Sci-Fi Channel has now officially commented on the show's cancellation to TV Guide

[ShadowWolf]

Farscape: Sci Fi's Murder by Numbers?
Tuesday, January 7, 2003

Since the Sci Fi Channel announced that the 11 new episodes of Farscape that begin airing Friday (at 8 pm/ET) will be the cult hit's last, the critics have spoken, the producers have spoken, and Lord knows, the fans have spoken. (Although Jim Henson Co. is developing a Farscape feature and anime project at starburst speed, and looking into syndication options, alienated viewers are nonetheless calling for a boycott of the cable network that shot down their favorite space opera.) In fact, just about the only entity that hasn't put in its two-cents' worth is Sci Fi... until now, that is. "We really tried to take the high road," says the cabler's president, Bonnie Hammer. "Instead of going out there and in any way belittling our partners, we kind of remained quiet." However, at last she is ready to break her silence and, in an exclusive interview with TV Guide Online, explain why the intergalactic castaways' star trek had to come to an end. — Ben Katner

TV Guide Online: So, what gives? Why would you want to cancel such a rad show?

Bonnie Hammer: We never wanted to cancel it. What we were trying to do was do 13 more episodes, not 22. The ratings had softened, and it was getting increasingly expensive to produce. We just couldn't make the financial deal. But we never wanted it to end when it ended. We had all intentions of doing 13 more episodes [beyond these 11] — we wanted to keep it in '03 and end it in '03. But financially, it was just too difficult to do.

TVGO: In that case, why not at least do a proper wrap-up, a TV movie or something?

Hammer: We looked at all the options. But with the speed in which it would have had to be done — because the set had to be broken down and the cast had to come back [from Australia, where shooting took place] and the scripts weren't written — [the cost] would have been enormous. [It would] have been almost as if we were doing [the upcoming epic miniseries] Children of Dune — and with less potential upside. We love the series... and would have liked nothing more than for it to have had a little bit more of a broad appeal. If all of those incredible fans who wrote in and sent notes and flowers and [whatnot] had actually watched it every week, we would have been able to do the 22.

TVGO: You mean to tell me that Farscape doesn't have the numbers to merit a fourth season, but Stargate SG-1, which you just renewed, is attracting a big enough audience to deserve a seventh?

Hammer: Yes. Take a look at our numbers on Monday nights just for the Stargate repeats. It's crazy! Before we ended the season on Stargate, we were getting a very high 1 [rating] and peaked at, I think, a 2 or a 2.1. That was for new, original episodes. [Now] our average for Stargate repeats has been unbelievable — 1.7 and 1.8 [ratings]. When Farscape was repeating, we were lucky if we got a .8. So there's a huge difference.

TVGO: But Farscape is so cool. How can that be?!

Hammer: Even though Stargate is sci fi, it's very broad sci fi. It's not serialized. Every episode, you can come to it whether you've watched the one before [or not]. They are self-contained. My husband is kind of an absentee watcher, and he would tune in every fifth or sixth episode and have absolutely no issues [with following the plots]. Farscape, on the other hand, got very, very serialized. It got very "in."

TVGO: And that's a bad thing... ?

Hammer: They had brilliant and sophisticated writing, but it was so narrow that it basically was an invitation to not tune in if you weren't totally familiar with the show. It was brilliant when you got it, and some of the characterizations were truly amazing, but it took a little too much work.

[Clayface]

:rolleyes:


Same old crap from Sci-Fi. Instead of treating the show with the respect it deserved (it did help make them what they are today), they just drop it. As usual in the entertainment industry, quality gets sacrificed for the bottom line: ratings.

The funny/sad thing is, they complain about how no new people could get into the show, but Kemper and the crew constantly fought with Sci-Fi trying to get them to rerun the older episodes so that people could get caught up. But Sci-Fi wouldn't put any real promotion into the show, and didn't really make any true attempts at making it any easier for new fans to join in.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

OK, I take back every nice thing I ever said about Bonnie Hammer.


Originally posted by ShadowWolf
Hammer: <S N I P >If all of those incredible fans who wrote in and sent notes and flowers and [whatnot] had actually watched it every week, we would have been able to do the 22.


Well what the frelling blankety blue blazes did she think we were DOING? Does she actually really think that the fans who sent letters and crackers and FLOWERS (that's a bit much, I think) were doing it WHEN THEY WEREN'T WATCHING THE FRELLING SHOW???!??

Easily one of the most incredibly stupid comments from a top executive. I think you gotta go to Enron to get stupider.

Grumble.

-- Ed/Ace

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Ace the Bathound

Well what the frelling blankety blue blazes did she think we were DOING? Does she actually really think that the fans who sent letters and crackers and FLOWERS (that's a bit much, I think) were doing it WHEN THEY WEREN'T WATCHING THE FRELLING SHOW???!??

Easily one of the most incredibly stupid comments from a top executive. I think you gotta go to Enron to get stupider.



GAH!!! :eek:

That comment didn't even register with me the first time I read through that! That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard! God lord, no wonder they canceled the show - they're clueless!

[JohnCrichton]

Burn 'em..... burn 'em all..... Maybe if they weren't spending all their money on the rights to air Braveheart and I Know What You Did Last Summer movies they'd have enough to do right by Farscape.

Bloody bastards.....

[Mek]

Dang.

While I'm not a huge fan of Farscape (It did grow on me while I taped it for my mom when she worked), it's a shame to see such a series go. :( It really was one of the best shows I have ever seen on cable.

Darn Sci-Fi. And their new look is terrible. *kicks Sci-Fi*

[ButteredToast]

I can't say I'm surprised about this. Sci-Fi, or should I say "The OTHER USA Network" Only cares about its cash cow now.

You know, I used to make a big deal on watching Sci-Fi every Friday night. Last Friday was the first time I've done that since Farscape left the airwaves. I have no intention of watching Stargate. I used to like it, but it's just plain boring to me now. I also boycotted their little Taken marathon, since they said that the FS fans would forget about the show when it came on.

When Farscape is finally gone, I plan on removing the Sci-Fi channel from my channel list and ever adding it back in again. The only thing they've done is dissappoint, time and time again. I refuse to waste my time with it, even while just scanning through the channels.

[czyznyck99]

It happens, people. A popular show gets cancelled for financial reasons. I give Bonnie Hammer credit for having the guts to just say that Farscape isn't making them money anymore. She is definately correct in that the show is too narrow, I had to watch the first two seasons on DVD to get caught up. That does not completely justify the cancellation, but it's easy to get lost. As for Stargate, it's a little easier to get the gist of the series, only in the last couple of seasons has it become a little narrow. Too bad.

Later.

[Indelent]

What frelling Farscape reruns? They all show it again on those stupid chain reactions. Ugh but SG1 gets a rerun slot GRRR!!!
:mad:

[Clayface]

Originally posted by czyznyck99
It happens, people. A popular show gets cancelled for financial reasons.



Indeed. But that doesn't mean we have to like it or keep quiet about it.




I give Bonnie Hammer credit for having the guts to just say that Farscape isn't making them money anymore.



Farscape's Ratings For First Airings (http://www.farscapeweekly.com/ezines/ratings.htm)
Which show that the viewership was at or above those of previous seasons. And this was after Sci-Fi made them change the already working formula of the show from previous seasons and changing time slots and not promoting the show. Granted, the ratings aren't as high as those of SG1, but it was their #2 or #3 show. If they can't figure out how to make a profit from their own second/third highest rated show, they're fools.

The reruns (the few times they actually bothered to air them) weren't getting good ratings because no one knew when the frell they were airing, and they gave them little to no promotion.

Here are some news articles taken directly from SciFi wire that seem to contradict what was said by Bonnie Hammer above:




10/01/2001

The SCI FI Channel announced on Oct. 1 that it has renewed its hit series Farscape for two additional seasons of 22 episodes each, ensuring that the show will have a total run of at least five years. The series is currently slated to finish its third season in January 2002, with season four debuting later that year. "We are excited to renew our commitment to this smart, sexy, intelligent and fun series that rewrites the book on sci-fi entertainment," SCI FI president Bonnie Hammer said. "Farscape is not only the most ambitious original series on basic cable, we think it's one of the best-written shows on television, period. It's no wonder that it's the top-rated series on SCI FI for three years running."

Farscape has nearly doubled its audience since its launch in March 1999, and Hammer credited the show with attracting not only new viewers, but also more female viewers. Nearly three-quarters of the new viewers who have tuned into the show have been women.

"Farscape has truly extended the boundaries of science fiction programming, reaching out to a new generation of fans across all age groups, male and female alike," said Juliet Blake, president of Jim Henson Television-U.S. "I know the exceptional cast, crew, Jim Henson's Creature Shop, and our partners at Hallmark and SCI FI are thrilled to bring fourth and fifth seasons to our loyal fans and to new audiences worldwide."

08/28/2002

The SCI FI Channel wrapped its best-ever summer, ending with a record 1.0 prime-time rating (741,000 households) for the month of August, the cable network announced. SCI FI ranked ninth on a household basis among all basic-cable channels for the month. Overall prime-time ratings for the summer (0.9 rating/698,000 households) were up 13 percent over last year, the network added.

Additional summer highlights:

In key prime-time demographic ratings, SCI FI ranked fifth among all basic-cable networks in adults 25-54 (0.7) and seventh in persons 18-49 (0.6).

In July and August, SCI FI ranked in the top 10 of all basic-cable networks in household ratings and in ratings and delivery of persons 18-49 and persons 25-54.

Leading the charge was SCI FI Friday, a two-hour block of original series that included the original series Stargate SG-1 and Farscape. The block set a summer record for the channel, averaging a 1.4 rating (1.1 million households). That represented a 27 percent ratings increase over last summer's ratings average for the time period and a 46 percent increase in household delivery over last year.



And here's some more rebuttal's to Sci-Fi's claims:
http://atlantascapers.com/scififaq.html
I do't agree with all the comments made there, but there are some good points thrown in.

[JohnCrichton]

At least they still have that twip, John Edwards.

[James]

SFX gleefully backed SciFi on this point. 'Who killed Farscape?' they scoffed. You lot by not watching it.

Sorry, I recall a similiar argument being levelled at Star Trek in the 60's and look where it is now. This channel has made the SAME bloody mistake and it can't see it. In the long run, this series would have paid off - I'm sure.

[optimuslives]

It's not financially feasible to SCI FI to continue on with Farscape because they are putting their money into other projects such as this

Sci Fi Turns to Comic Books
Wed, Jan 8, 2003 00:11 AM PDT






LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - If there was any doubt, "Smallville" and "Spider-Man" have proved that nothing beats the good vs. evil fights found between the covers of comic books. Sci Fi Channel has definitely gotten the message and has made a deal with Reveille (a sibling company of Universal Television Group) to develop two two-hour, back-door pilots based on Marvel comics.

"Brother Voodoo" will focus on psychologist Jericho Drumm, who returns to New Orleans after the death of his brother and learns that he is destined to become a voodoo priest. In addition to discovering his talents in the black arts and the responsibilities they carry, Drumm must reconcile the magic and science in his life.

Based on Marvel's "Strikeforce: Morituri," "1,000 Days" is set in the not-so-distant future where a group of soldiers are given enhanced abilities in order to fight the contemporary evils of the world. The gift has a price though: each new recruit will die 1,000 days after they join the special force.


Gimme a break :mad:

[Joe Wagner]

The arguement that people couldn't get into the show is kind of a weak one overall - especially considering I was only able to watch on a part time basis and understood a lot of what was going on. This would almost be as bad as UPN cancelling Buffy because the backstory was to large or for WB to cancel Angel because they can't expect fans to follow a storyline because they don't know what happened during season 1. Part of the main reason that these types of shows are successful is because the sotrylines carry over and show signs of development - of both the plots and the individual characters. By using the arguement that people couldn't keep up with the plots they are basically re-afirming their commitment to series that will not deal with continuing story lines or character development.

While I have enjoyed Stargate SG-1 immensly I think canceling Farscape may not have only killed their successful Friday night line up but also leaves SG-1 to fend for itself. Before many of us would have tuned into to two hours of SciFi goodness - now we're being told to tune in for one hour and then find something else to watch. Considering how new shows like John Doe have proven to be competition for networks like SciFi the idea of killing a successful block in the middle of a competitive time makes no sense to me.

-Joe!

[JohnCrichton]

Originally posted by optimuslives
It's not financially feasible to SCI FI to continue on with Farscape because they are putting their money into other projects such as this

Sci Fi Turns to Comic Books
Wed, Jan 8, 2003 00:11 AM PDT






LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - If there was any doubt, "Smallville" and "Spider-Man" have proved that nothing beats the good vs. evil fights found between the covers of comic books. Sci Fi Channel has definitely gotten the message and has made a deal with Reveille (a sibling company of Universal Television Group) to develop two two-hour, back-door pilots based on Marvel comics.

"Brother Voodoo" will focus on psychologist Jericho Drumm, who returns to New Orleans after the death of his brother and learns that he is destined to become a voodoo priest. In addition to discovering his talents in the black arts and the responsibilities they carry, Drumm must reconcile the magic and science in his life.

Based on Marvel's "Strikeforce: Morituri," "1,000 Days" is set in the not-so-distant future where a group of soldiers are given enhanced abilities in order to fight the contemporary evils of the world. The gift has a price though: each new recruit will die 1,000 days after they join the special force.


Gimme a break :mad:

These sound almost as good as that crap superhero shows they had called Mantis and Hot Chick in Leather Who Fights Stupid Bad Guys..... resembled Batman and Robin the Series, but with a hot chick lead.

[optimuslives]

What else can be said...Bonnie Hammer is an idiot

[ButteredToast]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
These sound almost as good as that crap superhero shows they had called Mantis and Hot Chick in Leather Who Fights Stupid Bad Guys..... resembled Batman and Robin the Series, but with a hot chick lead.

You wouldn't be referring to "Black Scorpion", would you?

God that show was bad... but then again, I expect no less from Roger Corman...

[JohnCrichton]

That'd be the show!

I hope the Sci-Fi Channel gets cancelled.

[Mek]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
That'd be the show!

I hope the Sci-Fi Channel gets cancelled.

I whole heartedly second that.

for me, it went down the tubes after they got rid of the Saturday morning cartoons and anime... Iria.... :( (Twas the first anime I ever saw as a young lass...)

[oranthal]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
At least they still have that twip, John Edwards.

he is not a twip; he is a medium psychic. his stuff is real too.



Originally posted by JohnCrichton

I hope the Sci-Fi Channel gets cancelled.

not so fast, after they air children of dune, then they could get cancelled. i rather liked the dune mini-series they showed a while back. i am looking forward to children of dun.

[optimuslives]

Originally posted by oranthal
he is not a twip; he is a medium psychic. his stuff is real too.


You are joking right? A major news show proved him to be a fake along with several other people..he just a very good cold reader with a good team of people that are planted to find out things for him from the gallery before the shows.

[oranthal]

Originally posted by optimuslives
You are joking right? A major news show proved him to be a fake along with several other people..he just a very good cold reader with a good team of people that are planted to find out things for him from the gallery before the shows.

i'm not sure if i saw the same news program but it was a pretty big one and there was an investigation. i saw it MSNBC. anyway, the reporter who was investigating him was also testing him on his accuracy. he said that John was saying something that was not accurate but then he said something that no one else would have known. he then accidently read the cameraman's ancestors also. i believe there are a lot things in this world that cannot be explained but are very real. not all of them are real, but i think john edwards is.

[wrenchien]

sci fi cancelled.. whole channel?

ARGH .. my PROTEIN (SLAMS INTo WALL OWIE)....


...............owie.

[optimuslives]

Originally posted by oranthal
i'm not sure if i saw the same news program but it was a pretty big one and there was an investigation. i saw it MSNBC. anyway, the reporter who was investigating him was also testing him on his accuracy. he said that John was saying something that was not accurate but then he said something that no one else would have known. he then accidently read the cameraman's ancestors also. i believe there are a lot things in this world that cannot be explained but are very real. not all of them are real, but i think john edwards is.

Same show..here is part of an article on it and their findings.........
I found this over on the sci fi channel board..........

On Dateline Edward was actually caught in an attempt to pass off previously gained knowledge as spirit revelation. During the session he said of the spirits, "They're telling me to acknowledge Anthony," and when the cameraman signaled that was his name, Edward seemed surprised, asking "That's you? Really?" He further queried: "Had you not seen Dad before he passed? Had you either been away or been distanced?" Later, playing the taped segment for me, Dateline reporter John Hockenberry challenged me with Edward's apparent hit: "He got Anthony. That's pretty good." I agreed but added, "We've seen mediums who mill about before sessions and greet people and chat with them and pick up things."
Indeed, it turned out that that is just what Edward had done. Hours before the group reading, Tony had been the cameraman on another Edward shoot (recording him at his hobby, ballroom dancing). Significantly, the two men had chatted and Edward had obtained useful bits of information that he afterward pretended had come from the spirits. In a follow-up interview Hockenberry revealed the fact and grilled an evasive Edward:


HOCKENBERRY: So were you aware that his dad had died before you did his reading?
Mr. EDWARD: I think he-I think earlier in the-in the day, he had said something.

HOCKENBERRY: It makes me feel like, you know, that that's fairly significant. I mean, you knew that he had a dead relative and you knew it was the dad.

Mr. EDWARD: OK.

HOCKENBERRY: So that's not some energy coming through, that's something you knew going in. You knew his name was Tony and you knew that his dad had died and you knew that he was in the room, right? That gets you . . .

Mr. EDWARD: That's a whole lot of thinking you got me doing, then. Like I said, I react to what's coming through, what I see, hear and feel. I interpret what I'm seeing hearing and feeling, and I define it. He raised his hand, it made sense for him. Great.

HOCKENBERRY: But a cynic would look at that and go, 'Hey,' you know, 'He knows it's the cameraman, he knows it's DATELINE. You know, wouldn't that be impressive if he can get the cameraman to cry?'

Mr. EDWARD: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Not at all.


But try to weasel out of it as he might, Edward had obviously been caught cheating: pretending that information he had gleaned earlier had just been revealed by spirits and feigning surprise that it applied to Tony the cameraman. (And that occurred long before Time had suggested that an Inside Edition program-February 27, 2001-was probably "the first nationally televised show to take a look at the Edward phenomenon." That honor instead goes to Dateline NBC.)
In his new book Crossing Over, Edward tries to minimize the Dateline exposé, and in so doing breaks his own rule of not responding to criticism. He rebukes Hockenberry for "his big Gotcha! moment," adding:


Hockenberry came down on the side of the professional skeptic they used as my foil. He was identified as Joe Nickell, a member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, which likes to simplify things and call itself CSICOP. He did the usual sound bites: that modern mediums are fast-talkers on fishing expeditions making money on people's grief-"the same old dogs with new tricks," in Hockenberry's words.
Edward claims to ignore any advance information that he may get from those he reads, but concedes, "it's futile to say this to a tough skeptic" (Edward 2001, 242-243).

Edward may have benefitted from actual information on another occasion, while undergoing a "scientific" test of his alleged powers (Schwartz et al. 2001). In video clips shown on Dateline, Edward was reading subjects-who were brought into the hotel room where he sat with his back to the door-when he impressed his tester with an atypical revelation. Edward stated he was "being shown the movie Pretty in Pink" and asked if there was "a pink connection." Then he queried, "Are you, like, wearing all pink?" The unidentified man acknowledged that he was. Yet Edward had thought the subject was a woman, and I suspect that erroneous guess was because of the color of his attire; I further suspect Edward knew it was pink, that as the man entered the room Edward glimpsed a flash of the color as it was reflected off some shiny surface, such as the glass of a picture frame, the lens of the video camera, etc. I challenge Edward to demonstrate his reputed color-divining ability under suitably controlled conditions that I will set up.


Inflating "Hits"
In addition to shrewd cold reading and out-and-out cheating, "psychics" and "mediums" can also boost their apparent accuracy in other ways. They get something of a free ride from the tendency of credulous folk to count the apparent hits and ignore the misses. In the case of Edward, my analysis of 125 statements or pseudostatements (i.e., questions) he made on a Larry King Live program (June 19, 1998) showed that he was incorrect about as often as he was right and that his hits were mostly weak ones. (For example he mentioned "an older female" with "an M-sounding name," either an aunt or grandmother, he stated, and the caller supplied "Mavis" without identifying the relationship; see Nickell 1998.)
Another session-for an episode of Crossing Over attended by a reporter for The New York Times Magazine, Chris Ballard (2001)-had Edward "hitting well below 50 percent for the day." Indeed, he twice spent "upward of 20 minutes stuck on one person, shooting blanks but not accepting the negative responses." This is a common technique: persisting in an attempt to redeem error, cajoling or even browbeating a sitter (as Sylvia Browne often does), or at least making the incorrect responses seem the person's fault. "Do not not honor him!" Edward exclaimed at one point, then (according to Ballard) "staring down the bewildered man."

When the taped episode actually aired, the two lengthy failed readings had been edited out, along with second-rate offerings. What remained were two of the best readings of the show (Ballard 2001). This seems to confirm the allegation in the Time article that episodes were edited to make Edward seem more accurate, even reportedly splicing in clips of one sitter nodding yes "after statements with which he remembers disagreeing" (Jaroff 2001).

Edited or not, sessions involving a group offer increased chances for success. By tossing out a statement and indicating a section of the audience rather than an individual, the performing "medium" makes it many times more likely that someone will "acknowledge" it as a "hit." Sometimes multiple audience members will acknowledge an offering, whereupon the performer typically narrows the choice down to a single person and builds on the success. Edward uses just such a technique (Ballard 2001).

Still another ploy used by Edward and his fellow "psychic mediums" is to suggest that people who cannot acknowledge a hit may find a connection later. "Write this down," an insistent Edward sometimes says, or in some other way suggests the person study the apparent miss. He may become even more insistent, the positive reinforcement diverting attention from the failure and giving the person an opportunity to find some adaptable meaning later (Nickell 1998).


Debunking Versus Investigation
Some skeptics believe the way to counter Edward and his ilk is to reproduce his effect, to demonstrate the cold-reading technique to radio and TV audiences. Of course that approach is unconvincing unless one actually poses as a medium and then-after seemingly making contact with subjects' dead loved ones-reveals the deception. Although audiences typically fall for the trick (witness Inside Edition's use of it), I deliberately avoid this approach for a variety of reasons, largely because of ethical concerns. I rather agree with Houdini (1924, xi) who had done spiritualistic stunts during his early career:

At the time I appreciated the fact that I surprised my clients, but while aware of the fact that I was deceiving them I did not see or understand the seriousness of trifling with such sacred sentimentality and the baneful result which inevitably followed. To me it was a lark. I was a mystifier and as such my ambition was being gratified and my love for a mild sensation satisfied. After delving deep I realized the seriousness of it all. As I advanced to riper years of experience I was brought to a realization of the seriousness of trifling with the hallowed reverence which the average human being bestows on the departed, and when I personally became afflicted with similar grief I was chagrined that I should ever have been guilty of such frivolity and for the first time realized that it bordered on crime.

Of course tricking people in order to educate them is not the same as deceiving them for crass personal gain, but to toy with their deepest emotions-however briefly and well intentioned-is to cross a line I prefer not to do. Besides, I believe it can be very counterproductive. It may not be the alleged medium but rather the debunker himself who is perceived as dishonest, and he may come across as arrogant, cynical, and manipulative-not heroic as he imagines.
As well, an apparent reproduction of an effect does not necessarily mean the cause was the same. (For example, I have seen several skeptical demonstrations of "weeping" icons that employed trickery more sophisticated than that used for "real" crying effigies.) Far better, I am convinced, is showing evidence of the actual methods employed, as I did in collaboration with Dateline NBC.

Although John Edward was among five "highly skilled mediums" who allegedly fared well on tests of their ability (Schwartz et al. 2001)-experiments critiqued elsewhere in this issue (Wiseman and O'Keeffe, see page 26)-he did not claim validation on Larry King Live. When King (2001) asked Edward if he thought there would ever be proof of spirit contact, Edward responded by suggesting proof was unattainable, that only belief matters: ". . . I think that to prove it is a personal thing. It is like saying, prove God. If you have a belief system and you have faith, then there is nothing really more than that." But this is an attempt to insulate a position and to evade or shift the burden of proof, which is always on the claimant. As Houdini (1924, 270) emphatically stated, "It is not for us to prove the mediums are dishonest, it is for them to prove that they are honest." In my opinion John Edward has already failed that test.


Plain and simple..Edward is a fraud duping the uninformed.South Park did a really good episode explaining how he does what he does

[Scythemantis]

I have to admit...I liked this show, but I just sort of fell out of watching it. I now really wish I had, but I didn't even know when it was on...

So there won't be a finale? They won't finish anything? What about the movie and animated version?

And why is it being called anime?

[JohnCrichton]

Team Farscape is calling out to Japan to animate a feature for them.... that's why.

And I agree, cancel the Sci-Fi Channel after Children of the Dune.