Originally posted by Snowman37
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Cancel SGU: Bad Series, Blame Network or All the Above?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
There were things I liked about SGU and things I did not like.
I think the odds were rather stacked against SGU from the beginning. I say this because it had high expectations yet I think different expectations from all involved, I don't think they really defined their target audience very well and it was very expensive show.
As to the expectations, I think from what Brad and Rob said they wanted a character driven drama - they wanted to get a away from rubber faced aliens, do something more high concept that would stretch and test their creative capabilities so that would bring them the critical acclaim or at least the respect they felt they never got with the other SG shows. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that, everyone needs to spread their wings and challenge themselves creatively.
I think SyFy was looking for the next BSG (not a BSG clone but one that was as critically successful) they wanted a show that would be a space opera that would bring them the critical acclaim, recognition and thus more - and new - viewers just as BSG had. But I don't think SyFy was done with SG - they had greenlighted the SGA movie and said they even wanted to talk to MGM about more SG1 movies. According to Howe they wanted to run the SG movies while SGU was on hiatus to keep SG vital and fans interested in between seasons
I think MGM wanted to extend the franchise - they wanted the SG money train to continue. And I think Brad put a lot on the line with MGM, convinced them to trust him and put a lot of big money behind SGU.
I also think they did not define their audience very well. They wanted a younger audience, new viewers, more viewers than other SG shows, they wanted SG fans, they wanted BSG viewers, they wanted more gender balanced. Honestly I think it is very hard to be all things to be all things to all people. They wanted a show that was character driven but also had action and a bit of humor. Not that it is impossible with a TV show - but very hard and very rare when a TV show hits all the right buttons with a broad based audience.
There were a lot of expectations for SGU - it had to hit the ground running. It had to be better than any of the previous SG shows - it needed a bigger audience and it needed that critical acclaim. Unfortunately I think the first 10 episodes did not bring in the audience or the wide spread mainstream critical acclaim they wanted; for me the slow pacing, the unevenness of the storylines, the communication stones, and the lack of strong female (TJ came close) characters that actually drove the storyline in meaningful ways were turnoffs.
By the second season I think the show had found its direction ( and oddly enough had become and felt more like the original SG series) but it was too late - the show had already lost so much of its audience that it could not recover. And in today's TV business you cannot justify a very expensive show that does not meet expectations and does not have a large live viewing audience.
So who's fault is it?. I think everyone - the producers, writers, MGM, SyFy - they all had high expectations for the show, threw a lot of money behind it expecting really big things that unfortunately did not materialize. But for fans of the show it was perfect and that is the hard thing about TV - the fan is the biggest loser when the show they love is cancelled.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EdenSG View PostI think the odds were rather stacked against SGU from the beginning. I say this because it had high expectations yet I think different expectations from all involved, I don't think they really defined their target audience very well and it was very expensive show.
.......
Review: SGU 1x09 "Life"
I re-watched "Life", an episode claimed to signal the demise of SGU, to see what I'd think of it now. I'll use Battlestar Re-Imagined (first 2 seasons) and Firefly for comparison, because of their popularity, and high quality of storytelling (well written characters, dialogue, and good balance of action, drama and for Firefly, humor).
Some scenes in "Life" seem forced, like the writers and directors were trying to say things with certain scenes, rather than let the characters speak for themselves, as feels more the case with BSG and Firefly: domestic scenes of Camille and her partner Sharon consoling each other, the incident where Spencer bumps into Franklin and challenges him, the scene where Young spies on his wife and Telford. When Franklin complains to TJ during his psych evaluation, I see someone acting a character, rather than the persona being so convincing, like Rush's cynicsim or Lt Scott's guilt, that I suspend my disbelief.
"Life" is aptly named, because it's more of an observation on people's lives at times, an attempt to animate the drama, rather than having a natural spark of life itself. When I think of Adama and Tigh, or Roslin and Tom Zarek talking aboard Galactica, the ship feels alive, organic, with activity buzzing around them. I guess the rooms in Galactica feel like our own homes and workplaces: organized chaos, lived-in. This is not to say that my criticisms are always true. I think TJ for example, comes across as a real person: practical, grounded, empathic, but not unconditionally so, as she acts guarded with Rush or Greer.
Can I see traditional Stargate fans dropping the show after this? Sure, because it's no longer mostly action or family friendly: it deals a lot with adult emotional conflicts, and even social identity, such as same-sex lovers or the sex trade (Scott's ex), which some may find controversial.
Was this still an excellent drama? Yes, but heavy with sci-fi elements, so I can't see many viewers of more accessible shows like Grey's Anatomy (hospital drama) or CSI (crime drama): there's the whole spaceship & aliens thing! By season 2.5, the ship feels like a home, rather than just a foreign object, in need of help herself ("Twin Destinies") and the crew a community of the main and supporting cast: the dialogue, drama and action flow smoothly. By the time we get to "Resurgence", Universe feels like a mature version of SG-1, and a joy for both the creators and the audience.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dean Grr View PostThe key is that they didn't understand their audience.
Originally posted by Dean Grr View PostAtlantis was waning, with sometimes 1.2 mil viewers in season 5, and rather than give it a 6th season, Syfy and MGM wanted to, as you say, capture the acclaim of BSG and a larger audience.Back from the grave.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zombies Rise from the Sea View PostI doubt that's what caused the demise of the show but yeah, it was a part of what led to the downfall of the show.
ZRftS, I value your comments, but I've got to disagree on this ... if a show knows its audience, or producers simply make what they want and by accident it clicks with a big enough audience, it gets renewed. Ratings = advertising = renewal. Once a show gets older, the financial costs outweigh its ratings, but I think this is good logic. Do you disagree?
You don't know what the network wants ...
I'm basing some of my ideas on Jospeh Mallozzi's blog: he answers questions from the public in his "Mailbag" blog entries. Joe talked about the ratings for Atlantis falling when someone asked about renewing it, and the rating (1.2 mil viewers) I got was from Gateworld's episode ratings. I remember, and I may not be 100% right, but essentially he said that it was better for SGU to have 2 years, than only get 1 more year of Atlantis (due to declining ratings). A lot of discussion was around changing viewing habits (Pirating, DVRs).
One thing that struck me in reading Joe's answers, was that he was waiting for MGM and Syfy to act, and basically said it was out of his hands. Whenever he's asked about renewing SGU, he points to MGM. I've never seen him respond by saying that he went to MGM (or Brad) to offer renewal options: he seemed to leave it up to Brad. Maybe he was proactive, I don't really know.
Here is his blog entry that discusses Craig Engler's letter (search "Boltbait" the visitor asking about it):
http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/...13/may-13-2011
Comment
-
My memory is hazy, but I don't think SGA's ratings were declining. They may not have been what they were the first season but they were higher towards the end than what had got them renewed for season 5. My understanding is MGM only had enough $$ to produce 1 SG show and they took the chance that SGU would bring new life to the franchise and expand the audience. Syfy and MGM gambled and lost, but I guess they'd say at least they tried.sigpic
Comment
-
re renewal
In the end, it was good to have two seasons of SGU than one more of SGA, so Joseph Mallozzi is right about nearly everything. (Ok, I'm really biased towards his opinions :-) I am sure there's also stuff about which Joe just isn't letting us in the know, perhaps even for legal reasons.
politics, viewership and scheduling
My theory is that
SGU could not be renewed by SyFy, because MGM went into bankruptcy. SyFy's announcement of non-renewal was right between MGM's entering into and emerging from bankruptcy. In the process, all of MGM's previous owners lost ownership of MGM, and one of those previous owners was Comcast (owning 20%), which owns 50% of NBC Universal, which owns SyFy. Both SyFy and MGM committed 50% financing each for SGU.
It had to be well-known in the business before MGM's bankruptcy that MGM was not in the best financial shape, and the progress of the next Bond movie and "The Hobbit" was in real doubt.
So getting to produce both SGA and SGU didn't make business sense, because in the end there was room for only one show. The producers felt that SGA had run its course and its quality was lacking (Despite Joe Flanigan's appearances... I just had a thought that instead of McKay, Sheppard and Dr. Keller should have become an item :-). As financial woes of MGM (and the rest of the country) progressed, getting to produce an SGA telefilm appeared increasingly difficult.
The viewers
As far as I know, SGU was not syndicated, but a network show, and so had to rely on ratings, and these could only have been gotten from SyFy.
One issue regarding financing and viewership is that as far as I know, SyFy had exclusive first-screening rights and everything depended on its ratings only. Many other (non-U.S.) networks and channels got SGU very late in its run and then well after it was cancelled. I guess by the time SGU did air on other networks, many people had already seen the episodes and didn't bother to tune in, thus explaining why many non-U.S. networks would eventually stop airing SGU. The picture would probably have been different, had SGU aired simultaneously in as many markets as possible (the way "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" and many other successful shows did).
Another issue is SyFy's availability, as the channel was slowly put into a premium cable package (and still showing ads!), and I doubt many households could afford that during a recession.
The scheduling part of the blame is on SyFy having long breaks in-between half-seasons, the other and greater part (of many) was its moving SGU around all the time, thus not allowing viewers to tune in at regular intervals. Killing off the Sci-Fi Friday timeslot had a part in that.
Then the problem regarding U.S. viewers is that the overall viewer demographic of SyFy had stagnated in terms of quality, with SyFy getting much of its income from wrestling shows. In light of this, I imagine that getting viewers appreciative of high concept character drama to tune in to SyFy wasn't exactly a task for the meek. Was anyone over there really trying?
So SGU is the kind of show that I think was (and should be, when eventually continued) best suited for HBO and not SyFy. Given that HBO recently had to cancel a lavish horse-racing show, I think SGU could have had a fairly good run over there.
One of the overlooked woes that plague the current tv landscape in the U.S. is that networks expect a show like SGU to be mega-successful right in the first two seasons. Yet I am of opinion that the times when it was possible to replicate the huge successes of the first and second seasons of "Lost" and BSG are over, and for a good show to succeed, networks nowadays have to do more to develop viewership by being consistent and patient; this includes not moving a high-quality show around all the time.
When I think of "Star Trek: TNG" and "Deep Space Nine", then their first two seasons were much, much worse than the two seasons of SGU, and only from their third seasons did each start getting on track. So this somehow shows how impatient networks sometimes are, clamoring for insta-gratification.• I'm a fan of this awesome Trek webcomic: betafleet.tumblr.com (archived)
• Eesti on ilus, ja troppide parteide poliitikud pole enam Raudse Leedi valitsuses.
• I chose the Gate avatar, because it was difficult to choose between SGU character pictures of someone who I thought I was like, and someone who I was fond of. :>
Comment
-
Originally posted by KEK View PostI was only questioning whether the lack of reveal early on is a valid criticism of the type of show that SGU was.
Originally posted by KEK View PostIf you have no problem with serialized shows, then it seems unfair to cite the lack of reveal early on as a reason for why the première was poor in your view.
Originally posted by KEK View PostBecause the audience are shown things that the character's aren't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dean Grr View PostThe Walking Dead of Threads ... Yeah, I suppose this topic deserves some razzing, a golden raspberry award. To my credit, I did look through the last few months of threads quickly to see if a similar thread was active.
I've been watching SGU season 2.5, and was wistful about a 3rd season.
But ... it's starting to feel a lot like school days, starting a new school and meeting the older kids out in the playground ...
So, since you have been through 5,000, no 1x10^x threads on this topic,
I've got a razzie for you: please read the original post, and let me know how SGU could have done better. Re-animate Herb, in as few words as possible, and give your sage advice on what SGU could have done (if at all) to be renewed.
Nothing, SGU had no chance of surviving past the nose dive in S1.
If you're really nice, you'll edit the last few posts with a serious response (or delete them): #'s 14 to 17 seem fair, leaving a few earlier raspberries on the thread for some guilty pleasure. - Dean
PS: I'm not that nice, the responses will stand, if you are TRULY offended by them, ask a mod to delete them and I will not even attempt to fight, fair?sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terra Atlantus View PostApparently not, because O'Neill, Jackson, Teal'c, Sheppard and McKay work there and all have shown emotional instability at some point.
SGU *Tried* to show "long term effects" of such things, I just don't feel they did it well, and if people did see it, good for them, seriously. I *personally* just didn't.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Snowman37 View PostBingo. It wasn't the lack of reveal in regards to Rush. Rather, I kept asking myself, why on Earth was he there to begin with? Isn't the U.S. Air Force capable of weeding out emotionally unstable individuals from critical situations?
My problem with the premiere wasn't with the lack of revelations by the end of Part 3.
Were we? I haven't seen the show since fall, 2009.
Comment
-
10 Ways Self-Hating Fans Make Genre Entertainment Worse:
http://io9.com/5902560/10-ways-self+...ium=socialflowsigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by myhelix View Post10 Ways Self-Hating Fans Make Genre Entertainment Worse:
http://io9.com/5902560/10-ways-self+...ium=socialflowsigpic
Comment
Comment