy and is a true professional when it comes to his craft. And Eick is a true professional as well, and while I am not the biggest fan of his story writing, I am a huge fan of what he does when it comes to doing his job as a producer -- I'm excited as hell for "Bionic Woman" because I know he'll make it good.

All of that is in the past, and now we have to concentrate on the end of BSG, and it will be a great end. I know some people felt the show started to slip midway through the second season, but I'm not one of them. There were a couple of episodes I was not fond of -- like "Black Market" and "Hero" -- but I enjoyed every minute of the series, all the work the actors and the crew did, and SciFi Channel's dedication to giving us a gem in field of duds like "Painkiller Jane" and their C Movie of the Week.

I'm sure there will be campaigns to try and save BSG just like there are right now with "Jericho" and other shows, but "Battlestar Galactica" won't be gone forever in 2008. Depending on the continued success of DVD sales, you can be rest assured that NBC Universal will find a DVD movie home for future adventures of our ragtag fleet so you can do your part in ensuring a future by making sure you keep all the "Battlestar" DVDs on your shopping list. It's not the same as having a couple dozen episodes at once, but I'd rather have that than nothing.

SyBits

I've received a bunch of e-mail this past week over the whole "Doctor Who"/The Sun war telling me that despite the fact the site's URL is the actress' name, www.freemaagyeman.com is not the Freema Agyeman's official site. If you're about to send one of those e-mails, please stop. We corrected that days ago, so please stop telling me about it. Sheesh!

In any event, let's go to the mailbag.

I know a lot of people, including yourself, don't like The CW, but I for one happen to enjoy some of its programming. I'll admit I'm not a big fan of all their shows, but there are some that are really good. Just last season, it had "Gilmore Girls," "7th Heaven," "Supernatural," "Smallville," "One Tree Hill," "Veronica Mars." OK, so "Veronica Mars" is stretching it a little and even "One Tree Hill" might be too much, but out of all the network stations available, I do watch more of The CW than any other.
-- Gisele Leger

Gisele, I always love your e-mail, but please don't misunderstand my feelings about The CW. I never said I hated The CW, only because I can't love or hate anything I've never watched. But even though I never watched it, I can tell you with absolute certainty that all but two o the shows you mention aren't even on the network's (if you can call it that) fall schedule. And I'm not sure if that's good news or bad.

I was interested to read your article about the cancellation of "Jericho" and that you feel it could find a home for a potential (and sure improbable second season) on The CW network. As an avid Airlock Alpha reader from the United Kingdom, I was especially intrigued, since I don't remember you ever mentioning the new CW network before and I've been wondering for a long time about the absence of any mention for arguably its best sci-fi offering in the excellent series "Supernatural."

Having just finished its second season in the United States with an outstanding two-part season finale, "Supernatural" is a brilliant, inventive series, quite compelling in its ability to play with the emotions of the viewer whether through outright scares, character emotion or simply leaving things to be conjured up by your imagination.
-- Elaine

Shhhh! ::whispers:: If we don't talk about it ... maybe it will go away!

I should start out by saying I know nothing of how TV Land works, I am not in the business. I just watched the damn thing. I haven't watched "Jericho" yet, but I also missed "Firefly's" first run.

Putting it on The CW is obviously not the answer, and you know it. The CW just cancelled one of the best written shows on TV for low ratings, "Veronica Mars" (if BSG handled "ships" half as well as "Veronica Mars," no one would have been bitching last season). It has to go somewhere where ratings and advertisers don't matter: pay per view or pay per Webisode.
-- Feralxjsc

It would be nice if television shows could be produced without ratings and advertisers getting in the way, but then no one would make any money, and all the networks would have to be renamed "PBS," with "Jericho" becoming nothing more than an expanded version of "Nova" or "Masterpiece Theater."

Pay-per-view just wouldn't work with this model as there wouldn't be enough return. Maybe a made-for-DVD movie or something to that effect, but trust me, if there was a market for exclusive pay-per-view, it would exist. Maybe it will in the future, but not right now.

"Long-time SciFriday reader here. I noticed you're thinking of doing a SciFriday on "Flash Gordon." If you do, here's my question:

Do you think the SciFi Channel's recent announcement regarding the latest remake of the classic "Flash Gordon" series signals a decline in creativity within the genre? There are a hell of a lot of good shows out there that have been cancelled before their time ("Farscape," "Angel" and now "Jericho") which more than deserve a future. Instead of developing ideas such as these, SciFi Channel and NBC Universal are falling back into the retro series ("Battlestar Galactica," "Bionic Woman" and "Flash Gordon") that instantly offer an audience.
-- Alan Stanley Blair, Scotland

Have to stop you there Alan, and it's so odd that you have the same name as one of our writers here ...

You hit the nail on the head. Networks and even movie studios love to do the remakes because it does provide an instant audience. It develops buzz, which can be used as free marketing, and there's no one who likes the word "free" better than studios.

I don't think it's a bad thing, as long as it's done right. All I can say is that if SciFi Channel treats "Flash Gordon" more like "Battlestar Galactica" than say "Painkiller Jane," there might be a future yet, even if that future contains our past.

God, now I have a headache.

If you want to send me a letter, just drop me an e-mail at mhinman@airlockalpha.com and you might find your words rigt in this very spot

Do you like to chat about the SciFriday columns you see here? Then join our message board discussions by clicking here.

If you're not yet a member of our free breaking news/headlines mailing list, then it's not too late to sign up. Simply send a blank e-mail to syfyportal-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and enjoy the latest in science-fiction and fantasy entertainment straight to your e-mail box with breaking news and headlines. I promise you you won't regret it!

Once in a while, you also see horror news being posted to Airlock Alpha as we get ready for the launch of Rabid Doll. We also have a mailing list going for that, which you can join by simply sending a blank e-mail to rabiddoll-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Have a great week, and don't be a stranger!

Michael Hinman, named Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2006, is the founder and site coordinator for Airlock Alpha, writing out of Tampa, Fla. He can be reached at mhinman@airlockalpha.com