Rebrand it Stargate Command

[waywardsage]

Just read Brad Wrights article in the news section about how NOT naming the new Stargate SG-1 crew Stargate Command might result in it being canceled quicker than not.

Why not rename it now then? WtF? When Season 9 Comes out on DVD, rename the packaging: Stargate Command and just but a tiny little phrase at the bottom to explain.

Rename season 10 Stargate Command Season 2 and go from there.

Of course, this kills the whole 200 ep. hubub.

OR, they could just put a big deviding moment at the end of Season 10. Then move the characters that want to over to the new show: Stargate Command next year.

Heck, with Star Trek in the drydock us Sci-Fans need something to watch! Stargate is the best new replacement, I think.

[Chutzpah]

If it's the same show, what difference will it make?

Old cast leaving and new cast joining is the natural evolution of long running television shows. No one else changes the name every time a cast member leaves.

[The Engineer]

The cost of producing an episode is what kills a show, not the fact that the title of the series is old.
The price for producing an episode of SGC (seson 1) would have been the same as the price for producing an episode of SG-1 (season 9).
What we see it's an excuse. No show gets cancelled because it's old.

There only 2 reasonable ($) reasons a show gets cancelled:
1. the ratings are bad
2. the show gets too expensive to be produced

The rest is bla bla bla.

[indaeo]

Based on what I read, the only way it would get less expensive is if they got rid of the entire cast and started out again with new, unknown (cheaper!) actors. Otherwise, every year it's just going to be more and more expensive to produce. We're living on borrowed time right now as it is. Changing the name won't change the inherent financial problem unless they bring in a whole new cast.

[The Engineer]

Based on what I read, the only way it would get less expensive is if they got rid of the entire cast and started out again with new, unknown (cheaper!) actors. Otherwise, every year it's just going to be more and more expensive to produce. We're living on borrowed time right now as it is. Changing the name won't change the inherent financial problem unless they bring in a whole new cast.

I've got a "solution":
inflation, the canadian dollar loses its value and 2 million canadian dollars (the price of producing an hour of Stargate) won't value the same .

Not the best solution, it only works temporary.

[Piratejenna]

Based on what I read, the only way it would get less expensive is if they got rid of the entire cast and started out again with new, unknown (cheaper!) actors. Otherwise, every year it's just going to be more and more expensive to produce. We're living on borrowed time right now as it is. Changing the name won't change the inherent financial problem unless they bring in a whole new cast.

That's right - except that by re-launching the show as SGC, TPTB might be in a better position to lock some or all of the established cast back into multi-year contracts. When a show is created, the cast are usually on 6 or 7 year deals. There's usually a built-in pay rise each year, but the contract removes the yearly pay negotiations and prevents actors (or, to be more accurate, their agents) playing hardball over pay. The SGA cast will, I guess, still be in multi-year contracts, but we know the SG-1 cast aren't, so each year there's the 'will they won't they?' game. The problem is that actors out of contract are in a better position to negotiate, and the situation also creates financial and creative uncertainty each year. To be honest, they could easily have changed the name and most of the audience wouldn't notice! Most casual viewers seem to refer to SG-1 as 'Stargate', and SGA as 'Atlantis' anyway so I doubt if it would do much to change audience recognition.

[indaeo]

Oh I wouldn't ever worry about audience recognition, the hardcore fans wouldn't care much about it and casual fans will still recognize "Stargate" in the title.

I think the only part of your scenario that would worry me are the "free agent" actors that are on year-to-year contracts right now, which I would assume the three original SG1 members are, and probably have been since they moved to SciFi. And it's very possible that BB, BB, and CB are as well. So locking all of them into multi-year contracts would be very difficult and very costly. They're all either very important to the history of the franchise or big enough names to be able to negotiate and make it difficult, at least. I'm sure TPTB would've liked to have done that every year they've re-negotiated, to really lock them in just in case, but that's not always what's best for the actor.

It's tough to really speculate accurately without knowing exactly what their contract situations are right now, though.

[Piratejenna]

Oh I wouldn't ever worry about audience recognition, the hardcore fans wouldn't care much about it and casual fans will still recognize "Stargate" in the title.

I think the only part of your scenario that would worry me are the "free agent" actors that are on year-to-year contracts right now, which I would assume the three original SG1 members are, and probably have been since they moved to SciFi. And it's very possible that BB, BB, and CB are as well. So locking all of them into multi-year contracts would be very difficult and very costly. They're all either very important to the history of the franchise or big enough names to be able to negotiate and make it difficult, at least. I'm sure TPTB would've liked to have done that every year they've re-negotiated, to really lock them in just in case, but that's not always what's best for the actor.

Agreed - it doesn't seem likely. On the other hand, many actors make their career decisions based on factors other than money. One thing that Stargate seems to have going for it is that it seems to be a 'happy show' and the actors genuinely enjoy working there. (I know all the arguments about actors having to say positive things, but it's easy to read between the lines, and what I hear from the Stargate actors sounds genuine to me). And also - increasingly important for many of the cast - it's got a reputation as a 'family friendly' place to work in terms of working hours and thus for getting home to see their kids. So it may not be very likely that deals can be done, but it's not impossible. I live in hope! I think there's a lot of seasons left in the show as far as story-telling is concerned, whatever label they choose to slap on it.

[MediaSavant]

No show gets cancelled because it's old.

There only 2 reasonable ($) reasons a show gets cancelled:
1. the ratings are bad
2. the show gets too expensive to be produced

#1 is actually the same as #2. Ratings drive the ad revenue a show gets. Low ratings mean the ad revenue isn't matching the cost of the show, hence it is too expensive to be produced (relative to what it's return on investment is).

There are also the case where shows with ostensibly good ratings get too expensive relative to their ad revenue.

If the ratings of Stargate suddenly jumped 50%, higher production expenses may be tolerated. Of course, that's unlikely to happen at this stage.

Even if the SciFi ratings are steady, the syndication ratings decline every year. Everything that is revenue is taken into account: DVD sales, international distribution, merchandising, etc.

[The Ori]

I seriously think it would kill the show if it was renamed Stargate Command. SG-1 is and was O'Neill, Teal'c, Carter and the Jackson, it will always be and be remembered for. With O'Neill gone it kind of kills the individual relationships we loved between Jack and the rest of the guys. With Mitchell who is so far been OK, the SG-1 thing is gone for now, maybe when the relationships build then we can look at them as a proper team, so changing it to Command would kill it even more, keeing it at SG-1 shows that the focus is still on the main team. Plus there has been too many changes to the show since the end of season 7, so I'm happy we have kept the foundation of the show.

[SylvreWolfe]

Why rename it? It is the same show, about the same team.

[talyn2k5]

The cost of producing an episode is what kills a show, not the fact that the title of the series is old.
The price for producing an episode of SGC (seson 1) would have been the same as the price for producing an episode of SG-1 (season 9).
What we see it's an excuse. No show gets cancelled because it's old.

There only 2 reasonable ($) reasons a show gets cancelled:
1. the ratings are bad
2. the show gets too expensive to be produced

The rest is bla bla bla.

If they`re so worried about the production costs not matching what is coming back in, why did they hire Beau Bridges and Claudia Black.
No offense to either of them, I think they are both fine actors, but the post of base commander could`ve been filled by anyone as it really is just an exposition role anyway (there for the purpose of allowing SG-1 to explain the whole situation to the general and therefore to the audience) and I think having an extra regular is just unnecessary.
Don`t get me wrong, I will be watching S10, but it does worry me that having another regular character will make it more difficult for each character to get a sufficient amount of airtime, especially as RDA is in 5 eps so the whole focus will no doubt be on him for those 5 eps, leaving only 15 episodes to get some background on Vala and Mitchell, a few Jaffa eps, Ori arc continuation, search for the Holy Grail arc continuation, Ba`al episodes, the 200th ep, atleast one ep featuring an Ancient, and the annual 'pull the Asgards` butts out of the mess they`ve got themselves into this time'.
Its alot to fit into one season!

[the fifth man]

I don't care if they renamed it or not. As long as it's really the same show, that's all that matters to me.

[The Engineer]

If they`re so worried about the production costs not matching what is coming back in, why did they hire Beau Bridges and Claudia Black.

PR

Don`t get me wrong, I will be watching S10, but it does worry me that having another regular character will make it more difficult for each character to get a sufficient amount of airtime, especially as RDA is in 5 eps so the whole focus will no doubt be on him for those 5 eps, leaving only 15 episodes to get some background on Vala and Mitchell, a few Jaffa eps, Ori arc continuation, search for the Holy Grail arc continuation, Ba`al episodes, the 200th ep, atleast one ep featuring an Ancient, and the annual 'pull the Asgards` butts out of the mess they`ve got themselves into this time'.
Its alot to fit into one season!

5 eps? really?! is 5 for season 10 like 4 for season 9, or is it something sure?
As for the screening time for RDA I doubt he will be as much as he was when he was a regular, his exposure could be from a special appearance to a guest star, but no more.
You made me curious, I'll look up.

[creed462]

Why not switch to cheeper production methods, Like when enterprise switch to digtal from flim, save some money