PDA

View Full Version : Sci-fi Saved Stargate SG-1 five years ago



Oreo
August 23rd, 2006, 09:34 AM
Yeah the title is misleading, too mad.

Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi Channel is evil and will boycott the network. I heard that before and it never happens. This is nothing like Farscape so stop comparing it to that. Farscape was promised another season and Sci-fi dropped out at the last minute. They dropped out to fund new shows like SG-1. Sci-fi made the show twise as long as it was going to be. They announced it now so that the creators would be given at least some time to wrap up the show befor a TV movie or miniseries or regular movie is made. It's much better than coming out in November or December like they normally do and say it's canceled after it's too late to fix anything.

Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks. Letters saying "Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more" and stop acting like they just killed your child, because it's just a TV show that needed to end at some point.

Anubistraveler
August 23rd, 2006, 09:43 AM
Yeah the title is misleading, too mad.

Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi Channel is evil and will boycott the network. I heard that before and it never happens. This is nothing like Farscape so stop comparing it to that. Farscape was promised another season and Sci-fi dropped out at the last minute. They dropped out to fund new shows like SG-1. Sci-fi made the show twise as long as it was going to be. They announced it now so that the creators would be given at least some time to wrap up the show befor a TV movie or miniseries or regular movie is made. It's much better than coming out in November or December like they normally do and say it's canceled after it's too late to fix anything.

Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks. Letters saying "Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more" and stop acting like they just killed your child, because it's just a TV show that needed to end at some point.



Now I know we got into this kind of an arguement yesterday, but I think respect for the show is the issue. I am fine with the show ending if the network allows the show to do as you say, end with a movie or mini series. However, I believe that the time allowed may not be enough time to end it in the way the fans would like to see it end. I do hope for the mini series, but something tells me that if we do not show our support for the show we may not get that.

HirogenGater
August 23rd, 2006, 10:10 AM
Yeah the title is misleading, too mad.

Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi Channel is evil and will boycott the network. I heard that before and it never happens. This is nothing like Farscape so stop comparing it to that. Farscape was promised another season and Sci-fi dropped out at the last minute. They dropped out to fund new shows like SG-1. Sci-fi made the show twise as long as it was going to be. They announced it now so that the creators would be given at least some time to wrap up the show befor a TV movie or miniseries or regular movie is made. It's much better than coming out in November or December like they normally do and say it's canceled after it's too late to fix anything.

Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks. Letters saying "Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more" and stop acting like they just killed your child, because it's just a TV show that needed to end at some point.

All bow down, the mighty Oreo has spoken!!!!!!!!!

I never said I would boycott Scifi so don't assume all who don't agree with Scifi's decision of ending SG-1 will boycott the station.

I think people are upset with the abrupt way it was done. I don't recall having any warning of it other than clicking on Gateworld and reading the news.

I posted this in another thread but I will post it here as well,
I'm saddened that we won't see SG-1 on another network, but I'm glad that so many (the producers, and MGM) are standing behind the Stargate series and willing to try TV movies, miniseries or a new series. I personally like that last one.

PG15
August 23rd, 2006, 10:11 AM
If a man saves your brother from being hit by a bus, and then shoots him in the face, do you thank the man, or hate him?

Take your time...

Oreo
August 23rd, 2006, 10:20 AM
If a man saves your brother from being hit by a bus, and then shoots him in the face, do you thank the man, or hate him?

Take your time...


You are the best examble for the "Let's kill everyone at Sci-fi Offices" agruement. It's been on ten years and at least 2 years too long.

And how would you have liked the news to come out? Personal calls to all the fans? :rolleyes:

And we already now that the story will continue! We have known that every year since season 4 when they said they wnated to do a movie. So they are given a little time to do some loose ends on the show and then will finish up with TV movies or a movie. Why is ending acting like this is the end of SG-1? Every true fan should know it's not. MGM knows that this is the bestest franchise they have besides James Bond of course it won't end.

PG15
August 23rd, 2006, 10:24 AM
You are the best examble for the "Let's kill everyone at Sci-fi Offices" agruement. It's been on ten years and at least 2 years too long.

And how would you have liked the news to come out? Personal calls to all the fans? :rolleyes:

I didn't want the news to happen at all! And for your information, I think Season 9 and 10 were great.



And we already now that the story will continue! We have known that every year since season 4 when they said they wnated to do a movie. So they are given a little time to do some loose ends on the show and then will finish up with TV movies or a movie. Why is ending acting like this is the end of SG-1? Every true fan should know it's not.

Oh please, "true fan"?! I thought you Anti's hated us pros for using that phrase. And a movie, or a miniseries is NOT BETTER than a season.

Like Anubistraveler said, it'a also about respect; SG1 gave Sci-Fi their current status, and they just kick it aside.

And nice dodging my question by the way.

Oreo
August 23rd, 2006, 10:28 AM
They just kicked it aside?! What ****ing world do you live on?! They gave it 5 seasons and for the past few the ratings have been going down the pits. They ratings are horrible and the show is ten years old. It's time to move on.

PG15
August 23rd, 2006, 10:30 AM
Ratings aren't the issue apparently. You can think it's a lie all you want, but the words are there in black and white (and blue).

And yes, they did kick it aside the moment they finished using it to get 200 eps and get into the Guiness world records. That's why they let it go on past season 8.

And, of course, the question has still been dodged.

neptie
August 23rd, 2006, 10:35 AM
Perfect! That Is Exactly It! They Waited Five Years To Shoot!

Konman72
August 23rd, 2006, 10:46 AM
Also remember that the producers wanted to rebrand ths show to Stargate Command after season 8, but scifi wanted the SG-1 name. Now they cancel it because the SG-1 name is too much money or something.

I understand your sentiment, but scifi has done too much wrong to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

stephsupermom
August 23rd, 2006, 11:20 AM
SciFi shouldnt have cancelled it the day of celebrating the record breaking 200th ep. That was rude and uncalled for.

NowIWillDestroyAbydos
August 23rd, 2006, 11:25 AM
Yeah the title is misleading, too mad.

Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi Channel is evil and will boycott the network. I heard that before and it never happens. This is nothing like Farscape so stop comparing it to that. Farscape was promised another season and Sci-fi dropped out at the last minute. They dropped out to fund new shows like SG-1. Sci-fi made the show twise as long as it was going to be. They announced it now so that the creators would be given at least some time to wrap up the show befor a TV movie or miniseries or regular movie is made. It's much better than coming out in November or December like they normally do and say it's canceled after it's too late to fix anything.

Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks. Letters saying "Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more" and stop acting like they just killed your child, because it's just a TV show that needed to end at some point.
Pretty impressive, Oreo.

the fifth man
August 23rd, 2006, 11:33 AM
Also remember that the producers wanted to rebrand ths show to Stargate Command after season 8, but scifi wanted the SG-1 name. Now they cancel it because the SG-1 name is too much money or something.

I understand your sentiment, but scifi has done too much wrong to deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

I agree with that. All Sci-Fi wanted to do was reach 200 eps so they could have their little record. Amazing how right after it airs, the announcement of the cancellation is let out.

And ratings had nothing to do with it. Sci-Fi even admits that. If it was ratings related, Atlantis would be gone too.

Oreo
August 23rd, 2006, 11:39 AM
Can we get some things right...

Sci-fi didn't cancel it the day of the 200th episode, it was a few afterwards.

Second Sci-fi did want to keep the name and most likely only did because they wanted to break the record, so?

If it was renamed do you think it wouldn't have been canceled? It's the same story, the people would have to be paid the same, and most likely the same ratings. So what would changing the name do? Nothing.

And of course ratings are part of the problem, Sci-fi came out and said watch the show live, everyone was begging to watch the shows live. The ratings didn't go up, the ratings are part of the problem. It's cost and ratings, the cost is high and the ratings are low. Atlantis has slightly higher ratings and much lower costs, so it stays.

And NowIWillDestroyAbydos is it impressive good or impressive how crazy you are? :)

the fifth man
August 23rd, 2006, 11:42 AM
Can we get some things right...

Sci-fi didn't cancel it the day of the 200th episode, it was a few afterwards.

Second Sci-fi did want to keep the name and most likely only did because they wanted to break the record, so?

If it was renamed do you think it wouldn't have been canceled? It's the same story, the people would have to be paid the same, and most likely the same ratings. So what would changing the name do? Nothing.

And of course ratings are part of the problem, Sci-fi came out and said watch the show live, everyone was begging to watch the shows live. The ratings didn't go up, the ratings are part of the problem. It's cost and ratings, the cost is high and the ratings are low. Atlantis has slightly higher ratings and much lower costs, so it stays.

And NowIWillDestroyAbydos is it impressive good or impressive how crazy you are? :)


Oh, excuse us. It was the following Monday. They waited a whole weekend to make the announcment. My bad!

Oreo
August 23rd, 2006, 11:46 AM
And look at the ratings for the 200th, they still aren't good.

the fifth man
August 23rd, 2006, 11:50 AM
And look at the ratings for the 200th, they still aren't good.

And SGA did better how?? That's right, it didn't. A 1.9 is not a bad rating.

Konman72
August 23rd, 2006, 12:16 PM
Can we get some things right...

Sci-fi didn't cancel it the day of the 200th episode, it was a few afterwards.
They announced it to the crew the day of 200, we found out later.


Second Sci-fi did want to keep the name and most likely only did because they wanted to break the record, so?

If it was renamed do you think it wouldn't have been canceled? It's the same story, the people would have to be paid the same, and most likely the same ratings. So what would changing the name do? Nothing.
The rebranding would have caused some cast changes. AT, MS and CJ might not have stayed on, at least not the whole time. The cost would have shot down once they left (which would have happened if the show was at risk of cancellation). So keeping it as SG-1 kept the cost up in the first place.


And of course ratings are part of the problem, Sci-fi came out and said watch the show live, everyone was begging to watch the shows live. The ratings didn't go up, the ratings are part of the problem. It's cost and ratings, the cost is high and the ratings are low. Atlantis has slightly higher ratings and much lower costs, so it stays.
Yes, that whole extra .1 point. I'm sure that was what made it stay. It was a combination of cost + ratings. The cost would have been down if they had rebranded it, and the ratings would have been higher had they actually advertised the damn thing, as evidenced by 200 getting a 1.9, which is excellent by scifi standards, and obviously enough to get a new season since season 9 averaged 1.8.

I appreciate scifi giving us another 5 seasons and would have been fine with them deciding not to continue the show, they just handled it completely wrong. If they had advertised the show and not messed with its schedule and then it still got bad ratings, they would be perfectly justified in cancelling (I would hope they would do it in a proper way, such as waiting more than 6 episodes and then telling them after they are done celebrating, but it is not necessary). However, they screwed up and it led to the cancellation (I know you think "other things" led to the cancellation, but lets just agree to disagree on that. I think this caused it and that is why I am mad at them.)

mindwarped
August 23rd, 2006, 03:05 PM
stargate saved the SciFi channel, Sliders was on it last legs

smurf
August 23rd, 2006, 03:48 PM
The rebranding would have caused some cast changes. AT, MS and CJ might not have stayed on, at least not the whole time. The cost would have shot down once they left (which would have happened if the show was at risk of cancellation). So keeping it as SG-1 kept the cost up in the first place.
As far as the Bridge lot are concerned what you are watching now is the rebranded show, they just weren't allowed to change the name. So no cost savings to be made there unless they actively make the decision to fire someone.



Yes, that whole extra .1 point. I'm sure that was what made it stay. It was a combination of cost + ratings. The cost would have been down if they had rebranded it, and the ratings would have been higher had they actually advertised the damn thing, as evidenced by 200 getting a 1.9, which is excellent by scifi standards, and obviously enough to get a new season since season 9 averaged 1.8.
Excellent by the rest of Sci Fi's output standards, just not by SG-1's standards.
But they wouldn't be looking at the ratings for the one off special episode, they'd be looking at the season so far as a whole. So far it's rated a mere 1.44 for it's first 5 episodes. They advertised it a lot last year and it still dropped. Each year it gets more expensive to make, but in 2 years the ratings have dropped over 30%.
The cost/profit margin isn't working for SG-1 as well as it is for SGA.

Oreo
August 23rd, 2006, 03:55 PM
And SGA did better how?? That's right, it didn't. A 1.9 is not a bad rating.


Atlantis as a whole almost always has higher ratings and it is cheaper to make.

Cost and ratings got SG-1 canceled.

And someone explain to be how Stargate Command would have been cheaper?

NowIWillDestroyAbydos
August 23rd, 2006, 04:26 PM
I agree with that. All Sci-Fi wanted to do was reach 200 eps so they could have their little record. Amazing how right after it airs, the announcement of the cancellation is let out.

And ratings had nothing to do with it. Sci-Fi even admits that. If it was ratings related, Atlantis would be gone too.
Even with the 200th ep, SciFi still hasn't hit 100 episodes (new episodes SciFi has aired), they'll hit that (100 eps) at episode 16 of this season (which according to GW's episode guide it's going to be "Bad Guys"
How do I know, I calculated it last night.

Bragi
August 23rd, 2006, 04:30 PM
Well, the reason behind the cancellation, in my opinion, is bad advertising. Same thing that killed Farscape. That's about the only similarity though, besides Ben and Claudia getting sacked again, of course.

prion
August 23rd, 2006, 04:44 PM
Atlantis as a whole almost always has higher ratings and it is cheaper to make.

Cost and ratings got SG-1 canceled.

And someone explain to be how Stargate Command would have been cheaper?

If Stargate Command is a NEW show, then that would mean a new cast, hence, aka, i.e., cheaper actors. It all boils down to $$$ and the latest Multichannel article proves it.

G8-watcher
August 23rd, 2006, 05:26 PM
Regardless of what you believe concerning SG1… Do Something… you're in a Stargate forum for a reason, YOU CARE... write MARK STERN, Conan O’Brien, SG1 Advertisers, the News, write anyone that can make an impact. If supportive fans concentrate their efforts on a few specific key players, an 11th is possible. This is like the end of a concert, the band leaves but if you make enough noise, they come back for an encore.

You can SOS :vortex04: at-
EVERYTHING- http://www.savestargatesg-1.com/
PETITION- http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Stargate/index.html
CONAN- http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=33884
TISSUE- http://laundr.us/
BOTTLE- http://www.savestargate.com
MYSPACE- http://www.myspace.com/savingsg1

Although many factors were involved, the real decision maker behind the SG1 Cancellation is MARK STERN. He has a large majority of influence on the cancellation and possible, yes, possible continuation of SG1.Trust and believe MGM would keep SG1 where it is but SciFi probably feels they can merge SG1 & SGA viewers and create greater numbers for Atlantis. It doesn’t matter though, there are countless reasons to cancel BUT there are more reasons to keep SG1. It should be stressed that MARK STERN should be receiving the bulk of mailed fan support... too many addresses will lead to less effective group support whereas if MR. Stern were to be flooded, we could make more impact. Here's the VARIETY ARTICLE- http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117948764?categoryid=1009&cs=1
Mark Stern
EVP Original Programming
SciFi
100 Universal City Plaza
Bld. 1440, 14th Floor
Universal City, CA 91608
Mark.Stern@nbcuni.com

Konman72
August 23rd, 2006, 05:33 PM
As far as the Bridge lot are concerned what you are watching now is the rebranded show, they just weren't allowed to change the name. So no cost savings to be made there unless they actively make the decision to fire someone.
AT, MS and CJ would not have been in Stargate Command, at least, not the whole time. They could have easily left the renamed show without a huge problem, and that is assuming they would have been on it in the first place.



Excellent by the rest of Sci Fi's output standards, just not by SG-1's standards.
But they wouldn't be looking at the ratings for the one off special episode, they'd be looking at the season so far as a whole. So far it's rated a mere 1.44 for it's first 5 episodes. They advertised it a lot last year and it still dropped. Each year it gets more expensive to make, but in 2 years the ratings have dropped over 30%.
The cost/profit margin isn't working for SG-1 as well as it is for SGA.
So what if it isn't up to Stargate's norm. Stargate has been setting scifi records since it appeared on the network, of course it was going to drop to a normal level eventually. Look, I'm not saying the ratings aren't bad, they just aren't as bad as everyone is saying. Also, the ratings are mostly due to lack of advertising, as evidenced by the 1.9 on the highly advertised 200 (imagine what it would have been had they advertised enough to have a viewer base before the airing. I don't know about you, but when I miss an episode I wait until I have seen all the ones I missed before watching live again)


Atlantis as a whole almost always has higher ratings and it is cheaper to make.

Cost and ratings got SG-1 canceled.

And someone explain to be how Stargate Command would have been cheaper?
Lower salaries for the new actors.


If Stargate Command is a NEW show, then that would mean a new cast, hence, aka, i.e., cheaper actors. It all boils down to $$$ and the latest Multichannel article proves it.
Exactly.

smurf
August 23rd, 2006, 05:40 PM
AT, MS and CJ would not have been in Stargate Command, at least, not the whole time. They could have easily left the renamed show without a huge problem, and that is assuming they would have been on it in the first place.

There is no proof that they would have been relegated to guest stars. In fact, all pointers suggest they would have remained full time members of the cast simply because it has been stated that as far as the showrunners are concerned this SG-1 (season 9 & 10) is the whole new show.
So unless they are removed or choose to leave no money would be saved by Stargate Command.

And I have doubts that BB, CB and BeauB have come cheap. ;)

All hail the USAF
August 23rd, 2006, 05:49 PM
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Sci-fi did in fact save SG-1 5 years ago however, SG-1 repayed Sci-fi 100 fold by giving it the VERY loyal and huge fanbase, (why do you think BSG is shown on fridays along with SG1 and SGA? Piggy-backing off their popularity) Cutting the show off after only 2 years of the Ori story arch is unfair to the fans, and Sci-Fi needs to remember that the fans are the viewers and without views the channel is nothing. Now, if Sci-Fi wanted to let SG1 go, thats perfectly fine...however I believe at least a season 11 is only reasonible to wrap up to Ori story line. That cannot be done in a mini or a movie.

I believe Sci-Fi's attuitude of knowing what the public wants to view has been slipping (I.E. shows like ECW, I still don't understand how that is even Sci-Fi. Getting rid of First Wave, Farscape and so on). Not to mention, I challenge anyone to find one Sci-Fi original movie worth watching, witht he acception of Riverworld . I give the example A.I. Assault...garbage.

Konman72
August 23rd, 2006, 06:10 PM
There is no proof that they would have been relegated to guest stars. In fact, all pointers suggest they would have remained full time members of the cast simply because it has been stated that as far as the showrunners are concerned this SG-1 (season 9 & 10) is the whole new show.
So unless they are removed or choose to leave no money would be saved by Stargate Command.

And I have doubts that BB, CB and BeauB have come cheap. ;)
And I answer you with a quote from Brad Wright...


Well, sadly, it could've gone on much longer had we re-branded it entirely. One of the problems of SG-1 going into its tenth season, and potentially further on into its eleventh, is that when a show has been on for a very long period of time [is] the baggage. That's not even the right word -- but there's a lot of money that is spent that stops going on the screen.
Something about it being SG-1 was causing it to cost extra, who else guesses it was the salaries of the main 3? With a new name they could have easily let them go had the money become too much. I'm not saying they would be fired, but once the ratings got bad and the money needed to be cut the actors would be let go because of a lack of money, and the show would have been fine since it isn't SG-1, it is Stargate Command.

smurf
August 23rd, 2006, 06:16 PM
And I answer you with a quote from Brad Wright...


Something about it being SG-1 was causing it to cost extra, who else guesses it was the salaries of the main 3? With a new name they could have easily let them go had the money become too much. I'm not saying they would be fired, but once the ratings got bad and the money needed to be cut the actors would be let go because of a lack of money, and the show would have been fine since it isn't SG-1, it is Stargate Command.
Sorry, I hadn't seen BW latest comments. I just went by what they were saying at the start of/during season 9. That's how they were promoting it, sort of pre-empting people saying "it's not stargate anymore".
It won't just be the actors salaries, it's everyone's salaries. I don't think the production staff are working out of pure love.

dolob
August 23rd, 2006, 06:28 PM
Sci-fi saved SG1 how?
By saying that
" under terms of its contract, the network’s decision to cancel the series prohibits MGM from making any new episodes of the show to air on U.S. television." ?

So they don't want more SG1, and they don't want any other networks have it!!
They just want SG1 DEAD.

Talis-_-
August 24th, 2006, 04:28 AM
ok to be sure lets get one thing straight SG-1 literally assimilated what was left of star trek when it got pitted against it, also it also took in alot of the farscape fans as many here will atest to because they are those original fans of farscape.

SG-1 has repaid scifi in spades, its fan base is comparable to star wars and star treks and whatever else you want to compare it to, and to top it all off its virtually the only scifi show whose fan base has a massive female following any fan who's been to a convention will know that, that is unheard of in scifi series and it taps a huge market that isnt really touched.

Its bad enough for scifi channel to use these pathetic SG-1 is old, its expensive and wat not to justify axing something that has been so good to it, but worse for people who call themselves fans of the show to be supporting scifi in axing the show.

In summary - HOW CAN U BE A FAN IF U SUPPORT THE GUYS AXING THE SHOW YOU SAY YOUR A FAN OF

scoey
August 24th, 2006, 04:58 AM
Yeah the title is misleading, too mad.

Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi Channel is evil and will boycott the network. I heard that before and it never happens. This is nothing like Farscape so stop comparing it to that. Farscape was promised another season and Sci-fi dropped out at the last minute. They dropped out to fund new shows like SG-1. Sci-fi made the show twise as long as it was going to be. They announced it now so that the creators would be given at least some time to wrap up the show befor a TV movie or miniseries or regular movie is made. It's much better than coming out in November or December like they normally do and say it's canceled after it's too late to fix anything.

Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks. Letters saying "Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more" and stop acting like they just killed your child, because it's just a TV show that needed to end at some point.

I agree with some of this. Some of the posts in this place are beyond creepy. The show has been going for 10 seasons, it's hardly a tragedy that it's been cancelled, especially considering the visible drop in quality and ratings recently. Sci-Fi channel is a business, some people here seem to be mistaking it for one of their friends, with silly comments like "I think people are upset with the abrupt way it was done. I don't recall having any warning of it other than clicking on Gateworld and reading the news." What do you want? Sci-Fi channel to take you out for a cosy meal and break it to you gently?

Then again, letters of thanks? WTF? They didn't show SG-1 because they're your buddy who wanted to do you a favour, they did it because there was money to be made from doing so.

All hail the USAF
August 24th, 2006, 09:14 AM
I agree with some of this. Some of the posts in this place are beyond creepy. The show has been going for 10 seasons, it's hardly a tragedy that it's been cancelled, especially considering the visible drop in quality and ratings recently. Sci-Fi channel is a business, some people here seem to be mistaking it for one of their friends, with silly comments like "I think people are upset with the abrupt way it was done. I don't recall having any warning of it other than clicking on Gateworld and reading the news." What do you want? Sci-Fi channel to take you out for a cosy meal and break it to you gently?

Then again, letters of thanks? WTF? They didn't show SG-1 because they're your buddy who wanted to do you a favour, they did it because there was money to be made from doing so.


Dude...calm down...people have the right to but upset that their favorite show is ending. I think what they mean when they say how there was no warning is that there has been no announcement on Sci Fi itself...I mean to those viewers without the internet SG1 will just end one day with no explination.

Oreo
August 24th, 2006, 09:19 AM
Do any of you really think they would have fired all three main actors of SG-1 to make Stargate Command? If they did that people would be more pissed off than they are now.

And some of the people here are creepy. Upset that the show is ending is one thing, acting like a terrorist because a damn show was canceled is another. People are talknig about killing everyone at Sci-fi and blewing the place up, that is VERY creepy.

And I'm here because I like the Stargate Universe and not SG-1 anymore. I'm so very glad they finally ended it. A few seasons too late but better now then later. I'm hoping this will make Atlantis better.

JediCavalier
August 24th, 2006, 09:22 AM
I really don't think you guys are reading your own site's news.

Robert Cooper thinks the show will just switch channels, not end entirely.

MediaSavant
August 24th, 2006, 09:23 AM
Dude...calm down...people have the right to but upset that their favorite show is ending. I think what they mean when they say how there was no warning is that there has been no announcement on Sci Fi itself...I mean to those viewers without the internet SG1 will just end one day with no explination.

What kind of announcement are you looking for? A scroll at the bottom of the screen saying "SG-1's last original episode airs in May 2007"? Are other networks doing this now?

They put it on the SciFiwire. They don't have to alert viewers of the finale until next Spring when it actually airs.

All hail the USAF
August 24th, 2006, 09:31 AM
They put it on the SciFiwire. They don't have to alert viewers of the finale until next Spring when it actually airs.

Like I said...that will do viewers with no internet no good. I fully understand that Sci Fi is a business, I am very sad to see SG1 go and I wish the actors nothing but the best. But I feel that SciFi is making very poor choices as a business. A simple 20 second commercial would be enough to announce that the most popular show on the station will not be shown as of June next year, I think thats only fair to the viewers

Oreo
August 24th, 2006, 09:34 AM
I really don't think you guys are reading your own site's news.

Robert Cooper thinks the show will just switch channels, not end entirely.


I don't think you are reading any news at all. Do you know how to read? You seem to be in the crowd of people that think it will change networks. He NEVER said anything about it changing networks. What he did say was that SG-1's story will not end. Which is obvious and means that they will do TV movies or miniseries or something. Someone here even posted the news that they were planning TV movies.

So I really don't think you are reading your own site's news correctly.

And SG-1 isn't the most popular show on the station. If it was it would still be on the station.

All hail the USAF
August 24th, 2006, 09:40 AM
The nature of MGM's contract with Scifi prohibits Stargate from going anywhere else. I'm looking for the link to said contract as we speak.



And SG-1 isn't the most popular show on the station. If it was it would still be on the station.

To be fair, it is the most popular, however more people are TiVoing it instead of watching it live and that is why ratings are dropping, it's being watched more then ever now...just not live. This is the new danger is any very popular show now-a-days.

Oreo
August 24th, 2006, 09:44 AM
To be fair, it is the most popular, however more people are TiVoing it instead of watching it live and that is why ratings are dropping, it's being watched more then ever now...just not live. This is the new danger is any very popular show now-a-days.

Umm no it's not. If you want to think that everyone is Tivoing it than fine, live in your dream world, but there isn't nearly as people watching it / Tivoing it than there was a few seasons ago.

And why would more people watch Atlantis live and not just Tivo that? it's because people aren't watching SG-1 on their Tivos, they just aren't watching it anymore.

All hail the USAF
August 24th, 2006, 09:49 AM
Umm no it's not. If you want to think that everyone is Tivoing it than fine, live in your dream world, but there isn't nearly as people watching it / Tivoing it than there was a few seasons ago.

And why would more people watch Atlantis live and not just Tivo that? it's because people aren't watching SG-1 on their Tivos, they just aren't watching it anymore.

I don't know why you think you have to be so rude but if you don't want to agree thats fine...

I for one will miss SG1 very much and I wish the actors and writers only the best.

the fifth man
August 24th, 2006, 10:09 AM
I don't know why you think you have to be so rude but if you don't want to agree thats fine...

I for one will miss SG1 very much and I wish the actors and writers only the best.

A lot of us will miss the show. You're definitely not alone.:) There are many that are still fans of this show.

Admiral Mappalazarou
August 24th, 2006, 12:18 PM
It's true that they rescued SG-1, but consider this - Was some other network about to pick up Stargate before SciFi got there?

Konman72
August 24th, 2006, 01:55 PM
Do any of you really think they would have fired all three main actors of SG-1 to make Stargate Command? If they did that people would be more pissed off than they are now.

And some of the people here are creepy. Upset that the show is ending is one thing, acting like a terrorist because a damn show was canceled is another. People are talknig about killing everyone at Sci-fi and blewing the place up, that is VERY creepy.

And I'm here because I like the Stargate Universe and not SG-1 anymore. I'm so very glad they finally ended it. A few seasons too late but better now then later. I'm hoping this will make Atlantis better.
It wouldn't be firing now would it. Are you not understanding that Stargate Command would have been a new show? Basically a spin-off, but taking place on Earth and with the SGC and Ori. The main 3 could have come or they couldn't, either way, it wouldn't matter since it isn't SG-1, it is SGC. Wright even said that the show could have gone on to seasons 14 and 15 (figuratively of course since those would have been seasons 5 and 6 of SGC) if they had rebranded it. Why is that? Because the main 3 would not have been essential to the shows survival like they are to SG-1.

I understand that you didn't like SG-1 anymore and are glad it is ending, but many of us disagree. Let us be mad and angry and upset, it isn't hurting anyone now is it. And there are very few people talking about violence, and those are all crazy. Every show has them, just ignore them, they are joking (or exaggerating) anyway.

Oh, and I hope this makes Atlantis better too since the show has pretty much sucked since season 2 began. The only reason I watched it was because it had the word Stargate in the title and appeared after SG-1.


Umm no it's not. If you want to think that everyone is Tivoing it than fine, live in your dream world, but there isn't nearly as people watching it / Tivoing it than there was a few seasons ago.

And why would more people watch Atlantis live and not just Tivo that? it's because people aren't watching SG-1 on their Tivos, they just aren't watching it anymore.
Yes that huge .1 higher rating. You seem to latch onto that a lot. Was Atlantis getting better ratings? Yes...by .1 points. HUZZAH!

The only reason Atlantis is still around is because it is cheaper to make. It lost just as many viewers as SG-1 did by the way. So obviously something other than lower quality SG-1 is the cause, unless Atlantis has lowered its quality as well (I would actually agree that Atlantis has lowered quality, but would disagree with SG-1. You seem to think Atlantis is great and SG-1 has become horrible, which I disagree with completely)

Either way, why must you be the wet blanket? No one is getting hurt. People are grieving, let them do it in their own way.

PG15
August 24th, 2006, 01:57 PM
Do any of you really think they would have fired all three main actors of SG-1 to make Stargate Command? If they did that people would be more pissed off than they are now.

They sort of wanted to do that with Atlantis, but decided to continue both shows. Cancelling SG1 and replacing it with Atlantis with a brand new cast is no different than cancelling SG1 and replacing with with SGC with a brand new cast.

But then, Season 7 did pretty well, so this is all moot.


And some of the people here are creepy. Upset that the show is ending is one thing, acting like a terrorist because a damn show was canceled is another. People are talknig about killing everyone at Sci-fi and blewing the place up, that is VERY creepy.

To be fair, a lot of people use hyperboles when they're really mad. Can you seriously say that you've never exclaimed "I'm gonna kill him!" if, say, a friend accidentally ruined your school report or what not? I don't think you actually mean it, but its's just an expression of anger.

I really doubt anybody who says they're gonna do these things are actually gonna do it if given the chance.

machf
August 24th, 2006, 02:10 PM
Sci-fi saved SG1 how?
By saying that
" under terms of its contract, the network’s decision to cancel the series prohibits MGM from making any new episodes of the show to air on U.S. television." ?


Well, fortunately the world isn't just the U.S., so the show could still air everywhere else. U.S. fans would have to buy it on DVD or download it from the Internet in order to watch it. Or watch it from a Canadian or Mexican station, or satellite channel.

And what does "airing" a show mean? To me, it means broadcasting it over the airwaves, to get it on your TV through the antenna- it doesn't apply to cable or satellite TV.

You see, it's not the end of the world... there are always workarounds.

HirogenGater
August 24th, 2006, 06:46 PM
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Sci-fi did in fact save SG-1 5 years ago however, SG-1 repayed Sci-fi 100 fold by giving it the VERY loyal and huge fanbase, (why do you think BSG is shown on fridays along with SG1 and SGA? Piggy-backing off their popularity) Cutting the show off after only 2 years of the Ori story arch is unfair to the fans, and Sci-Fi needs to remember that the fans are the viewers and without views the channel is nothing. Now, if Sci-Fi wanted to let SG1 go, thats perfectly fine...however I believe at least a season 11 is only reasonible to wrap up to Ori story line. That cannot be done in a mini or a movie.


I agree.

End the show after Season 11, give the fans of this franchise time to let that sink in and I think there wouldn't be AS MUCH of an outcry as there is now. Ending the show now is forcing the writers to cram and cramming is one of the worst possible things for TV series with such a loyal fanbase.

Anubistraveler
August 24th, 2006, 07:22 PM
Umm no it's not. If you want to think that everyone is Tivoing it than fine, live in your dream world, but there isn't nearly as people watching it / Tivoing it than there was a few seasons ago.

And why would more people watch Atlantis live and not just Tivo that? it's because people aren't watching SG-1 on their Tivos, they just aren't watching it anymore.


It really sounds like you are very rude and self absorbed in your opinion. If you hate sg-1 so much then get the hell of the thread. Be respectful please of the saddness that the cancelation of the show has caused. Oh wait I have debated this with you before, and I have only come to the conclusion that you just want to fight with people about this show. Go eat some Oreos!

System Lord Anubis
August 24th, 2006, 07:28 PM
You know, I feel like I want to take the Sci-Fi execs strangle them, run 'em over with a truck, drop them in an active volcano, and rip them to shreads, but that doesn't mean I actually am going to do it. The outcry is the result of what HirogenGater is saying with the prospect of the writers having to cram stuff into about 2 episodes, if that, to finish season 10 off and the series respectively.

As it is, I'm very creative with letter writing at times and also very effective at informing people of situations that just generally make me unhappy. So, I'm going to try helping the Save SG-1 Campaign with letters of my distaisfaction of the cancellation to the Sci-Fi execs, while thanking them for the five extra years at the same time. Oreo, you have to realize people care about this like it's family, and they can not help but get attached to a show like this that's been on for a decade and had such an impact on people's lives. Pardon my O'Neill-ism: But it would be like if someone canceled the Simpsons for cryin' out loud! Okay, O'Neill moment over. Caring/Not Caring doesn't make one less of a fan, but what makes one a fan is they can all cohesively like SG-1 for what it was, liking the good and the bad both respectively and learn to agree to disagree with one another at these points instead of fighting it out, fighting gets nothing done, it's ineffective and sad to see a fandom turn to that page.

A show like SG-1, that's been on for ten years, you've just got to understand a negative outcry is expected at the fact that Sci-Fi is telling the TPTB to cancel the series they wanted to end in seasons 5, 6, 7 and 8 and then grew secure with the fact that they were going to be renewed in the 9th and 10th because of them making their format changes some for the worse, some for the better. This is what I mean when I say TPTB weren't even expecting it to be forcibly ended and now they have so little time to wrap up a story that they were expecting to probably go for 2-3 more seasons. I really do not think anyone can wrap something like this up in 2 standard length episodes in the end, after all it took 3 episodes in season 8 to "tie" everything up with the Goa'uld, Jaffa, Replicators, and such. Not to mention, "Threads" was not made to be standard length in the slightest. To this end, this is why I'm mad at Sci-Fi, because not only is it disrespectful to lie to the people behind Stargate (Actors, Production Staff, Writers, etc.) it's rude to the fans who have supported and watched over the years growing accustomed to this new storyline, and I think a lot of the members here feel the same as I do to that extent. Yes all good things must come to an end at some point, this I agree with because people grow tired, but... BUT when it is something forced to an end and shut down it is never a good thing for anybody.

N8ball88
August 24th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Very nicely put, System Lord Anubis. I think you've got it in a nutshell.

scoey
August 24th, 2006, 08:17 PM
But it would be like if someone canceled the Simpsons for cryin' out loud!


One can dream ;) It would still be at least 7 years overdue. If anything the Simpsons is a prime example of why great shows should be cancelled when the time is right for their own/the fans sake.

Apart from that, you make some good, sensible points. Good post.

System Lord Anubis
August 24th, 2006, 08:50 PM
One can dream ;) It would still be at least 7 years overdue. If anything the Simpsons is a prime example of why great shows should be cancelled when the time is right for their own/the fans sake.

Apart from that, you make some good, sensible points. Good post.

Well, I know, I just was looking for a quick parallel for a long running series that would cause generally a similar form of outcry if it were canceled in the manner of which SG-1 was canceled in especially seeing how Simpson's is what Fox is known for nowadays. Personally, I'm more of a Family Guy fan when it comes to animation in the mature comedy sense. I do think The Simpsons still has it's moments of laughter when I watch from time to time.

To be perfectly honest, when I first heard the news about SG-1's cancellation it seemed surreal to me, like a joke then I realized it wasn't April Fool's and Stargate being a "thing I look forward to for Friday" I got a bit overwhelmingly upset at the news. It's been part of my viewing habits for nearly the last ten years from when I first caught it in syndication and part of me convincing my mom and dad to get Showtime to actually watch the first runs. I'm 21 now, nearly 22. It just seems like that one good thing you look forward to in the week. Don't get me wrong, I love Atlantis, but Atlantis has it's own formula and it's growing on me somewhat, but not like SG-1. I liked SG-1 simply because it was a "Wow this feels like it's happening NOW!" and I like a bit of realism in my science fiction, not to mention I liked the fact they had actual science in it and to that end it reminded me of my love for Jurassic Park. Some of you may have laughed at that I bet, but Jurassic Park had a lot of science involved in it, from the cloning to the paleontological aspects too. I do ultimately like the novel over the film because it describes the science and every other thing a whole lot more effectively than the films could do, especially the third one which remains as a great disappointment in the fan base to this day.

Anyways, there I go again in another long post, LOL ;)

Anubistraveler
August 25th, 2006, 08:19 AM
I have come to accept the fact that the show is being cancelled, but that does not mean I am not campaigning for its return. I am interested to hear an announcement from cooper and company regarding a mini series or movie, etc.

I would like to see the show saved, but I believe we must take what we can get for this long running series. Scifi is going to lose viewership because of this desicion, because I know for a fact that many people only watch scifi for sg-1. Me I only watch the network for the gates and BSG, and maybe the occasional movie or mini series...but for the most part the network while showing scifi shows could be doing so much more. As I have read in other posts, the Scifi network has lost a big opportunity to create shows based on famous novels, and create shows that further the scifi genre.

Unfortunatly all they can offer now for me is Atlantis and BSG....and maybe a sg-1 mini series or movie.

I think we should write letters to scifi not just to express our displeasure for the show being cancelled, but also about our displeasure about their choices in programing. Me I think I will be writing a letter explaining the differences between wrestling and scifi. ;)

chris777
August 25th, 2006, 09:14 PM
It's all my fault sorry for starting to like the show.
It always happens when I get interested in something the powers that
be kill it.

Now thats out of the way, Some conjecture, Anyone else notice that this came pretty close on the heels of the announcement (yet again) of more interest in a sequel(s) to the original stargate film?
Leaving altantis in tact is reminicent of the star trek movie franchise.
Where its still on the air as a reminder its still alive, and money can be made on the theatrical.

Problem is if they pull it off like that it will be like the farscape movie.
(and nope I didn't get the chance to kill that one as it had already been put down before I found it)
The movie was great, but it had waaaaay too much crammed into it.

I agree with ending something before it "jumps the shark" (and no I dont think it has already), but it is pretty messed up how they let the writers plan out the ori arc to the point it obviously would have lasted at least 1 more season, only to put it down, knowing that it won't be able to be wrapped up "properly" If the writers had known this was the last season, I have no doubt it could have been done this season, and given a "proper" send off.

The only way I can see this having a decent ending is if ALL of the "stand alone filler" episodes tat are already listed and have not begun production are scrapped, and the remaining unfilmed episodes are devoted to exclusively to the ori storyline. Plus they will probably have to kill the "scavenger hunt/wild goose chase" hunt for the merlin weapon, or whatever they plan on wrapping this up with (if it has even been finalized) and keep subplots to a bare minimum, or relevant issues and other unresolved threads that need to be tied up before conclusion.(don't see it happening, but who knows) The other obvious possibility is a cliffhanger for the potential "movie"

I also find it odd that 2 seasons ago it was so popular it needed 2 shows to tell its story, and now all of a sudden its suddenly in need of euthanasia. Something is just fishy, But then again Sci fi now has rasslin, and the utterly dissapointing eureka, and the "*******ized" Dr Who.
It is also Odd if they want to grow the chanel and provide new progremming year round that they would kill it now when they dont have enough "proven" franchises going to do what they claimed they wanted to do. It's like pruning a plant so that it produces more, but instead of cutting off the excess that chokes back the fruit, they cut the fruit bud itself off, so that they can grow Rasslin of all things? Kind of reminds me of frascape being replaced by tremors, and we all know what a gem tremore was. In fact now that I think about it, isnt it the same audience that rasslin is going to bring in?

Oreo
August 26th, 2006, 12:43 AM
It's all my fault sorry for starting to like the show.
It always happens when I get interested in something the powers that
be kill it.



My mom has that power too.

And is everyone forgetting that the plan for SG-11 in the first place was to end SG-1 before the Gou'ald were defeated so why do they have to defeat the Ori before the end of the show.

Konman72
August 26th, 2006, 09:41 AM
My mom has that power too.

And is everyone forgetting that the plan for SG-11 in the first place was to end SG-1 before the Gou'ald were defeated so why do they have to defeat the Ori before the end of the show.
It wasn't "the plan" it was that they didn't think they would make another season, so they made it that way, just like they will have to make it so the Ori aren't defeated at the end of this season.

Also, I would have been upset had they ended it in season 6 or 7, so that argument means nothing to me.

Why are you soooooo negative? It seems like all you are trying to do is take away all hope we have just because you don't like the show anymore. Pretty sad thing to do if you ask me. Just let us do what we can/want and if nothing comes from it, oh well, at least we tried. We are not hurting you in any way, so just let it go.

Oreo
August 26th, 2006, 11:53 AM
HAHAHAHAHA

You are telling me to "just let it go"? Maybe you should tell that to yourself over and over again.

And I'm saying that the show lasted 10 seasons and Sci-fi saved it 5 years ago and it's time to move on to the SG-1 movies and mini-series. Maybe people here feel like they just killed their first born child and are threating to kill people and blow up things. But I'm the negitive one... right.... :rolleyes:

The Ori
August 26th, 2006, 12:14 PM
If a man saves your brother from being hit by a bus, and then shoots him in the face, do you thank the man, or hate him?

Take your time...

Hey I love you so much, marry me I'm male but what you sadi moved me so much that I don't care if your male or female. :) (or cat :p)

ShadowMaat
August 26th, 2006, 12:35 PM
Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks.
Great sentiment, Oreo, and I agree with everything you said. In fact, I've been saying similar things myself... and getting likewise lambasted for it. :rolleyes:

If I had any quibble with SCIFI it'd be that (IMO) they dragged the show out past its expiration date just so they could get the record. But whatever. I know I'm in the definite minority on that point and I'm not really interested in arguing about it or defending my POV.

It was nice of them to give the producers enough warning so they can make some changes for the final three eps, but I have a feeling even TPTB don't appreciate that. ;)

Kudos to your idea, Oreo, but don't expect anyone to listen! :P

Oreo
August 26th, 2006, 12:48 PM
Oh I don't expect anyone to listen but there are at least two of us. People think I hate the show and everything. I don't like what the show has become but I love the universe that was created and it's time to show more of that universe through different eyes.

What really gets me are the people that yell at me and then tell me to calm down. Being mad over a show you like ending is ok, even if it lasted ten year, but planning to kill people is over the line crazy and I get made fun of and told to calm down. It's not even like the show is really ending, we will get miniseries and frankly I think that is better than a show. They have show that they can only come up with maybe 4-5 episodes a year that are really good and then we have tons of filler. Now that the show is ending the filler should be pushed to the side to make room for the good stuff.

Konman72
August 26th, 2006, 01:27 PM
HAHAHAHAHA

You are telling me to "just let it go"? Maybe you should tell that to yourself over and over again.

And I'm saying that the show lasted 10 seasons and Sci-fi saved it 5 years ago and it's time to move on to the SG-1 movies and mini-series. Maybe people here feel like they just killed their first born child and are threating to kill people and blow up things. But I'm the negitive one... right.... :rolleyes:
I am fine with a movie and/or mini-series, as are most of the people you are criticising. The season 11 push is extra, kind of a "best case scenario" deal.

You really need to get off the whole, "people are talking about killing people" thing. They are exaggerating and you know it, or should at least.

And yes, you are the negative one. Those people are upset, but then they talk about how to fix it while you sit there telling them to shut up and accept the end.

In the end remember this, they aren't saying you're wrong in your opinion, you are saying they are. If you feel that the show has become something bad and went too long, that is fine. I, and others like me, think it is really good and should go on at least one more year. Why am I wrong in thinking that? (And don't bring up the people talking about killing etc. they are few and far between and you know full well that they are not serious in any way, shape or form.)

ShadowMaat
August 26th, 2006, 02:15 PM
What really gets me are the people that yell at me and then tell me to calm down.
What I find highly amusing is that a lot of the people who've told me to shut up and said that I "can't accept change" are now screaming over the possibility that SG-1 characters might get transferred to Atlantis. Um... isn't that a "change" too? Shouldn't they just shut up and accept it or go away and stop bothering all the "true" fans? ;)

I don't like the idea of SG-1 characters on Atlantis, either, but the hypocrisy being exhibited by some fans still makes me grin. :D

Anubistraveler
August 26th, 2006, 03:03 PM
I am fine with a movie and/or mini-series, as are most of the people you are criticising. The season 11 push is extra, kind of a "best case scenario" deal.

You really need to get off the whole, "people are talking about killing people" thing. They are exaggerating and you know it, or should at least.

And yes, you are the negative one. Those people are upset, but then they talk about how to fix it while you sit there telling them to shut up and accept the end.

In the end remember this, they aren't saying you're wrong in your opinion, you are saying they are. If you feel that the show has become something bad and went too long, that is fine. I, and others like me, think it is really good and should go on at least one more year. Why am I wrong in thinking that? (And don't bring up the people talking about killing etc. they are few and far between and you know full well that they are not serious in any way, shape or form.)


Yep I agree, season 11 is the icing on the cake. The mini series will be nice, and a movie would be nicer.

The_Fifth
August 26th, 2006, 03:29 PM
Sci-fi saved SG1 how?
By saying that
" under terms of its contract, the network’s decision to cancel the series prohibits MGM from making any new episodes of the show to air on U.S. television." ?

So they don't want more SG1, and they don't want any other networks have it!!
They just want SG1 DEAD.

really !!!!!!!! i cant believe that !!

JONeill97
August 26th, 2006, 03:49 PM
Yeah the title is misleading, too mad.

Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi Channel is evil and will boycott the network. I heard that before and it never happens. This is nothing like Farscape so stop comparing it to that. Farscape was promised another season and Sci-fi dropped out at the last minute. They dropped out to fund new shows like SG-1. Sci-fi made the show twise as long as it was going to be. They announced it now so that the creators would be given at least some time to wrap up the show befor a TV movie or miniseries or regular movie is made. It's much better than coming out in November or December like they normally do and say it's canceled after it's too late to fix anything.

Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks. Letters saying "Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more" and stop acting like they just killed your child, because it's just a TV show that needed to end at some point.

Oh THANK YOU! This show was supposed to end 2 years ago (s8, Moebius pt 2). Yet, the producers got greedy and wanted more $$, so they continued, COMPLETELY destroying Stargate SG-1 forever. SG-1 followed the movie nicely for 8 straight years, fighting the Goa'uld and dealing with the annoying replicators. Now, all of a sudden, they thought it was OKAY to continue w/o the ORIGINAL SG-1 and create a totally new show, but leaving the show title as it was ("Stargate SG-1"). They screwed up, people didn't like it, the ratings dropped, SCI FI pulled the plug to kill it quickly rather than leaving it to die very slowly. Let's face it - And I'll say this over and over again - The reason behind the death of SG-1 was continuing without RDA/Jack. Because of him, the show lasted as long as it did. How many "MacGyver" fans do you think supported this series? When you continue without the man who probably had the most influence on the strength and popularity of the show, you are obviously going to lose a lot of fans. And in this case, we all saw (or see) what happened. You know... atleast create another spin-off rather than tarnishing the show's name. All in all - I'm in favour of SCI FI's decision to cancel SG-1 and prohibiting MGM from giving the rights and stuff to another US network. And forget moving it to a network in Canada.

Harekin
August 26th, 2006, 04:00 PM
Why not allow people in different countries to continue watching? *mod snip* Just cos a few people didnt like Seasons 8+ doesnt mean it should get cancelled...there are possibly millions of other people watching it. Your telling me cos an American channel cant show it anymore, me, in Ireland shouldnt get it anymore?! Thats insane.

JohnDuh
August 26th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi
Channel is evil


They are - didn't you see? They will actively block any other station from showing new episodes of SG1 even if they wanted to.



and will boycott the network.


Indeed, bye bye.

JONeill97
August 26th, 2006, 05:33 PM
They are - didn't you see? They will actively block any other station from showing new episodes of SG1 even if they wanted to.

It was part of their contract with MGM. I don't see how it's their fault. If you wanna blame someone (er.. something), blame the contract. That's what's messing this whole thing up.

ShadowMaat
August 26th, 2006, 06:11 PM
MGM signed the contract. That isn't SCIFI's fault.

Anubistraveler
August 26th, 2006, 07:15 PM
MGM signed the contract. That isn't SCIFI's fault.


Perhaps not, but the point is the show will carry on in some way. I agree that this may a good way to open up the stargate universe.....but I think sg-1 deserves a respectable ending. Thats what I think most of the stable fans of the show think....I think many are still having trouble accepting the show has been cancelled. In my opinion the fans need to take a wait and see what MGM's next move is going to be before taking this campaign further then it already is.

HirogenGater
August 26th, 2006, 07:25 PM
MGM signed the contract. That isn't SCIFI's fault.

Are contracts like these released to public viewing? I'm guessing no but I would really like to see what EXACTLY this contract says. I am hearing conflicting reports,

MGM is shopping SG-1 around
No new SG-1 broadcast in the US.

mrjason22193
August 26th, 2006, 08:00 PM
MGM does have blame for signing the contract. But Sci Fi does not have to enforce that part of the contract. Sci Fi could agree to allow the show to be produced elsewhere. I highly doubt there enforcing it just to enforce it. Only two that seem right either or both they do not want another station possibly making money off stargate OR they want a backup plan encase they see they have messed up big time and decide to bring it back.

I started watching Atlantis when it started and I have just recently gotten into Stargate SG1 and have been catching up (at Season 7 now). SG1 has become now in my opinion a way better show than atlantis could ever be. It just seems really messed up Sci Fi not doing its best to save Stargate. Its their flagship title. I read My Advice to SCI FI Channel article by Darren Sumner on this site and believed those kind of actions would have seriously brought in good ratings. But in the end i believe Sci Fi was tired of Stargate and just used the ratings as time to get rid of it.

But if it comes down to it & Sci Fi wont work to find a common ground I believe if done right Stargate on the internet would be amazing. ANd we wouldnt have to deal with Nielson ratings But with real data of whos watching. But for it to work alot I believe alot would have to go in to make it work. First and foremost (if money allowed) it would need more than one show so to have more attention & viewers. If their would be any way at all to get Atlantis to come along MGM needs to do it. And hey if not they could always think of another show. They would need to make a big deal about it... News will go crazy with a show going on the internet... go with it.

Hopefully in the end everything will work out

Orange Crush
August 26th, 2006, 09:08 PM
RE: the contract . . . it's probably a lot stickier than we think. Stargate SG-1 is an expensive show. The longer a show goes on, the higher the salaries the actors command, and let's face it--it's science fiction, so it still needs a healthy FX budget. At some point it just doesn't make sense to continue funding the show any longer.

Another network might be able to negotiate with USA/Scifi for first-run rights for a new season, but unless they can get re-run rights for the previous 10 years of episodes, it's an extremely risky proposition. Furthermore, the network with rerun rights will want to be able to show the whole series, so if they jumped networks again, what would we wind up with--new season 11, reruns on Scifi, and eventually reruns of season 11 eps exclusively on the future network with Scifi having the rights to air everything else? I doubt that a lot.

My thinking is that we'll either get a theatrical movie or a mini-series on Scifi . . . maybe both.

Exiled Master
August 26th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Sci-fi saved SG1 how?
By saying that
" under terms of its contract, the network’s decision to cancel the series prohibits MGM from making any new episodes of the show to air on U.S. television." ?

So they don't want more SG1, and they don't want any other networks have it!!
They just want SG1 DEAD.
Yeah, that pretty much skullf***s SG-1. To borrow from Republican senators, Sci-Fi's move was cut-and-run.

Gate_traveler
August 26th, 2006, 11:12 PM
Well I hate to post cause its gonna stir a hornets nest but here goes.
Fact 1 there are more people watching then what the ratings show, unless you happen to have one of those nice shiny boxes or get one of those forms in the mail that you can track what and when you watch then how can you trully know how many people really watch something.

Fact 2 When if and i mean if there is a season 11 and its not on sci fi that means that MGM would have to buy the rights back from sci fi. More then likely that will be incredibly expensive.Sci fi isnt going to let those rights go cheeply because thats like giving something over to a competetor.The only other option is showing outside the us, or showing it only for purchase on itunes or both.

Fact 3 Even though i was heartbroken that RDA left and was very unsure about the show being called sg1 withough him I still watched and though it was basically a new show I grew used to it. Now theres a new story arc, and there isnt any way to finish up before the end. It really would take another season. (this last sentence is not really a fact but im sure it will be shown to be as the season ends and we are found wanting)

Fact 4 Yes a lot of viewers did leave becasue of the departure of RDA. But a lot more Viewers came to the show becasue of the addition od Ben and Claudia.

Fact 5 they will most definatly not end the ori arc at the end of this season or even the end of an 11th season because you could get a couple of movies in there on that arc to finish it up( at least to do it right)


the rest isnt fact but it looks like maybe scifi wouldnt let them change the show and re bill it stargate command because they wanted the title. Moving cast members over to atlantis would be bad. Maybe one to move over would be ok but not all of em. the only other thing i can think of is combine the 2 stories and make the show like an hour and a half long. Thats nto gonna happen but who knows what will happen. And yes sci fi has had a bad rep of making blunders in the past so no I dont watch much but stargate on that station anymore. There have been a few of the movies I have liked but most are turds. Im sure someone liked them, but I personally didnt. Am I glad they canceled it? no, I think they probably should have be named it but I do know it will go on so im not overly angry, just kinda sad but life goes on. DO i think Sci Fi was a bit underhanded in how they canceled the show? yep, but its their blunder we all make em. I do still have all of the seasons on dvd, and will continue to support the show thru vewiing it live and thru purchasing the dvds. And in closing I too will join on for a season 11 to continue only becasue I think that is the best way to end the show. Thru another FINAL season. Then I dont think ill feel cheeted unless they just dont write the eps very well in wish case Ill be unhappy with MGM.

Brockyman
August 26th, 2006, 11:27 PM
You make a good point. However, there is plenty of material for one more season...and they could market it as such. It is now the longest running sci-fi series, and one of the longest running franchises.

However, let's think about "Sci-Fi". The network is named this, but it ignores almost ALL the great Sci-Fi franchises of our time!

They aired Star Trek: TOS, for what, a few months...G4 grabbed it and is doing wonders with it! Have you seen TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise on there...NO! (and yes, I know Spike has the contract with Paramount), but COME ON! Use some of the money from your CRAPPY TV Movies and by a real Sci-Fi Franchise!!

They aquire Babylon 5, one of the greatest series of all time (yes...better then Farscape) and air it for...what...another couple of months..I don't even think they went thru all 5 seasons. I don't even think the air it anymore at all... Same thing with Earth: Final Conflict, Alien Nation, The X-Files, ect. Theres always room for ECW or some danged Snake or Dragon movie....

I think MGM should ammend the contract and move Stargate to Spike or G4 or USA (its Sci-Fi's sister station, but they've had alot of success with the 4400 and such...).

The only plus side is if MGM keeps the relationship with NBC Universal, the Stargate TV movies or Mini Series could air on NBC...that could be cool.

We just need to keep back it. This isn't the 60's with Star Trek, its the 00's with Family Guy....the people brought it back from the dead..and we can do the same with SG-1!


P.S. - Don't foget...Sci-Fi needs its money for there "wonderful" Battlestar Galactica....gee...and I thought the original one sucked. Oh well...

seinfeldsg1
August 26th, 2006, 11:33 PM
Anyone else think the topic creator is a sci-fi channel employee??

Gate_traveler
August 27th, 2006, 12:31 AM
You make a good point. However, there is plenty of material for one more season...and they could market it as such. It is now the longest running sci-fi series, and one of the longest running franchises.

However, let's think about "Sci-Fi". The network is named this, but it ignores almost ALL the great Sci-Fi franchises of our time!

They aired Star Trek: TOS, for what, a few months...G4 grabbed it and is doing wonders with it! Have you seen TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise on there...NO! (and yes, I know Spike has the contract with Paramount), but COME ON! Use some of the money from your CRAPPY TV Movies and by a real Sci-Fi Franchise!!

They aquire Babylon 5, one of the greatest series of all time (yes...better then Farscape) and air it for...what...another couple of months..I don't even think they went thru all 5 seasons. I don't even think the air it anymore at all... Same thing with Earth: Final Conflict, Alien Nation, The X-Files, ect. Theres always room for ECW or some danged Snake or Dragon movie....

I think MGM should ammend the contract and move Stargate to Spike or G4 or USA (its Sci-Fi's sister station, but they've had alot of success with the 4400 and such...).

The only plus side is if MGM keeps the relationship with NBC Universal, the Stargate TV movies or Mini Series could air on NBC...that could be cool.

We just need to keep back it. This isn't the 60's with Star Trek, its the 00's with Family Guy....the people brought it back from the dead..and we can do the same with SG-1!


P.S. - Don't foget...Sci-Fi needs its money for there "wonderful" Battlestar Galactica....gee...and I thought the original one sucked. Oh well...


I have the same feeling you do about the real sci fi shows and the sci fi channel. I really think it has to do with lack of direction, and the lack of a plan. Bab5 love it, Like startrek, not as much as other shows but do watch it, and most of the other shows you mentioned are very popular. If I were in charge of scifi, I would try to spearhead the creation of inovative and imaginative shows as well as try to keep the genera alive by replaying other canceled scifi showsthat are in syndication as well. I know that no one likes every single scifi show ever made but the SCIFI CHANNEL needs to be just that a sci fi channel where you know you can turn and see the bets sci fi shows on the market. thats just my oppinionI could be wrong.

AutumnDream
August 27th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Are contracts like these released to public viewing? I'm guessing no but I would really like to see what EXACTLY this contract says. I am hearing conflicting reports,

MGM is shopping SG-1 around
No new SG-1 broadcast in the US.

"In the US" are the key words. I imagine the SkyOne network in Britain would be all too glad to pick it up, if the business end of it works out. Hell, maybe we'll even see it on a Canadian network for once.




P.S. - Don't foget...Sci-Fi needs its money for there "wonderful" Battlestar Galactica....gee...and I thought the original one sucked. Oh well...

I'd divert money to it too. If it sucks so much, I wonder why it won a Peabody after 2 seasons.

metabog
August 27th, 2006, 02:30 AM
I can imagine the producers' faces when they were told the show is cancelled right after their 200th ep celebration. A time of joy is turned into darkness and sorrow... :D

takinspace
August 27th, 2006, 04:30 AM
They aquire Babylon 5, one of the greatest series of all time (yes...better then Farscape) and air it for...what...another couple of months

As much as I hate to say anything positive about Sci-Fi right now, they actually aired B5 quite a bit after they finally got TNT to pull their claws out of it. 2 runs of all 5 seasons in the evening-- 7pm Eastern I think-- and somewhere between 1 and 3 runs pushed back earlier in the afternoon after the original set of evening runs was done.

In radio terms, by the time they were done with it they had thoroughly played it to death. I'm a B5 fan and I was close to involuntarily memorizing every line of dialogue, they ran it so many times.

The only science fiction I've seen them run that much since is X-Files and... oh yeah, SG-1, which they just nuked. Ooooops. Ok there's my Sci-Fi dig. :)

sg1niner
August 27th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Sci-fi saved SG1 how?
By saying that
" under terms of its contract, the network’s decision to cancel the series prohibits MGM from making any new episodes of the show to air on U.S. television." ?

So they don't want more SG1, and they don't want any other networks have it!!
They just want SG1 DEAD.

Exactly! Obviously, they know it can continue beyond season 10 if it would be picked up by another network. But they dont want "their" success to be some one elses..



My thinking is that we'll either get a theatrical movie or a mini-series on Scifi . . . maybe both.

but hopefully scifi will play no part in either one. A slap back in their face :)

smurf
August 27th, 2006, 12:00 PM
Well I hate to post cause its gonna stir a hornets nest but here goes.
Fact 1 there are more people watching then what the ratings show, unless you happen to have one of those nice shiny boxes or get one of those forms in the mail that you can track what and when you watch then how can you trully know how many people really watch something.

Fact 2 When if and i mean if there is a season 11 and its not on sci fi that means that MGM would have to buy the rights back from sci fi. More then likely that will be incredibly expensive.Sci fi isnt going to let those rights go cheeply because thats like giving something over to a competetor.The only other option is showing outside the us, or showing it only for purchase on itunes or both.

Fact 3 Even though i was heartbroken that RDA left and was very unsure about the show being called sg1 withough him I still watched and though it was basically a new show I grew used to it. Now theres a new story arc, and there isnt any way to finish up before the end. It really would take another season. (this last sentence is not really a fact but im sure it will be shown to be as the season ends and we are found wanting)

Fact 4 Yes a lot of viewers did leave becasue of the departure of RDA. But a lot more Viewers came to the show becasue of the addition od Ben and Claudia.

Fact 5 they will most definatly not end the ori arc at the end of this season or even the end of an 11th season because you could get a couple of movies in there on that arc to finish it up( at least to do it right)

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that these facts are, in fact (heh :)), not facts.

Fact 1: It is just as likely that less people watch than the ratings show.

Fact 2: Sci Fi do not own the rights to the show, just the right to show first run and repeats. MGM own the rights to the show/idea/franchise/all Stargate. They've just signed a contract that says they can't make new episodes available on US television to anyone other than Sci Fi.
If they wanted, MGM could make episodes fully funded by MGM only and sell it to any other country in the world, or online, or on DVD. They just can't air it first on any US channel other than Sci Fi. Maybe questions should be asked as to why MGM are not prepared to fully fund season 11. Sci Fi would almost certainly buy it.

Fact 3: You're right, t'is not a fact. ;)

Fact 4: Speculation. No one knows how many people started watching because of BB and CB, just as no one knows how many stopped because of RDA. If I wanted to simplify it, I would speculate from the big ratings drop that more RDA fans left than BB and CB fans joined.

Fact 5: Probably true, but not an absolute fact. Unless you happen to work at the Bridge in the script department... In which case I have a list of demands suggestions for the series. ;)

jackattack
August 27th, 2006, 12:11 PM
If a man saves your brother from being hit by a bus, and then shoots him in the face, do you thank the man, or hate him?

Take your time...
I agree with this man's logic 100%. Don't get me wrong I thank SciFi for the 5 years it gave us, but I think that the way and fashion at which they dropped it ( I have a feeling they didn't exactly think their decision out [ I'm being VERRYYY modest here]) was extremely wrong without seeing if their would be a way to end the shwo on TPTB's terms.

However I do agree that whoever said they were going to blow up SciFi's offices should be punished for misrepresenting all of the intelligent and rational Stargate fanbase.

roseblue
August 27th, 2006, 12:56 PM
Mark Stern, SCI FI's executive vice president of programming said, "would look for opportunities for some or all of the members to appear on Atlantis." Whether SCI FI hopes to replace some Atlantis regulars with SG-1 regulars, or simply bring SG-1 cast members in for occasional guest appearances, is not known.

Okay, I would not like that. Period. Stargate Atlantis has a regular cast that is fantastic. Joe Flannigan, (one of my favorites) that landed a main casting role in atlantis is his first main casting role in a tv series. (bravo!) Just like it was for Amanda Tapping, Micheal Shanks, and Christopher Judge. I'm not the actors, but if I was told this news, I would get my feelings hurt. Even if it was news that will not come true, never. I 100% doubt the SCI FI will do this. Replacing some or all regulars, which I have no idea what "SCI FI" means by regular, is just dumb. The Sg-1 cast had a great 10 years, and hey, I have no doubt that they were all excited they were all going to be regulars on the series, just like the many regulars on atlantis. Everyone wants a job. The actors on atlantis who (decide) to stay on as regulars should not be pushed out just because we want to save sg-1 (sci fi). It gives me the impression of, "Oh, got to keep sg-1 alive, replace regulars on atlantis with regulars from sg-1!". Nope. All the wonderful actors on sg-1 had a great 10 years. Give the regular actors on atlantis their chance.

PG15
August 27th, 2006, 12:58 PM
Yay! I'm logical! :D

the fifth man
August 27th, 2006, 01:03 PM
Yay! I'm logical! :D

Do you have pointy ears?;)

jackattack
August 27th, 2006, 02:16 PM
How do pointy ears come in? Anyway to keep this on topic I think it's fiar to say that PG15's logic defines what most of us are thinking.

PG15
August 27th, 2006, 03:08 PM
Do you have pointy ears?;)

Not anymore. ;)

Gate_traveler
August 27th, 2006, 06:59 PM
I'm surprised no one has pointed out that these facts are, in fact (heh :)), not facts.

Fact 1: It is just as likely that less people watch than the ratings show.

Fact 2: Sci Fi do not own the rights to the show, just the right to show first run and repeats. MGM own the rights to the show/idea/franchise/all Stargate. They've just signed a contract that says they can't make new episodes available on US television to anyone other than Sci Fi.
If they wanted, MGM could make episodes fully funded by MGM only and sell it to any other country in the world, or online, or on DVD. They just can't air it first on any US channel other than Sci Fi. Maybe questions should be asked as to why MGM are not prepared to fully fund season 11. Sci Fi would almost certainly buy it.

Fact 3: You're right, t'is not a fact. ;)

Fact 4: Speculation. No one knows how many people started watching because of BB and CB, just as no one knows how many stopped because of RDA. If I wanted to simplify it, I would speculate from the big ratings drop that more RDA fans left than BB and CB fans joined.

Fact 5: Probably true, but not an absolute fact. Unless you happen to work at the Bridge in the script department... In which case I have a list of demands suggestions for the series. ;)


Well thanks for your criticisim of my post first of all, true I cant prove anything I said as absolute fact. Other then in my fact number 2 I was refering to Sci Fi owning the distribution rights for stargate SG1 and Atlantis. While I havent got a clue as to what the contract says im gonna bet that its not lifetime rights.And i wouldnt discount the possibility of MGM atempting to buy back the rights for both shows to resell to another channel/station for distribution.

for the rest i base my statments on what i have observed. I do know several people in my area and those I know online that did start to watch because of the addition od BB and CB, and I know Im just guessing that more actually watched then actually show up on the ratings. I know that just covers my little area of existance However I pray in the future a more accurate ratings system is available to give better data on how many viewers actually do tune into what show.
Finally alas no I dont work for MGM, but I do know that MGM wouldnt insult the fans, or better stillt he creators wouldnt butcher their own creation preventing the franchise from growing. (at least I really really really really hope thats the case) None the less thanks for catching that I shoulda not posted half asleep would have been a better post probably, then again it may not have, LOL

canyoureedthis
August 27th, 2006, 08:19 PM
Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more"


True ending! are you kidding me where was this ending we just got a new enemy and are getting are arses kicked. there is no ending planned yet and no way they can throw one together with the about half season left. yes sci-fi gave it five extra years. but then it walked up behind it and slit its throat and said ok thats long enough. sorry if someone said something like this already

FlamesOfEnlightenment
August 28th, 2006, 12:21 AM
I will most DEFINITELY boycott SciFi channel.

Stargate SG-1 is one of the main reasons I watch it and subscribed to SciFi channel in the 1st place. Now I don't care.

Plus, take a look at all the "SCI FI CHANNEL ORIGINAL MOVIES" what a load of crap--->

- SciFi ORIGINAL: FRANKENFISH,
- SciFi ORIGINAL: MAN-THING,
- SciFi ORIGINAL: BOA versus PYTHON,
- SciFi ORIGINAL: PUMPKIN HEAD: Love Hurts

Look at all this cheesy B-movie SciFi channel crap with cheap 3d animated dinosaur effects that look like they were produced by the 3rd grade class of Podunk elementary school on 3DS Max, and script written at home by a SciFi channel executive's cousin, and pitched to the same judging panel who approved the "MTV My Sweet spoiled 16 birthday party show".

This is what all of you are going to be watching, on SciFi channel now that Stargate is leaving: fake ECW wrestling shows, Pterodactyl! Terror from the sky!, Anonymous Rex, Tripping the Rift, and Project VIPER! pfft.

Go read again that article by Mark Stern, Exec VP of programming of SciFi channel. He mentions that he's too cheap to buy more shows, (because SG1 is high quality, not like their cheesy animated crap), and that if SciFi can't have it, nobody will get the show. They've written into the contract between SciFi and MGM that they forbid MGM from airing the same series on another channel! Mark Stern = Executive A-hole.

And here is this buffoon's address again, for all of you to mail him a postcard and let him know how you feel about him ruining our evenings:


Mark Stern, Executive Vice President Original Programming
NBC Universal Sci Fi Channel
100 Universal City Plaza
Bld. 1440, 14th Floor
Universal City, CA 91608


And by the way, I am NOT joking about Pumpkinhead: Love Hurts. That is an ACTUAL SciFi channel show that this guy above is funding, instead of Stargate SG-1. This is what this guy approved paying for, and now what you are going to be forced to watch due to this guy, above.

"Pumpkinhead: Love Hurts is scheduled to air on the Sci-Fi Channel on an undetermined date in 2007. A limited theatrical release is also being considered."

"The film will continue to effectively ignore the events portrayed in the Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings sequel"


AND I will MOST DEFINITELY BOYCOTT this idiot and his SciFi channel and all his lame 'original' low-budget PumpkinPoop.

Lord Shiva
August 28th, 2006, 12:35 AM
Yeah the title is misleading, too mad.

Many here seem to believe that the Sci-fi Channel is evil and will boycott the network. I heard that before and it never happens. This is nothing like Farscape so stop comparing it to that. Farscape was promised another season and Sci-fi dropped out at the last minute. They dropped out to fund new shows like SG-1. Sci-fi made the show twise as long as it was going to be. They announced it now so that the creators would be given at least some time to wrap up the show befor a TV movie or miniseries or regular movie is made. It's much better than coming out in November or December like they normally do and say it's canceled after it's too late to fix anything.

Sci-fi gave SG-1 a new life 5 years ago and instead of acting like jerks, threatening them (Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.) and making it seem like sci-fi and SG-1 fans are crazy how about we send letters of thanks. Letters saying "Thanks for the extra 5 years, thanks for all the good times and bad, and thanks for letting them come up with a true ending that will really be the ending of the show, but just a beginning to something more" and stop acting like they just killed your child, because it's just a TV show that needed to end at some point.

You are naive. Sci Fi didn't give Stargate 5 extra years out of the goodness of their hearts... they wanted to be known as having the "longest running Sci Fi show on TV" and they did that by running season 10 (and beating X-Files 9 seasons). Now they don't need SG-1 anymore and canceled it. So please don't go defending the network that seems to prefer ECW wrestling over Stargate SG-1.

smurf
August 28th, 2006, 05:00 AM
Well thanks for your criticisim of my post first of all, true I cant prove anything I said as absolute fact. Other then in my fact number 2 I was refering to Sci Fi owning the distribution rights for stargate SG1 and Atlantis. While I havent got a clue as to what the contract says im gonna bet that its not lifetime rights.And i wouldnt discount the possibility of MGM atempting to buy back the rights for both shows to resell to another channel/station for distribution.

for the rest i base my statments on what i have observed. I do know several people in my area and those I know online that did start to watch because of the addition od BB and CB, and I know Im just guessing that more actually watched then actually show up on the ratings. I know that just covers my little area of existance However I pray in the future a more accurate ratings system is available to give better data on how many viewers actually do tune into what show.
Finally alas no I dont work for MGM, but I do know that MGM wouldnt insult the fans, or better stillt he creators wouldnt butcher their own creation preventing the franchise from growing. (at least I really really really really hope thats the case) None the less thanks for catching that I shoulda not posted half asleep would have been a better post probably, then again it may not have, LOL
Thanks to you, and a massive amount of kudos for taking my points so well.
To be honest, with the board running so passionate I was somewhat prepared to have to go over the what is fact/what is opinion argument. There is, unfortunately, a fair amount of opinion masquarading as fact in fandom at the moment. Which, IMO, doesn't help anyone - especially not the Save Stargate: SG-1 campaign (it would be all to easy for Sci Fi Channel to dismiss them as a bunch of ill-informed fanatics, when they should be seen as concerned fans).

As to whether the contract between MGM and Sci Fi is a lifetime one, I would have thought so otherwise a point would not have been made of it. It is only a clause to cover first run of new episodes of SG-1, MGM still own the shows for syndication, and the Stargate franchise in its entirety.
I, personally, can't see MGM wanting to buy out the contract in order to make another season. Not when they could be making a series of mini-series or TV movies. These do not appear to be covered by the contract, and are cheaper to produce, and so could be made/US rights-owned entirely by MGM.

Statements made from observations are a sticky business, because each of us (usually) fail to manage to get a real cross-section of society in our friends and aquaintances. From my observations, I could say that Stargate hasn't been popular since mid-season 8, no one who liked the show from the beginning likes it much now, and the only people who love the show in S9 and 10 are ex-Farscape fans. But I'd be wrong if I made that as a statement of fact.

It's good that you think more highly of MGM/TPTB than I do. *mutters something about invisible current and former regulars* ;) :D

prion
August 28th, 2006, 05:24 AM
The nature of MGM's contract with Scifi prohibits Stargate from going anywhere else. I'm looking for the link to said contract as we speak.



To be fair, it is the most popular, however more people are TiVoing it instead of watching it live and that is why ratings are dropping, it's being watched more then ever now...just not live. This is the new danger is any very popular show now-a-days.

Unfortunately unless you can produce proof that people who TiVo SG1 actually watch it, the point is moot. And that goes for any show. A series has to be watched within a certain timeframe to count, and for all you know, someone plans to watch all their TivOed stuff in December.

Damek
August 28th, 2006, 06:13 AM
And by the way, I am NOT joking about Pumpkinhead: Love Hurts. That is an ACTUAL SciFi channel show that this guy above is funding, instead of Stargate SG-1. This is what this guy approved paying for, and now what you are going to be forced to watch due to this guy, above.

Yes, the SciFi channel has been churning out a lot of duds lately.

But you are not forced to watch them. Nobody is. Your statement that you'll be boycotting SciFi is testament to that, but I doubt it will make a difference unless you actually watched these other SciFi productions before. Even then, boycotts are rarely effective these days.

The simple fact, however sad it may be, is that people DO watch those shows, and they are very cheap for SciFi to produce. Stargate SG1 may have more viewers, but if it also costs more for SciFi to show, they're going to make a business decision:

1) Stargate SG1: lots of viewers, but so expensive now that we can't pay for it with the money advertisers are willing to pay us to advertise during it.

2) cheap B-movies: fewer viewers, but so cheap we can make money from the advertisers who want to advertise to the numbskulls who want to watch them

Forget how much you love Stargate SG1 - we all make the same sorts of decisions every day when we look at our budget and decide whether we can afford the quality food or the cheap crap. Two-ply or single sheet. Beer or water.

Even if SciFi wants SG1 to keep going, should they bankrupt the network to do it? Does that make any sense?

I don't think SciFi is angelic here, but I also don't think they enjoy tormenting us. The audience mix in the US just isn't conducive to great sci-fi. Just look at Spike TV, etc. People love crap. Add to that the not insignificant portion of people who actually watch sci-fi but do it by Tivo or downloading shows, and it's hard to make money on it in the U.S.

Damek
August 28th, 2006, 06:18 AM
Unfortunately unless you can produce proof that people who TiVo SG1 actually watch it, the point is moot. And that goes for any show. A series has to be watched within a certain timeframe to count, and for all you know, someone plans to watch all their TivOed stuff in December.

Yeah, seriously. I just finally watched a couple shows I've had sitting there since May. It's hard to track when people watch things these days, and probably doubly hard with sci-fi shows where many of the fans are more technologically adept and choose alternative ways of viewing them.

I try to watch my favorite shows when they're actually on, but I'm getting more active with my life and find I record a lot more stuff these days. Life On Mars, Murder City, Love Soup... BBC America alone is a treasure trove of great shows I want to see but usually can't watch when they're on. Well, in between all the crappy Who's Line and DIY shows, anyway...

scirev
August 29th, 2006, 07:30 AM
Re the high cost of actors, a good thing done on the long running Doctor Who show is 'regenerating' characters. The Doctor regenerates every now and then into some new actor... :) Saves the costs running high and he can even meet himself from time to time...

Anubistraveler
August 29th, 2006, 06:55 PM
You are naive. Sci Fi didn't give Stargate 5 extra years out of the goodness of their hearts... they wanted to be known as having the "longest running Sci Fi show on TV" and they did that by running season 10 (and beating X-Files 9 seasons). Now they don't need SG-1 anymore and canceled it. So please don't go defending the network that seems to prefer ECW wrestling over Stargate SG-1.


Thank you for agreeing with my sentiments. Oreo is very naive.

Jackie
August 29th, 2006, 07:44 PM
Well, I will probably get it for this, but here it goes.

Sci-Fi DID save SG-1 when Showtime cancelled the show.

However, they killed what should have been a new show. The writers wanted to rename the show Stargate Command with all the changes they made.

Now, if sci-fi had officially cancelled stargate sg-1 at the end of season 8 and worked with MGM to properly retool the show as Stargate Command, adverstise at the end of season 8 that sg-1 has ended but there is a new show staring Bridges, Black, Bowder and used the old cast regulars of Shanks, Tapping and Judge to pull in the old viewers and advertised the crud out of Stargate Command the whole show would have been recieved differntly.

People were all over the boards at the start of season nine wondering what had happened to SG-1. People do adapt to change very well, but no one really likes change. Change is scarry!

IMO what sci-fi did was use the SG-1 label and cast to get that record. They had no intension for actually making the new show work. I have watched the show from the begining and I do not consider this to be SG-1 but a new sstargate show.

That is what upset me the most, sci-fi took a valuable show, a cornerstone to thier own network and just killed it. They knew in season nine that season ten and that 200 episode was to be the last. Even the actors complained about lack of support and advertising for the show.

Sci-Fi USED SG-1 to gain a record, that was all they really wanted in the end.

Oreo
August 29th, 2006, 07:49 PM
You are naive. Sci Fi didn't give Stargate 5 extra years out of the goodness of their hearts... they wanted to be known as having the "longest running Sci Fi show on TV" and they did that by running season 10 (and beating X-Files 9 seasons). Now they don't need SG-1 anymore and canceled it. So please don't go defending the network that seems to prefer ECW wrestling over Stargate SG-1.


Yes I'm sure in season 6 when they picked the show up they cared so much about the 200th episode and beating some lame record. :rolleyes: If it weren't for them it would have ended 5 years ago because no other network wants it, it wouldn't have lasted on any other channel.

And wow they have one hour of wrestling a week! And guess what? It gets great ratings, much MUCH better than Sg-1 and costs less to make. Plus that was more of a NBC Universal chose than anything and it seemed to have paid off.

Anubistraveler
August 29th, 2006, 07:55 PM
Yes I'm sure in season 6 when they picked the show up they cared so much about the 200th episode and beating some lame record. :rolleyes: If it weren't for them it would have ended 5 years ago because no other network wants it, it wouldn't have lasted on any other channel.

And wow they have one hour of wrestling a week! And guess what? It gets great ratings, much MUCH better than Sg-1 and costs less to make. Plus that was more of a NBC Universal chose than anything and it seemed to have paid off.

WOW!


Sounds like someone actually likes ECW!....hmm, if you can tell me how wrestling is scifi I will agree with you. Wrestling while fiction will never be science.

Oreo
August 29th, 2006, 08:42 PM
I hate it, but if it gets Sci-fi money I'm willing for them to waste an hour a week on it.

And once again making seasons 9 and 10 Stargate Command instead of SG-1 would have done nothing at all, because keeping the old cast and crew still make it cost a lot!

Tiret
August 29th, 2006, 09:03 PM
Just speaking for myself, I don't want to kill the sci-fi channel. (Just bop them over the head.) It's true that I would be much happier with one more season, but if I don't get it, it will not be the end of the world. SG1 has had a long and glorious run, and I AM extremely grateful for the 'extra' five years. But to be frank I worry about those executives' decision-making lately. I'm beginning to fear that saving SG1 was one of the last good decisions they'll ever make... :S

I'm sorry to say it, but Sci-fi is going to have to do something to win back my confidence... :(

Konman72
August 29th, 2006, 11:15 PM
I hate it, but if it gets Sci-fi money I'm willing for them to waste an hour a week on it.

And once again making seasons 9 and 10 Stargate Command instead of SG-1 would have done nothing at all, because keeping the old cast and crew still make it cost a lot!
Wow, I have literally said this about 5 times now. They would not have had to keep the cast. And even if they did the contracts would be totally different and they would have gotten a pay cut, if they stayed on at all. The whole point of the rebranding was to reduce cost, Brad Wright said so in an interview. Do you know more about the business of Stargate than him? NO! So why don't you drop this whole argument entirely. Rebranding the series would have made it cost less...period. Why? Because the old actors (and crew for that matter) would not have had to stay, they would have been dropped, or had their salary cut. This is because it would no longer be SG-1, it would be Stargate Command. The program is the focus, not the team. Perhaps you are going to gloss over this whole thing again, like you have the many other times I have posted it so here it is in bold straight from the interview...


Well, sadly, it could've gone on much longer had we re-branded it entirely. One of the problems of SG-1 going into its tenth season, and potentially further on into its eleventh, is that when a show has been on for a very long period of time [is] the baggage. That's not even the right word -- but there's a lot of money that is spent that stops going on the screen.
Source (http://gateworld.net/interviews/wright_on_target.shtml)

Ok....now drop it.

(NOTE: Sorry to be so mean, but I have seriously said this and pointed it out multiple times on this thread alone and you seem to ignore it every time. Now you have heard it straight from Brad Wright so I hope that you won't have the gall to argue with him.)

Brockyman
August 30th, 2006, 04:13 PM
"In the US" are the key words. I imagine the SkyOne network in Britain would be all too glad to pick it up, if the business end of it works out. Hell, maybe we'll even see it on a Canadian network for once.




I'd divert money to it too. If it sucks so much, I wonder why it won a Peabody after 2 seasons.

Wow...a Peabody...someone hand me a tissue! They just won that b/c of all the liberal undertones... IT was in Rolling Stone for God sake! Political Agenda..hello?
If its so great...then fine...ok...use the money from the crappy mini series and movies they make. No reason to kill SG-1 or not bring on other franchises that people love.

jackattack
August 30th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Really, SG1 got a Peabody? This only leads me to become even more enraged that SG1 STILL doesn't get the respect it deserves.

ToasterOnFire
August 30th, 2006, 06:42 PM
Nah, BSG got a Peabody this year. SG1 has never won it. The Peabody awards encompass an odd mix of TV documentaries, science and news shows, and fictional shows like Boston Legal, Six Feet Under, House, even South Park. A complete list of winners is here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peabody_Award_winners) ;)

Willow'sCat
August 30th, 2006, 07:25 PM
Nah, BSG got a Peabody this year. SG1 has never won it. The Peabody awards encompass an odd mix of TV documentaries, science and news shows, and fictional shows like Boston Legal, Six Feet Under, House, even South Park. A complete list of winners is here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peabody_Award_winners) ;)Yep and Doctor Who gets awards in Britain a couple of BAFTA's for the 27th series. ;) Other then a couple of spacey's (which are really scifi centric anyway) SG just doesn't seem to rate well in the awards front... not sure what that means. :S :cool:

Brockyman
August 31st, 2006, 12:52 PM
Yes, the SciFi channel has been churning out a lot of duds lately.

But you are not forced to watch them. Nobody is. Your statement that you'll be boycotting SciFi is testament to that, but I doubt it will make a difference unless you actually watched these other SciFi productions before. Even then, boycotts are rarely effective these days.

The simple fact, however sad it may be, is that people DO watch those shows, and they are very cheap for SciFi to produce. Stargate SG1 may have more viewers, but if it also costs more for SciFi to show, they're going to make a business decision:

1) Stargate SG1: lots of viewers, but so expensive now that we can't pay for it with the money advertisers are willing to pay us to advertise during it.

2) cheap B-movies: fewer viewers, but so cheap we can make money from the advertisers who want to advertise to the numbskulls who want to watch them

Forget how much you love Stargate SG1 - we all make the same sorts of decisions every day when we look at our budget and decide whether we can afford the quality food or the cheap crap. Two-ply or single sheet. Beer or water.

Even if SciFi wants SG1 to keep going, should they bankrupt the network to do it? Does that make any sense?

I don't think SciFi is angelic here, but I also don't think they enjoy tormenting us. The audience mix in the US just isn't conducive to great sci-fi. Just look at Spike TV, etc. People love crap. Add to that the not insignificant portion of people who actually watch sci-fi but do it by Tivo or downloading shows, and it's hard to make money on it in the U.S.

I'm actually very impressed. Your idea was very well thought out, and businesslike.
I must disagree. One of the few reasons I watch SciFi is b/c of SG-1 and Atlantis. During these shows, I see ads, not just for products and services, but for other SciFi programing...so I stayed to watch other programs like Eureka (even though BSG was a big disappointment..), and as SG-1s fan base grows...SciFi's viewership grows, and more people will try other programs. By alienating the SciFi fan base, they will cut viewers, and end up hurting themselves.

You are 100% right about people loving crap. There is plenty of room for crap on the 300+ TV stations we now have, plus the internet.

I don't think that keeping SG-1 would bankrupt them...if it did, then you are right on the point as well. There is also the fact they didn't do it the right way...just popping off that they are going to cancel it, after bragging about its longevity was just bad planning, bad marketing, and just stupid.

If SciFi wants to drop SG-1...here is what they should have done, to do it the RIGHT way.
Option 1: Run a Season 11, with the writers and let the series end well...Market it as the "Final Season". After than, do 5 TV movies or Mini series, that SciFi gets rights too.
Option 2: Don't be a bunch of jerks, and release the rights to show it on US TV, so MGM can take it to Spike, UPN, G4, where ever, and keep the rights to show reruns.

MadMadigan
September 2nd, 2006, 12:27 AM
And wow they have one hour of wrestling a week! And guess what? It gets great ratings, much MUCH better than Sg-1 and costs less to make. Plus that was more of a NBC Universal chose than anything and it seemed to have paid off.
LOL! You know the more i read his posts the more im convinced he is either
1.Is in some sick way purposely trying to get a rise out of the fans who wish to see the series continue

or

2.He is either Mark Stern himself or a direct subordinate, and if not he should consider applying for said position. LOL!

At any rate the above statement says it all. Dont let this guy upset you thats what he wants.

jackattack
September 2nd, 2006, 06:00 AM
LOL! You know the more i read his posts the more im convinced he is either
1.Is in some sick way purposely trying to get a rise out of the fans who wish to see the series continue

or

2.He is either Mark Stern himself or a direct subordinate, and if not he should consider applying for said position. LOL!

At any rate the above statement says it all. Dont let this guy upset you thats what he wants.


I agree if you're on this forum you at least should have 10% support for the Stargate franchise in your body/ psyche. Unfortunately for the man who supported ECW over Staragte he has approximately 0.000000000000234976810% support of the franchise inside his body.

Randy_Watson
September 2nd, 2006, 06:47 AM
If the contract is denying the rights to make any new episodes, how can they make a mini-series? Isn't that basically new episodes? And if not, then why couldn't they just release the same amount of shows and call them a mini-series?

Oreo
September 2nd, 2006, 09:37 AM
Once again people do you really think they would have fired the 3 main charaters? Look at the **** that happened in season 6 with Daniel. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you listened.

And I do support the franchise, learn how to ****ing read. I think it's great that Atlantis is continueing and at the same time I think it's great SG-1 as a show is ending. It's obvious they can't think of 20 SG-1 episodes a year so now they can use all their good ideas on Atlantis, and just make mini-series for SG-1. You all are acting like SG-1's story will end when we have known for years that it will continue.

And a mini-series is not a TV show. Technically they could probably make five four-hour long movies and get away with it.

Konman72
September 2nd, 2006, 10:22 AM
Once again people do you really think they would have fired the 3 main charaters? Look at the **** that happened in season 6 with Daniel. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you listened.

And I do support the franchise, learn how to ****ing read. I think it's great that Atlantis is continueing and at the same time I think it's great SG-1 as a show is ending. It's obvious they can't think of 20 SG-1 episodes a year so now they can use all their good ideas on Atlantis, and just make mini-series for SG-1. You all are acting like SG-1's story will end when we have known for years that it will continue.

And a mini-series is not a TV show. Technically they could probably make five four-hour long movies and get away with it.
Oh...my...God. Brad Wright man....Brad Wright stated that it would cost less. You, right now, at this very moment, are claiming to know more about the business of Stargate and television than Brad Wright himself. How freaking arrogant can you be? Here is the quote once again, just in case you missed it the last 5 times...


Well, sadly, it could've gone on much longer had we re-branded it entirely. One of the problems of SG-1 going into its tenth season, and potentially further on into its eleventh, is that when a show has been on for a very long period of time [is] the baggage. That's not even the right word -- but there's a lot of money that is spent that stops going on the screen.

If you can find it in yourself to read the bold, 7 point font right there then I won't have to repeat myself again. Rebranding would have cost less and led to the series going on further (at least if the cost was the main reason, which it probably was given Atlantis' renewal with only a .1 increase in ratings).

Please, please, please, read it and understand. I am really, really tired of quoting it. To quote you though, "I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you listened." So listen now. I don't know or care what the "cost" was he was talking about, whether it be actor costs or others, but the rebranding would have helped. The End.

smurf
September 2nd, 2006, 10:54 AM
Oh...my...God. Brad Wright man....Brad Wright stated that it would cost less. You, right now, at this very moment, are claiming to know more about the business of Stargate and television than Brad Wright himself. How freaking arrogant can you be? Here is the quote once again, just in case you missed it the last 5 times...



If you can find it in yourself to read the bold, 7 point font right there then I won't have to repeat myself again. Rebranding would have cost less and led to the series going on further (at least if the cost was the main reason, which it probably was given Atlantis' renewal with only a .1 increase in ratings).

Please, please, please, read it and understand. I am really, really tired of quoting it. To quote you though, "I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you listened." So listen now. I don't know or care what the "cost" was he was talking about, whether it be actor costs or others, but the rebranding would have helped. The End.
Probably because he only started saying this when it became obvious that SG-1 was going to get cancelled if the ratings didn't pick up.

There wasn't much of this "it's too expensive" blah right back at the start of season 9. So I am inclined to think that how they were acting at the start of season 9 (wanted to rename it, but quite happily writing stories with the three old main characters in them) is more accurate to the reality of the situation than a post season 9 "it's not our fault we wanted to rebrand it all, honest!" interview.

So sorry, repeat it ad infinitum if you want, but I don't believe it.

Konman72
September 2nd, 2006, 10:42 PM
Probably because he only started saying this when it became obvious that SG-1 was going to get cancelled if the ratings didn't pick up.

There wasn't much of this "it's too expensive" blah right back at the start of season 9. So I am inclined to think that how they were acting at the start of season 9 (wanted to rename it, but quite happily writing stories with the three old main characters in them) is more accurate to the reality of the situation than a post season 9 "it's not our fault we wanted to rebrand it all, honest!" interview.

So sorry, repeat it ad infinitum if you want, but I don't believe it.
Wow....wow....wow (repeat "ad ininitum"). He said that before season 10's premiere, when the ratings were just fine and dandy with 1.8-1.9's. Either way though, how do you know how the writers felt, hell, how do you know the main three wouldn't have been in Stargate Command? Lower their pay since they are signing brand new contracts, not extensions to 10 year old ones.

My God, the ignorance and arrogance astounds me here. Brad Wright knows what he is talking about. Rebranding would have lowered cost. Where? Don't know. I, unlike you and Oreo apparently, am not privy to the background dealings of the Stargate business. Just accept that the rebrand would have lowered cost for this reason alone: IT WAS THE ONLY FREAKING REASON TOO DO IT! Why rebrand your 8 year old show with a new name and new story if there is no benefit at all?!

*Deep breaths*Wow, I think I have lost faith in humanity again. I think that makes it 1582 times so far this year. Huh, beat last year already.

smurf
September 3rd, 2006, 02:48 AM
Wow....wow....wow (repeat "ad ininitum"). He said that before season 10's premiere, when the ratings were just fine and dandy with 1.8-1.9's. Either way though, how do you know how the writers felt, hell, how do you know the main three wouldn't have been in Stargate Command? Lower their pay since they are signing brand new contracts, not extensions to 10 year old ones.

My God, the ignorance and arrogance astounds me here. Brad Wright knows what he is talking about. Rebranding would have lowered cost. Where? Don't know. I, unlike you and Oreo apparently, am not privy to the background dealings of the Stargate business. Just accept that the rebrand would have lowered cost for this reason alone: IT WAS THE ONLY FREAKING REASON TOO DO IT! Why rebrand your 8 year old show with a new name and new story if there is no benefit at all?!

*Deep breaths*Wow, I think I have lost faith in humanity again. I think that makes it 1582 times so far this year. Huh, beat last year already.
Good grief. How can a ratings drop from season 8's 2.1 to season 9's 1.8 be fine and dandy?

Note the bolded and redded part in your reply.
Yes he said that before season 10's premiere, not before season 9's premiere, and not during season 9.
What, you may ask, is so special about season 9? That is when he says the show should have been rebranded. Not season 10.
Now look at what happened at the start of season 9? Did we see scripts which did not contain the previous three actors? Did we see scripts that only involved the previous three in a minor role, because they had to do hasty rewrites to include them when SGC was a no go?
No, we saw both Daniel and Teal'c (and Sam would most likely have been included if it weren't for ATs maternity leave) take a major part in the show - bigger it should be noted than the part Mitchell (new lead of so called all new show) took.
And what does that tell me? It tells me that there was no intention to fire the other three actors. Rebrand/rename it yes, but again, no intention to get rid of the other three actors - forcing them out by lowering their wage (because would you take a massive wage cut for the same job?).
Therefore there would not have been any cost benefit of renaming/rebranding the show.

I will judge them on what they have said and and done previously, not just what they say now. Now, feel free to accept everything that comes out of their mouths. Every little bit of "it's not our fault" revisionist history.
But do not call me names when it appears to me what is happening is a large round of covering their own backsides.

Col. Newman
September 3rd, 2006, 03:01 AM
(Someone wrote that they would blow up Sci-fi offices.)Hope it happens

smurf
September 3rd, 2006, 10:42 AM
Because of the sulky red. ;)

There seems to be some confusion as to what rebranding means.

Rebranding is selling the same old product with some tweaks under a new name.
Therefore to rebrand the show you would need to keep some of the elements of the old show - ie. the old characters/actors - and mix in the new elements. Now, if we removed all the old actors to save money that would not be rebranding the show, that would be making a new show. Like SGA for example.
Rebranding the show allows them to benefit from fans of the older characters without getting caught up with the hassle of thinking back to SG-1 canon.

Therefore it does not follow that rebranding the show would have helped it greatly in the financial stakes. If you actively remove all the elements which made SG-1 what it is - characters as well as plot - then in terms of a TV show this is not rebranding, this is making a spin-off. Again see SGA.

As to the we'll have the same actors but they'd cost less:
You have to be joking, you'd think they'd take a pay cut and commit a form of career suicide?
They take a pay cut for the same role, when there is no inkling that the show is going to collapse, then they may as well tell all future (and current) employers to take any advantage of them they wish. They will have lost any bargaining credentials they have.
It should be noted, also, that they appear not to have suffered a pay cut between season 9 and 10 even when the show was obviously falling.

The mentioning of rebranding in this context now allows them the excuse of;
a) it was Skiffy's fault
b) it was the fans' fault for not seeing the new show unless we handed it to them on a plate
c) it was the actors' fault - which is quite rude, because I'm sure they aren't the only ones getting pay increases each year.

Of course the actors are too expensive argument goes out the window when you consider they hired three (count 'em) named actors to fill out the new roles.
Want to save money? Well, I'd suggest not hiring expensive big names. D'oh!

Again, feel free to believe every word uttered. Even though it seems to change from season to season - shades of 1984 there.
But I know business, and I know people, and I'm damn well not blind to the "do as I say, not as I do" factor of the difference between what happened and what they said at the time, and what they say they wanted to happen after the free-falling ratings.

PG15
September 3rd, 2006, 11:10 AM
Now look at what happened at the start of season 9? Did we see scripts which did not contain the previous three actors? Did we see scripts that only involved the previous three in a minor role, because they had to do hasty rewrites to include them when SGC was a no go?

Do we even known when SCIFI told them that SG1 was to continue? If it was early enough when no scripts were being written, there wouldn't be any hasty rewrites.

smurf
September 3rd, 2006, 11:19 AM
Do we even known when SCIFI told them that SG1 was to continue? If it was early enough when no scripts were being written, there wouldn't be any hasty rewrites.
The implication of the interviews around the start of season 9 is that they had already started down the path of rebranding it. It won't be like you've seen before, It's not you father's stargate, etc.
Also, it has been mentioned that Walter's "Welcome to the SGC" line in Avalon was to introduce the new show.

Along with the issue with the credits - a suspiciously late decision - I think the decision from Sci Fi was made fairly late.

Konman72
September 3rd, 2006, 11:20 AM
Do we even known when SCIFI told them that SG1 was to continue? If it was early enough when no scripts were being written, there wouldn't be any hasty rewrites.
I've given up arguing at this point. It seems that assuming things is the standard of the day. Nowhere in Wright's statement was it said that the actors would change, or even that the salaries would. He mentioned "baggage". What that baggage is is not stated, just that carrying on as SG-1 costs more, which is something everyone should easily accept since, well, it is just plain logical. But whatever, people want to be willfully ignorant just to get people pissed off. I don't care. Let them be all pissy and whatever. I take people on their word, especially when they know about 1000000000000000000000000000 times more about the subject than I do. I know, I'm craaaaaazy.

smurf
September 3rd, 2006, 11:49 AM
I've given up arguing at this point. It seems that assuming things is the standard of the day. Nowhere in Wright's statement was it said that the actors would change, or even that the salaries would. He mentioned "baggage". What that baggage is is not stated, just that carrying on as SG-1 costs more, which is something everyone should easily accept since, well, it is just plain logical. But whatever, people want to be willfully ignorant just to get people pissed off. I don't care. Let them be all pissy and whatever. I take people on their word, especially when they know about 1000000000000000000000000000 times more about the subject than I do. I know, I'm craaaaaazy.
Ah, I see you've noticed the original issue I was making.
Yes, in fact no where does he say the actors would change or even the salaries. I don't believe he even mentions saving money. This is where my counter argument to your argument (using the same BW interview source) that rebranding it would have saved money stems from.


For reference, your post http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=5735561&postcount=106

Wow, I have literally said this about 5 times now. They would not have had to keep the cast. And even if they did the contracts would be totally different and they would have gotten a pay cut, if they stayed on at all. The whole point of the rebranding was to reduce cost, Brad Wright said so in an interview. Do you know more about the business of Stargate than him? NO! So why don't you drop this whole argument entirely. Rebranding the series would have made it cost less...period. Why? Because the old actors (and crew for that matter) would not have had to stay, they would have been dropped, or had their salary cut. This is because it would no longer be SG-1, it would be Stargate Command.

Konman72
September 3rd, 2006, 04:36 PM
Ah, I see you've noticed the original issue I was making.
Yes, in fact no where does he say the actors would change or even the salaries. I don't believe he even mentions saving money. This is where my counter argument to your argument (using the same BW interview source) that rebranding it would have saved money stems from.


For reference, your post http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=5735561&postcount=106
But he did mention money...

One of the problems of SG-1 going into its tenth season, and potentially further on into its eleventh, is that when a show has been on for a very long period of time [is] the baggage. That's not even the right word -- but there's a lot of money that is spent that stops going on the screen.
So there is money saved in a rebranding. Whether that be new actors, new contracts or some unknown thing that is going on behind the scenes I don't know or care.

smurf
September 3rd, 2006, 04:52 PM
But he did mention money...

So there is money saved in a rebranding. Whether that be new actors, new contracts or some unknown thing that is going on behind the scenes I don't know or care.
He didn't mention saving money, just that it cost money.
Yes there can be money saved in rebranding (usually by firing a number of people, but actually in business it is usually very expensive to rebrand) it just doesn't seem to have been part of the intention of TPTB of Stargate: SG-1. (See previous posts for reasoning.)

They wanted to rebrand it and yet still keep the majority of the elements (characters) on board. They wanted a spin-off but not go the whole hog and risk failure immediately.

Konman72
September 3rd, 2006, 05:59 PM
He didn't mention saving money, just that it cost money.
Yes there can be money saved in rebranding (usually by firing a number of people, but actually in business it is usually very expensive to rebrand) it just doesn't seem to have been part of the intention of TPTB of Stargate: SG-1. (See previous posts for reasoning.)

They wanted to rebrand it and yet still keep the majority of the elements (characters) on board. They wanted a spin-off but not go the whole hog and risk failure immediately.
He gave the answer that "there is a lot of money that stops going on the screen" to the question of whether the show could last into seasons 14 and 15. He stated that it could have had they rebranded, but not anymore since there was "so much baggage" (referring to money). All of this is adding up quite easily here.

Here is the whole quiestion and answer just in case you are missing something...


GW: Do you think that the show has reached this point where it could potentially go on indefinitely, E.R.-style, where there's a cast change every time it's necessary? Or is this new incarnation something that you view as having more of a finite life, however long that may be?

BW: Well, sadly, it could've gone on much longer had we re-branded it entirely. One of the problems of SG-1 going into its tenth season, and potentially further on into its eleventh, is that when a show has been on for a very long period of time [is] the baggage. That's not even the right word -- but there's a lot of money that is spent that stops going on the screen.

That's the reason Star Trek: The Next Generation went off the air. Not because nobody would want to watch it, but because Patrick Stewart was becoming a big star and needed to move on. And now, of course, he doesn't even do television anymore. That's what happens to a really successful franchise.

And because seven years is the maximum, generally, the business model goes out to. That's generally how far the actor deals have been made. In fact, probably, they had to do one-year extensions after five years. I don't know the details. I do know that on our show, for the last couple of years, we've had to renegotiate every year, and that is very difficult from our perspective.

We don't know, A) whether or not we're going to get a network pickup, and B) how much money we're going to get to make the show. And all of those things are contingent on the cast deals we make. Which comes first, right? So it's been difficult the last couple of years. This year, I think one of the big advantages of Season Ten is we got a great start.Unlike what most people think in terms of how the shows are made, we wrap at the end of September, or early October, and people think we all go away. Well, everybody goes away but the writers. We just stayed here and kept working. And we quickly put together a bunch of stories for both shows, which has given us a better head start than we've ever had which, again, helps you put money on the screen.

So for those reasons, I think Season Ten and Season Three are starting out gangbusters.

So it is all about money. That is why they wanted to rebrand and that is why the show is still costing more than Atlantis. Simple as that.

EDIT: Try not to assume anything here. You seem to be assuming that the money is the actor salaries or something. He never says what that money is going to. Something makes SG-1 season 10 cost more than Stargate Command season 1. Perhaps it is legal issues, perhaps it is salary related (extensions of pre-existing contracts cost more than brand new ones), we don't know, Wright does.

Oreo
September 3rd, 2006, 07:09 PM
So you people really are ****ing crazy enough to believe that just changing the name of a show is going to save money?

Konman72
September 3rd, 2006, 07:30 PM
So you people really are ****ing crazy enough to believe that just changing the name of a show is going to save money?
Wow....wow. Really? You seriously aren't getting this? It isn't a name change, it is a complete change of everything except the basic story. The cast and crew sign brand new contracts, the legal fees (whatever they may be) are started from scratch and so much more that I can't even name them all, nor do I know them all. Let me ask you something. Ever had a job? Did you work there for 10 years? Over those years you probably got multiple raises right? If your store/business closed down and a new one opened in its place (and they hired you in the exact same job you had before) would you expect them to pay more, less or the same as your former employer? Regardless of your answer what would actually happen is they would pay you less since they don't have to give you all those raises your former employer gave you. When you work somewhere for 10 years your pay steadily increases, it is just a fact. If you start somewhere new they don't take into account how long you worked at your former employer (at least for pay consideration beyond experience).

In the end though what the hell does it matter what you think Brad F***ing Wright said that it would life the "baggage". He knows, oh, about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more about this subject than you, so guess what. Take what he said and accept it. Are you that arrogant that you will claim to know more about Stargate and the television industry than Brad Wright? I want an actual answer for this question too, because every time you say it wouldn't bring costs down that is what you are claiming, and it is stupid. Another question to answer is why would they even think about a rebranding unless there was some money to be gained from it? Why not shoot for the record and continue on as SG-1?

Seriously, this is starting to get really old. I don't care what argument you can make, until you prove to me that you have more qualification than Brad Wright your argument means nothing. Hell, you shouldn't even be arguing, it would be like me arguing with Einstein about the theory of relativity. He knows a s*** ton more about the subject than me, so why even try?

smurf
September 4th, 2006, 02:02 AM
He gave the answer that "there is a lot of money that stops going on the screen" to the question of whether the show could last into seasons 14 and 15. He stated that it could have had they rebranded, but not anymore since there was "so much baggage" (referring to money). All of this is adding up quite easily here.

Here is the whole quiestion and answer just in case you are missing something...



So it is all about money. That is why they wanted to rebrand and that is why the show is still costing more than Atlantis. Simple as that.

EDIT: Try not to assume anything here. You seem to be assuming that the money is the actor salaries or something. He never says what that money is going to. Something makes SG-1 season 10 cost more than Stargate Command season 1. Perhaps it is legal issues, perhaps it is salary related (extensions of pre-existing contracts cost more than brand new ones), we don't know, Wright does.
Well since you were the one assuming that the money saved would have come from the salaries, cf. this thread your post 106 (http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=5735561&postcount=106), maybe you'd like to not have started on this path in the first place. Hmm?

Again nothing about how they would have saved money with the current show as it stands. (look down for further analysis)

You don't actually know what is involved in rebranding, do you?
In business, beyond the cost of tweaking the product/company in the first place and thinking up a logo, you would have to change the product/company's name on every piece of stationary, every website, every little thing linked to your company that you can directly control.
Then you have to get this new name out to the general public. You have to contract a PR company to deal with the media, and an advertising agency to think up a shiny new commercial, and billboard adverts. Then you'd have to make these commercials and buy air time, and billboard space.
With a large company they could spend $100 million rebranding just to ensure when you look on the shelf you don't think "Hey, I can't find brand X anymore" even though it sits in the same place and is called brand Y.

Rebranding as a general rule of thumb costs money, it doesn't save money.

Before you scream "but BW said so" (ignoring for now that I think it's a fallacy).
Well he would, what he fails to take into account is Skiffy's side of the equation. It's all very easy for him to rebrand it by slapping a new title sequence on the front, but someone is going to have to make sure Joe Public understands SGC is both a Stargate show, and, in particular, a tweaked SG-1.
I don't think Brad is budgeting that out of his pocket.

Now let's look at the answer shall we?


GW: Do you think that the show has reached this point where it could potentially go on indefinitely, E.R.-style, where there's a cast change every time it's necessary? Or is this new incarnation something that you view as having more of a finite life, however long that may be?

BW: Well, sadly, it could've gone on much longer had we re-branded it entirely. One of the problems of SG-1 going into its tenth season, and potentially further on into its eleventh, is that when a show has been on for a very long period of time [is] the baggage. That's not even the right word -- but there's a lot of money that is spent that stops going on the screen.
It could have gone on longer had they re-branded it entirely (ie. make a new show). Now nothing in that statement says they intended to rebrand it entirely at the time. It reads as a regret that they didn't.
So why do you assume that the rebranding that did take place at the time (bar the final step of changing the name) was not what they intended originally?
Or are you so arrogant as to assume to know what BW was thinking?


That's the reason Star Trek: The Next Generation went off the air. Not because nobody would want to watch it, but because Patrick Stewart was becoming a big star and needed to move on. And now, of course, he doesn't even do television anymore. That's what happens to a really successful franchise.

Irrelevant. He's trying to compare his cost issues with Star Trek, when in Star Trek's instance they wisely shut the whole thing down when the lead left not because of any financial reasons.
Notice here he is again mixing up rebranding with the new show/franchise ideal.


And because seven years is the maximum, generally, the business model goes out to. That's generally how far the actor deals have been made. In fact, probably, they had to do one-year extensions after five years. I don't know the details. I do know that on our show, for the last couple of years, we've had to renegotiate every year, and that is very difficult from our perspective.

We don't know, A) whether or not we're going to get a network pickup, and B) how much money we're going to get to make the show. And all of those things are contingent on the cast deals we make. Which comes first, right? So it's been difficult the last couple of years. This year, I think one of the big advantages of Season Ten is we got a great start.Unlike what most people think in terms of how the shows are made, we wrap at the end of September, or early October, and people think we all go away. Well, everybody goes away but the writers. We just stayed here and kept working. And we quickly put together a bunch of stories for both shows, which has given us a better head start than we've ever had which, again, helps you put money on the screen.

So for those reasons, I think Season Ten and Season Three are starting out gangbusters.
Now this is where your insistance (or non-insistance, I can't quite work out which wind you are blowing in at the moment) that the actor's salaries would have gone down comes into play.
He states quite clearly that the actor salaries come first before the budget can be considered. So seeing as at the negotiation time between season 8 and 9 we didn't (in fandom) get any inkling that removing main cast was on the cards (it's the internet, it's surprising how quickly these things hit), and that the cast did sign on, I can't see anywhere where he states/had an intention to have saved money by lowering their fees.
Just that it is budgetarily difficult.
Again, to link to the first part of the reply, if they had ever intended a full rebrand (as opposed to just regretting it in hindsight) they would have jettisoned the cast at the start of season 9.
They didn't, therefore a full rebrand (also known as a spin-off) was not on the cards.

Now rereading BW's answer I can quite clearly see that he is mixing up his rebrand and his spin-off. Rebrand is what they did (without the final step), Spin-off is what (in hindsight) they wanted.



Picking up your actor salary rant to someone else. Your argument is incorrect, because the actor's salaries are with MGM and not directly with Stargate production (see how Brad mentions they don't know how much money they'll get to play with until the actors are contracted). If they made SGC the contract would still be with MGM, and still be for the same character. So there is no differential between their cost in starting a new show or continuing with an old one.
It would be better if you look at it not as joining a new company, but as moving departments within a company.

Also new emplorers do consider your past salary if you are good and they want you. That's why they ask you what you currently earn, so they can consider their options and work out whether a) they can afford you, and b) whether you'd be up for taking whatever they offer.
This is obviously more regularly known if you work in an industry where individual performance is heavily noted, like sales, banking, or acting for example.


ETA: As to why they would consider rebranding at all? Well this allows them the leeway/excuse to ignore the style/canon of the previous show. It is (to them, not Sci Fi) a quick and easy way to separate the RDA years with the post-RDA years.
It allows them to blah about how great and new it is, without all the risk associated with a new show.
They appear to believe it is a way to make a spin-off without the risk and the need to justify the idea to the moneymen.


Now again feel free to ignore an entensively argued point (I know you will, since you are assuming I'm not Brad Wright ;)), but I have a few suggestions to make - which really goes out to the masses as well;
1) Try not to run into a thread screaming that others are wrong when you yourself are making quite massive assumptions.
2) Try to form an argument without appearing to scream and stamp your foot when some people (in a well thought out and mature fashion) disagree.
3) Don't assume that people have knowledge only at or below your level.
Because if you do these things it will... well, it will make me overly nice to you because I'm left thinking that you might fairly young.
But I'm happy for you that you can accept everything a person says. I know the politicians would have a much easier life if we all did that. ;)


I think I've covered everything I've needed to cover (I probably haven't) so unless a more interesting point crops up I'll take my leave of this thread, because it feels too much like being at work.

The Ori
September 7th, 2006, 05:08 AM
I tink sum poeple are losing their heads, so what if Sci-Fi gave stargate 5 years, they gave it life and then took it away, especially at a great enjoyable moment, it's disgraceful and I soo hope that Atlantis (after the 4th year), Eureka and BSG are bought out by other companies and Sci-Fi goes down the drain and the people who cancelled the show find it hardto get jobs!! I still have hope that maybe Sky (UK) or even a canadian network will buy the rights!!

Lightbane
July 31st, 2007, 04:16 AM
Very possible for Sci-Fi to go broke, the TV station Channel Nine here in Australia is pretty much a piece of crap now. The old manager of the network retired and then passed away. The networks ratings and quality of programing and what they do with their very few quality shows is getting them totally slaughtered by the other 2 commercial networks. Some people are saying that the network is close to be broke. Poor management decisions and poor planning have lead to the downfall of the largest media network in Australia, so i wouldn't imagine it to be too hard for Sci-Fi to fall once you make too many bad decisions producers and advertisers tend to want to stay away because they are worried that they will either lose money or get their programs mis-treated

prion
July 31st, 2007, 04:48 AM
SciFi is good at sucking up old shows - a lot of what they air isnt' what they make. Repeats of dead scifi shows, etc. and when they do make shows, they can be good, but then they ruin them quickly (Invisible Man) or they make dreck straight off. As for Stargate, they never would have made that show on their own. IT's Showtime who's really due the praise, as they put the money and time into the series in the first place. Yes, Skiffy deserves some praise for picking it up, but it's been uneven since, but then that may be the fault of the producers/writers as well, cough cough. ;)