SGU, by far the most underrated series.

[KEK]

A PCA isn't your typical television award though, the winners are chosen via online voting. I think garhkal was talking more about the awards shows where things like Stargate are ignored by the voting 'peers' that choose the winners. It was one of the things the Game of Thrones production team warned HBO about, even though it didn't turn out to be the case.

[Gatefan1976]

A PCA isn't your typical television award though, the winners are chosen via online voting. I think garhkal was talking more about the awards shows where things like Stargate are ignored by the voting 'peers' that choose the winners. It was one of the things the Game of Thrones production team warned HBO about, even though it didn't turn out to be the case.

Thats fair enough KEK, but considering that Emmy's, GG's and such don't even have a catorgory for Scifi (just Comedy and Drama) it's hardly suprising is it? Hell, even the scream awards don't even have one

Edit to add.
The PCA first ran a "scifi award" in 2008, and SGA *won* against NuBSG and Dr Who.

[Deevil]

SGU wasn't limited because of being a Stargate series, it was limited by poor scripting, characters and their development, contrived storylines and a hype that the writers and producers just couldn't live up too.

They promised more mature and all they delivered was Deus Ex Machina, sex, pointless violence and potential story archs with real moral quandries that went no where.

Do I wish it was better? Yes. Do I think the writers they had on staff had the ability to write this more 'mature' show they promised? Not a chance.

With a lot of distance I discovered that I loved the potential more than I loved the show. I loved the premise more than the show. If I want mature Sci-Fi I'm going to watch Babylon 5, New BSG... hell even The 4400! It wont be SGU I'll turn too.

[KEK]

SGU wasn't limited because of being a Stargate series, [...]

Of course it was, and being a Syfy series too. You can only work within the rules set by lore, and the job of differentiating the series is hard enough without the marketing machine constantly portraying the show as something it isn't. The network it was on doesn't help either. Caprica was dark, heavy and well-written too, but it bombed harder than SGU did. Why? Because Syfy is a network who's audience feeds of reality TV, monster-movies and at a stretch bubblegum sci-fi. BSG is the only notable exception, yet that was heavily dependant on it's SG-1 and Atlantis lead-in, relatively fast-paced, a chock full of action too. I dare say both SGU and Caprica would have done much better on a network like TNT or AMC.

[Colonel Rebel]

I do feel SGU is very underrated. I think by Season 2 it had developed into a really good show.

That said, I still prefer SG1 and SGA. SGA is my favorite of the franchise.

[Deevil]

I get that you enjoyed the show KEK, but I honk it's disingenuous to pretend that SGU's downfall was simply because of the network it aired on and/or Stargate in its title. Or the pompous posteuring that viewers weren't intelligent enough to get it.

There are many of us, myself included, who didn't watch it on US Skiffy and who gave it the benefit of it being 'show' (not just another Stargate) and still found the show lacking because it was, narratively, lacking. Please be ear here though, narratively lacking does not mean it can't be enjoyable. Many show lack in that way and are still fun.

Really, Stargate or not SGU would have still been in the same position because it never delivered on its promises or potential.

[KEK]

I get that you enjoyed the show KEK, but I honk it's disingenuous to pretend that SGU's downfall was simply because of the network it aired on and/or Stargate in its title. Or the pompous posteuring that viewers weren't intelligent enough to get it.

I never said it was all down to the brand and the network, I'm just disputing the notion that it wasn't a factor. It was a big factor, in my view. Suggesting that the audience that eats up reality TV and bubblegum sci-fi probably isn't the same one that would like SGU is hardly the same as saying that the viewers weren't intelligent enough, either. Even ignoring that though, the type of show SGU is just isn't that successful across the board. Caprica, Defying Gravity and Outcasts were all cancelled in their first seasons, for example.

[Deevil]

Did ya ever consider the success rates of the shows have nothing to do with the 'type' of show it is, but rather the execution?

Many shows don't work KEK, and often it's because for a multitude of reasons they just aren't what people want to watch - and that includes a show that is just poorly executed, like IMO SGU was. Caprica and Defying Gravity had a whole host of other problems I'm not even going to begin to address here.

[psl1]

SGU wasn't limited because of being a Stargate series, it was limited by poor scripting, characters and their development, contrived storylines and a hype that the writers and producers just couldn't live up too.

They promised more mature and all they delivered was Deus Ex Machina, sex, pointless violence and potential story archs with real moral quandries that went no where.

Do I wish it was better? Yes. Do I think the writers they had on staff had the ability to write this more 'mature' show they promised? Not a chance.

With a lot of distance I discovered that I loved the potential more than I loved the show. I loved the premise more than the show. If I want mature Sci-Fi I'm going to watch Babylon 5, New BSG... hell even The 4400! It wont be SGU I'll turn too.

Much of what you have written is good but you lost me in the last sentence or two. BSG I survived less than a season before I gave up and Babylon 5 ...no chance despite the best encouragement of friends. In retrospect I realised that STNG strained my tolerance for Syfi and DS9 destroyed it. At least SGU was a fresh breath of air in a REALLY stale universe, that brought me back since it was in the right ballpark for my interests. The first season was perfect even though the characters were lame at times. The second season got increasingly polluted with violence climaxing in the Aleutian alliance crap. The Drone infected galaxy was so-so and the ending disappointing. Having said that I will watch rerun of this show over all others , any day of the week. It’s that good.

I`m probably from a different generation, but ``Deus Ex Machina`` is the basis of virtually all Syfi, so why worry. As a kid back in the early 1960s , when Dr Who uttered the famous words `reverse the polarity of the neutron flow`, and we learnt they rewrote the script so the good doctor escapes certain death and that became part of the charm of Dr WHO. The more science fiction I watched the more I realised that this suspension of disbelief, is absolutely essential to accept almost all such Syfi plots.

[KEK]

Did ya ever consider the success rates of the shows have nothing to do with the 'type' of show it is, but rather the execution?

I would view all four of them as very well written and acted shows, so no. Maybe if it was a mixed bag, but when pretty much every sci-fi character drama out there is struggling to survive, I'd say it says more likely about their appeal in general than all of them coincidentally being executed poorly. When SGU came out for example, if you went on a neutral forum like IMDb, the vast majority of criticisms were criticisms of the type of show it was more than anything else. Slow pace, too much drama/not enough action, not enough humour etc. being the major gripes. That's not to say some people didn't simply think it was a poorly executed sci-fi character drama, but from what I've seen, I don't think that was the shows major problem. And having looked at the original promotion, it's hardy surprising. If I'd seen this and nothing else for example, then I'd expect the show to be some sort of fast paced action sci-fi thriller or something:

[Deevil]

And KEK, that still doesn't mean it was a well put together show. Not by any means. You enjoyed it, good show. I enjoyed Xena too but it'd be ridiculous of me to lorde it as a well executed show with fantastic mis-en-scene because it wasn't. Neither was SGU.

And for that reason I will never find the show underrated. I think it's more overrated in quality. But if ya enjoy it, that's all that matters.

[garhkal]

Peoples Choice Award
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/0..._peoples.shtml

Thanks.. never heard about that iirc.

If I'd seen this and nothing else for example, then I'd expect the show to be some sort of fast paced action sci-fi thriller or something

Man i forgot how good that preview was.. but i agree, looking at it i was expecting something more action based than the prior series..

[KEK]

And KEK, that still doesn't mean it was a well put together show. Not by any means. You enjoyed it, good show. I enjoyed Xena too but it'd be ridiculous of me to lorde it as a well executed show with fantastic mis-en-scene because it wasn't. Neither was SGU.

But that opinion is just as subjective as mine. I'd say it's more likely that some people missed the narrative, or else just didn't relate to it, than it is for the people who did to have spontaneously and independently imagined something that isn't there.

[jeri]

But that opinion is just as subjective as mine. I'd say it's more likely that some people missed the narrative, or else just didn't relate to it, than it is for the people who did to have spontaneously and independently imagined something that isn't there.

Exactly!

[Gatefan1976]

But that opinion is just as subjective as mine. I'd say it's more likely that some people missed the narrative, or else just didn't relate to it, than it is for the people who did to have spontaneously and independently imagined something that isn't there.

What if they did not miss the narrative?
I can understand not relating to the characters, thats an individual thing, but missing the entire narrative is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

[KEK]

What if they did not miss the narrative?
I can understand not relating to the characters, thats an individual thing, but missing the entire narrative is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

"or else didn't relate to it"

In other words, it did nothing for them.

[Deevil]

"or else didn't relate to it"

In other words, it did nothing for them.

Or else it wasn't well executed. That isn't entirely a subjective opinion, it's an analytical one. Enjoyment can be seperated from quality, if you know what you're looking. SGU, irrespective of subjective likes and dislikes, had pretty damn poor scripting for a serial program. It's dependence on Deus Ex Machina was counterproductive to the 'mature' program they wanted to present. The stereotypical, occasionally 2 dimensional, melodramaic characters counters that, as did the wishy, washy undeveloped storylines.

In terms of cinematography, that was pretty much the strongest element of the show.

You seem to think my analysis of the show is based on the fact I didn't love it. It's not, I analyse the shows I love and hate by the same standards and quality wise a number of shows I love fall short... Thankfully entertainment and tight programming don't have to go hand in hand.

[KEK]

Or else it wasn't well executed. That isn't entirely a subjective opinion, it's an analytical one. Enjoyment can be seperated from quality, if you know what you're looking. SGU, irrespective of subjective likes and dislikes, had pretty damn poor scripting for a serial program. It's dependence on Deus Ex Machina was counterproductive to the 'mature' program they wanted to present. The stereotypical, occasionally 2 dimensional, melodramaic characters counters that, as did the wishy, washy undeveloped storylines.

In terms of cinematography, that was pretty much the strongest element of the show.

You seem to think my analysis of the show is based on the fact I didn't love it.

Thus far all you've offered is a list of unsubstantiated assertions, so I've no reason to assume otherwise. I can't for the life of me recall a single deus ex machina for example, let alone a reliance on them.

[jeri]

I have to echo psl1 about Deus Ex Machina. I find it hard to imagine Scifi without it, and there are countless episodes in all Stargate that use this.

I love the slow building development, and I mainly prefer shows like SGU. I saw the characters grow and develop over time. I love to read this kind of work too. I want to know what makes characters tick, not just watch them blow something up.

[Deevil]

Thus far all you've offered is a list of unsubstantiated assertions, so I've no reason to assume otherwise. I can't for the life of me recall a single deus ex machina for example, let alone a reliance on them.

A HUGE example of Deus Ex Machina is the reliance on the stones to offer assistance from Earth so thy don't have to muddle through and solve their own problems.

The truth is a lot of SciFi doesn't rely heavily on the last minute save from a randomly appearing character or weapon or machine.

As for 2 dimensional, cliche characters - Young is by far one of the worse. We've seen this melodramatic character in a number of shows and movies; Jack in 24, nearly every character Bruce Willis has played etc. Rush is the perfect, cliched mad genius who will seemingly to everything in science. Eli is the cliche 'nerd' who learns everything in 2.5 seconds, is young, good and excitable. Greer is the angry soldier. Their characters were nothing new, fresh and they didn't really grow or change in any meaningful way.

Storylines were glossed over, like the rebellion. Consequences were cheap, unrefined and lacked any actual depth.

But really if yo loved the show as it was NONE of this criticism would matter and that's fantastic, but it's also part of the reason people didn't love the show and continue to watch.