Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Yes, I am!
Improved and unfuzzy banner being the result of more of Caldwell's 2IC sick, yet genuis, mind.
Help Pitry win a competition! Listen to Kula Shaker's new single Peter Pan R.I.P
I'd like to weigh in on this discussion. I think that both SG1 and SGA just have a different sensibility than the other franchises mentioned. They are seen primarily as action/adventure programs with lots of bright, shiny toys and lots of explosions and no depth or character development. Whether or not that is an accurate description is almost besides the point. Perception is reality. As previously noted, the fact that both shows are on cable probably has a lot to do with it. Also, the movie (which I enjoyed very much) was moderately successful, but nothing to write home about.
Star Trek, on the other hand, has always been about concepts and social ideas; man's place in the scheme of things, exploration and, of most importance, character interaction. Do you think a fan of any of the Star Treks would be as casually dismissive as SGA fans about losing cast members. Do you think fans would have accepted Dr. Crusher or Dr. Bashir being blown up by an exploding anything, much less a tumor? How about Troi or Odo or Tuvok being sent to recurring limbo? On both counts, I think not. When Gates McFadden was let go from TNG after the first season, the outcry was pretty loud. Her replacement was extremely unpopular and she was asked to come back for season 3. Dr Crusher wasn't a "babe" by conventional standards and she didn't go into battle with phasers blasting, but she was integral to the story. Its just a different dynamic.
For all its special effects, Star Wars was a quintessential story of good vs. evil. And it was done really, really well. Empire is even better IMHO. Return of the Jedi was too cute, but that's a discussion for another day. The prequel trilogy doesn't resonate as well as the original because in the end, George Lucas just couldn't help himself and the special effects trumped the story.
LoTR is just a cultural phenomenom. The books, including the Hobbit, have been huge for a generation. And they are not the easiest books to read. Tolkein created a mythology like no other . . . maps, languages, family trees going back generations. The audience was built in and just waiting for the right guy to come along to put it all on screen.
To make a long story, short, I think the other franchises have more invested in character development than in special effects. Fans may feel a stronger connection to individuals, even fictional ones, than they do to exploding body parts. Hope this makes sense, its sounded really profound in my head . . .not so much on paper.
I think it's because that Star Trek was new and fresh and TNG was the new thing. Stargate is the old **** done over and over again adding little to nothing new.
Watch Atlantis!!! PLEEEEEEEEEASSSSSSEEEEE!!! We like rehashing old storylines and charaters and getting paid for it. - The Stargate "Writers"
i have a theory. stargate isn that popular or as popular as star trek and the like because of the military thing people see the military as a bad thing. but Richard Dean Anderson got a medal from The USAF for his portrayla of theem as the good guys and not the people who kill for fun.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
The only reason why stargate isn't as popular is because it isn't revolutionary. it's original but not revolutionary, unlike starwars and star trek. but in general it's cooler. people watch it a lot but more as just something to sit down and watch as opposed to star trek where you need to be a fan. people that watch star trek are generaly considered geeks but with stargate they can be considered a free pass cos it has guns and explosions. i think that stargate is actually more popular in general but doesn't have as large a cult following as star trek and star wars and even lotr.
Stargate and Star Trek both have a level of cheesiness to them that may attract or deter some people too. I don't think that Stargate has that. There are clever jokes thrown in occasionally, but not cheesy situations.
I continue to believe the reason is not about the show itself but about the way it is advertised.
What makes something popular is how much exposure to the media that thing has. Direct advertisment or just reviews by journalists or simple mentions of Stargate out of the context of advertizing for the show, word of mouth, etc... would have been beneficial. But when you're not aware of the existance of something, you can't find it popular!
Some stuff is very present in the medias but is crap, and some are barely seen and is worth a lot.
IMO because Star Trek/Star Wars/LoTR were one of the first of their kind. Also the campaign was not the same in different countries. In Poland public TV have broadcasted only two seasons of Stargate SG1 but also two or three similar movies (Earth 2, Space beyond and above, Dark Skies) in the same time - so there was a little surfeit of Sci-Fi. Or maybe for some people Stargate was too long? (not for me!!!)...
sig thanks to Luci
Late to the Gate
Let me start by saying, I love LOTR and Star Wars (the real SW, meaning the first three movies put out, not that dreck that came later). And I enjoy watching Star Trek TOS and some TNG. But none of them comes close to the love I have for Stargate, Farscape, and Firefly. And I think all three of those shows have a lot of things going against them. I'll stick to my theories on Stargate for now:
-The movie did well, but it wasn't huge
-It really ISN'T marketed well compared to shows on the major networks
-It started on cable at a time when cable WASN'T known for it's original programming
-Now cable IS the place to go for original programming, but people think of Stargate as being an old show
-While Richard Dean Anderson brought in a lot of the first viewers, I also know a lot of people who despised MacGyver (not me!), who could have been turned off by his presence
-A lot of people (this IS me when I first saw it), can get thrown by all the military aspects and not understand what it has to do with the movie they saw in the early 90's
-Stargate is so proud of 'not taking themselves seriously'. I think they should be. Dark shows (like BSG) depress me. Why would I want to watch that week in and week out? Yet, the populace has always gravitated toward the serious. It is why the big shows are things like CSI, and Law and Order. Blech, but it is what gets the ratings. Comedies are also never nominated for Oscars. Critics are snobs and assume something has to be serious to be true 'acting'. Stargate wonderfully refuses to be a pessimistic show...but it hurts them with critics. Now, Star Wars does seem to get people despite that, but.....
-Star Wars was revolutionary in moviemaking. Star Trek was revolutionary in TV. Lord of the Rings was a very different kind of fantasy novel than others written in the 50s (and LOTR was NOT well received when it was first published! It took years to get worldwide acknowledgment, and STILL didn't bring in a non-fantasy audience until the first kick-a** trailers came out for Fellowship of the Ring). And I think this is one of the hardest obstacles for any new sci-fi show to overcome. There's nothing you can do about it, Star Trek was the first mega-successful sci-fi show and nothing else will ever be first, so nothing else will be considered original...never mind the fact that what makes shows like Stargate and Farscape so good is how they take the unoriginal sci-fi storylines and change them into something new, while the last few Star Trek shows coasted on the Star Trek name and never showed me anything new. (personal opinion, of course!)
Nope. The sci-fi shows that get the audience and critics' respect, and most importantly, the ratings numbers are the angst-ridden ones (BSG, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, The Bionic Woman, etc.) that most closely follow the darkness of every other depressing one-hour melodrama that the masses eat up.
There's my beliefs on why Stargate doesn't grab people. But I'll also say this, I have never been able to hook any of my non-sci-fi-loving family into any Star Trek show...but I have gotten many of those same people to sit through Stargate with me! And I have even caught them smiling!
VERY well said, Crichiel!!!
(Plus: Browncoat here, so I appreciate the FF mention)
Late to the Gate
When i see a festival of stargate fans dressed as jaffa running around pointing cardboard staffweapons at eachother and screaming PEWPEW at the top of their lungs we will finally have arrived at the peak of LOtR StarWars and starTrek.
Basically the face of scififandom has been changing for the last 10 years. Gone are the basement dwelling virgins of lore. Stargate has mainstream appeal and judging by a american record only approached by xfiles for a single series... has considerable staying power.
I may not be a basement dwelling virgin anymore, but i still like SG... and thats why SG works. Appeal.
Now, having said that, I believe that the story of the Ancients has the potential to be the as grandiose if not more than that of any series. The story of a defeated, persecuted, peaceful people who just wanted to live their lives and search truth through reason and not superstition, being persecuted by religious fanatics, and then choosing to flee in a great journey across space and seed an entire new galaxy with life is the most epic thing I can think of. What is more epic than going to another galaxy to start over? And the Ancients did it twice! They are the most tiatanic race of any sci-fi show I've ever seen.
Even the Star Wars universe, descibed by physicists as a level III civilization, restricted themselves to 1 galaxy, while the Ancients seeded life in 3(that we know of), created technologies so advanced that they defy the limits not only of physics but of reality itself and then finally transcended material reality all together. Pretty awesome, huh? Then there is the other story that must be told: how exactly did the Ancients lose the war to the Wraith, which, although extremely advanced, were little more than space cavemen compared to the Ancients and their millions of years of science.
The only problem I see with making these 2 shows is that it would require blockbuster-level budget. You can't show the Ancients 24/7 with a T.V show budget without making them seem utterly pathetic.
Now, as for personal saga, nothing beats the story of Anakim Skywalker. The story of the youth consumed with hatred and ager, who becomes a mass murderer and is then saved by the love of his son is the most beautiful story ever told. I rank it above Romeo&Juliette.
Couldn't have said it better myself, while i love SG1 and SGA, they aren't on the same level as Star Trek, LOTR and Star Wars.
Stargate would probably attain their level if they had consistently good seasons but unfortunately, like the current season 4 of Atlantis, the writers, producers etc, are too inconsistent, and again i say this as a devout fan of the Stargate, they're higly derivative of all those shows mentioned above, in fact if these other shows didn't exist, neither would Stargate.
I have to agree with you there, the reason why major characters are killed off effortlessly in a show like SGA is because they're not developed enough for a lot of people to care. Having said that i hated them killing off both Weir and Beckett.
It's the motivation behind killing off characters in SGA that has me worried, they do it for "dramatic impact" or to "shake things up", but that does two things, 1. you start to care less for characters when you realise they could be here one day, gone the next, and 2. you realise TPTB must be getting desperate if they kill their own characters to keep things interesting.
How so? It's their story, and death is part of that. It's like calling Shakespeare desperate because there's a lot of death in his plays.2. you realise TPTB must be getting desperate if they kill their own characters to keep things interesting.