Cancel SGU: Bad Series, Blame Network or All the Above?

[jelgate]

A big problem with that kind of thinking is that SGU probably would have had lower ratings on a preminum channel purely because a lot less people have preminium TV versus the basic cable that SyFy consisted of

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

A big problem with that kind of thinking is that SGU probably would have had lower ratings on a preminum channel purely because a lot less people have preminium TV versus the basic cable that SyFy consisted of

Except that the way premium channels make money means a show with smaller viewing figures can still survive. That's why Starz's expensive new drama, Magic City, got renewed for a second season before it aired, and is still thought of as a success for the channel, despite getting a rating of 0.37 million viewers for the premiere of its most recent episode.

Because of stuff like subscription fees they make more money out of each individual person than a channel like Syfy does. Also not being concerned with advertising, they care about overall viewing figures instead, so as long as people watch and pay them for the privilege, they don't give a damn about the when, where or how. Hence the Starz's execs when they look at the audience for magic city, they don't just look at that 0.37 million figure , they also include all the repeats, DVR's, and people using Starz's online services, and see Magic City's actual audience is around 2.5 million.

Also it keeps being insisted that because syfy is basic cable it has a greater audience and it's shows will have higher viewing figures than shows on premium channels, despite the fact this is often not the case. Syfy may be widely available, where as HBO has only 30 million subscribers, yet it is HBO with the shows with the higher ratings. I'm sure syfy would kill for its major shows to get 3, 4 or even 5 million people watching the premiere of each episode, and an average audience of 10 to 12 million like HBO's major shows have.

Clearly while syfy is actually available to many more people than HBO, the actual number of people prepared to watch syfy shows seems to be far smaller.

Mighty6, thanks for the info about premium cable channels and their long-term strategies, because I'm only fuzzily aware of this . Syfy seems very short-term, ratings focused as well as mass appeal focused. I like the "personalities" of the channels you describe, because to me it's saying that if you love a show, these channels are patient and cater to niche audiences. Yes, it depends on their relationships to key creators, the critical acclaim and # of subscribers, but at least DVRs or pirating is not fatal. The same with advertising, where ratings are key and depend so much on a show's first airing.

Indeed, and while a show being on a premium channel doesn't mean it's guaranteed success (Carnivale for example got very expensive and not enough people watched so it got cancelled), there seems to be less worry and a much better chance of success. They tend to renew more of their shows, and fans spend less time obsessing over every bit of ratings data.

HBO seem to be a much healthier business than syfy, especially if you look at their profits, which range from around $1 billion up to $1.5 billion in a good year.

[Gormagon]

I should have added that it had an entirely different aura that did not feel much like SG. To dark, constantly. To me anyway. And it had to much relationship/people stuff. I do not do well with the people stuff. I do much better with science. It should have been more towards the aliens, meeting them, fighting them, interaction and tech then it was towards the people.

To much people drama, to much "dark" in the time allotted for each episode.

[LtColCarter]

I was not a big fan of SG-U because....

1- Not enough humor. Not nearly enough. Atlantas had a good amount and SG-1 had tons, like the Urgo episode or Window of opportunity. Too much drama without some breaking up of it with humor is bad, bad bad in my opinion. I get enough of that in real life. This is supposed to be entertaining.

2-Not a fan of soap ops, relationship drama is ok in small doses, but not the same repetitive drama in every single episode. If other people enjoy soap ops, ok fine, but leave them on the soap op channel. This is scifi, moreover, this is Stargate. Stargate is about exploring the universe, meeting aliens, fighting people, discovering cool technology with some interpersonal relationships thrown in. SG-U was 80% shes dating him who used to date her but switched over well this person is interested in that person but wont say so that said person ends up with that person over there but she dies and he killed her but she was that person so he had to get revenge and now the other guy is depressed.... Thats high school and collage, not Stargate. The roller coaster of oh no we are all gonna die!!! Oh were fine now. We are all gonna die!!! Oh were fine now. We are all gonna die!! Oh were fine now. Just....*Sigh* It was to much in the time allotted, you did not get a break.

The second season was much better then the first however I must say.

These were some of the reasons I didn't like SGU in the beginning, but as the show went on the episodes got better and more enjoyable.

[Dean Grr]

I just did a quick search on Google, "how HBO makes money" and "why hbo success", and came up with quite a few articles. It's interesting, because as I learned about Syfy, and participated in Joe Mallozzi's blog, I realize now I was asking for Syfy to be like an HBO. HBO runs by having paid subscribers (costing more than a Syfy subscription) and cares about the total audience of viewers for an episode (over repeated showings), and not the first run ratings. HBO owns its shows, so DVD and Itunes purchases go to HBO, not another studio. Here is a recent article from Slate that backs up what Mighty6, for example, was saying:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/c..._ratings_.html

One thing that popped out of the article was how ad sponsored networks are looking at you as a "person who sees a commercial", the show being incidental, while for HBO or Showtime, the show -is- the product! However, SG-1 originally came from Showtime to the Scifi channel, so things are little more complex than what I stated. I also like popcorn-flick type shows at times, rather than highly literary shows that test my intelligence and help me question our culture: it's also good to see shows that have elements of both.

[EdenSG]

Originally Posted by The Mighty 6 platoon
...Fact is if SGU had been on a premium channel like Starz or Showtime, and kept getting the ratings it had in season 2, it would have probably survived. It had higher ratings in season 2 than some of Starz's and Showtime's shows that are expensive to make as SGU. As I said, because of subscribers delivering more money per person than other channels, expensive shows can survive on a lot less viewers. Another key difference is that premium channels care about their overall audience, rather than just the ratings of the initial showing. As long as subscribers are watching the show, be it the initial airing, repeats, DVR's, DVD's or via online services they provide they are happy. This would be of great importance to a show like SGU which a lot of people DVR'd. Even the affect of torrenting the show is reduced, while those who torrent might not pay, they increase the buzz of the show, and often buy the DVD, increasing the profits in the long term.

Premium cable channels do not rely on advertisers dollars as determined by live viewers, to decide which shows they renew and which they cancel. You are right, they do look at at total viewers, live, plus extra showings, DVR - it all counts. They also look at a number of things other than just ratings. But they do have criteria on what shows need to do to get renewed. They just don't renew them because they like them or they have a strong fan base - HBO, Showtime, Starz are in the business to make money - if a show is not helpng them do that in one way or another, than the show is not going to survive for very long.

As I said before they make money by getting subscribers - the more subscribers the more money. That is their goal. They want shows that have the potential for and that bring in new subscribers. How do you attract new subscribers? Lots of positive buzz - people talking about the show - positive mainstream reviews - lots of nominations and awards - critical aclaim - big name/high profile actors, directors, writers etc. all this will give the cable channel a good reputation for producing high quality productions, making it worth the extra money someone has to spend for it.

If a show is getting low ratings it still has a chance to come back if it brings these other benefits to the channel and if it enhances the network brand. Has the show won a bunch of awards that generates pubillcity? Is there a big/well known star involved that will attract a lot of attention? Do they want a relationship with a certain well known/renowned producer or writer or director? Does it reach a certain demograhic group they are interested in? (with "treme" the ratings stink but it is cheap to make and they get some buzz from having a David Simon show - Boardwalk Empire cost a LOT to make, does not have really great ratings but it won 8 emmys)

Also, preminum channels like to own the shows they broadcast. HBO owns ALL the series it shows , Showtime owns about half. The premium channels like to own their own shows because they can maximize profits. They don't like to share profits, they want all the profits from sunscribers, DVD sales, interrnational sales, syndication sales etc, What this means is that any preminum channel is likely not to pick up or run a series that is owned by someone else. MGM owns SG - HBO would never pick it up and this makes it less likely that any premium channel would pick it up. They develop and own their own series.

Another thing is that most premium cable channel series run 12 episodes. Deadwood was on for 2 years - and had three 12 ep seasons in that time - that would be 36 eps. (whereas in 3 seasons of any SG show would have had 60 SG episodes) I don't believe HBO or any premium channel, in recent years. runs a 20 ep season of a scripted show.

I am not saying a Stargate show couldn't survive on a premium cable channel - but I don't think it would have much of a chance of getting on a premium cable and if it did I don't think its chances of surviving past 2 or 3 twelve episode seasons are very good. Why? If SGU, as it was shown on Syfy, aired on HBO and had the same low/decreasing ratings, low critical acclaim, no awards (US awards like an emmy), no special demo group, no really big name actors (Carlyle is a big actor but not well known in the US - by contrast Dustin Hoffman was in "Luck"), so it doesn't really bring any of those extra benefits that enhance the reputation of the cable channel and because MGM owns it the potential profits for HBO (or any premium cable channel) are not there. (MGM takes the DVD profits, international license fee profits, syndication profits, iTune profits etc) Now if SG was able to bring the cable channel a signifcant number new subscribers, than that would certainly help SG survive - the question is could a SG show bring in a large enough number of new subscribers that would cover the cost of production and still generate a profit?

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Premium cable channels do not rely on advertisers dollars as determined by live viewers, to decide which shows they renew and which they cancel. You are right, they do look at at total viewers, live, plus extra showings, DVR - it all counts. They also look at a number of things other than just ratings. But they do have criteria on what shows need to do to get renewed. They just don't renew them because they like them or they have a strong fan base - HBO, Showtime, Starz are in the business to make money - if a show is not helpng them do that in one way or another, than the show is not going to survive for very long.

As I said before they make money by getting subscribers - the more subscribers the more money. That is their goal. They want shows that have the potential for and that bring in new subscribers. How do you attract new subscribers? Lots of positive buzz - people talking about the show - positive mainstream reviews - lots of nominations and awards - critical aclaim - big name/high profile actors, directors, writers etc. all this will give the cable channel a good reputation for producing high quality productions, making it worth the extra money someone has to spend for it.

If a show is getting low ratings it still has a chance to come back if it brings these other benefits to the channel and if it enhances the network brand. Has the show won a bunch of awards that generates pubillcity? Is there a big/well known star involved that will attract a lot of attention? Do they want a relationship with a certain well known/renowned producer or writer or director? Does it reach a certain demograhic group they are interested in? (with "treme" the ratings stink but it is cheap to make and they get some buzz from having a David Simon show - Boardwalk Empire cost a LOT to make, does not have really great ratings but it won 8 emmys)

Also, preminum channels like to own the shows they broadcast. HBO owns ALL the series it shows , Showtime owns about half. The premium channels like to own their own shows because they can maximize profits. They don't like to share profits, they want all the profits from sunscribers, DVD sales, interrnational sales, syndication sales etc, What this means is that any preminum channel is likely not to pick up or run a series that is owned by someone else. MGM owns SG - HBO would never pick it up and this makes it less likely that any premium channel would pick it up. They develop and own their own series.

Another thing is that most premium cable channel series run 12 episodes. Deadwood was on for 2 years - and had three 12 ep seasons in that time - that would be 36 eps. (whereas in 3 seasons of any SG show would have had 60 SG episodes) I don't believe HBO or any premium channel, in recent years. runs a 20 ep season of a scripted show.

I am not saying a Stargate show couldn't survive on a premium cable channel - but I don't think it would have much of a chance of getting on a premium cable and if it did I don't think its chances of surviving past 2 or 3 twelve episode seasons are very good. Why? If SGU, as it was shown on Syfy, aired on HBO and had the same low/decreasing ratings, low critical acclaim, no awards (US awards like an emmy), no special demo group, no really big name actors (Carlyle is a big actor but not well known in the US - by contrast Dustin Hoffman was in "Luck"), so it doesn't really bring any of those extra benefits that enhance the reputation of the cable channel and because MGM owns it the potential profits for HBO (or any premium cable channel) are not there. (MGM takes the DVD profits, international license fee profits, syndication profits, iTune profits etc) Now if SG was able to bring the cable channel a signifcant number new subscribers, than that would certainly help SG survive - the question is could a SG show bring in a large enough number of new subscribers that would cover the cost of production and still generate a profit?

Do you actually read my posts, or do you just enjoy reiterating all the points I made? Because that seems to be most of your post, but thank you anyway for parroting my points about premium channels wanting subscribers, and taking into account things like buzz, awards and relationship with their show runners. Though also, again, managed to put faulty info in your post, Boardwalk Empire is a huge ratings success for HBO, next time I'd suggest that you take more than a cursory look at the listed numbers on wikipedia, the actual numbers brought in are 9 to 10 million per episode, it's one of HBO's most watched shows, it's only the initial ratings which are mediocre, once factoring in repeats, DVR's and HBO GO, you get that huge number, a number that HBO is very happy with.

Anyway as I already explained in an earlier post, the possibility of SGU getting on a premium channel was very low, due to a number of other factors, although not entirely outside the realms of possibility. HBO might own all their content, but they are not the only premium channel, and both Starz and Showtime have a mix of their own content, and co owned stuff. . But as I pointed out, for the sake of argument, had SGU been moved to Starz for season 2 say, had it got the same ratings, the same critical reaction, then yes it probably would have survived. We may have seen less episodes per season, and that probably would have done the show good, removing the padding, but overall there are expensive shows on channels like Starz or Showtime that have lesser ratings, have only average critical reception, yet still survive.

In the end we have no real hard evidence, we can only speculate, but it seems pretty obvious to me that at the very least, SGU, as a dark drama would have had a much better chance of succeeding on a premiumas that type of show thrives, rather than on syfy, where drama shows struggle or die very quickly.

Indeed as I said in an earlier post, which I will reiterate since you don't seem to have read any of them, if you had removed the Stargate, but kept the basic concept of the people stuck on the ship millions of light years from home, it probably would have done very well, and indeed removed the major obstacles to SGU's success. It could have been easily sold to a premium channel, because with the Stargate name gone MGM would not have been involved, and it would have probably got it on to a channel where there was an audience for it, and all the baggage that came with the stargate name would have been gone.

The major problem with SGU was that it was between a rock and a hard place. It was stuck on a channel where drama's struggled and died, but because of the name, it had great difficulty actually removing itself to a channel where it could work.

[Dean Grr]

Mighty6, I feel much better now about the future of scifi drama, because your posts helped distill my thinking: it would be great to have subscriber based scifi shows (vs ad based). A question I had was that HBO has a different network model, that's kinda snuck up on the other channels over the years: it's only recently for me that HBO has become a household name. Why doesn't NBC/Universal have a premium Scifi drama channel, as well as Syfy? I guess it's just hard to break from what you're familiar with.

However, while I agree that Stargate brings SG1 or SGA to mind, look at what BSG Re-Imagined accomplished. SGU is essentially Stargate Re-Imagined. - Dean

ps As an aside, it's sometimes tempting to skip parts of a long post, and start replying right away. Just a thought.

[Gatefan1976]

Mighty6, I feel much better now about the future of scifi drama, because your posts helped distill my thinking: it would be great to have subscriber based scifi shows (vs ad based). A question I had was that HBO has a different network model, that's kinda snuck up on the other channels over the years: it's only recently for me that HBO has become a household name. Why doesn't NBC/Universal have a premium Scifi drama channel, as well as Syfy? I guess it's just hard to break from what you're familiar with.

However, while I agree that Stargate brings SG1 or SGA to mind, look at what BSG Re-Imagined accomplished. SGU is essentially Stargate Re-Imagined. - Dean

ps As an aside, it's sometimes tempting to skip parts of a long post, and start replying right away. Just a thought.

If you remember the very first grim dark days of cable, it was *originally* subscriber funded, same as HBO is now. With the propagation of networks and the need for more variety of Original content, the system (I would wager, no "fact" in this) simply needed a better way to monetize. Not only that, we are talking in times where cable was not damn near avaliable everywhere, the infastructure simply did not exist on the level it does now. (though from what I gather HBO was a pioneer in infastructure itself)
As an amusing side note, HBO built alot of its reputation and success around Boxing matches.............

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

If you remember the very first grim dark days of cable, it was *originally* subscriber funded, same as HBO is now. With the propagation of networks and the need for more variety of Original content, the system (I would wager, no "fact" in this) simply needed a better way to monetize. Not only that, we are talking in times where cable was not damn near avaliable everywhere, the infastructure simply did not exist on the level it does now. (though from what I gather HBO was a pioneer in infastructure itself)
As an amusing side note, HBO built alot of its reputation and success around Boxing matches.............

And porn.

HBO own Cinemax, which is best known for, how shall we put this, it's soft core offerings.

But actually on the subject of Cinemax, it's worth discussing about the audience a channel has and how you go about changing it. Because while basically Cinemax was known for porn, HBO clearly wanted to do more with it so they started commissioning shows for it. Judging by their current strategy they want to have it so they have serious drama's on HBO, then use Cinemax as a sort of sister channel where they can put stuff like action adventure (but they'll probably keep the porn as well .)

So Cinemax make their first show, Strike Back, a joint British- Americna production with Sky, and it's a really entertaining action adventure show. It's a fun show, but with the added experience of all that HBO money and clout, so they also get decent writers like Frank Spotnitz and good directors.

But they also clearly know their audience, and a lot of people who tune into Cinemax tune in for boobs, and boy does Strike back provide those, every episode a new pair of tits. The point is they know their audience, and they know that in order to change the style of the channel, they need to do so gradually.

Back to SGU the point is there clearly was a serious misjudgement about the type of audience that existed on syfy. Brad Wright and Robert C Cooper mistook the critical buzz about BSG and forgot that while it had that, it really struggled in the ratings. And BSG was still at times quite an action packed show. SGU was a slow paced drama, it was not going to do well on syfy because there isn't the audience for that type of show there.

If you wanted to make drama's viable on syfy you needed a few more drama's like BSG first, that still have plenty of action, before putting in a show like SGU. If you want to change the style of show on a channel, then that necessitates a careful balance with the audience of attracting new people who like that style of show, while trying to make sure your current audience don't all leave but rather convince them to stay.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gormagon,

I should have added that it had an entirely different aura that did not feel much like SG. To dark, constantly. To me anyway. And it had to much relationship/people stuff. I do not do well with the people stuff. I do much better with science. It should have been more towards the aliens, meeting them, fighting them, interaction and tech then it was towards the people.

To much people drama, to much "dark" in the time allotted for each episode.

And that darker more dramatic feel is why I liked this show and watched it regularly when I never watched SG-1 and only occasinally watched SGA. I liked the more mature realistic nature of the show as opposed to the more cartoony feel of SG-1 and SGA.

[garhkal]

I enjoyed SGU despite its bumps (Life, Cloverdale) I would have loved to see where it was going in a third season. I still hope someone will revive it.

So do i.. Even some of their bad eps were to me still good to watch as they still did something needed.. whether advance the plot a little, further the interaction with the crew, or make us know a little more about one of the characters.

I have only watched half of the first season but it's problems were evident. The people behind Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis had no idea on how to do the character drama they wanted and that shows in the episodes themselves. You may not notice it from watching it but a majority of the characters are unrelatable, many of them have stuff that detracts from them (Young and her wife for example.) and you only care for like three characters in the end. I've watched the majority of the series and I can't remember these character's names; only Young, Rush, Eli, Chloe, TJ and maybe Scott... The fact that I don't know these character's names proves that they're unrelatable.

I disagree. i find more in relation with many of the crew of SGU than i ever did with SG1/SGA. None are the best and brightest, none are masters of a new form of alien tech just like that (which sga seemed to do a lot more than SG1).. They are flawed, they are human, they are a lot more relatable to us 'peons' than any of the other shows had.
Though i do wish they had a little more names for some of the dozens of other 'faces' we saw..

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.

I might also add in the fans were partially to blame. WE came in to it with high expectations from the other 2 SG shows, and as we were felt let down, we decided to go away rather than try and keep our minds open that this show would be good on its own two feet.

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 think that is part of society as a whole than just the networks.. We have cause of the internet, cell phones etc, become an instant gratification society and as such are all impatient.

A big problem with that kind of thinking is that SGU probably would have had lower ratings on a preminum channel purely because a lot less people have preminium TV versus the basic cable that SyFy consisted of

True.. i know many who do watch Sifi but not any of the premiums (cause they don't want to pony up the 30 a month extra..)..

[python490]

And porn.


Back to SGU the point is there clearly was a serious misjudgement about the type of audience that existed on syfy. Brad Wright and Robert C Cooper mistook the critical buzz about BSG and forgot that while it had that, it really struggled in the ratings. And BSG was still at times quite an action packed show. SGU was a slow paced drama, it was not going to do well on syfy because there isn't the audience for that type of show there.

If you wanted to make drama's viable on syfy you needed a few more drama's like BSG first, that still have plenty of action, before putting in a show like SGU. If you want to change the style of show on a channel, then that necessitates a careful balance with the audience of attracting new people who like that style of show, while trying to make sure your current audience don't all leave but rather convince them to stay.

I had forgotten how poor the ratings were for BSG. Even though it was a good show, but people want a bit of action and adventure since it is Sci-Fi. SGU was trying something pretty new for its time, but could still end up being the future of Sci-Fi maybe there needs to be more drama type shows. Perhaps it was also bad luck people weren't ready for the franchise to go in a different direction yet. I personally at the time wanted more Atlantis.