Joe Mallozzi Blogs Again! (Massive Spoilers ALL seasons all SG Shows/Movies)

[prion]

Originally Posted by Briangate78

As per SGU, they wanted to try something different. Now I have always been a sucker for more dramatic shows. SGA showed more character focused drama in Season 4 and sorta in 5 and I loved it. I see SGU as an influenced Stargate show that is still Stargate but takes more time to focus on the characters. "Water" which aired last week, not to give any spoilers felt even more like Stargate. I enjoyed that ep as well. I said for months before this series aired I would give it a chance, while still upset about SGA's fate. I am happy I gave it a chance, and now I have another Stargate show to fufill my Stargate fix. All I know is I have had a different frame of mind with SGU. I respect people who do not care for this show, and wish them well. I think it is ok to be negative about a show and the characters. But when actors are attacked and sent hate mail it is over the top. I have seen posts on here and on other forums that are just totally inappropriate.

Want to live by an example? The Carson Beckett fans were the most passionate but most civil and polite folks to get back their favorite scottish doctor. Maybe if the fans expressed their opinions in a civil matter to Joe M and the other producers, they might listen.

It goes back to the old saying, you cannot please everyone.

There isn't anything organized on the 'we don't like SGU' front. People are just saying they dislike it, hate it, whatever. The vast majority do it without resorting to profanity or insulting the actors.

The thing is that this is not new. Good grief, people have been sending vitriol through the US postal system since they got hold of studio mailing addresses way way before the internet even sprung up. The internet just makes it more in your face and more instantaneous. I don't know if the actors have actually received 'hate mail' at the studio (letter form or otherwise). I haven't come across such in my googling; disdain for characters, yes, but not for actors.

This will all end. After all, the world was going to come to an end when Daniel died, when Jonas left, when SG1 was cancelled, etc.

[bluealien]

Originally Posted by missmobius

I went back to re-read his blog (twice actually) and nowhere does he state that people are attacking the actors??? but rather talks about the characters,

one quote:
"someone here referred to Chloe as a whore"
note they (the negative post) referred to Chloe NOT the actress.

another quote:
"And DON’T expect that to change. If you don’t like the character interactions, romance, and open-ended story elements introduced to date, you’re in for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong haul because that’s our show."

I guess production doesn't care for feedback, unless it's 100% positive?
A shame since unhappy fans who were big SG series fans will stop watching, why push fans away, why not try to listen and consider the comments (no, I don't mean the true lame comments).

another Mallozzi quote:
"nothing will change in this respect (regarding sex scenes) and that if you were offended by that broom closet scene in Air I, I guarantee you’ll be clawing your eyes out of your skull given what we have in store later this season"

WHAT! I can't believe he actually said that, almost daring fans on the fence to just leave now instead of hanging on and hoping for some change?

His whole blog talks about the characters, and his disagreement with the fans that don't like the Chloe/Scott characters so far. He wants us to like them and I can see why he's defending the characters, but a true professional (artist) listens to all comments, both the positive and the negative, and then he/she should weigh them, reflect on them and see if there isn't any truth to them.

In the end, it's their show, and if they don't give the SG loving viewers (who aren't happy with all of SGU) what they want, it will follow BSG right into NO 5th season. If 4 years is enough for them then I guess that's fine.

Let's hope though that it doesn't go by the way of Defying Gravity which is teetering very close to the "black hole" (cancellation)

Conclusion: I really want to like SGU, there is much I like about it, but to poopoo me off at the things I don't like is just plain (to use Mallozzi's term) "idiotic"

Well said...

I read through his blog as well and didnt see one reference to any attack on the actors.. all the examples were towards the characters. The tpb and Mallozzi have never taken to any kind of criticism of their work and as long as I've been around here tend to over react to anyone who voices any displeasure at their vision.. previous example was the Keller character. You'll always get passionate outspoken people in fandom and those who may take things a little too far, but so far most of the ranting about fans who don't like SGU has been over the top IMO... I've seen endless posts which are well thought out and make some very valid points and still get the usual repsonse.. go away if you don't like it.. SGU is great, or the litany of how much better it is than the crappy cheesy Atlantis.. I don't see anyone stepping in to stop the level of vitriol against SGA that often accompanies the praising of SGU..

Joe Mallozzi should take some of his own advise when it comes to expressing his feelings... he has on numerous occasions answered a perfectly well thought out critical post with snark, insults and an extremely condesending attitude.. yes sometimes the poster had been rude but many times their posts were polite and raised valid points...

SGU is a completley new direction for the franchise and so far away from the previous Stargate forumula that of course it will upset many fans who were quite happy with the previous direction of the show.. but the critique of SGU is not just that it is so different from the previous shows, but that it is not very orginal, there isn't really anthing new and fresh about it and it's not always executed very well... and the sex card has been overplayed.. again valid points but anyone who raises them is generally told to go away and not watch.. or keep watching until it gets better..

Shows have been critiqued for years and such is the way of entertainment.. would an actor get upset if he portrayed a murderer and fans voiced their opinion as to how much they hated the character... if an overly sexed character is considered not likeable it has nothing to do with the actor who portrayed that character, irrespective of what term was used. Calling a character a whore was probably ott for the character of Scott but you cannot curb peoples interpretations of a character... Sheppard was constantly called a whore and a man-ho on Atlantis for merely flirting with a handlful of women over a 5 year period, but I didnt see any uproar over that, or any of the production staff or GW staff worried that his wife or mother could be upset by that accusation..

SGU has received a lot of negativity and that has made the producers angry and upset...but it's not possible to force people to like your work and rather pointless to get upset with them if they don't....saying a show sucks or is garbage is probably a little strong but I've seen posters jumped on for saying a lot less... and instead of ignoring all the negativity maybe the producers should take notice of the many similiar points that are being raised as to why so many fans are not happy with the show.. but the general response is either to be told to go away and get over SGA and that SGU is so much better than the crappy cheesy previous incarnations, or that we don't really need you handful of haters anyway..

If the ptb are not bothered that many Stargate fans don't like their new show why don't they just scroll on past the negative or critical responses and just concentrate on the positive ones... celebrate the fact that they are appealing to a new fanbase... they have made it clear on many occasions that they want a new fanbase and that this Stargate is totally different from previous incarnations so why are they acting so surprised that so many of the existing fanbase don't like it...

[RealmOfX]

Originally Posted by missmobius

I went back to re-read his blog (twice actually) and nowhere does he state that people are attacking the actors??? but rather talks about the characters,
<snip>

I guess you missed this part :

"Also, after several months of connecting with fandom online, Brian is stepping away from his popular twitter account for much the same reason. Some of the very same fans who he was kind enough to open up a dialogue with in the run-up to the premiere started leaving him nasty comments as though he was responsible for the show’s creative direction."

[MediaSavant]

Originally Posted by prion

Do you mean Starbuck on the latest BSG, or the original? I didn't bother with the new one. Camerawork, etc. annoyed me.

Yes, I meant the female Starbuck played by Katee Sakhoff.

If the ptb are not bothered that many Stargate fans don't like their new show why don't they just scroll on past the negative or critical responses and just concentrate on the positive ones... celebrate the fact that they are appealing to a new fanbase...

Something tells me that had they done that, fandom would be screaming that they ignored the criticism. Based on what I've read, Joe started by answering the critical questions with the producers point of view and answering the criticisms straight out. But, answering the questions with rational explanations didn't seem to deter anyone. Not getting the answers they wanted to hear, the questions and comments got more and more intense, asking the same questions that had already been answered but in a more strident way. IMO, it escalated from there.

If they had ignored the negative fans, something tells me it would have been even worse.

[Skydiver]

Originally Posted by JackO'Neill

That does not mean Syfy can not step up & put their foot down before agreeing to a Season: 2 with MGM if the hate goes full on like this. If the tone of the fan base does not change by seasons end I do think we will see a different show next season. No doubt the ones in charge are paying attention to fan reaction

no they're not.

what they care about are the ratings that the episodes are pulling

fans on a forum don't matter. As long as the numbers are there, that's what they care about

[Flying Officer Bennett]

I just want to know why people think we have to automatically like the deeds of the main characters or for that something has to be morally right for a main character to do it.

I look down on Scott for having the quickie in the cupboard. I also however think it adds more to the story because frankly, he's an ass. And thus not perfect. Did I enjoy the sex scene? Well no... because it wasn't designed to be 'enjoyed'... does it make Scott's sleeping with Chloe look questionable? Yes. Hence, imo, it ws warrented.

[prion]

Originally Posted by bluealien

Well said...

I read through his blog as well and didnt see one reference to any attack on the actors.. all the examples were towards the characters. The tpb and Mallozzi have never taken to any kind of criticism of their work and as long as I've been around here tend to over react to anyone who voices any displeasure at their vision.. previous example was the Keller character. ...

I've done some googling and can't find attacks at the actors. Some very ill-worded comments on the *characters*, yes, but not on the actors. This mess is already spinning out of control with some 'articles' saying it was the actors being called 'whores', etc. Sigh, research people, a little Googling...

[RealmOfX]

Originally Posted by prion

I've done some googling and can't find attacks at the actors. Some very ill-worded comments on the *characters*, yes, but not on the actors. This mess is already spinning out of control with some 'articles' saying it was the actors being called 'whores', etc. Sigh, research people, a little Googling...

Whilst what you say is true in some respects and I agree on doing some research
<big sigh> internet = ephemera, here today gone tomorrow

Just because you didn't find any today doesn't mean there weren't any previously or aren't any now because search engines :

• don't pick everything up
• can take weeks for an entry to appear
• won't pick up stuff that requires approval before being published (I think) or private stuff
• your search parameters may be ineffective in locating the information

Plus you're definition of attack and someone else's may differ.

If you feel there is a situation developing because of inaccurate information maybe you should consider not adding to it with posts like this

[prion]

Originally Posted by RealmOfX

Whilst what you say is true in some respects and I agree on doing some research
<big sigh> internet = ephemera, here today gone tomorrow

Just because you didn't find any today doesn't mean there weren't any previously or aren't any now because search engines :

• don't pick everything up
• can take weeks for an entry to appear
• won't pick up stuff that requires approval before being published (I think) or private stuff
• your search parameters may be ineffective in locating the information

Plus you're definition of attack and someone else's may differ.

If you feel there is a situation developing because of inaccurate information maybe you should consider not adding to it with posts like this

To me, an attack on an actor is "(fill in name) sucks in this role" "(fill in name) is ugly" "(fill in name") can't act their way out of a paper bag" etc.

Of course I can't find every reference. I have a job, a life, etc. so can't spend 24/7 on the web searching. however, utilizing the terms Mallozzi used it seems there were two fan comments on his blog, which seem to be the ones that got the actor upset, which in turn got Mallozzi all ranty about it, despite the fact he approved them knowing that the actors read his blog.

but anyway, this is all a tempest in a teapot compared to the Stephen Fry twitter fiasco, in which one of his nearly 1 million followers said Fry's tweets were 'boring'. you can google it to get the details. it's all pretty inane...

[Major Tyler]

Originally Posted by prion

To me, an attack on an actor is "(fill in name) sucks in this role" "(fill in name) is ugly" "(fill in name") can't act their way out of a paper bag" etc.

What's interesting is that I see these comments on GateWorld all the time.

[Lauriel]

Originally Posted by Major Tyler

What's interesting is that I see these comments on GateWorld all the time.

Really? I've not got any objections to discussion the actor in regards to the role, but politely.

[Jumper_One]

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/...sorts-of-busy/

November 2, 2009

Video: Rock ‘em, sock ‘em robots: Brian J. Smith and Louis Ferreira


Rock ‘em, sock ‘em robots! Damn. I stopped recording just before the chewbacca yell. It was something else.

Technology conspires against me! Seriously and no, I’m not paranoid OR crazy. Hear me out. This morning…my alarm clock didn’t go off. Oh, I know what you’re thinking. It was some daylight saving time-related mishap. And that’s what I thought too. Until I turned on my blackberry and went to check my messages only to discover…the little wheelie thing wasn’t working. Every time I tried to scroll, it would start texting gibberish. Falling back on my tech training, I tried shaking the damn thing – to no avail. I took out the battery, put the battery back in, and turned it back on. The damn wheelie still wasn’t working. Clearly, this was a problem that required a more advanced approach, so I took out the battery, put the battery back in, turned it back on AND shook it. Still no go.

And here’s where it gets weird…or, dare I say, suspiciously insidious. When I got into the office this morning, I asked Brad how he had dealt with a similar problem. “Did you try taking the battery out and putting it back in?”he asked. Yes, I told him, wanting to add I’d even taken the extra step of shaking it.

“Let me have a look,”he offered. I pulled my blackberry out, unlocked it and, suddenly – miraculously – the damn thing was working. Quite the coincidence, no? After being totally unresponsive only an hour earlier, it was conveniently operational again – as it just so happened, right after I’d made a big deal about the fact that it WASN’T working.

The rest of the day was fairly uneventful, spent breaking Episode 1 of Stargate: Universe’s second season and, of course, approving a couple of hundred comments. Then, when I got home and finally sat down to write today’s entry, my laptop suddenly froze up on me. I rebooted, restarted my entry, and had it freeze up on me again. Three successive reboots and three successive freezes.

Now, come on. One incident is a trivial annoyance. Two incidents you can pass off as mere coincidence. But three? I wonder if those Ghost Hunters guys investigate stuff like this or do they just focus on arresting more traditional phantoms and your occasional revenant?

So I’ve switched over to my old laptop, just checked today’s blog stats and, ZOUNDS!, 10 000 hits today and counting. This the result of a perfect storm of visitors – those who came to check out my pug’s cool surgery scar, those who got here by accident following search engine results for “creepy alley” and “thefudgeshoppe.com in flemington NJ”, and, of course, those who clicked on the link provided by io9 in an editorial on my rant (nestled somewhere between a feature titled “Smackdown Finale: Witch vs. Vampire!” and an article on bully porn). Welcome, one and all, from the semi-regulars who dropped by to tell me how much they’re enjoying the show to that guy/gal(?) in South Korean who threatened to come over and punch me in the face. Enjoy your stay! But before proceeding to post any comments or questions, may I direct first-time visitors to the following highly informative past entries:

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/...y-for-old-men/

http://spambait.wordpress.com/catego...kle-ali-abbas/

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/...nuary-20-2007/

Done? Hope that helped. Okay, now go ahead and post those comments.

Finally, thanks to everyone who took the time to post opinions both positive and negative on the show, past entries, and my papier-mâché busts of every Hanna-Barbera character whose name sounds like a euphemism for something rude (including Zilly, Sperg, Niddler, Red Max, Fleegle, Foofur, and Boneless Chicken). Keep ‘em coming.

[ciannwn]

Originally Posted by Flying Officer Bennett

Did I enjoy the sex scene? Well no... because it wasn't designed to be 'enjoyed'... .

I didn't get to see it because Sky cut it out of the 8pm version and I couldn't be bothered to watch the later repeat. I did read the transcript, though, and I know how my husband and I would have reacted. We'd have been falling around laughing when Young said -

YOUNG (over radio): Scott, this is Colonel Young, come in please? Our guests have arrived a few minutes early, Lieutenant. What's your position?

Maybe that's because we're old age pensioners who enjoyed such comedy classics as the Carry On films, Are You Being Served, Up Pompeii and 'Allo 'Allo.

[Skydiver]

Originally Posted by Major Tyler

What's interesting is that I see these comments on GateWorld all the time.

if you see it, report it.

the mods can't deal with it if we don't know about it

[missmobius]

Originally Posted by RealmOfX

I guess you missed this part :

"Also, after several months of connecting with fandom online, Brian is stepping away from his popular twitter account for much the same reason. Some of the very same fans who he was kind enough to open up a dialogue with in the run-up to the premiere started leaving him nasty comments as though he was responsible for the show’s creative direction."

I am commenting on Mallozzi's blog and anyone who comments on there, NOT TWITTER.

Mallozzi has no control over twitter nor should he try to have.

[RealmOfX]

Originally Posted by missmobius

I went back to re-read his blog (twice actually) and nowhere does he state that people are attacking the actors??? but rather talks about the characters,
<snip>

Originally Posted by missmobius

I am commenting on Mallozzi's blog and anyone who comments on there, NOT TWITTER.

Mallozzi has no control over twitter nor should he try to have.

That quote in my previous post was from JM's blog not Twitter, and he was talking about an actor not a character. I was not commenting on the rest of your post merely pointing out where JM did reference an actor and "nastiness" which would appear to contradict what you were saying in the section I quoted.

[AVFan]

I felt that Joe's post was very condescending. As a 'die-hard' (I don't know if that's the word) fan, I devote a fair amount of my time into this franchise, and to be talked down to like I'm some invalid is insulting IMO.

If I've got a beef with the characters, I should have the ability to say so. Not in a flaming way, but in a constructive way. The same with the actors. I ought to be able to say that they aren't very good actors (not that I think that way for most of the actors on SG shows; but there are some scenes throughout the franchise that are pretty iffy IMO).

I'm not sure why I wouldn't be allowed to say that Scott is basically a man-whore (for lack of a better word- I'm not sure what that word would be); he sure seems to sleep around a lot. The same sort of thing goes with Chloe. Those two seem to me to be very sexually oriented, and I don't like it. Again, this is all IMO. It has nothing to do with insulting the actors; if I'm insulting anything (which I don't think I am), it's the writing.

I don't like when people are told to "Get out if you don't like it" or "Go rewatch SG-1 or Atlantis if you hate it so much". I like it (SGU)- and I would absolutely love it if it left out the apparent TPTB infatuation with the characters' sexuality. I think my opinion, whatever it may be, is just as valuable as the next person's (as long as it's not flaming).

[Khentkawes]

Originally Posted by AVFan

I'm not sure why I wouldn't be allowed to say that Scott is basically a man-whore (for lack of a better word- I'm not sure what that word would be); he sure seems to sleep around a lot.

Let me try to explain why I personally believe that such comments are not okay.

First off, the word itself is offensive and insulting. If someone says they don't like the sex scenes in SGU, that's okay. If someone says that they think Scott and/or Chloe are too promiscuous, that's okay too. If they say that they find it hard to respect Scott because of his "relationships" with James and Chloe, that is also okay.

But using words like "whore" and "slut" is not a reasoned critique. It is (and I will say this for the third time) purposefully offensive and inflammatory language. There is absolutely no way for those words to be interpreted in any way that is not crude, slanderous, and demeaning. It's not that different from calling a character a *ahem* "witch" (or a similar word that I'm pretty sure would be censored if I tried to type it ).

Calling a character a "whore" does not invite respectful and reasoned discussion. It doesn't invite discussion at all, unless if it's used in an attempt to bait and badger the fans who support that character. In essence, such language does not promote discussion or critique, it just leads to a bunch of insults and petty bickering.

As JM said, it's not so much about what you say, it's about how you say it. Critiquing the show is fine... I enjoy listening to people's critiques. But throwing around insults and crude or demeaning labels sounds more like "bashing," "hating," or pointless complaining... not reasoned critique or criticism. It's also not a good way to communicate if you (general "you") expect your audience to take you seriously.

For me, this isn't just about comments on Joe's blog or comments here on GW. It's about fan behavior in general. There are some nasty stereotypes about fans, and I would love to see sci-fi fans change those stereotypes by acting more maturely and reasonably. Unfortunately, the fact that Joe even felt the need to comment on this shows why such stereotypes exist in the first place.

[Flying Officer Bennett]

Originally Posted by AVFan

I felt that Joe's post was very condescending. As a 'die-hard' (I don't know if that's the word) fan, I devote a fair amount of my time into this franchise, and to be talked down to like I'm some invalid is insulting IMO.

If I've got a beef with the characters, I should have the ability to say so. Not in a flaming way, but in a constructive way. The same with the actors. I ought to be able to say that they aren't very good actors (not that I think that way for most of the actors on SG shows; but there are some scenes throughout the franchise that are pretty iffy IMO).

I'm not sure why I wouldn't be allowed to say that Scott is basically a man-whore (for lack of a better word- I'm not sure what that word would be); he sure seems to sleep around a lot. The same sort of thing goes with Chloe. Those two seem to me to be very sexually oriented, and I don't like it. Again, this is all IMO. It has nothing to do with insulting the actors; if I'm insulting anything (which I don't think I am), it's the writing.

I don't like when people are told to "Get out if you don't like it" or "Go rewatch SG-1 or Atlantis if you hate it so much". I like it (SGU)- and I would absolutely love it if it left out the apparent TPTB infatuation with the characters' sexuality. I think my opinion, whatever it may be, is just as valuable as the next person's (as long as it's not flaming).

So ok... you don't like Scott's actions... but...

Must all the characters follow have your personal approvel to the extent that you'd be happy for them to marry your sister/brother to be considered good characters. So what if Scott is a manwhore (also read 'stud' in other circles - not that I would argue that) as you say - that's gonna make him less likable on a personal level to some, and more to others. But have you never heard of the concept of 'love to hate'. I think Scott is an utter prat. And damn it, that's why I'm so glad he's in SGU.

[AVFan]

Originally Posted by Khentkawes

First off, the word itself is offensive and insulting. If someone says they don't like the sex scenes in SGU, that's okay. If someone says that they think Scott and/or Chloe are too promiscuous, that's okay too. If they say that they find it hard to respect Scott because of his "relationships" with James and Chloe, that is also okay.

This is all I'm trying to say, but I lack an noun to use other than "whore" or "slut". I don't mean to drag those very negative connotations along with it; I merely mean that they are sexually promiscuous. I think that half the problem is that there isn't a noun for that that isn't 'slut' or 'whore'.

Originally Posted by Flying Officer Bennett

So ok... you don't like Scott's actions... but...

Must all the characters follow have your personal approvel to the extent that you'd be happy for them to marry your sister/brother to be considered good characters. So what if Scott is a manwhore (also read 'stud' in other circles - not that I would argue that) as you say - that's gonna make him less likable on a personal level to some, and more to others. But have you never heard of the concept of 'love to hate'. I think Scott is an utter prat. And damn it, that's why I'm so glad he's in SGU.

Yes, I love my >main< characters to be honorable.

There are characters you love to hate- like Kinsey and Maybourne(well up until Watergate; I loved him after that- he's a complete riot ) from SG-1. But characters like that weren't portrayed in the best light in the other series. Scott, IMO, is portrayed in a very positive light- it seems as though TPTB want him to be the hero of heroes in this story; this is the core difference between this and the other SG shows.

At least I've still got everyone else to like besides Chloe and Scott (and James? We'll see- TBD). I'm liking Young and TJ so far. Eli seems like a good guy. Rush is, well, Rush. You know, for some reason, I still like Rush even though he obviously has an ulterior motive than that which is apparent on the outside.