We spoke to Howe at a special event this morning, celebrating the new spelling of the channel's name, and it's brand new slogan, "Imagine greater." After Howe reassured us the channel wasn't abandoning its core audience of science-fiction fans with its new rebranding, we got a chance to talk about the future of this new Syfy Channel.

Our first question was: What's going to replace Battlestar Galactica? Clearly, Caprica is not the same type of show as BSG, so what's in the pipeline to replace this much-loved space opera? Howe replied that, thanks to Mark Stern and the development team, not only is the channel aiming to greenlight a pilot in the next couple of months for a new series (mums the word on the title) but "we're actively looking into developing the next space opera hopefully for the next year or the year after."

So after Howe dropped this stunner, we hunted down Creative Director of Original Programming, Mark Stern, to find out more about the next big Syfy space opera. Will it have alien puppets?

So you're the guy we want to talk to, the future of what's to come on Scifi. Our readers can't wait to hear from you.

They don't want to come after me with pitchforks?

Science Fiction fans are tough, you know that. They're the best, and they're loyal. I'm sure you've gotten your share of emails?

Indeed I have.

I'm sure this isn't the first time either?

Not at all.

What was worse: rebranding, or canceling Stargate Atlantis?

Canceling Farscape. Which, by the way, I had nothing to do with. That was my first day at the job and all of a sudden it was, "Mark's cancelled Farscape." No, I didn't. I love Farscape!

The fans are loyal.

I love all that, and I'm one of those people, so I get it. I take ownership of all that stuff too. I think the difference with the brand is, there's a fear that they're not going to do the programming. I think as soon as people realize that because we now have a brand that is broader, and not as niche, it allows us to be a little more scifi-specific and it allows to put shows on...I think our big frustration with a show like Battlestar Galactica has been, it's a great show. Because it's on the science fiction channel it's kept people away, that we felt like would come in and love that show. So it's made us a little more hesitant about going too hard scifi. Because hard scifi on the scifi channel is almost like this double whammy. Now that we have a brand that is a little broader and we're embracing a lot of things we're already doing. I think it also gives us a lot of freedom to do more hard scifi.

The next thing that I really want to do is find the next great space opera it's been a long time. And we have Stargate, but that's really not that show. And Caprica isn't really that show. So where's the next Star Trek or Farscape? Let's find one of those.

So what are you looking at to replace the channel's missing space opera?

You know it's so early days, I don't have anything really specific. We're talking to a lot of people that we already work with, about ideas. We don't want to do something that is the same old. You don't want it to feel recycled. So that's the challenge of doing that. I'm a huge fan of Firefly, and shows that take that idea and take that part of the genre and reinvent it in a whole new way. I'd love to find our version of, not specifically Firefly, but similar to what Joss [Whedon] tried to do with that in terms of, "lets recast the Western in space." Love that idea, and I love that show. What's another way to approach that? We're talking to a number of people about that, but at this point honestly it's about getting Warehouse 13 on its feet, getting Caprica on its feet, getting Stargate Universe going. This is a really big time for us, we haven't really had time to think about next year.

One of the channel's founders, Mitch Rubenstein, called the name change "just plain dumb" in a letter to hollywood.com. Rubenstein recounted how he, Laurie Silvers and Isaac Asimov strove to convince fans to accept the Sci Fi Channel - and how difficult it was when he was booed off stage for merely calling the new channel "Sci Fi," instead of "science fiction" or "SF". But it was Isaac Asimov who wooed the crowd:

Then Isaac started to speak and said that the name had to be Sci Fi Channel and not the SF Channel, in order to draw a wide, diverse audience and be successful. To be in a financial position to acquire and produce the best programming. That's really what counts, right? The writers came around and agreed. Heck, it was Isaac Asimov saying "Sci Fi Channel" was OK, and that was that.

What would Isaac have said if the name was instead SyFy Channel. He would have said (we believe): That's just plain dumb.

Yesterday we got a chance to speak with Sci Fi president David Howe - who said he loved our proposed "yo9" redesign, from Garrison Dean. We asked Howe if he thought Asimov would approve of the channel's name change. He replied:

I honestly suspect not. I wasn't around and I wasn't aware of the genesis of the network and the name. But I think when I read that piece... the thing that struck me most about it is, I suspect [that] if we took them through the rationale as to why we were changing, they would probably get it. If you read that piece, it kind of says that when it was launched, it was launched as the Science Fiction Channel, exclusively. And that it was primarily about space and technology, and the future, and essentially Star Trek. That is something we in no way shape or form want to get away from. But I think what we want to move to the position where we can move into the broad scifi fantasy landscape and include in there fantasy, paranormal, supernatural, super-hero and some of the speculative action-adventure. I think that's sort of the object of this exercise. So it's about: "How do we embrace the broader scifi-fantasy landscape," as opposed to, "How do we escape our past?"

Maybe Howe's right and he could have won Asimov over. It certainly sounds like Howe and staff are incredibly dedicated to the idea of selling this new branding to the world, and he seems pretty darn smooth. But is changing the name from Sci Fi to Syfy going to bring in more viewers, who were previously deterred by the "scifi" stigma? I'm not too sure. If they keep making things on a par with BSG then sure, but finding that kind of content is pretty impossible these days.

But what else could Syfy have been labeled? According to Howe they were also tossing around the names Beyond and SFC, but even the word Beyond was deemed by a test group as being over John Q. Public's head. That's incredibly depressing - maybe they should have called the channel Not Sci Fi - that way, no one would be challenged or scared by us geeks.

But Howe reassures us all that this isn't about shoving the channel's loyal viewers into a locker, so Syfy can hang with the cool kids. Howe is still dedicated to those not afraid to think for themselves, who won't run away from the words "science fiction."

This is not about alienating our existing core viewers because frankly we are still the scifi-fantasy channel and will continue to be so. This is absolutely about embracing our heritage, and embracing our future, and figuring out how we can bring even more people into the camp. The thing that I think disturbs us most was, people, as we expected, saying ‘Well this is just another opportunity to put more ECW on the air.' Or, ‘This is another opportunity to do even more reality.' That isn't true and recent announcements [prove otherwise]. We've picked up Caprica, it'll launch in the new year. We've picked up Stargate Universe, the next exciting chapter of the longest running space opera in TV history. This isn't about retrenching, this is about absolutely embracing the totality of not just our core audience but actually, a new audience in the future."

So there you have it, it could have been Beyond, so that makes Syfy look a lot better in my opinion. I know we fear change, but I'm curious as to what you guys think what kind of content Syfy will be hosting two years from now.