PDA

View Full Version : The next goal for SG:A: Cast Stability!!!



Pages : [1] 2

Reckoning22
April 26th, 2008, 10:06 PM
For any possible future seasons, the creators of the show should settle down and not have anymore cast changes for the rest of its run (3 seasons max, probably). There was not a cast change to SG-1 until season 6, and then it went back to how it was for season 7.

Though it has not annoyed me, the constant cast changes are starting to bug me. Does anyone else want to see a couple of seasons with the same cast? To me it worked out brilliantly with SG:1.

Icedragon
April 27th, 2008, 02:04 AM
I like that it always changes. I love those episodes in sci fi shows where are character dies or joins. (Even if its my favorite character). But yeah I think the season 4 cast was great (except Carter her in that role never felt right - seemed like a different character.) So i wouldn't be against the current cast remaining.

Bobby
April 27th, 2008, 02:31 AM
i think sg1 got a bit lucky with thier casts atlantis have just been experimenting a bit with them trying to find the best fit...and amanda tapping decided to leave they didnt get rid of her

Madeleine
April 27th, 2008, 02:36 AM
Does anyone else want to see a couple of seasons with the same cast?

No, I think the concept of Cast Changes didn't sit well with SG-1 because they left it so late to try; but given that Atlantis set the tone nice and early, with Ford and Grodin leaving and Ronon arriving before the second year was a fortnight old, I think Atlantis should maintain its turnover rate, to keep it all from getting blasé.

But next time they kill or retire a character, it should be midseason. End-of-season exits are old hat :p

jenks
April 27th, 2008, 04:59 AM
For any possible future seasons, the creators of the show should settle down and not have anymore cast changes for the rest of its run (3 seasons max, probably). There was not a cast change to SG-1 until season 6, and then it went back to how it was for season 7.

Though it has not annoyed me, the constant cast changes are starting to bug me. Does anyone else want to see a couple of seasons with the same cast? To me it worked out brilliantly with SG:1.

Why?

kymeric
April 27th, 2008, 06:05 AM
Well the AR1 team has been the same for 3 years, i dont know quite wut u mean. While there has been alot off adds and minus the core team has remained. While this is an ensamble show and it does a better job of fleshing out the supporting the characters than anything else i watch. You cant really say the team has broken up at all.

Kmael
April 27th, 2008, 07:21 AM
Personally, I think that some of Atlantis's cast problems has to do with the enviroment of television as well.

Around the time Atlantis started, I started to notice a general shift in television shows, they've become more plot oriented to some extent and characters, even main characters, are killed or retired for the sake of the plot or intrique, not because the actor particularly wants to leave.

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 07:32 AM
I think the cast changes have been for the better. Ford was awful, imo. Ronon is so much better of a character and they developed him from that outcast runner warrior buff, to a caring and friendly person who cares about his friends.

We are getting Carson back for a recurring role, so there is a 360 degrees turn right there.

I think Woolsey is going to surprise a lot of people with how much character drama he adds to the show and he may not be a good leader at first, but that is what a drama series is about. A character has to have their flaws and struggles and then eventually mesh well into that position. We did not get that with Carter. She was just too well respected and there was no conflinct, except from............oh yeah Woolsey (The Seer). ;)

As per more changes down the road.They should keep Season 5 and if there is a Season 6, the same. The only change I can see happening is maybe Carson getting more eps.

Killdeer
April 27th, 2008, 07:40 AM
Yes, I would like to see the cast turnover settle down. I make it a point not to watch shows with a high cast turnover, and it gets annoying. A show like L&O (which I don't watch btw) can handle it because they're very much a plot oriented show rather than character oriented. But most shows don't work that way and cast instability tends to be a sign of show instability. Not even the CSIs have had much of a cast shakeup until this last year or so. And let's face it - the strength of a show like Atlantis is their characters, not their plots, which tend to be regular sci-fi fare, nothing particularly groundbreaking. Ford's departure is nothing that unusual - I can think of several shows that replaced a character that wasn't working after the first year, especially if they were just a supporting character. But the rest of the changes...that's not so usual. And yeah, I hope it settles down from here on out. It's not good for a show to continually feel like it's in transition IMO, and last year definately felt like a transitional year.

miss_kaylee
April 27th, 2008, 08:29 AM
I think Woolsey is going to surprise a lot of people with how much character drama he adds to the show and he may not be a good leader at first, but that is what a drama series is about. A character has to have their flaws and struggles and then eventually mesh well into that position. We did not get that with Carter. She was just too well respected and there was no conflinct, except from............oh yeah Woolsey (The Seer). ;)



I sorta exciting to see how Woolsey as a leader. It will be neat to see him grow into the role of the leader. You know him and Sheppard are going have some conflicts over stuff.

As for the cast stability, I can understand if an actor want to leave the show. I just don't want to see any more shock deaths. Hopefully, this is the beginning some stability. Like you said Brian, I can see them adding Carson into more episodes. I also think they might add one or two more characters to recurring status.

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 09:02 AM
I sorta exciting to see how Woolsey as a leader. It will be neat to see him grow into the role of the leader. You know him and Sheppard are going have some conflicts over stuff.

As for the cast stability, I can understand if an actor want to leave the show. I just don't want to see any more shock deaths. Hopefully, this is the beginning some stability. Like you said Brian, I can see them adding Carson into more episodes. I also think they might add one or two more characters to recurring status.

As long as the 4 main characters remain untouched then I am happy. I also see Carson returning as bringing more character stability. Carson, like Sheppard, Teyla, and Mckay are the original cast from day one.

Reiko
April 27th, 2008, 12:08 PM
.: ITA - but cast stability also factors in to that spiffy thing called cast chemistry, which we had with Shep, Teyla, Elizabeth, Carson, Ronon and Rodney in S2-S3. It was perfect.

.: Excuse me for sounding like an optimist, but it's not to late for TPTB to have a change of heart and mend old wounds. :)

.: http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff239/Reiko_Afterglow/team2_FAM2.gif FTW

jenks
April 27th, 2008, 12:26 PM
We have cast chemistry now, the producers have only been cutting away dead skin, Ford, Weir, Heightmeyer ect...

txTart
April 27th, 2008, 12:39 PM
Did I dream this or didn't Joe and David sign on for five years? Because if that's the case, there could be some major shuffling around of recurring characters to free up money for the huge salaries Joe and David will (very deservedly) be getting. The show would be nothing without both those guys.

ToasterOnFire
April 27th, 2008, 12:43 PM
Nah, cast stability puts too much pressure on TPTB to actually develop those characters. Constant turnover of new and shiny things is far easier. ;)

Killdeer
April 27th, 2008, 12:48 PM
Did I dream this or didn't Joe and David sign on for five years?

I believe all of the original cast signed six year contracts.

txTart
April 27th, 2008, 12:49 PM
I believe all of the original cast signed six year contracts.

Ah, a dream then! Thanks for the info. :sheppard:

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 01:08 PM
.: ITA - but cast stability also factors in to that spiffy thing called cast chemistry, which we had with Shep, Teyla, Elizabeth, Carson, Ronon and Rodney in S2-S3. It was perfect.

.: Excuse me for sounding like an optimist, but it's not to late for TPTB to have a change of heart and mend old wounds. :)

.: http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff239/Reiko_Afterglow/team2_FAM2.gif FTW

It is not too late. The show will most likely go past Season 5. I wish and hope they could patch up those wounds. BTW, nothing wrong with being optimistic. I was optimistic from the end of Season 3 that Carson would return to at least recurring. This forum really needs more optimism.


Nah, cast stability puts too much pressure on TPTB to actually develop those characters. Constant turnover of new and shiny things is far easier. ;)

So Mckay, Carson, Weir, Sheppard, Ronon, and Teyla have had NO development or character chemistry? Sorry, I disagree with that.

Reiko
April 27th, 2008, 01:47 PM
So Mckay, Carson, Weir, Sheppard, Ronon, and Teyla have had NO development or character chemistry? Sorry, I disagree with that.

.: I think what Toaster means is that the S2-S3 cast had chemistry, but TPTB are too lazy to develop it so they waved goodbye and brought in some shiny new toys. (Carter, Keller, Woolsey, Larrin etc) :)

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 02:04 PM
.: I think what Toaster means is that the S2-S3 cast had chemistry, but TPTB are too lazy to develop it so they waved goodbye and brought in some shiny new toys. (Carter, Keller, Woolsey, Larrin etc) :)

That is something I totally disagree with. In fact Season 4 had very strong character moments with Weir and Carson. You had one character who was injured, captured, cloned, killed, then shows up the last 30 seconds in an episode. Another one shows up and happens to be a clone but wants to prove he is just as good or even better. I think because of the strong character bonds of Season 1 through 3, it made Season 4 very powerful. Now if Torri would of said yes, she would be back also next season as Weir. Carson is already on board and we are going to see some nice development and character interaction from him in Season 5. So there were and are still some potential here for these character interactions. What about Sheppard, Mckay, Teyla, and Ronon? You know it will be very dramatic when they get Teyla back and she has her baby.

rielgenius1688
April 27th, 2008, 03:29 PM
With Keller joining the crew, and Carson in a number of episodes, we still have much of the same chemistry, and the potential exists that it will become better. I admit that I will miss seeing Carson as often as we did, and I will miss Elizabeth, I don't really feel that the family we have grown to love has been broken. Rather, it has simply gotten larger.

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 03:51 PM
With Keller joining the crew, and Carson in a number of episodes, we still have much of the same chemistry, and the potential exists that it will become better. I admit that I will miss seeing Carson as often as we did, and I will miss Elizabeth, I don't really feel that the family we have grown to love has been broken. Rather, it has simply gotten larger.

Excellent point. Most of the original family is still there, it is just bigger. :)

Stargate121x
April 27th, 2008, 03:53 PM
The cast of atlantis should've stayed the same since season 2 wit shepherd, mckay, ronan, weir, teyla, and carson being the team members. I was pretty pissed off and sad when carson died, and a lil upset when weir passed, and altho i got used 2 them not being there, i still feel the show should've stuck wit those ppl.

mark1
April 27th, 2008, 03:54 PM
I like the changes, I just wish the people would stay dead. I mean its suppose to be a dangerous galaxy and yet no one dies? the idea is dumb... Killing main characters keeps the element of danger, I want to worry when they get caught by the wraith or trapped in some hole, not know that they are forsure gonna make it out. I hope I hope Tayla goes next....

ShadowMaat
April 27th, 2008, 04:01 PM
Nah, cast stability puts too much pressure on TPTB to actually develop those characters.
Teyla's been on it from the beginning, but I wouldn't exactly call her a well-developed character. Not in terms of plot, anyway. ;) Ronon's been around for almost as long and is likewise lacking in story development. But you're right: new & shiny (and "perky") is better than consistency, longevity or character loyalty.

Reiko
April 27th, 2008, 04:11 PM
.: I assume "perky" has multiple meanings? :P

Falcon Horus
April 27th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Ronon's been around for almost as long and is likewise lacking in story development.

Makes you wonder why Ford/Rainbow was kicked out in the first place? ;)

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Makes you wonder why Ford/Rainbow was kicked out in the first place? ;)

So glad he was, he was not a good character, imo.

Jackie
April 27th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Because the wanted Ronon.

I think SGA's goal should be getting a season 6 and not worry about stable cast at this point in time.

It would be too little too late to fix the baggage issues of just how to kill of the next one.

Pic
April 27th, 2008, 04:48 PM
I think Woolsey is going to surprise a lot of people with how much character drama he adds to the show and he may not be a good leader at first, but that is what a drama series is about. A character has to have their flaws and struggles and then eventually mesh well into that position. We did not get that with Carter. She was just too well respected and there was no conflinct, except from............oh yeah Woolsey (The Seer). ;)


I agree. I'm referring to him as Mr. Weasely right now because I think the whole "IOA taking charge" theme is going to create some tension with the team. And, of course, I'm on our team's side until the weasel proves himself. The episode with him and Jack and then again in 'The Seer' showed promise, but still lots of room for mishandling of circumstances. I'm looking forward to his character.

Someone else said this, too, but Carter walked in the door with too much respect and character history. It feels like she was sent as a hero to "take care of things" until they decided who'd take up Atlantis next. In a sense, it might be seen as realistic. Suddenly Weir is gone and Atlantis is bad shape. Who can take charge and make sure it all smooths out ok? Why, Carter can, of course.
I still love Sam, but her input on Atlantis seemed mostly administrative and non-Sam-like (with some exceptions, of course, but I'm speaking of an overall impression).

Atlantis is an outpost. Folks usually rotate assignments every couple of years or so. I would like it better if, the next time they need to lose a character, that they offer them some plumb job in Area 51, or some command, or something. Promote them and move them on rather than killing them off. Maybe people wouldn't hate the "replacement" as much.

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 05:04 PM
I agree. I'm referring to him as Mr. Weasely right now because I think the whole "IOA taking charge" theme is going to create some tension with the team. And, of course, I'm on our team's side until the weasel proves himself. The episode with him and Jack and then again in 'The Seer' showed promise, but still lots of room for mishandling of circumstances. I'm looking forward to his character.

Someone else said this, too, but Carter walked in the door with too much respect and character history. It feels like she was sent as a hero to "take care of things" until they decided who'd take up Atlantis next. In a sense, it might be seen as realistic. Suddenly Weir is gone and Atlantis is bad shape. Who can take charge and make sure it all smooths out ok? Why, Carter can, of course.
I still love Sam, but her input on Atlantis seemed mostly administrative and non-Sam-like (with some exceptions, of course, but I'm speaking of an overall impression).



I think you hit the nail on the head with that. Carter did not really have any challenges. Sheppard or Mckay did not even once question her command or even put up an argument. Sheppard sure did give Weir lots of hell in the beginning. Maybe because of the Civillian vs. Military stuff? Well Woolsey is a civillian so bring on the drama. :p

Falcon Horus
April 27th, 2008, 05:14 PM
Promote them and move them on rather than killing them off. Maybe people wouldn't hate the "replacement" as much.

Think again... :p

prion
April 27th, 2008, 06:03 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head with that. Carter did not really have any challenges. Sheppard or Mckay did not even once question her command or even put up an argument. Sheppard sure did give Weir lots of hell in the beginning. Maybe because of the Civillian vs. Military stuff? Well Woolsey is a civillian so bring on the drama. :p

carter could easily have been a cardboard cutout for all the lines the writers gave her. she was pretty much non-confrontational (except for one remark to Woolsey) that she came across more as a, well, grade school teacher than the leader of an alien city. i do think woolsey will add more conflict/drama or at least better delivery of dialogue than they had with carter. I'm not sure what happened to her between SG1 and SGA, but I suspect there's a giant green pod out there somewhere ;)

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 06:05 PM
carter could easily have been a cardboard cutout for all the lines the writers gave her. she was pretty much non-confrontational (except for one remark to Woolsey) that she came across more as a, well, grade school teacher than the leader of an alien city. i do think woolsey will add more conflict/drama or at least better delivery of dialogue than they had with carter. I'm not sure what happened to her between SG1 and SGA, but I suspect there's a giant green pod out there somewhere ;)

See I loved Carter in "Trio" and "BAMSR" we got to see the thinking Carter or the SG-1 Carter we all fell in love with, well at least the ones that fell in love with her character. :p

Killdeer
April 27th, 2008, 06:08 PM
Actually......as far as Carter goes, I agree they could have done better with the conflict, but...I actually started liking her again in the second half of S4. And that's saying quite a lot because I disliked her character pretty strongly after her last few seasons on SG-1 (7ish through 10).

prion
April 27th, 2008, 06:10 PM
See I loved Carter in "Trio" and "BAMSR" we got to see the thinking Carter or the SG-1 Carter we all fell in love with, well at least the ones that fell in love with her character. :p

I liked carter in SG1, but in SGA, her portrayal was, well, pretty unmemorable, and I blame that mostly due to the writers. They gave her precious little to work with, no real conflict of any kind :( TRIO doesn't rate as one of my favorites. Maybe it'll look better on DVD.

But a to cast stablility? Sigh, the writers solution to not thinking up better plots is to kill someone for ratings. It is, alas, a time-honored cop-out on TV. I keep wishing they'd get in some fresh blood on the writing staff...

I hope we can get through season 5 wtihout the writers feeling they need to kill someone else (unless it's a guest star character, then that's okay ;)

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 06:14 PM
I liked carter in SG1, but in SGA, her portrayal was, well, pretty unmemorable, and I blame that mostly due to the writers. They gave her precious little to work with, no real conflict of any kind :( TRIO doesn't rate as one of my favorites. Maybe it'll look better on DVD.

But a to cast stablility? Sigh, the writers solution to not thinking up better plots is to kill someone for ratings. It is, alas, a time-honored cop-out on TV. I keep wishing they'd get in some fresh blood on the writing staff...

I hope we can get through season 5 wtihout the writers feeling they need to kill someone else (unless it's a guest star character, then that's okay ;)

See I think that was done on purpose. A lot of stuff happened to the main characters like dealing with Weir's departure, Carson's return out of nowhere, and Teyla's abduction. There was really no room for Carter to be focused onto, and honestly it was better this way. Now with Woolsey, we will see that heavy character drama like we got in the first Season. I think it will be very interesting.

Edit: As per the main character deaths. I think we'll be safe at least till Season 7 if the show gets that far. :p

Reiko
April 27th, 2008, 06:23 PM
I hope we can get through season 5 wtihout the writers feeling they need to kill someone else

.: Yes and No. Because Keller must DIE! :P

.: That's a cheap ratings ploy that would actually work...

prion
April 27th, 2008, 06:24 PM
See I think that was done on purpose. A lot of stuff happened to the main characters like dealing with Weir's departure, Carson's return out of nowhere, and Teyla's abduction. There was really no room for Carter to be focused onto, and honestly it was better this way. Now with Woolsey, we will see that heavy character drama like we got in the first Season. I think it will be very interesting.

Edit: As per the main character deaths. I think we'll be safe at least till Season 7 if the show gets that far. :p

Yes, they did leave Carter in the background but didn't give her much of anything interesting to do. I thought they'd at least give her a little 'oomph' but never saw that develop.

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 06:25 PM
.: Yes and No. Because Keller must DIE! :P

.: That's a cheap ratings ploy that would actually work...

So Keller gets killed, and Carson takes over as CMO? Hmmm could work. I would not put that past the writers to do that. Don't know if I would be happy with that, I like the shared role better. Right now it's like 1 to 3 which is not too bad. I was looking for more 1 to 2 or 7eps to 14eps.

Buck32
April 27th, 2008, 06:27 PM
For any possible future seasons, the creators of the show should settle down and not have anymore cast changes for the rest of its run (3 seasons max, probably). There was not a cast change to SG-1 until season 6, and then it went back to how it was for season 7.

Though it has not annoyed me, the constant cast changes are starting to bug me. Does anyone else want to see a couple of seasons with the same cast? To me it worked out brilliantly with SG:1.


I agree i think too many cast changes are the sign of a struggling show, struggling to define itself, and as a character driven show to change characters so often is unsettling.

They should take some lessons from Star Trek Deep Space Nine, they kept all their original cast but managed to develop new guest characters as well.
the result was a great Sci FI show with great characters that didn't have to die to become interesting, with the possible exception of Dax.

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 06:29 PM
Yes, they did leave Carter in the background but didn't give her much of anything interesting to do. I thought they'd at least give her a little 'oomph' but never saw that develop.

Yeah I think they did not want Carter to get too much of the spotlight and leave the SGA cast in the background. But Carter did have some of her moments to shine.

BTW, don't be surprised if Carter returns in Season 6 as leader. I don't know how Sanctuary will do. SCI FI viewers are more fixated on Ghost Plumbers right now. So TPTB would not think twice to bring Amanda back, imo.

I rather see Woolsey really take the role and take it to the next level and remain as leader if there are more seasons to come.

Reiko
April 27th, 2008, 06:33 PM
.: I still do not get how Skiffy (and moreso its viewers) are so enamoured with Ghost Plumbers and Wrestling.

.: If TPTB want to make changes without all the hassle, have Rodney find an Ancient Machine, go back to 'Sunday' and save Carson and Elizabeth. Full circle.

.: Easy-peasy. :)

PG15
April 27th, 2008, 06:49 PM
No, that'd be a reset.

Which, apparently, fans hate?

prion
April 27th, 2008, 06:59 PM
Yeah I think they did not want Carter to get too much of the spotlight and leave the SGA cast in the background. But Carter did have some of her moments to shine.

BTW, don't be surprised if Carter returns in Season 6 as leader. I don't know how Sanctuary will do. SCI FI viewers are more fixated on Ghost Plumbers right now. So TPTB would not think twice to bring Amanda back, imo.

I rather see Woolsey really take the role and take it to the next level and remain as leader if there are more seasons to come.

I hope they do NOT bring her back as commander. See below for reasoning. It would be tacky to kick out one actor to make room for another... oh wait, this is stargate ;)


I agree i think too many cast changes are the sign of a struggling show, struggling to define itself, and as a character driven show to change characters so often is unsettling.

They should take some lessons from Star Trek Deep Space Nine, they kept all their original cast but managed to develop new guest characters as well.
the result was a great Sci FI show with great characters that didn't have to die to become interesting, with the possible exception of Dax.

While in a rare instance an actor doens't work out, neither Paul nor Torri wanted to leave. They were just told, hey, we're doing this to your character. Constantly switching lead characters doesn't build an audience; it tends to lose an audience if they tune in and go 'wait, where did so and so go?" ANd with the increasingly fickle tastes of vieweing audience nowadays, they can't afford to lose audience. Or alienate the fan base they have.

Killdeer
April 27th, 2008, 07:03 PM
OK no. I got used to her on Atlantis - even started liking her character again, in spite of some of my issues with how she was used. But no. Bringing her back if Sanctuary doesn't work out would be so not a good idea. This game of musical chairs in the leader position needs to stop.

Reiko
April 27th, 2008, 07:09 PM
No, that'd be a reset.
Which, apparently, fans hate?

.: See, PTB don't know the difference between "good" reset and "bad" reset. Actually there is no good nor bad reset. It's a necessary reset. Think of it - with Carson and Elizabeth back, along with some spiffing up the writing, the show will be restored, and - I know this will appeal to lots of people - the stupid lemmings like me will finally shut the hell up! :P


While in a rare instance an actor doens't work out, neither Paul nor Torri wanted to leave. They were just told, hey, we're doing this to your character. Constantly switching lead characters doesn't build an audience; it tends to lose an audience if they tune in and go 'wait, where did so and so go?" ANd with the increasingly fickle tastes of vieweing audience nowadays, they can't afford to lose audience. Or alienate the fan base they have.

.: Exactly! Neither of them wanted to leave, and as a fan of both characters I find that insulting as a viewer. Look at the mess we're in now that could've been avoided. Should've kept 'em while you had them. Yes, they have lost a large part of their incredibly fickle audience. Yes, I am fickle. I am fickle. Fickle and proud.

.: Don't fix what ain't broke. ;)

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 07:52 PM
I hope they do NOT bring her back as commander. See below for reasoning. It would be tacky to kick out one actor to make room for another... oh wait, this is stargate ;)



While in a rare instance an actor doens't work out, neither Paul nor Torri wanted to leave. They were just told, hey, we're doing this to your character. Constantly switching lead characters doesn't build an audience; it tends to lose an audience if they tune in and go 'wait, where did so and so go?" ANd with the increasingly fickle tastes of vieweing audience nowadays, they can't afford to lose audience. Or alienate the fan base they have.

The Season 5 cast should remain the same until the show goes off the air. That is my opinion. I think Carson just needs a few more eps here and there. 5 is a good start but it should not be the total.




.: See, PTB don't know the difference between "good" reset and "bad" reset. Actually there is no good nor bad reset. It's a necessary reset. Think of it - with Carson and Elizabeth back, along with some spiffing up the writing, the show will be restored, and - I know this will appeal to lots of people - the stupid lemmings like me will finally shut the hell up! :P



.: Exactly! Neither of them wanted to leave, and as a fan of both characters I find that insulting as a viewer. Look at the mess we're in now that could've been avoided. Should've kept 'em while you had them. Yes, they have lost a large part of their incredibly fickle audience. Yes, I am fickle. I am fickle. Fickle and proud.

.: Don't fix what ain't broke. ;)


If Weir were to come back full-time I could see it ticking off more fans rather than making them happy. They cheated death with Carson by making him a clone, and it worked, imo. Like I said above, there should be no more character changes. This should be it.

Take a look at BSG, characters die, now if they all came back, how much of a drama would it be? If the orginal Carson returned from the dead, it would of cheapened the events of "Sunday". Now Sunday is still a powerful episode because it was a different Carson. Carson returning as a clone makes it more interesting. I am thinking more Farscape here. Farscape was an amazing show, and SGA has been more like Farscape by taking risks. That makes a good show, not a show where all the characters will be safe at the end of the day after every episode.

SpaceCowboy
April 27th, 2008, 08:25 PM
The Season 5 cast should remain the same until the show goes off the air. That is my opinion. I think Carson just needs a few more eps here and there. 5 is a good start but it should not be the total.




If Weir were to come back full-time I could see it ticking off more fans rather than making them happy. They cheated death with Carson by making him a clone, and it worked, imo. Like I said above, there should be no more character changes. This should be it.

Take a look at BSG, characters die, now if they all came back, how much of a drama would it be? If the orginal Carson returned from the dead, it would of cheapened the events of "Sunday". Now Sunday is still a powerful episode because it was a different Carson. Carson returning as a clone makes it more interesting. I am thinking more Farscape here. Farscape was an amazing show, and SGA has been more like Farscape by taking risks. That makes a good show, not a show where all the characters will be safe at the end of the day after every episode.


The key is that the safety of the characters can be in question without necessarily killing them. (Whumpers, get ready.) TPTB have never shied away from roughing up the main characters: cuts, bruises, gun shot wounds, pregnancies (ooooooh, he didn't just say that....:o).

Briangate78
April 27th, 2008, 08:28 PM
The key is that the safety of the characters can be in question without necessarily killing them. (Whumpers, get ready.) TPTB have never shied away from roughing up the main characters: cuts, bruises, gun shot wounds, pregnancies (ooooooh, he didn't just say that....:o).

Even with the Teyla abduction. I loved how they are carrying out for multiple episodes. It's not like ok everything is back to normal at the end of this episode.

SpaceCowboy
April 27th, 2008, 08:43 PM
Even with the Teyla abduction. I loved how they are carrying out for multiple episodes. It's not like ok everything is back to normal at the end of this episode.

I agree. The five minute "Star Trek resolution" of major story arcs drives me crazy. If the arc is worth doing, then it is worth doing right and over many episodes or even seasons. Hey, at the very least it's job security. ;)

Irish Eyes
April 27th, 2008, 10:41 PM
If Weir were to come back full-time I could see it ticking off more fans rather than making them happy. They cheated death with Carson by making him a clone, and it worked, imo. Like I said above, there should be no more character changes. This should be it.

I would disagree with your first statement. Remember this poll?

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=50240&page=11

Yes, I know it's just a small sampling, but most of the people who took the time to vote wanted her back. As far as I'm concerned she wouldn't have to cheat death to come back because we never saw her die like Carson. All we have is the word of a replicator. Yep, must be true. :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter, though. They gave up on the character; she's not coming back. And as far as cast stability, I don't really care at this point. I liked the main six from seasons 2 & 3. Season 4 didn't work so well for me so maybe if they keep changing things they'll hit on something I really like again.

ShadowMaat
April 27th, 2008, 11:30 PM
Well, with all due respect, Irish Eyes, polls are kinda BS. All you have to do is get you and all your friends to vote a particular way, bully others into it if you can and/or create sock puppets to cast MORE votes and bingo: you have a poll "proving" that such-and-such "is what the fans want." I betcha I could create a poll asking if folks wanted Poochinski to join Atlantis and have the "yes" votes win. ;)

As for bringing Weir back, I say no. TPTB wrote her off* and that should be the end of it. Frankly I'm against the whole FRAN thing as well. Weir is GONE. Her story should be OVER. It's bad enough they "brought back" Carson, but to then bring back another character through some equally (or worse) contrived and asinine method... thanks but no thanks. I'm in the school of thought that just because you can bring characters back from the dead doesn't mean that you should and given the (IMO) piss-poor job TPTB have done with other character resurrections (Carson and Daniel spring most readily to mind) I don't want to be subjected to their efforts again.

Cast stability would be a great thing... but in order to avoid hypocrisy (among other things) it'd have to be the cast that starts off S5. Whatever issues I may have with the character selection on the show, if there's to be any stability it has to start NOW. As we used to say on the playground, "no backsies." ;) Sure, I think it'd be great to have Weir back, but she's gone, so any future return wouldn't exactly contribute to the "stability" of the show/cast. Likewise, as much as I miss and love Ford, I think too much time has passed for him to "realistically" show up again- although in that case I don't think it's much of a concern since Hell would probably freeze over before we ever saw him again anyway. :rolleyes:

Of course that also means that we'd be stuck with Woolsey and- for the naysayers in the audience- Keller, so there's that to think of as well. Is it really about "stability" or is it about sticking to the old guard?

Personally I think too much damage has already been done and that even if the show gets renewed after S5 and there aren't any major casting changes that things will never again reach the levels achieved during the first season or two. It's a nice thought, but it comes two seasons too late.

PG15
April 28th, 2008, 12:01 AM
.: See, PTB don't know the difference between "good" reset and "bad" reset. Actually there is no good nor bad reset. It's a necessary reset. Think of it - with Carson and Elizabeth back, along with some spiffing up the writing, the show will be restored, and - I know this will appeal to lots of people - the stupid lemmings like me will finally shut the hell up! :P

Not really. Backpeddled, perhaps; caved into fan pressure in the extreme sense, maybe; stagnating more than ever, indeed; going around in circles, and yes...resetting. I'd rather use any of those terms if they did what you're asking of them.

This is ridiculous, seriously. You're talking about now, resetting nearly half of the show just because you don't like it? That's screwy. There are many who do like what the show has become, I amongst them, and it would be baffling and stupid to remove all of this because another portion of fandom didn't like it. It's not a necesssary reset at all; there is no restoration of the show, and you shutting up won't stop more people from speaking up.

Let the show move forward. If it leaves you behind, know that you chose to let it, which is fine...but don't try to call it back just for you and your following's sake. The rest of us want to keep moving, which just so happens to be what TPTB wants as well. The story needs to progress, not loop back on itself.

Man...I tortured that metaphor to the extreme, didn't I?

bluealien
April 28th, 2008, 12:54 AM
.: See, PTB don't know the difference between "good" reset and "bad" reset. Actually there is no good nor bad reset. It's a necessary reset. Think of it - with Carson and Elizabeth back, along with some spiffing up the writing, the show will be restored, and - I know this will appeal to lots of people - the stupid lemmings like me will finally shut the hell up! :P

The show doesn't need to be restored. It's doing fine just the way it is. I quite liked Carsons character up until Kindred but forcing him back into the show as a clone hasn't endeared me to the character at all, and if the tpb decide to kill off characters they should really remain dead.



.: Exactly! Neither of them wanted to leave, and as a fan of both characters I find that insulting as a viewer. Look at the mess we're in now that could've been avoided. Should've kept 'em while you had them. Yes, they have lost a large part of their incredibly fickle audience. Yes, I am fickle. I am fickle. Fickle and proud.

.: Don't fix what ain't broke. ;)


People lose their jobs all the time in all kinds of industries, there is nothing insulting about it, its a fact of life. What mess are we in. Just because you don't like the direction of the show doesn't mean it's in any sort of mess. The audience didnt dramatically increase with the episodes that featured Weir and Carson so again why do you think the audience would flock back if both these characters returned. Having Carson and Weir didn't make any difference to the ratings, in fact the episodes without them brought in the highest ratings, so I don't get your argument at all about the show being restored or a huge audience returning to see Weir and Carson.


I would agree that the writing could be better at times and we could do with some new writers brought into the mix.

Linzi
April 28th, 2008, 05:07 AM
.: See, PTB don't know the difference between "good" reset and "bad" reset. Actually there is no good nor bad reset. It's a necessary reset. Think of it - with Carson and Elizabeth back, along with some spiffing up the writing, the show will be restored, and - I know this will appeal to lots of people - the stupid lemmings like me will finally shut the hell up! :P



See, that reset wouldn't appeal to me, because I don't want the cast back to the way it was. Thus for me, it's not a necessary reset at all, and judging from the viewing figures I'd say many viewers agree too. I look at Ford going and being replaced by Ronon, and I think it was an excellent move. I look at Weir going and Carter coming over, and it was an excellent move for me. I look at Carson going and think huh? Keller coming over? Well, okaaaay, strange to have someone so young but it's done and it's not going to change. Did I want Carson back? No. Did I like the way he came back? Predictable. If he was coming back then I'd have preferred it as CMO. Now? I don't know what his role is going to be, thus to me it's a total waste of time. SO him coming back is pointless for me.

I loved Carter in SGA. In fact I ended up thinking she was underutilised. But now she's gone and Woolsey is here, he has to stay. No more musical Atlantis leaders thank you! :) I'm at the point where I need some stability in the cast, yes.



.: Exactly! Neither of them wanted to leave, and as a fan of both characters I find that insulting as a viewer. Look at the mess we're in now that could've been avoided. Should've kept 'em while you had them. Yes, they have lost a large part of their incredibly fickle audience. Yes, I am fickle. I am fickle. Fickle and proud.

.: Don't fix what ain't broke. ;)

I don't find it insulting to the viewers that two characters left -whatever the reasons behind it. Happens all the time in TV shows. I don't think the show is in a mess at all. It's all our OPINIONS, not fact, and our perspectives on things.

I also disagree that they've lost a large part of their audience. Certainly not if one compares the viewing figures from the season 4 and season 3 finales....

So for me, I actually think the cast changes were mainly good, possibly with one weird one, that I'm puzzled about, but at the end of the day as I said earlier, many shows I've watched over the years have had dramatic cast changes. I either stick with the show or don't. I'm sticking with SGA. :)

Briangate78
April 28th, 2008, 05:31 AM
Well, with all due respect, Irish Eyes, polls are kinda BS. All you have to do is get you and all your friends to vote a particular way, bully others into it if you can and/or create sock puppets to cast MORE votes and bingo: you have a poll "proving" that such-and-such "is what the fans want." I betcha I could create a poll asking if folks wanted Poochinski to join Atlantis and have the "yes" votes win. ;)

As for bringing Weir back, I say no. TPTB wrote her off* and that should be the end of it. Frankly I'm against the whole FRAN thing as well. Weir is GONE. Her story should be OVER. It's bad enough they "brought back" Carson, but to then bring back another character through some equally (or worse) contrived and asinine method... thanks but no thanks. I'm in the school of thought that just because you can bring characters back from the dead doesn't mean that you should and given the (IMO) piss-poor job TPTB have done with other character resurrections (Carson and Daniel spring most readily to mind) I don't want to be subjected to their efforts again.

Cast stability would be a great thing... but in order to avoid hypocrisy (among other things) it'd have to be the cast that starts off S5. Whatever issues I may have with the character selection on the show, if there's to be any stability it has to start NOW. As we used to say on the playground, "no backsies." ;) Sure, I think it'd be great to have Weir back, but she's gone, so any future return wouldn't exactly contribute to the "stability" of the show/cast. Likewise, as much as I miss and love Ford, I think too much time has passed for him to "realistically" show up again- although in that case I don't think it's much of a concern since Hell would probably freeze over before we ever saw him again anyway. :rolleyes:

Of course that also means that we'd be stuck with Woolsey and- for the naysayers in the audience- Keller, so there's that to think of as well. Is it really about "stability" or is it about sticking to the old guard?

Personally I think too much damage has already been done and that even if the show gets renewed after S5 and there aren't any major casting changes that things will never again reach the levels achieved during the first season or two. It's a nice thought, but it comes two seasons too late.

Damage? For the show to increase their viewers from the previous season does not show signs of damage, it shows that it kept people interested and even added more viewers. Most likely from word of mouth. A drama series like SGA has to keep people interested and on top of things, it is not like Ghost Plumbers that can be cheap and of little quality, since their fan base is less demanding, imo.

As per Carson. It was good that he returned, and it was far from a cheap return. He is going to add a lot next season to the show.


I would disagree with your first statement. Remember this poll?

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=50240&page=11

Yes, I know it's just a small sampling, but most of the people who took the time to vote wanted her back. As far as I'm concerned she wouldn't have to cheat death to come back because we never saw her die like Carson. All we have is the word of a replicator. Yep, must be true. :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter, though. They gave up on the character; she's not coming back. And as far as cast stability, I don't really care at this point. I liked the main six from seasons 2 & 3. Season 4 didn't work so well for me so maybe if they keep changing things they'll hit on something I really like again.

Well you know how it is. You try and please one group and then the other group gets upset. You cannot please everyone. A show is going to have it's praisers and complainers no matter what happens.

Reiko
April 28th, 2008, 07:49 AM
.: Wow. You make me feel really anti today :rolleyes:

.: It's too little too late. I enjoyed the S1 and especially S2-S3 cast the most and even if you like the S4 or S5 you have to admit the S2-S3 cast meshed far better.

.: Just as you tell me to keep in mind that lots of people really like the direction the show is going, why don't you keep in mind that there are also many, many of us that strongly dislike the show's direction post-S3.

.: I'm fine living in the past and drowning myself in memories. I'm not being left behind. I'm right at home, where the heart is. :)

Constanza
April 28th, 2008, 07:58 AM
I hope we can get through season 5 wtihout the writers feeling they need to kill someone else (unless it's a guest star character, then that's okay ;)

Woah! Stop right there my friend, and think again what you just said: what if the guest star is Dr. Jackson?

Madeleine
April 28th, 2008, 07:59 AM
To be fair, if Dr J turned up and didn't die, we'd all think it pretty Out Of Character ;)

prion
April 28th, 2008, 08:44 AM
Woah! Stop right there my friend, and think again what you just said: what if the guest star is Dr. Jackson?

Aw, come on. Daniel's like a cockroach. You just can't kill him! ;) (said in the nicest way, not that I'm comparing Daniel to an insect, but to a creature that seems indestructible) ;)

prion
April 28th, 2008, 08:50 AM
Well, with all due respect, Irish Eyes, polls are kinda BS. All you have to do is get you and all your friends to vote a particular way, bully others into it if you can and/or create sock puppets to cast MORE votes and bingo: you have a poll "proving" that such-and-such "is what the fans want." I betcha I could create a poll asking if folks wanted Poochinski to join Atlantis and have the "yes" votes win. ;)


Internet polls, unless you have an IP address thing that blocks you, are pretty much useless. Like you said, sock puppets, or worse, fans who have nothing better to do than just vote over and over and over (and I bet they don't bother voting in REAL elections either). Yes, create a Poochinski poll, but make sure you give enough options like Yes / No / Who? / Are you Insane? etc. :)



As for bringing Weir back, I say no. TPTB wrote her off* and that should be the end of it. Frankly I'm against the whole FRAN thing as well. Weir is GONE. Her story should be OVER. It's bad enough they "brought back" Carson, but to then bring back another character through some equally (or worse) contrived and asinine method... thanks but no thanks. I'm in the school of thought that just because you can bring characters back from the dead doesn't mean that you should and given the (IMO) piss-poor job TPTB have done with other character resurrections (Carson and Daniel spring most readily to mind) I don't want to be subjected to their efforts again.

Regrettably, I don't see how they can get weir back with what they've done. I like Weir, saw no need to ditch her to bring carter on board. And yes, if you kill characters and keep resurrecting them, it gets stale. I mean, I don't mind with defib paddles, that's different and more realistic, but you blow 'em up and the next thing you know, they're back all okey-doke? THey've done it with Carson so have used their trump card. (Although I think killing him off was an incredibly STUPID idea in the first place.)




Of course that also means that we'd be stuck with Woolsey and- for the naysayers in the audience- Keller, so there's that to think of as well. Is it really about "stability" or is it about sticking to the old guard? .

I'd rather be stuck with Woolsey, who will cowtow to his masters back on earth, thus causing friction in ATlantis, than Carter, who caused no friction (and thus, was, well, boring. Nice, but boring).

Linzi
April 28th, 2008, 09:35 AM
.: Wow. You make me feel really anti today :rolleyes:

.: It's too little too late. I enjoyed the S1 and especially S2-S3 cast the most and even if you like the S4 or S5 you have to admit the S2-S3 cast meshed far better.

I don't know if you're responding to me here or not, or if this is a general question/statement? :confused: But, no, I don't have to admit the s2-s3 cast meshed far better, because I don't think it did. As I said, it's up to the individual to decide what they like. Nobody can say for someone else how they feel, surely?

[
.: Just as you tell me to keep in mind that lots of people really like the direction the show is going, why don't you keep in mind that there are also many, many of us that strongly dislike the show's direction post-S3.

.: I'm fine living in the past and drowning myself in memories. I'm not being left behind. I'm right at home, where the heart is. :)

Again, I don't know who you're replying to here? :confused: But if you're answering me, I've never said some people don't like the cast changes or how season 4 panned out. As I said, it's up to the individual how he/she feels and views things. :)

ShadowMaat
April 28th, 2008, 09:36 AM
I'd rather be stuck with Woolsey, who will cowtow to his masters back on earth, thus causing friction in ATlantis, than Carter, who caused no friction (and thus, was, well, boring. Nice, but boring).

Do you really believe that, though? Do you really think that Woolsey will be a source of friction for the show? Sure, maybe initially as he makes the transition, but do you think he'll still be contentious at the end of the season? And next season (if there is one)? Because from what I've seen, the leaders of Atlantis all eventually bow down to the the Almighty Shep. :rolleyes: What Shep wants, Shep gets, and no silly supposed "leader" is going to stop him. Not for long. ;)

Linzi
April 28th, 2008, 09:45 AM
Regrettably, I don't see how they can get weir back with what they've done. I like Weir, saw no need to ditch her to bring carter on board. And yes, if you kill characters and keep resurrecting them, it gets stale. I mean, I don't mind with defib paddles, that's different and more realistic, but you blow 'em up and the next thing you know, they're back all okey-doke? THey've done it with Carson so have used their trump card. (Although I think killing him off was an incredibly STUPID idea in the first place.)



I'd rather be stuck with Woolsey, who will cowtow to his masters back on earth, thus causing friction in ATlantis, than Carter, who caused no friction (and thus, was, well, boring. Nice, but boring).

I have to say I agree with you on the whole death/resurrection thing. Nobody dies in scifi? Well they do in RL. IMHO it belittles deaths if characters keep coming back. That's an issue I have and I realise other people don't necessarily feel the same way. But if I cry because a character dies, and then hello?...they're back again...I want my tears back! :lol:

I honestly think no matter what happens, if there's a season 6, Woolsey has to stay.

Irish Eyes
April 28th, 2008, 12:15 PM
Well, with all due respect, Irish Eyes, polls are kinda BS. All you have to do is get you and all your friends to vote a particular way, bully others into it if you can and/or create sock puppets to cast MORE votes and bingo: you have a poll "proving" that such-and-such "is what the fans want." I betcha I could create a poll asking if folks wanted Poochinski to join Atlantis and have the "yes" votes win. ;)

Yeah, I knew I would regret referencing that poll. :p I play by the rules when it comes to polls so I like to think others do too and maybe there's a little grain of truth in their results. I still think that one is interesting especially when you read the comments in the thread.


Well you know how it is. You try and please one group and then the other group gets upset. You cannot please everyone. A show is going to have it's praisers and complainers no matter what happens.

That's true. I think what keeps me upset is the fact that a lot of people don't seem to think those of us who are upset should either 1) be upset at all and 2) even be here on the board expressing our feelings. For me personally, I think it would be best to cut the cord to fandom. I just haven't managed to do it yet.

prion
April 28th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Do you really believe that, though? Do you really think that Woolsey will be a source of friction for the show? Sure, maybe initially as he makes the transition, but do you think he'll still be contentious at the end of the season? And next season (if there is one)? Because from what I've seen, the leaders of Atlantis all eventually bow down to the the Almighty Shep. :rolleyes: What Shep wants, Shep gets, and no silly supposed "leader" is going to stop him. Not for long. ;)

well, i meant for the people on Atlantis. I woud hope he'll not let Sheppard just willy-nilly go off and do what he wants, and also sends off Shep and his team on missions they should have thought better about going off on ...


I have to say I agree with you on the whole death/resurrection thing. Nobody dies in scifi? Well they do in RL. IMHO it belittles deaths if characters keep coming back. That's an issue I have and I realise other people don't necessarily feel the same way. But if I cry because a character dies, and then hello?...they're back again...I want my tears back! :lol:

I honestly think no matter what happens, if there's a season 6, Woolsey has to stay.

I just don't want them to kill characters for no other reason than they can't think of anything better to write to boost ratings.

PG15
April 28th, 2008, 03:33 PM
.: Wow. You make me feel really anti today :rolleyes:

.: It's too little too late. I enjoyed the S1 and especially S2-S3 cast the most and even if you like the S4 or S5 you have to admit the S2-S3 cast meshed far better.

Again, not really. I don't have to admit that if I don't agree with you (and frankly, I think it's about the same), as that's your opinion and not a fact. I've always enjoyed the character interations of this show, and Season 4 is about the same level for me. It's different, obviously, but IMHO the level of enjoyment I get out of it is still very high.


.: Just as you tell me to keep in mind that lots of people really like the direction the show is going, why don't you keep in mind that there are also many, many of us that strongly dislike the show's direction post-S3.

I have kept it in mind. But then, I'm not wishing to change the show so I'll like it better despite what others may think, am I?

Briangate78
April 28th, 2008, 03:35 PM
Yeah, I knew I would regret referencing that poll. :p I play by the rules when it comes to polls so I like to think others do too and maybe there's a little grain of truth in their results. I still think that one is interesting especially when you read the comments in the thread.



That's true. I think what keeps me upset is the fact that a lot of people don't seem to think those of us who are upset should either 1) be upset at all and 2) even be here on the board expressing our feelings. For me personally, I think it would be best to cut the cord to fandom. I just haven't managed to do it yet.

That is the biggest issue here. People don't understand how a certain group of people can think that way. It is rather fustrating. But it is Bboard forum posting 101.


well, i meant for the people on Atlantis. I woud hope he'll not let Sheppard just willy-nilly go off and do what he wants, and also sends off Shep and his team on missions they should have thought better about going off on ...



I just don't want them to kill characters for no other reason than they can't think of anything better to write to boost ratings.

They already boosted ratings/viewers. So now they just need to keep writing interesting episodes to keep these viewers interested.

Reiko
April 28th, 2008, 04:34 PM
.: I guess I'm just fickle and hard to please.

Linzi
April 28th, 2008, 10:18 PM
well, i meant for the people on Atlantis. I woud hope he'll not let Sheppard just willy-nilly go off and do what he wants, and also sends off Shep and his team on missions they should have thought better about going off on ...



I just don't want them to kill characters for no other reason than they can't think of anything better to write to boost ratings.
I don't think it does boost ratings really. It's been very rare for me to actually think a character's death has been worth it. I can think of a few instances over the years where the deaths have been so sad, it's heartbreaking and really enriched the shows and the remaining characters, but that's in the minority.


The only thing I guess you could say is that in action adventure shows, where there's peril etc.. people do die. It's why I've never minded red shirts really. I guess it does make sense main character die from time to time. It's a funny issue for me. Because I hate feeling sad, yet there has to be some ramifications from the danger people are in.

But, yeah, don't kill people off for the sake of it, I say.

Constanza
April 29th, 2008, 05:43 AM
Aw, come on. Daniel's like a cockroach. You just can't kill him! ;) (said in the nicest way, not that I'm comparing Daniel to an insect, but to a creature that seems indestructible) ;)

Still… it is hard to watch him die! I know it is sci-fi, but we never know if that’s the last one, right?

Constanza
April 29th, 2008, 05:53 AM
Do you really believe that, though? Do you really think that Woolsey will be a source of friction for the show? Sure, maybe initially as he makes the transition, but do you think he'll still be contentious at the end of the season? And next season (if there is one)? Because from what I've seen, the leaders of Atlantis all eventually bow down to the the Almighty Shep. :rolleyes: What Shep wants, Shep gets, and no silly supposed "leader" is going to stop him. Not for long. ;)

I guess we can only hope… that this time TPTB deliver good conflicts through Woolsey.

"Almighty Shep"... LOL!

kymeric
April 29th, 2008, 06:20 AM
Yeah, I knew I would regret referencing that poll. :p I play by the rules when it comes to polls so I like to think others do too and maybe there's a little grain of truth in their results. I still think that one is interesting especially when you read the comments in the thread.



That's true. I think what keeps me upset is the fact that a lot of people don't seem to think those of us who are upset should either 1) be upset at all and 2) even be here on the board expressing our feelings. For me personally, I think it would be best to cut the cord to fandom. I just haven't managed to do it yet.

But really, how long can u be upset about a thing? Ive got a 2 day cool down and im over anything. If its been weeks, months, a year that prolly not healthy.

Briangate78
April 29th, 2008, 07:01 AM
What keeps viewers is just continued interesting episodes and story arcs. Season 4 of Atlantis started with 2 million viewers and ended with 2.6 Million viewers. That is success and proves the show kept people interested.

Bey0nd
May 5th, 2008, 07:22 AM
I agree i think too many cast changes are the sign of a struggling show, struggling to define itself, and as a character driven show to change characters so often is unsettling.

They should take some lessons from Star Trek Deep Space Nine, they kept all their original cast but managed to develop new guest characters as well.
the result was a great Sci FI show with great characters that didn't have to die to become interesting, with the possible exception of Dax.

Offing Ford I thought was a mistake but Jason Momoa did a great job and brought a tremendous energy and vitality to the series. I agree DS9 had some great episodes but the show had already jumped the shark by the time Ezri Dax arrived.

Lahela
May 6th, 2008, 11:19 PM
My tuppence worth...

Cast changes are fine if they're for the better - which, naturally, is a subjective thing, but if the new cast member brings something to the show that was lacking then it works. Ford was, IMO, a dull character - apart from a few good lines he never got to really do anything, so as much as I liked him I didn't mind the switch to Ronon. Elizabeth was good, but I was looking forward to what Sam would bring - unfortunately that turned out to be practically nothing, and now I'm looking forward to what they'll do with Woolsey. Keller... IMO she brings nothing but a pert bosom. Change in itself is not a bad thing, but change for the sake of change doesn't always work.

My biggest fear is what changes will be forced on TPTB if the SAG strike goes ahead.

Reiko
May 7th, 2008, 06:48 AM
Change in itself is not a bad thing, but change for the sake of change doesn't always work.

.: ITA. I love Elizabeth and was unhappy about her, erm, demotion for Sam, but I don't know what was worse - Sam replacing her or Sam being wallpapered. I gave Keller a chance, did not work in herself. Gave Ronon a chance, grew on me as quick as you snap your fingers.

.: See, change is good if you are taking a step up. (See: Ford to Ronon). Not if you are taking a step down (see: Season 4).

Briangate78
May 7th, 2008, 08:37 AM
.: ITA. I love Elizabeth and was unhappy about her, erm, demotion for Sam, but I don't know what was worse - Sam replacing her or Sam being wallpapered. I gave Keller a chance, did not work in herself. Gave Ronon a chance, grew on me as quick as you snap your fingers.

.: See, change is good if you are taking a step up. (See: Ford to Ronon). Not if you are taking a step down (see: Season 4).

I agree about the Ronon change. That made the show even better, imo. Ford was just not a great character. Carson being killed was the worse decision ever by TPTB, and it is likely the reason why he is returning to recurring status next season. Weir had a great development with her character, they changed her character, and made her become something that she can likely never return back from, I loved that direction, but they should of kept her and offered her recurring work in Season 5, I think Torri would of stayed for like a 4 or 5 episode deal.

Sam as leader, did not work for me, but I did not care. There was so much drama happening with the other main cast that it did not hurt the show her so so leadership role, imo. There was too much activity and drama going on with Sheppard's team, like with losing Weir, the Replicator/Wraith War, Teyla's abduction, and to having Carson return in some form.

Platschu
May 7th, 2008, 12:37 PM
What could work for season 6? Only McKay and Sheppard should stay as "main character", who are in every 20 episode. But they should create a group for "special guest stars": Ronon, Teyla, Woolsey, Zelenka, Vega, Lorne, Beckett, Carter, Caldwell, Todd, Larrin, Ford and Weir. They could be in 4-6 episode in the next season. These characters are loved by fans, so even if one character gets only one episode next year, than we could have a wonderful and very colorful season. I know it seems to be a bit weird, but technically Ronon and Teyla were not in every episode in earlier seasons or they got so less screen time, that I could hardly call it as a role. Later they decided to use only 2-3 actor per episode, what was a cheap and a bit desperately solution. I don't know the real reasons, but I think it was financial. So my idea can help to not cheat the fans. :o

I still fear that SciFi will cancel Atlantis after the 100th episode. Maybe the actors want to play in other projects or they will ask bigger salary, so Damocles's sword is above the show. I believe they can make even season 6-7-8, because it seems they have found their own style, theirs own voice next to the SG-1. So even if SciFi won't order season 6, I am happy with the 100 Atlantis episode. I think none of a filmmaker can wish better good-bye. :o

PG15
May 7th, 2008, 12:40 PM
I think it's more to do with scheduling. It feels like they're shooting the shows quicker (Whispers and The Queen were shot at the same time, for example).

Maybe they're trying to get as much as possible out of the way in case the SAG strikes.

Lahela
May 7th, 2008, 09:45 PM
I think it's more to do with scheduling. It feels like they're shooting the shows quicker (Whispers and The Queen were shot at the same time, for example).

Maybe they're trying to get as much as possible out of the way in case the SAG strikes.

Good point. Maybe this was the reason for the earlier start to the shooting season too, seeing as the deal has to be brokered by June 30... just conjecture on my part, of course.

GoSpikey
May 8th, 2008, 06:36 AM
:lol: at that siggy, Lah!

Soooo good of you to help people spell it, cos man, he's been on the show for 4 years, and they still can't spell it! :eek:

Even if someone spells it correct on the board, they don't repeat it. :P

Stupid q, but will they shoot 5x11 together with 5x10? Cos then there's more consistency or sth? It just seems strange to stop in a 2-parter...

Falcon Horus
May 8th, 2008, 06:44 AM
Soooo good of you to help people spell it, cos man, he's been on the show for 4 years, and they still can't spell it! :eek:

It doesn't matter how one has been on the show, spelling character name's wrong happens all the time, even on the DVD sets.

Reiko
May 8th, 2008, 06:49 AM
It doesn't matter how one has been on the show, spelling character name's wrong happens all the time, even on the DVD sets.

.: The actors, too, sadly enough...

Mitchell82
May 8th, 2008, 08:25 AM
I think the cast changes have been for the better. Ford was awful, imo. Ronon is so much better of a character and they developed him from that outcast runner warrior buff, to a caring and friendly person who cares about his friends.
Agreed. I hated Ford. He was the worst character on either show and Ronon is a great replacement.


We are getting Carson back for a recurring role, so there is a 360 degrees turn right there.
A huge plus right there.



I think Woolsey is going to surprise a lot of people with how much character drama he adds to the show and he may not be a good leader at first, but that is what a drama series is about. A character has to have their flaws and struggles and then eventually mesh well into that position. We did not get that with Carter. She was just too well respected and there was no conflinct, except from............oh yeah Woolsey (The Seer). ;)
I just rewatched Heroes 1 and 2 and Woolsey has grown alot since then but still has enough typical political portrayal to add a lot of conflict to the show.


As per more changes down the road.They should keep Season 5 and if there is a Season 6, the same. The only change I can see happening is maybe Carson getting more eps.
Agreed.

Platschu
May 8th, 2008, 02:11 PM
SG:A cast is so stable as the Millenium Falcon. Some parts will be replaced, but it will work. I hope they will never reach the level of Titanic. :P

Reiko
May 8th, 2008, 02:19 PM
.: Already hit the iceberg.

Platschu
May 8th, 2008, 02:21 PM
.: Already hit the iceberg.
Why did I feel, that someone will say that? :P : I will make lottery next time. :

JackHarkness_Hot
May 8th, 2008, 02:29 PM
For any possible future seasons, the creators of the show should settle down and not have anymore cast changes for the rest of its run (3 seasons max, probably). There was not a cast change to SG-1 until season 6, and then it went back to how it was for season 7.

Though it has not annoyed me, the constant cast changes are starting to bug me. Does anyone else want to see a couple of seasons with the same cast? To me it worked out brilliantly with SG:1.
Now that the Wraith are friendlies, the Ori is gone and the Replicators are being managed, let's turn to the next important issue, cast stability! LMAO! :D

I would love to see how long this "Season 5" cast will last, a season? 2? May even be just a few weeks?

Reiko
May 8th, 2008, 02:31 PM
.: one season before they feel the need to shake things up. :P

JackHarkness_Hot
May 8th, 2008, 03:08 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to be honest, which is unfortunate.

ToasterOnFire
May 8th, 2008, 03:18 PM
.: one season before they feel the need to shake things up. :P
Or sooner if the ratings dwindle. ;)

JackHarkness_Hot
May 8th, 2008, 03:27 PM
Remember that SG-1 episode about the USAF academy and Cadet Haley (at the time) and the whole "Cause and Effect" scenario becoming an "Effect and Cause", this is such an spoof example, LOL

Cause = Effect
Cast change = ratings drop

but of course TPTB thinking therefore believe that to counter that drop in ratings, the cast change must be the end result to the problem.

Effect = Cause
ratings down = cast change

:P

Jumper_One
May 8th, 2008, 03:32 PM
I would love to see how long this "Season 5" cast will last, a season? 2? May even be just a few weeks?

are you talking about the team (Shep, Rodney, Teyla, Ronon) or the entire cast? because the latter changed almost every season


I wouldn't be surprised to be honest, which is unfortunate.

nah the team will most likely stay the same. maybe RP doesn't wanna do another season but I doubt it


Or sooner if the ratings dwindle. ;)

that depends. SCI FI knows that SG and in this case Atlantis has a huge fanbase and it's one of their top shows. also s4.5 had a lot more viewers than s3.5 ;)

Reiko
May 8th, 2008, 03:41 PM
Cause = Effect
Cast change = ratings drop

but of course TPTB thinking therefore believe that to counter that drop in ratings, the cast change must be the end result to the problem.

Effect = Cause
ratings down = cast change

:P

.: That brings 'dimwit' to a whole new level :mckay::P

Falcon Horus
May 8th, 2008, 04:29 PM
Or sooner if the ratings dwindle. ;)

But they can't make changes to something that is already finished... so, that might be cause for some sleepless nights.

jenks
May 8th, 2008, 04:45 PM
Remember that SG-1 episode about the USAF academy and Cadet Haley (at the time) and the whole "Cause and Effect" scenario becoming an "Effect and Cause", this is such an spoof example, LOL

Cause = Effect
Cast change = ratings drop

but of course TPTB thinking therefore believe that to counter that drop in ratings, the cast change must be the end result to the problem.

Effect = Cause
ratings down = cast change

:P

Cast change = viewers increase

Agent_Dark
May 8th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Remember that SG-1 episode about the USAF academy and Cadet Haley (at the time) and the whole "Cause and Effect" scenario becoming an "Effect and Cause", this is such an spoof example, LOL

Cause = Effect
Cast change = ratings drop

but of course TPTB thinking therefore believe that to counter that drop in ratings, the cast change must be the end result to the problem.

Effect = Cause
ratings down = cast change

:P
ratings were dropping before cast changes were made.

Briangate78
May 8th, 2008, 06:24 PM
Truth be told. We finally got the answer to why Ratings seem lower than they really are. There are multiple reasons. Does it mean the total viewers are less? Heck no. Just a word of caution don't compare ratings points, they tend to change on a monthly, yearly, and even a weekly basis.

Lahela
May 9th, 2008, 02:49 AM
Truth be told. We finally got the answer to why Ratings seem lower than they really are. There are multiple reasons. Does it mean the total viewers are less? Heck no. Just a word of caution don't compare ratings points, they tend to change on a monthly, yearly, and even a weekly basis.

Which is the crux of the problem, I think. Skiffy sees ratings points as the whole truth, even though they know full well that in this day and age they mean squat, simply because they have no other way of judging real viewing figures. It then becomes a blind scramble for TPTB to increase those numbers with only a fraction of the information they should actually have at their disposal. The end result is that you may end up increasing the one small portion of your viewership that fits the Neilsen (or whatever it is) watch-it-live demographic, but losing the rest.

GoSpikey
May 9th, 2008, 03:15 AM
Always expect Brian to pop up when talking about ratings.

:P

Wait, isn't that one of Jel's laws? :lol:

JackHarkness_Hot
May 9th, 2008, 03:44 AM
You people should take a chill-pill, I said a "spoof" didn't I? Meaning, not to be take what I posted about cast change like seriously.

Reiko
May 9th, 2008, 06:33 AM
Truth be told. We finally got the answer to why Ratings seem lower than they really are. There are multiple reasons. Does it mean the total viewers are less? Heck no. Just a word of caution don't compare ratings points, they tend to change on a monthly, yearly, and even a weekly basis.

.: Exactly. Don't trust them Neilsen ratings because yes, Neilsen is LIES. So, 3.5 > 4.5 after all ;)

ToasterOnFire
May 9th, 2008, 07:45 AM
But they can't make changes to something that is already finished... so, that might be cause for some sleepless nights.
They could always use CGI to white out the offending actor in those eps that have already been filmed. Pull a Poochie, so to speak. :D

JackHarkness_Hot
May 9th, 2008, 07:51 AM
Honestly, I hope this is the last time a bunch of good characters (i.e. Heightmeyer, Weir) is killed off or turned into a Replicator or some weird pool of goo or whatever. As much as it pains me to say this but I hope Woolsey* turns into a caring CIC who puts the needs of the expedition and the galaxy before his selfish and or IOA needs.

*I like Richard Picardo, I think he's bloody fantastic, I loved him as "The Doctor" on Star Trek Voyager because he was able to mature the character excellently.

Reiko
May 9th, 2008, 07:55 AM
They could always use CGI to white out the offending actor in those eps that have already been filmed. Pull a Poochie, so to speak. :D

.: But then you would waste CGI money on what could have been big explosions and space battles! :D

.: (everybody loves those, y'know) :mckay:

g.o.d
May 9th, 2008, 08:01 AM
.: But then you would waste CGI money on what could have been big explosions and space battles! :D

.:
because it's easier than creating an interesting story which makes sense. And with current TPTB, we will only have space battles.


(everybody loves those, y'know) :mckay:

I don't.

Briangate78
May 9th, 2008, 08:03 AM
.: Exactly. Don't trust them Neilsen ratings because yes, Neilsen is LIES. So, 3.5 > 4.5 after all ;)

The system is still flawed, imo. But comparing apples to apples, Season 4 did do better.


You people should take a chill-pill, I said a "spoof" didn't I? Meaning, not to be take what I posted about cast change like seriously.

The entire forum needs to take a chill pill. It's been crazy on these forums. :S
My chill pill is a large coffee from Starbucks. ;)

g.o.d
May 9th, 2008, 08:06 AM
The system is still flawed, imo. But comparing apples to apples, Season 4 did do better.


I'm sure when S5 will earn 1,2 average ratings with DVR (whatever), you'll say, it's better than S4 :D

Briangate78
May 9th, 2008, 08:08 AM
I'm sure when S5 will earn 1,2 average ratings with DVR (whatever), you'll say, it's better than S4 :D

I expect Season 5 to average a 1.3 actually for live.

g.o.d
May 9th, 2008, 08:09 AM
I expect Season 5 to average a 1.3 actually for live.

ok, and it will be better than 1,4, right? :D

Briangate78
May 9th, 2008, 08:11 AM
ok, and it will be better than 1,4, right? :D

Well " The Last Man" scored a 1.8 so who knows.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 9th, 2008, 10:20 AM
The entire forum needs to take a chill pill. It's been crazy on these forums. :S
My chill pill is a large coffee from Starbucks. ;)
A large Starbucks coffee will so not chill you out, you need a good gallon tub ice cream :)

Mitchell82
May 9th, 2008, 10:21 AM
Now that the Wraith are friendlies, the Ori is gone and the Replicators are being managed, let's turn to the next important issue, cast stability! LMAO! :D

I would love to see how long this "Season 5" cast will last, a season? 2? May even be just a few weeks?

The Wraith aren't friendlies by a long shot.

Mitchell82
May 9th, 2008, 10:22 AM
Well " The Last Man" scored a 1.8 so who knows.

Please oh please not this again.:S*goes and hides*

JackHarkness_Hot
May 9th, 2008, 10:22 AM
I know that Mitchell82, it was a what if, a year or two from now.

Mitchell82
May 9th, 2008, 10:22 AM
I know that, it was a what if, a year or two from now.

Oh gotcha.

PG15
May 9th, 2008, 10:36 AM
Oh fandom.

Having a thread promoting cast stability situated only a few threads away from a thread asking for who should be taken off of the show?

You amuse me.

Mitchell82
May 9th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Oh fandom.

Having a thread promoting cast stability situated only a few threads away from a thread asking for who should be taken off of the show?

You amuse me.

Ironic ain't it.

Atlantis1
May 9th, 2008, 12:40 PM
Since we got to see SG-1 have a stable cast, it makes the cast changes seem even worst. I wish SGA had been treated as well.

Mattathias2.0
May 10th, 2008, 07:21 AM
I do agree that having an unstable commander on the base has brought me slight concern. I mean, I liked Dr. Weir as a character, but then she left and was suppose to appear as a guest this year (but won't :( ). Then Carter became the commander and I expected to see her there for a few years, but not the case now. So now Woolsey will be in charge and that will be a little weird at first.

Since post-Season 3 there have character changes in the command area, so now it will take some time for me to adjust to a stable commander. But then from what I understand Woolsey is only suppose to be a temp anyways, thus if a Season 6 occurs, there will most likely be a new commander yet again.

Reiko
May 10th, 2008, 10:48 AM
because it's easier than creating an interesting story which makes sense. And with current TPTB, we will only have space battles.
I don't.

.: Kidding about the last part. I do not find space battles to intriging either, but it is apparently easier to do them and mezmerize your audience into a blank stare with explosions than put effort into a nice story and keep them thinking.


Well " The Last Man" scored a 1.8 so who knows.

.: *hides under desk*


But then from what I understand Woolsey is only suppose to be a temp anyways, thus if a Season 6 occurs, there will most likely be a new commander yet again.

.: Where'd you hear that? That is disturbing. Perhaps we can rotate the CMO position as well? :S

Fenrir Foxz
May 10th, 2008, 11:33 AM
.: *hides under desk*

You fear a 1.8? :P

Reiko
May 10th, 2008, 11:41 AM
.: No I fear Brian talking about ratings

Fenrir Foxz
May 10th, 2008, 11:52 AM
Don't give him reason to refer to them then ;) :P

PG15
May 10th, 2008, 12:05 PM
Indeed.

More often then not, it's other people bringing them up that prompts Brian to carry forward with it. Don't want to face it? Don't bring it up. Simple.

Falcon Horus
May 10th, 2008, 04:28 PM
Indeed.

More often then not, it's other people bringing them up that prompts Brian to carry forward with it. Don't want to face it? Don't bring it up. Simple.

Brian's like a moth to flame with ratings (and that's not meant in a bad way btw)... He can easily ignore it if he really wants to.

PG15
May 10th, 2008, 04:49 PM
But why should he? The fact that it was brought up means it's a valid subject of debate (otherwise it wouldn't have been brougnt up), and you can't denounce him just because he chooses to participate in said debate.

Falcon Horus
May 10th, 2008, 05:09 PM
But why should he?

Then what is your point in the first place...

It can't be brought up, cause the man of the ratings will continue the conversation - not good.
It can be brought up, and that same man can choose to ignore the post and continue - also not good.

:S Call me confused, but I can't follow here... nor is it the topic of course... sorry for the derailment, it wasn't me...

Mitchell82
May 10th, 2008, 05:31 PM
I do agree that having an unstable commander on the base has brought me slight concern. I mean, I liked Dr. Weir as a character, but then she left and was suppose to appear as a guest this year (but won't :( ). Then Carter became the commander and I expected to see her there for a few years, but not the case now. So now Woolsey will be in charge and that will be a little weird at first.

Since post-Season 3 there have character changes in the command area, so now it will take some time for me to adjust to a stable commander. But then from what I understand Woolsey is only suppose to be a temp anyways, thus if a Season 6 occurs, there will most likely be a new commander yet again.
You have to remember that cast changes rarely have to do with carelessness on the producers. I'm not exactly sure why Ford was written off but I was pleased because I couldn't stand him. As per the Commanders that also was not their fault. With Weir they tried to work out an arrangement and in the end couldn't come up with a satisfactory one for Torri. And Carter well that was just bad timing again by no fault of them. So it was more to do with bad timing than not being able to write a stable cast. Personally they have done a great job.

Mitchell82
May 10th, 2008, 05:33 PM
Then what is your point in the first place...

It can't be brought up, cause the man of the ratings will continue the conversation - not good.
It can be brought up, and that same man can choose to ignore the post and continue - also not good.

:S Call me confused, but I can't follow here... nor is it the topic of course... sorry for the derailment, it wasn't me...
Brian has alot of knowledge when it comes to ratings and when someone posts an inconsitency I can understand why he wants to rebut it. However that topic does get out of hand quite frequently.

Jumper_One
May 10th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Brian has alot of knowledge when it comes to ratings and when someone posts an inconsitency I can understand why he wants to rebut it. However that topic does get out of hand quite frequently.

there's only a problem when people post their opinions as facts ;)

Falcon Horus
May 10th, 2008, 05:39 PM
there's only a problem when people post their opinions as facts ;)

That always seems to be the problem...but maybe they didn't mean to and we just see to much into it to begin with.

FYI, I have no problem with Brian talking ratings.

Mitchell82
May 10th, 2008, 05:42 PM
That always seems to be the problem...but maybe they didn't mean to and we just see to much into it to begin with.

FYI, I have no problem with Brian talking ratings.

Neither do I. I do have a problem however when it evolves into a "i'm right you're wrong" battle.

Mitchell82
May 10th, 2008, 05:42 PM
there's only a problem when people post their opinions as facts ;)

Agreed.

Jumper_One
May 10th, 2008, 05:46 PM
That always seems to be the problem...but maybe they didn't mean to and we just see to much into it to begin with.

I'm sure that's true for most of them but unfortunately not everybody


FYI, I have no problem with Brian talking ratings.

oh I didn't want to imply that you had a problem with it :)

Reiko
May 10th, 2008, 09:14 PM
.: *still hiding*

PG15
May 11th, 2008, 12:15 AM
Then what is your point in the first place...

It can't be brought up, cause the man of the ratings will continue the conversation - not good.
It can be brought up, and that same man can choose to ignore the post and continue - also not good.

:S Call me confused, but I can't follow here... nor is it the topic of course... sorry for the derailment, it wasn't me...

Wha...?

My point is thus: if you don't want to talk ratings, then don't bring it up.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 11th, 2008, 02:19 AM
.:Where'd you hear that? That is disturbing. Perhaps we can rotate the CMO position as well? :S

If the audience have to keep getting use to a new base commander, then from the story point of view, what about the characters? God I would hate to be in that organisation, a new supervisor/manager/CEO every year, that says a lot about the organisation. High rate of turnaround of employees, yikes.

Yes it maybe Sci-Fi but still, Atlantis is an organisation. I'm sure, one of these days the "constant" changing will only lead to the destruction of Atlantis cos the subordinates just simply don't trust their commander's decision, because they keep getting new ones and they have to adapt and cope.

Human nature.

Agent_Dark
May 11th, 2008, 02:36 AM
If the audience have to keep getting use to a new base commander, then from the story point of view, what about the characters? God I would hate to be in that organisation, a new supervisor/manager/CEO every year, that says a lot about the organisation. High rate of turnaround of employees, yikes.

Yes it maybe Sci-Fi but still, Atlantis is an organisation. I'm sure, one of these days the "constant" changing will only lead to the destruction of Atlantis cos the subordinates just simply don't trust their commander's decision, because they keep getting new ones and they have to adapt and cope.

Human nature.

happens all the time in the military. people don't stay in command for 8 years like Hammond did.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 11th, 2008, 03:46 AM
happens all the time in the military. people don't stay in command for 8 years like Hammond did.But that's where the difference lies, Atlantis may have a military contingent however, it is not a military base. Atlantis is a research location, its primary goal is to research, broaden and advance human technological and biological resources, in essence it's a big techno-pharmaceutical research plant. Atlantis is the beginning of where people make the big bucks. Like all organisations, you need stability, because unlike a military group command comprising of small commands, you're in charge of over 100 scientists and military personnel as a single entity, answering to directors of the IOA which could comprise of the big companies and politicians that controls our needs from baby shampoo to the next line of entertainment systems and defence technology. It's much like the navy when it comes to "single entities" or Sony or MGM, Stargate franchise and you don't see a different Captain, or CEO, Exec Producer ever year.

Agent_Dark
May 11th, 2008, 04:05 AM
But that's where the difference lies, Atlantis may have a military contingent however, it is not a military base. Atlantis is a research location, its primary goal is to research, broaden and advance human technological and biological resources, in essence it's a big techno-pharmaceutical research plant. Atlantis is the beginning of where people make the big bucks. Like all organisations, you need stability, because unlike a military group command comprising of small commands, you're in charge of over 100 scientists and military personnel as a single entity, answering to directors of the IOA which could comprise of the big companies and politicians that controls our needs from baby shampoo to the next line of entertainment systems and defence technology. It's much like the navy when it comes to "single entities" or Sony or MGM, Stargate franchise and you don't see a different Captain, or CEO, Exec Producer ever year.
yeah, but where is it saying that its rotating every year? weir went MIA, probably KIA, which isn't a normal situation and it hasn't even been revealed why Carter is going. The most likely reason is that she was the best person to step up on short notice and fill the gap while the IOA found a suitable civilian candidate for teh job.

Falcon Horus
May 11th, 2008, 06:08 AM
My point is thus: if you don't want to talk ratings, then don't bring it up.

Thus implying it's not a good thing to talk about it. ;)

The things we can't talk about... Someone should make a list.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 11th, 2008, 07:10 AM
The most likely reason is that she was the best person to step up on short notice and fill the gap while the IOA found a suitable civilian candidate for teh job.
I don't believe this was the case, it was made clear that they were looking for a permanent Commander and Carter was chosen cos of her knowledge on Ancient Technology.

No doubt the IOA chosen a military commander with relevant experience as they know they would do anything and everything to safeguard any research and development made on Atlantis, and that they will protect it with their very lives if need be before any of their assets i.e. Atlantis, fall into enemy hands.

IMO, the writer better have one good damn reason why Carter is leaving, if it's some stupid temporal thing in relation to "Stargate: Continuum" and that Carter and Season 4 never happen et al, I swear I would be pretty annoyed.

And yes, I do know that in the real world, the lovely AT is leaving cos Sci-Fi picked up her web-series, "Sanctuary".

PG15
May 11th, 2008, 10:59 AM
Thus implying it's not a good thing to talk about it. ;)



Nope. It works in reverse too: if you want to talk ratings, then bring it up.

Just like every other topic, if you don't want to talk about it, then don't mention it; because once you do, someone will take it and run with it.

Falcon Horus
May 11th, 2008, 11:01 AM
Nope. It works in reverse too: if you want to talk ratings, then bring it up.

Just like every other topic, if you don't want to talk about it, then don't mention it; because once you do, someone will take it and run with it.

Good point. :)

Mitchell82
May 11th, 2008, 11:05 AM
yeah, but where is it saying that its rotating every year? weir went MIA, probably KIA, which isn't a normal situation and it hasn't even been revealed why Carter is going. The most likely reason is that she was the best person to step up on short notice and fill the gap while the IOA found a suitable civilian candidate for teh job.
I agree that it was not a normal situation that led to the characters and actors leaving. We don't know the reason that Carter is leaving but I don't see the writers just pulling an idea out of left field.

Mitchell82
May 11th, 2008, 11:12 AM
I don't believe this was the case, it was made clear that they were looking for a permanent Commander and Carter was chosen cos of her knowledge on Ancient Technology.
Agreed.


No doubt the IOA chosen a military commander with relevant experience as they know they would do anything and everything to safeguard any research and development made on Atlantis, and that they will protect it with their very lives if need be before any of their assets i.e. Atlantis, fall into enemy hands.

IMO, the writer better have one good damn reason why Carter is leaving, if it's some stupid temporal thing in relation to "Stargate: Continuum" and that Carter and Season 4 never happen et al, I swear I would be pretty annoyed.

And yes, I do know that in the real world, the lovely AT is leaving cos Sci-Fi picked up her web-series, "Sanctuary".

I can't find where it was posted but I'm pretty sure JM said that Continuum takes place after season 4. So I don't think you have to fear that.

ShadowMaat
May 11th, 2008, 11:15 AM
Oh, come on, we all know Atlantis has always been a military operation. The civilian angle was just a way to "prove" that Atlantis was different from SG-1. LOL!

Anyway, maybe the command position is just the Black Widow Curse of Atlantis. ;) They aren't necessarily dying like Carter's boyfriends did on SG-1, but they sure aren't sticking around, either. So next season maybe someone else will be in charge, and the year after that it'll be someone else. And so on and so forth. :rolleyes: They can treat it as a running joke- musical command chairs. :P

Reiko
May 11th, 2008, 12:04 PM
Anyway, maybe the command position is just the Black Widow Curse of Atlantis. ;) They aren't necessarily dying like Carter's boyfriends did on SG-1, but they sure aren't sticking around, either. So next season maybe someone else will be in charge, and the year after that it'll be someone else. And so on and so forth. :rolleyes: They can treat it as a running joke- musical command chairs. :P

.: Everything is a running joke now, is it not :P:S

JackHarkness_Hot
May 11th, 2008, 01:23 PM
.: Everything is a running joke now, is it not :P:S
Ouch! :lol:

Season 4 has some gems in it, overall, the season has been good but it could be so much better. The death of good characters wasn't necessary and the "revolving door policy" when it comes to Commanders, it's kinda tiring.

Maybe, you're right, ShadowMaat. Maybe the writers decided to make it a curse for whoever is Commander of the base to die or leave, prematurely and/or unexpectedly.

Hope we get some answers, what are the writers up to?

Agent_Dark
May 11th, 2008, 01:56 PM
I don't believe this was the case, it was made clear that they were looking for a permanent Commander and Carter was chosen cos of her knowledge on Ancient Technology.
I dont recall them saying anything of the sort. Find me a quote.

Briangate78
May 11th, 2008, 04:57 PM
Just to be fair, but if Sanctuary was not given the green light, the cast would of stayed the same, oh wait I'm sorry no, they are adding Carson back to a recurring role. Which would mean the cast would be even more stable since a lost character is returning.

So, you cannot blame TPTB for Carter leaving, Amanda went to pursue another show. It was their choice to use Woolsey/Piccardo to fill in that spot. Woolsey could be a disaster or could be the best leader of Atlantis. I am predicting somewhere in between, which is better than Carter but not as good as Weir was.

Change can be for the better, imo. The Ford and Ronon change did wonders for the show. I think Ronon's introduction and development was one of the most interesting things in Season 2, imo.

Sometimes change can not be good, and that was Carson being killed, but they seem to be writing him back into the show according to multiple sources.

Reiko
May 11th, 2008, 05:27 PM
.: They should have brought Carson and Elizabeth back full-time.

.: Sorry, I'm just bitter. :o (You guys must be tired of me by now.)

Falcon Horus
May 11th, 2008, 05:30 PM
.: They should have brought Carson and Elizabeth back full-time.

Using Teal'c's immortal word: Indeed.


.:(You guys must be tired of me by now.)

NEVER!!

PG15
May 11th, 2008, 05:35 PM
A little. ;)

Agent_Dark
May 11th, 2008, 05:38 PM
.: They should have brought Carson and Elizabeth back full-time.
that would be lame. they're both dead and that should be that. time to move on and keep the story going.


.: Sorry, I'm just bitter. :o (You guys must be tired of me by now.)
yeah a little tbh.

Reiko
May 11th, 2008, 05:41 PM
.: Thank you for your honesty (honesties?). :)

jelgate
May 11th, 2008, 06:01 PM
.: They should have brought Carson and Elizabeth back full-time..:

Sorry, I'm just bitter. :o (You guys must be tired of me by now.)

No, I hate when they cheapen death.

Not really. Their are tons of people who are rudier.

Shipperahoy
May 11th, 2008, 08:42 PM
There are some shows where a continuous cycle of changing cast members works o.k.. Shows where the main focus is the stories and not the characters. Like the Law & Order series (with the exception of SVU which I honestly couldn't imagine without Benson and Stabler, but that's a whole 'nother topic) but the Stargates are not one of them. This is a show where people become heavily invested in the characters and losing one character is jarring enough but the revolving door policy makes it hard to become invested in any way because you're constantly wondering when the next character is going to get the ax. I honestly think that their inability to maintain any kind of cast stability is going to hurt them in the long run. One of the keys to SG-1's longevity, IMO, was the fact that people loved the characters. The show weathered the Daniel Jackson saga but I really don't believe that it could have weathered multiple episodes of somthing like that.

Killdeer
May 11th, 2008, 08:49 PM
There are some shows where a continuous cycle of changing cast members works o.k.. Shows where the main focus is the stories and not the characters. Like the Law & Order series (with the exception of SVU which I honestly couldn't imagine without Benson and Stabler, but that's a whole 'nother topic) but the Stargates are not one of them. This is a show where people become heavily invested in the characters and losing one character is jarring enough but the revolving door policy makes it hard to become invested in any way because you're constantly wondering when the next character is going to get the ax. I honestly think that their inability to maintain any kind of cast stability is going to hurt them in the long run. One of the keys to SG-1's longevity, IMO, was the fact that people loved the characters. The show weathered the Daniel Jackson saga but I really don't believe that it could have weathered multiple episodes of somthing like that.

I agree completely with this. Unfortunately I doubt they'll get a chance to stabilize. I think Atlantis has one, maybe two seasons left. I don't think they'll go more than six - I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised.

Agent_Dark
May 11th, 2008, 08:50 PM
There are some shows where a continuous cycle of changing cast members works o.k.. Shows where the main focus is the stories and not the characters. Like the Law & Order series (with the exception of SVU which I honestly couldn't imagine without Benson and Stabler, but that's a whole 'nother topic) but the Stargates are not one of them. This is a show where people become heavily invested in the characters and losing one character is jarring enough but the revolving door policy makes it hard to become invested in any way because you're constantly wondering when the next character is going to get the ax. I honestly think that their inability to maintain any kind of cast stability is going to hurt them in the long run. One of the keys to SG-1's longevity, IMO, was the fact that people loved the characters. The show weathered the Daniel Jackson saga but I really don't believe that it could have weathered multiple episodes of somthing like that.

nah, the phenomena you describe is only prevalent amongst fandom which only makes up a small percentage of the viewers. the 'beer and pizza' viewers are what make up the bulk, and as long as they can find an engaging story they'll be happy irrespective of the characters.

Shipperahoy
May 11th, 2008, 08:59 PM
nah, the phenomena you describe is only prevalent amongst fandom which only makes up a small percentage of the viewers. the 'beer and pizza' viewers are what make up the bulk, and as long as they can find an engaging story they'll be happy irrespective of the characters.

Perhaps. I'm sure that there are casual viewers that just kind of tune in every once in a while. Still, even with those not involved in the fandom a lot of viewers tend to connect with characters, especially in character driven shows. Also, with casual viewers who aren't exposed to all of the information that we who are involved in the fandom are the constant changes are probably even more jarring and confusing. At least we generally know when these cast changes are coming.

Agent_Dark
May 11th, 2008, 09:07 PM
Perhaps. I'm sure that there are casual viewers that just kind of tune in every once in a while. Still, even with those not involved in the fandom a lot of viewers tend to connect with characters, especially in character driven shows. Also, with casual viewers who aren't exposed to all of the information that we who are involved in the fandom are the constant changes are probably even more jarring and confusing. At least we generally know when these cast changes are coming.
yeah, but stargate's not a character driven show. even at the peak of it's prime (s1-3 imo) it was still more a story driven show than a character show.

Killdeer
May 11th, 2008, 09:22 PM
yeah, but stargate's not a character driven show. even at the peak of it's prime (s1-3 imo) it was still more a story driven show than a character show.

I disagree - I think Stargate is far more of a character-driven show than a story-driven show. Even at their best, the stories aren't all that groundbreaking or original. Both Atlantis and SG-1 survived IMO on the strength of their characters. People didn't tune in to SG-1 to see the story of just anyone fighting the Goa'uld - defeating Apophis, etc. They tuned in to watch Jack, Daniel, Sam, and Teal'c doing it.

Very few shows can survive as purely story-driven shows, IMO, unless it's something like L&O as Shipperahoy said.

Agent_Dark
May 11th, 2008, 09:29 PM
I disagree - I think Stargate is far more of a character-driven show than a story-driven show. Even at their best, the stories aren't all that groundbreaking or original. Both Atlantis and SG-1 survived IMO on the strength of their characters. People didn't tune in to SG-1 to see the story of just anyone fighting the Goa'uld - defeating Apophis, etc. They tuned in to watch Jack, Daniel, Sam, and Teal'c doing it.

Very few shows can survive as purely story-driven shows, IMO, unless it's something like L&O as Shipperahoy said.

no way. a character driven show implies that there is a significant amount of characterisation during the episodes, and that characterisation is the main focus of the episode. That's hardly the case with Stargate.

Killdeer
May 11th, 2008, 09:32 PM
no way. a character driven show implies that there is a significant amount of characterisation during the episodes, and that characterisation is the main focus of the episode. That's hardly the case with Stargate.

I think we have different definitions of "character-driven" and "story-driven". Using that definition, I would agree with you. But that's not what I think of when I think of "character-driven" vs "story-driven". To me, "story-driven" or "plot-driven" implies that the characters aren't important - that you could drop any old characters into those slots and it wouldn't make any difference. Basically, that the characters are inconsequential. Which I believe is very very rare that it's actually true for a show. Even a show like Heroes discovered that they couldn't get away with a revolving door cast like they originally wanted to. And it's also why there's doubts that even a show like CSI could survive if its lead ever decided to leave.

bluealien
May 12th, 2008, 12:02 AM
The majority of viewers tune in for good stories. Once the stories are engaging and hold fans attention then they will continue to tune in. The premise of SGA has not changed and we still have the core team so to a lot of viewers nothing has changed or caused them to tune out. The show has always pretty much revolved around John and Rodney and this has not changed either, so again no reason to tune out.

Viewers only stop watching if they lose interest in the overall stories or have no interest in any of the characters, but replacing characters that didnt drive the show won't really make a lot of difference to the majority of viewers.

Falcon Horus
May 12th, 2008, 04:53 AM
...we still have the core team...

Who is the core team?

I can pretty much say that it means something entirely different to me, than it does to you, cause to me the core team has broken.

elliecat
May 12th, 2008, 07:26 AM
Who is the core team?

I can pretty much say that it means something entirely different to me, than it does to you, cause to me the core team has broken.

Same here. The core team to me includes Weir and Beckett.

I tune in for the characters and the stories. If the stories were good but the characters were bad, for me personally, I wouldn't watch the show and vice versa. I know not every episode is a winner but that's when having good characters makes up for lack of a good story.

Lahela
May 12th, 2008, 07:39 AM
I can categorically state that the cast changes in the past season and a bit have made a difference - my family (my parents and my siblings and their families) have stopped watching because they feel like they can't keep up with the cast changes. As for non-core characters not making a difference, my husband and eldest son have decided not to watch season 5 because they dislike a certain non-core character to the point that it spoils the show for them. These are average viewers, not "fans".

Reiko
May 12th, 2008, 07:44 AM
I tune in for the characters and the stories. If the stories were good but the characters were bad, for me personally, I wouldn't watch the show and vice versa. I know not every episode is a winner but that's when having good characters makes up for lack of a good story.

.: What ellie and FH said. There is no good story without good characters.

.: I doubt that the cast can stabilize. It was about to in S2/S3 but [censored] had to break it up for the sake of hotchicks, shaking up and ratings gods.

Shipperahoy
May 12th, 2008, 01:17 PM
I think we have different definitions of "character-driven" and "story-driven". Using that definition, I would agree with you. But that's not what I think of when I think of "character-driven" vs "story-driven". To me, "story-driven" or "plot-driven" implies that the characters aren't important - that you could drop any old characters into those slots and it wouldn't make any difference. Basically, that the characters are inconsequential. Which I believe is very very rare that it's actually true for a show. Even a show like Heroes discovered that they couldn't get away with a revolving door cast like they originally wanted to. And it's also why there's doubts that even a show like CSI could survive if its lead ever decided to leave.

Exactly. Shows like Law & Order still continue to live on after the multitude of cast changes because people are mostly tuning in for the stories, the whodunit factor if you will. One big thing that drives home for me exactly how much a character driven show Stargate is is the sheer numbers of fans who turn out for conventions. They go to see these actors who portray characters that they love and these conventions likely wouldn't happen if people weren't invested in the characters.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 12th, 2008, 01:55 PM
I disagree - I think Stargate is far more of a character-driven show than a story-driven show. Even at their best, the stories aren't all that groundbreaking or original. Both Atlantis and SG-1 survived IMO on the strength of their characters. People didn't tune in to SG-1 to see the story of just anyone fighting the Goa'uld - defeating Apophis, etc. They tuned in to watch Jack, Daniel, Sam, and Teal'c doing it.

Very few shows can survive as purely story-driven shows, IMO, unless it's something like L&O as Shipperahoy said.Agree with ya all the way and I agree with ya with what you just said, Reiko. Stargate is definitely character-driven, if that weren't true, people wouldn't love Baal or Todd.

PG15
May 12th, 2008, 04:32 PM
Well, loving characters and being character driven are two different things.

Mitchell82
May 12th, 2008, 05:01 PM
Just to be fair, but if Sanctuary was not given the green light, the cast would of stayed the same, oh wait I'm sorry no, they are adding Carson back to a recurring role. Which would mean the cast would be even more stable since a lost character is returning.
I have to agree. I hate it when people blame tptb for loosing Carter when it was unexpected and very tough for Amanda to choose between the shows. It is no ones fault it's simply bad timing.


So, you cannot blame TPTB for Carter leaving, Amanda went to pursue another show. It was their choice to use Woolsey/Piccardo to fill in that spot. Woolsey could be a disaster or could be the best leader of Atlantis. I am predicting somewhere in between, which is better than Carter but not as good as Weir was.
I agree and disagree with this statement. I personally like Woolsey and the possibilities of the conflicts that will arise are a good thing IMO. I liked Weir but I feel that Carter was 100X better and feel that Woolsey could easily be as good as Carter.


Change can be for the better, imo. The Ford and Ronon change did wonders for the show. I think Ronon's introduction and development was one of the most interesting things in Season 2, imo.

Sometimes change can not be good, and that was Carson being killed, but they seem to be writing him back into the show according to multiple sources.
Agreed.

Mitchell82
May 12th, 2008, 05:02 PM
.: They should have brought Carson and Elizabeth back full-time.

.: Sorry, I'm just bitter. :o (You guys must be tired of me by now.)

Not me. I can actually debate my views with you in a civil manner. Despite the fact we disagree often I certainly don't mind you at all.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 13th, 2008, 03:25 AM
Well, loving characters and being character driven are two different things.

Not really, they're interconnected.

Back on SG-1, we saw the rookie-ness of SG-1 in "Children of the Gods", Jack the Colonel with a scientist and an emotional archaeologist then with a defector who chose principle over orders and over the years we saw them grow.

Daniel when he was ascended insisted on helping his friends out and Abydos, which led him to expulsion and Jack and his love for Carter has driven the story many times, for example, "Upgrades", "Beneath the Surface", "Entity", etc.

The characters' personal ethics, loyalty for one another, determination drives the story forward.

On Atlantis, we have many gems too, "The Eye", the interaction between Weir and Sheppard, "Before I Sleep", "The Siege, Parts 1, 2 & 3", "Letters from Pegasus", "Tao of Rodney", "Critical Mass", etc.

Therefore, it's because of their dynamic-ism input that leads to us actually loving the characters.

redrama9
May 13th, 2008, 06:19 AM
For any possible future seasons, the creators of the show should settle down and not have anymore cast changes for the rest of its run (3 seasons max, probably). There was not a cast change to SG-1 until season 6, and then it went back to how it was for season 7.

Though it has not annoyed me, the constant cast changes are starting to bug me. Does anyone else want to see a couple of seasons with the same cast? To me it worked out brilliantly with SG:1.

24 is my favorite show and thier is only one safe character.
Why would i want to watch a show where everything is going to end up happly ever after all the time

JackHarkness_Hot
May 13th, 2008, 06:26 AM
24 is action story-driven
Stargate SG-1 & Atlantis are character-driver

Briangate78
May 13th, 2008, 06:26 AM
24 is my favorite show and thier is only one safe character.
Why would i want to watch a show where everything is going to end up happly ever after all the time

People will complain that the show is not real and everyone is safe. Then people will complain if someone does get killed off and will blame the PTB for trying to get higher ratings. You cannot please everyone. I wanted them to just give Weir a proper sendoff for an example, instead of leaving her character open.

The whole Weir thing was a shock to me since I did not read too many spoilers before Season 4 aired. They made the show darker in the fact that a main character took a change that they could never return back from. It did not have that happy ever after ending. That to me made the show raise it's bar.

What makes character deaths interesting is that because this is SCI FI, people can return from the dead in some form. Has happened to SG-1, SGA, Farscape, BSG, Star Trek, and I can go on forever.

A show like 24, which I love btw, will not have this happen. When you die, you stay dead.

Killdeer
May 13th, 2008, 07:36 AM
I personally don't have a problem with "happily ever after." Maybe not that sweet and fuzzy, but I am happier with a show where I feel like the main characters are safe.

I've never watched 24 - have never even had the slightest desire to. I did watch MI-5 for awhile, until I figured out that just about the time I would get into a character, they were going to kill him/her off or somehow get rid of them. So I stopped watching - the show was otherwise interesting, but not worth the bother.

Reiko
May 13th, 2008, 08:07 AM
Therefore, it's because of their dynamic-ism input that leads to us actually loving the characters.

.: Yup. And some characters - not to mantion any names - just do not have that dynamic :)

Falcon Horus
May 13th, 2008, 08:10 AM
Stargate SG-1 & Atlantis are character-driver

According to TPTB Stargate is plot-driven... can't recall where I saw it, but I did see it.

Killdeer
May 13th, 2008, 08:14 AM
According to TPTB Stargate is plot-driven... can't recall where I saw it, but I did see it.

I think that's from Torri's interview in Stargate Magazine last year.

Doesn't mean I agree...but maybe again it's a question of definitions.

Reiko
May 13th, 2008, 08:15 AM
.: Character driven stories usually call for less big explosions. Boys at Bridge like explosions, so...

g.o.d
May 13th, 2008, 08:44 AM
.: Character driven stories usually call for less big explosions.


or for more brain cells;)

ToasterOnFire
May 13th, 2008, 09:27 AM
I think fewer people would be upset with main character deaths, disappearances, or other methods of removal if the plot of SGA actually called for it instead of real life reasons like ratings ploys, inability to write the character in question, or other PTB/actor problems. Ford, Carson, Weir, and now Carter all fit into the latter category instead of the former. The instability in real life, caused directly or indirectly by TPTB, has lead to this instability in the SGA canon universe.

Briangate78
May 13th, 2008, 09:28 AM
I personally don't have a problem with "happily ever after." Maybe not that sweet and fuzzy, but I am happier with a show where I feel like the main characters are safe.

I've never watched 24 - have never even had the slightest desire to. I did watch MI-5 for awhile, until I figured out that just about the time I would get into a character, they were going to kill him/her off or somehow get rid of them. So I stopped watching - the show was otherwise interesting, but not worth the bother.

Well, I don't want to see characters killed off, but if it happens once and awhile it will not be like the end of the series to me.

Falcon Horus
May 13th, 2008, 09:29 AM
I think that's from Torri's interview in Stargate Magazine last year.

That's very possible... :)


...but maybe again it's a question of definitions.

True.


or for more brain cells;)

LOL! Can't green you so have some virtual GREEN.

Briangate78
May 13th, 2008, 09:29 AM
I think fewer people would be upset with main character deaths, disappearances, or other methods of removal if the plot of SGA actually called for it instead of real life reasons like ratings ploys, inability to write the character in question, or other PTB/actor problems. Ford, Carson, Weir, and now Carter all fit into the latter category instead of the former. The instability in real life, caused directly or indirectly by TPTB, has lead to this instability in the SGA canon universe.

Well Carter leaving has nothing to do with a ratings ploy. Tapping is too busy with Sanctuary.

ShadowMaat
May 13th, 2008, 09:46 AM
More emphasis on personality, less on wardrobe? ;)

Dunno how I'd define Atlantis. A plot-driven show would be something like the Law & Orders, where each ep is about unraveling a crime, figuring out the whos, hows, and whys, and prosecuting the guilty party. The characters asking the questions are secondary to that and changing them doesn't have a major effect. ER is more character-based, since it's all about the lives of the staff, with the medical cases they work on coming in second place to the drama in their own lives. Atlantis... Well, for all that there isn't much focus on their personal lives, there's still a lot of attention given to the team itself. It's how they handle the situations they're thrust into which is central to the stories and the plots often seem like contrivances created for the purpose of making drama for the characters. Yeah, there are lots of big shiny explosions and exciting shoot-em-ups, but I don't think there's enough substance to the stories to call the show plot-driven. What mysteries there are to unravel are usually solved through exposition and melodramatic character moments rather than what I would deem honest investigation/research. I'm sure folks can find plenty of examples where that isn't true, but I'd say they're either exceptions to the rule or that it's simply a case of interpretation and from the way I'm looking at it even most of the investigative stuff is about the characters, not the plot.

Whether the show is character-driven or not, though, I think a majority of fans are heavily invested in the characters and that causes difficulties when TPTB try to switch around the cast.

ToasterOnFire
May 13th, 2008, 10:46 AM
Well Carter leaving has nothing to do with a ratings ploy. Tapping is too busy with Sanctuary.
Yes, that was a real life reason, a conflict with the actor over scheduling. Carter leaving has nothing to do with planned events in the SGA canon universe and TPTB must now figure out a plausible reason and shoehorn it into the show.

Briangate78
May 13th, 2008, 10:58 AM
Yes, that was a real life reason, a conflict with the actor over scheduling. Carter leaving has nothing to do with planned events in the SGA canon universe and TPTB must now figure out a plausible reason and shoehorn it into the show.

I personally think it will be for the better. We will get a more Weir type leader now with Woolsey I think.

PG15
May 13th, 2008, 11:00 AM
You know...this "writing vs. explosions" stuff is nothing new. I've been watching early SG1 and explosions were all over the place. It's just part-and-parcel of an action-adventure SciFi show.


More emphasis on personality, less on wardrobe? ;)



I don't understand this mentality either. The outfit is THERE, once you've seen it, you've seen it. It won't change, it won't develop its own personality; there's no point placing importance on it. And yet, some of the fans do. Well, if they want to emphasize it, then it's their own problem. The only reason people want to zero in on the outfits instead of the character is either they 1). like it, or 2). want to complain about it.

Cautious Explorer
May 13th, 2008, 12:29 PM
You know...this "writing vs. explosions" stuff is nothing new. I've been watching early SG1 and explosions were all over the place. It's just part-and-parcel of an action-adventure SciFi show.



I don't understand this mentality either. The outfit is THERE, once you've seen it, you've seen it. It won't change, it won't develop its own personality; there's no point placing importance on it. And yet, some of the fans do. Well, if they want to emphasize it, then it's their own problem. The only reason people want to zero in on the outfits instead of the character is either they 1). like it, or 2). want to complain about it.

Wow. I guess you've taken up mind reading now. Could it possibly be that some outfits are distracting and detract from the believability of the characters? I don't want to complain about the costumes, but I will complain if I think they make the characters look foolish or less suited for the role. (For instance, I think Carter might have been a bit more believable as a distinguished leader if her costume had actually fit).

ShadowMaat
May 13th, 2008, 12:30 PM
I don't understand this mentality either. The outfit is THERE, once you've seen it, you've seen it. It won't change, it won't develop its own personality; there's no point placing importance on it. And yet, some of the fans do. Well, if they want to emphasize it, then it's their own problem. The only reason people want to zero in on the outfits instead of the character is either they 1). like it, or 2). want to complain about it.

How is that different from anything else? Characters, plots, props, locations, it's all just "there" for fans to make of it what they will. Some folks will "zero in" on a look or a phrase and develop a whole relationship/storyline based on it. Some will "zero in" on a spaceship and obsess over every technical detail. And some folks "zero in" on the wardrobe. So what?

Two of the least developed/utilized characters on the show are also the ones who wear outfits that emphasize their physical attributes. A matter of opinion, yes, but as far as I can tell Teyla and Ronon are basically there as eye candy and whatever bone gets tossed their way plot-wise is usually fleeting and they usually wind up in the B or C plots. "Cast stability" is all well and good, but if Teyla and Ronon were to disappear I don't think it would have much impact on the show in terms of storylines... and not just because TPTB rarely deal with fallout anyway. Granted, with the baby storyline Teyla's been around a bit more, but is it really about her or is it about Michael and his plans for the future? And what's the thing fans remember most about Kindred? What happened to Teyla or the fact that Carson's back? Even when she's supposedly part of the central plot it's still more about other characters.

IMO TPTB can't handle the characters they already have and that's probably partly why there are so many cast changes: when they can't figure out what to do with someone, they get rid of them and bring in someone new and shiny. Of course, they run into the same problem with the new person eventually, but they keep trying anyway.

Sometimes outside factors are at work, such as Torri opting not to come back and Amanda deciding to focus on Sanctuary instead, but in Torri's case, at least, she'd already been reduced to recurring status because of the direction TPTB chose to go and it doesn't sound as if it was going to be much of a recurring role, either. More like Ford than Michael or even someone like Lorne, who recurs frequently.

In order for there to be any cast stability the writers have to be committed to their characters and I just don't get the sense that they do. Shep and McKay are the safest characters on the show and Teyla and Ronon are probably safe, too, but the rest...? I fully expect there to be more changes on the way, and not just the Survivor-style additions TPTB are planning for S5. If you're of the opinion that the core team (meaning Shep & McKay and the Other Two) are all that matters then I think you'll have nothing to worry about for as long as the show lasts, but if the other regulars and the recurring characters mean anything to you then I'd say prepare to be disappointed. Again. ;)

Shipperahoy
May 13th, 2008, 01:11 PM
I personally think it will be for the better. We will get a more Weir type leader now with Woolsey I think.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. I don't see anything even remotely Weir-like about Woolsey, other than both being civilians. In the past, all of the commanders of both SG-1 and Atlantis have been competent and, in the end, completely supportive of their teams. They're clearly going in another direction with Woolsey, unless they have the character do a complete 180. Woolsey is a bottom line kind of guy and while he's shown the ability to occasionally step outside of his comfort zone he still isn't someone I would ever have thought as capable of leading an expedition fraught with danger and needed quick split-second decision making. I am trying to reserve judgement for the most part until I actually see what they do with it but I don't forsee Woolsey really fitting in and if he is the disaster I fear he will be then we'll just have yet another cast shake-up.

PG15
May 13th, 2008, 01:17 PM
How is that different from anything else? Characters, plots, props, locations, it's all just "there" for fans to make of it what they will. Some folks will "zero in" on a look or a phrase and develop a whole relationship/storyline based on it. Some will "zero in" on a spaceship and obsess over every technical detail. And some folks "zero in" on the wardrobe. So what?


So it's annoying, that's what. :p And yeah, I think all of those other things you cited are pretty irrelevant as well; it's just my opinion though.

Fans making a huge deal of something tiny and insignificant = annoying to me. Just sayin'; it's not like I can stop any of you. Though, I wouldn't put big plot points and character developments in the same catagories as CGI, locations, and clothing; as many have pointed out, the former 2 are apparently much much more important.

Jumper_One
May 13th, 2008, 01:17 PM
Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. I don't see anything even remotely Weir-like about Woolsey, other than both being civilians. In the past, all of the commanders of both SG-1 and Atlantis have been competent and, in the end, completely supportive of their teams. They're clearly going in another direction with Woolsey, unless they have the character do a complete 180. Woolsey is a bottom line kind of guy and while he's shown the ability to occasionally step outside of his comfort zone he still isn't someone I would ever have thought as capable of leading an expedition fraught with danger and needed quick split-second decision making. I am trying to reserve judgement for the most part until I actually see what they do with it but I don't forsee Woolsey really fitting in and if he is the disaster I fear he will be then we'll just have yet another cast shake-up.

but that's what makes this interesting

Reiko
May 13th, 2008, 02:10 PM
The instability in real life, caused directly or indirectly by TPTB, has lead to this instability in the SGA canon universe.

» ITA. For me, the upsetting part is largely due to those frustrating real life issues (needing ratings, etc) and what happens afterwards. Little or no fallout. Stupid, stupid. :mckay:


or for more brain cells;)

» Would green you, but I still cannot. So - MENTAL GREEN :D


Whether the show is character-driven or not, though, I think a majority of fans are heavily invested in the characters and that causes difficulties when TPTB try to switch around the cast.

» Which is why I am hardly interested anymore. I watch for the characters and the wee bitty surrogate familt they created that is now in a state of chaos. Due to this pointless cast changing. In fact, if they decide to switch out Radek or Lorne I just might have a bigger hissyfit than if they removed Shep, Rodney, Teyla, or Ronon. :S

» Great posts as always, Shadow :)

ShadowMaat
May 13th, 2008, 02:37 PM
If Woolsey were to actually challenge and defy Sheppard once in a while- and to do so effectively and for genuinely plausible reasons- and if such challenges were to continue throughout his tenancy as Commander then I think that could be an interesting change, but I don't think Woolsey is being brought in to be an effective and efficient leader, I think he's being brought in to act as a troublesome thorn who makes more problems than he solves. Perhaps that will create some good stories, too, but it isn't something I want to see. I'm sick of Sheppard always being right, always having all the answers (if occasionally relaying on Rodney to provide them) and always breaking rules and getting away with it. If there are to be any more casting changes then I say do away with the pretense that anyone else is actually in charge and just make Sheppard Commander of Atlantis. In effect that's what he already is, anyway. Weir offered the occasional challenge to him at first, but eventually she was eating out of his hand and I don't recall any major conflicts with Carter.

What's this I've heard about Woolsey only being a temporary solution? Is that a real-world answer (as in Picardo will only be around for a year) or is it an in-show explanation (as in Woolsey's in charge until they can straighten things out)? Because I can see the latter managing to last for years, which could provide some nice griping material for Woolsey. If it's the former, though, I say again: why bother? Unless they really are aiming to make the musical commanders thing a running joke (which would be a ad idea, IMO), what's the point of bringing someone in, developing them and then booting them out again just as fans get used to the idea of them being around?

Treating your characters like mobile props to be picked up and discarded at whim (or whenever the ratings need a boost) isn't what I'd call the best way to run a long-term show. Not one like Atlantis, anyway.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 13th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Treating your characters like mobile props to be picked up and discarded at whim (or whenever the ratings need a boost) isn't what I'd call the best way to run a long-term show. Not one like Atlantis, anyway.
I agree with ya there.

Also, I can see Woolsey being a boring character after a while, you have his type in the office RW 90% of the time (i.e. bosses who despite going to University simply don't know how to manage), and you hate him to bits. He's there criticising how you're inefficient with resource allocation and the budgeting then he's there criticising you for using your brains without consulting him (in fear you outshine him), then he's there spying and timing how long of a break you're having, he's there claiming that you're not following company etiquette and he criticises you when you lose that client, when in actual fact it was his own meddling, (trying to get two clients to compete one another, but losing both of them in the end). Note, now this happen to me per se.

If people so want to see Woolsey and you got a RL boss like that, go and watch him all day, and you will note how tedious it gets after a while.

I had a boss like that once and his head was so in the cloud that, he couldn't tell the difference between a pen and a pencil.

Reiko
May 13th, 2008, 03:22 PM
» TPTB is a running joke .... :S

PG15
May 13th, 2008, 04:34 PM
Eh? I'd say that's fandom.




What's this I've heard about Woolsey only being a temporary solution? Is that a real-world answer (as in Picardo will only be around for a year) or is it an in-show explanation (as in Woolsey's in charge until they can straighten things out)? Because I can see the latter managing to last for years, which could provide some nice griping material for Woolsey. If it's the former, though, I say again: why bother? Unless they really are aiming to make the musical commanders thing a running joke (which would be a ad idea, IMO), what's the point of bringing someone in, developing them and then booting them out again just as fans get used to the idea of them being around?

I do believe this "temporary solution" came from one of Picardo's interviews, but it's been misinterpreted. He starts off as a temporary replacement, but eventually gets the job permanently. Otherwise, I don't think there's anything talking about how long Woolsey will last on the show.

ToasterOnFire
May 13th, 2008, 05:21 PM
» TPTB is a running joke .... :S
If only I could find their actions humorous... :S

Falcon Horus
May 13th, 2008, 05:22 PM
If only I could find their actions humorous... :S

Running can be funny... :p

Madeleine
May 13th, 2008, 09:22 PM
I think fewer people would be upset with main character deaths, disappearances, or other methods of removal if the plot of SGA actually called for it instead of real life reasons like ratings ploys, inability to write the character in question, or other PTB/actor problems.

Bear in mind that plenty of people would feel that the plot *does* call for it, and that 'inability' to write a character beyond a certain point might be a function of the character's shelf-life rather than anything else.

People are talking as if the desireability of 'cast stability' is self-evident. It's not. I don't want cast stability, how dull would that be?

And what do you mean "PTB/actor problems"? If it can be said on this forum, feel free; if not, it should be neither said nor insinuated.


The instability in real life, caused directly or indirectly by TPTB, has lead to this instability in the SGA canon universe.

Again, perhaps the instability in the show is required to keep it dynamic; and hence TPTB are required to make the RL situation unstable (read 'typical hollywood') in order to ensure the show does not stagnate.

You're writing as if TPTB had, through ineptitude or malice, made RL things so problematical that they are having to re-jig the cast. Seriously, that's the only interpretation I can put on your words. But what you appear to be saying is totally unfounded.

With the exception of AT wanting to move to another project (which you could only lay at the door of TPTB with a heck of a lot of contorting) there's nothing I've heard that suggests that RL problems/instability/whatever has been causing the cast changes. I think you're seeing the cart before the horse.

Linzi
May 13th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Bear in mind that plenty of people would feel that the plot *does* call for it, and that 'inability' to write a character beyond a certain point might be a function of the character's shelf-life rather than anything else.

People are talking as if the desireability of 'cast stability' is self-evident. It's not. I don't want cast stability, how dull would that be?

And what do you mean "PTB/actor problems"? If it can be said on this forum, feel free; if not, it should be neither said nor insinuated.



Again, perhaps the instability in the show is required to keep it dynamic; and hence TPTB are required to make the RL situation unstable (read 'typical hollywood') in order to ensure the show does not stagnate.

You're writing as if TPTB had, through ineptitude or malice, made RL things so problematical that they are having to re-jig the cast. Seriously, that's the only interpretation I can put on your words. But what you appear to be saying is totally unfounded.

With the exception of AT wanting to move to another project (which you could only lay at the door of TPTB with a heck of a lot of contorting) there's nothing I've heard that suggests that RL problems/instability/whatever has been causing the cast changes. I think you're seeing the cart before the horse.
I just had to say what a wonderful post this is. Logical, and using common sense. None of us know what really goes on behind the scenes, and innuendo and conspiracy theories really aren't appropriate, IMO.

I agree with your thoughts on cast stability. Some change is inevitable, and IMO, even vital. Yes, it might take getting used to, and you might feel a little apprehensive about it, but, if it gets rid of characters who, for whatever reason, the writers can't or don't seem to be able to write for anymore, or who HAVE outlived their shelf life, then I'm all for it. Everything evolves and grows, and I think that's the way it should be or shows become static and predictable.

As far as Carson's death is concerned. I cried. A lot. So, for me, that touched me, and made the show make me feel a very tangible emotion. Do I think the character should have been killed? Well, that's a hard one really. But I'm sort of in the camp which says, what's done is done, let's move on from it. I thought Ford going was a good move, Weir too - when looking at who replaced both characters and how they fitted into the show. I liked Carter's inclusion in the cast very much, and am sorry she's gone, though I do understand why, and I totally adore Ronon! Keller coming in? I'm not loving her at this stage, but I do like her and hope to grow to like her more. Whether she should be CMO is another question though! :lol: Woolsey coming in? I'm not upset. In fact I think it could be very interesting and perhaps shake everything up a bit, causing some tension and dramatic scenes on the show.

So, cast stability is a strange thing. I do want my core team there, and they are, but I don't generally have issues with characters coming and going, though I wouldn't want to see too many changes. I don't think Woolsey has to stay now, like I previously did, but it depends on how attached I become to him, I guess. I have to say, if there is a season 6, I've changed my mind and could see Carter back, for example, if the situation made it appropriate. In the end, I'll just wait and see what season 5 brings cast wise. :)

JackHarkness_Hot
May 14th, 2008, 03:01 AM
Someone mention about show stagnation, I thought it was quite on the contrary. Things were going great, when Carson and Weir were there but things clearly fell apart with the execution of Weir. Things were disjointed, of course that's my opinion, I know.

If TPTB didn't kill Weir off, would 50% (going with 50% for and 50% against the cast change for easy comparison) be criticising the change before Season 4 was shown? If TPTB didn't kill Weir (leaving Torri in a pickle), AT wouldn't have been casted for Atantis therefore, even if her "Sanctuary" show did get picked up by Sci-Fi, it wouldn't have affected the series, but no, why TPTB want to make it easy for everybody? Let's dump TH and go with somebody that already been in 10 seasons of her original series plus 1 and 1 additional movie, i.e. AT. :mckay: - so not cool.

Okay, some people didn't like Weir and some people love Weir and what do TPTB do anyway,

"Oh, let's kill her off, yeah that will make the show even more fun because that's exactly what Atlantis needs, then we will kill Heightmeyer, cos we have already killed off Carson and have removed Ford. Brilliant!"

Clearly, they are drunken with power.

Agent_Dark
May 14th, 2008, 03:08 AM
Clearly, they are drunken with power.

clearly you are blinded by your own short-sightedness.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 14th, 2008, 03:14 AM
Well, I am short-sighted (literally, I can't see things far-far away) :lol:

but adding that in, I await to see how the writers are going to implement it and execute the addition of the "glorious" Woolsey character into season 5.

Skydiver
May 14th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Guys

I have a problem with you insinuating that there are 'ptb/actor problems'

You don't know this. You are making insinuations that are close to slanderous. You are insinuating that 'ed hates mary so they wrote her out because of it'. which is a very unprofessional thing to do.

I suggest that you temper your posts and stick to facts. And don't state your personal opinions AS facts. You want to feel that there was some ulterior motive and grand conspiracy, fine. but you state clearly that it is your OPINION and don't state it as fact.

Falcon Horus
May 14th, 2008, 04:33 AM
People are talking as if the desireability of 'cast stability' is self-evident. It's not. I don't want cast stability, how dull would that be?

SG1 must have been very boring for you then... :p ...Unless you didn't watch that.

ToasterOnFire
May 14th, 2008, 05:58 AM
Bear in mind that plenty of people would feel that the plot *does* call for it, and that 'inability' to write a character beyond a certain point might be a function of the character's shelf-life rather than anything else.
Fair enough, though on the latter I can argue that the limitations set on a character are wholly dictated by the creative abilities of TPTB.


And what do you mean "PTB/actor problems"? If it can be said on this forum, feel free; if not, it should be neither said nor insinuated.
Problems such as actor scheduling conflicts as with AT. Since any discussion of other problems, even if stated by actors in interviews, does not appear to be an appropriate topic at GW I can't discuss that further.


Again, perhaps the instability in the show is required to keep it dynamic; and hence TPTB are required to make the RL situation unstable (read 'typical hollywood') in order to ensure the show does not stagnate.
Dumping characters and adding new ones is not the only way to make a show dynamic, it's merely the easiest option. There are other ways to prevent stagnation, including writing in major changes to a character and actually developing said changes (Ford getting wraithed, Weir getting replicatored) or major changes to the setting, etc (having a major enemy force take over Atlantis). It requires planning, commitment, and creativity though.


You're writing as if TPTB had, through ineptitude or malice, made RL things so problematical that they are having to re-jig the cast. Seriously, that's the only interpretation I can put on your words. But what you appear to be saying is totally unfounded.
They got rid of Torri, brought on Amanda who could only stay one year, and now have to bring on Picardo to fill the void. Some may say it was bad luck, others may say that's the way of TV, others think that TPTB's choice to remove an actor committed for 5-6 seasons ultimately caused this rapid turnover. I don't see any of these opinions as being unfounded.


With the exception of AT wanting to move to another project (which you could only lay at the door of TPTB with a heck of a lot of contorting) there's nothing I've heard that suggests that RL problems/instability/whatever has been causing the cast changes. I think you're seeing the cart before the horse.
I guess we have different POVs on the subject then.


I just had to say what a wonderful post this is. Logical, and using common sense.
Yep, that's a very interesting way to insinuate that my post had neither. Nice.

Briangate78
May 14th, 2008, 06:31 AM
Lets have a show where no one dies or is at risk. Lets have a show where the enemy can never hurt the good guys. Lets have a show where characters will never develop or change, or return from the dead if they are killed. Lets have a show where no risks are taken and the same format is used in every episode and everything returns back to the way it is. Lets have a show where no characters are killed off because certain fans only watch the show because of those characters. Lets not call Stargate Atlantis, SGA, and lets call it Stargate: "Enter character's name".

Does this sound like an interesting show?

EdenSG
May 14th, 2008, 07:44 AM
Guys

I have a problem with you insinuating that there are 'ptb/actor problems'

You don't know this. You are making insinuations that are close to slanderous. You are insinuating that 'ed hates mary so they wrote her out because of it'. which is a very unprofessional thing to do.

I suggest that you temper your posts and stick to facts. And don't state your personal opinions AS facts. You want to feel that there was some ulterior motive and grand conspiracy, fine. but you state clearly that it is your OPINION and don't state it as fact.

I think you put it very succinctly.

I understand how some people can feel angry and upset about TPTB and cast changes – especially if it involved a favorite character and/or that change shifted the dynamic enough that the show is no longer enjoyable for them. I can understand wanting to complain about those changes. But I think you are right about being careful on how we phrase those comments. It not just that unfounded statements are unfair to TBTP, in my opinion, but I also think they have the potential of doing harm to the actor or actress the poster involves. And this is what I get worried about most of all. Rumors, opinions, rants can get misconstrued, they can trickle over to other websites, they can even get picked up by more mainstream media (and I have seen GW quoted/cited in mainstream articles) but the whole story/comment is interpreted differently. One person may see the TPTB as the problem, another may pick it up as the actor or actress being the problem. You often see an article or comments in articles how certain actors or actresses have a reputation for not getting along with producers, or being difficult to work with – these kind of rumors can cost actors/actresses jobs. Forget TPTB, their job is secure, I think out of respect for the actor/actress we should heed Sky’s words. But this is just my opinion.

Briangate78
May 14th, 2008, 08:32 AM
I think you put it very succinctly.

I understand how some people can feel angry and upset about TPTB and cast changes – especially if it involved a favorite character and/or that change shifted the dynamic enough that the show is no longer enjoyable for them. I can understand wanting to complain about those changes. But I think you are right about being careful on how we phrase those comments. It not just that unfounded statements are unfair to TBTP, in my opinion, but I also think they have the potential of doing harm to the actor or actress the poster involves. And this is what I get worried about most of all. Rumors, opinions, rants can get misconstrued, they can trickle over to other websites, they can even get picked up by more mainstream media (and I have seen GW quoted/cited in mainstream articles) but the whole story/comment is interpreted differently. One person may see the TPTB as the problem, another may pick it up as the actor or actress being the problem. You often see an article or comments in articles how certain actors or actresses have a reputation for not getting along with producers, or being difficult to work with – these kind of rumors can cost actors/actresses jobs. Forget TPTB, their job is secure, I think out of respect for the actor/actress we should heed Sky’s words. But this is just my opinion.

This is one of the reasons why I get ticked off, when people make assumptions and post opinions as facts. It's like this, Just because you don't like the character changes and the show now doesn't mean the 2 million + people who tuned in for Season 4 share your opinion.

Linzi
May 14th, 2008, 08:42 AM
Yep, that's a very interesting way to insinuate that my post had neither. Nice.

Oh dear. You appear to think I was answering your post, when, in fact, I was answering Madeleine's, as indeed I quoted, and which was indeed full of common sense. Alas I wasn't even thinking of your post when I answered because I didn't read it. Sorry to disappoint you. :)

Mitchell82
May 14th, 2008, 09:20 PM
People will complain that the show is not real and everyone is safe. Then people will complain if someone does get killed off and will blame the PTB for trying to get higher ratings. You cannot please everyone. I wanted them to just give Weir a proper sendoff for an example, instead of leaving her character open.

The whole Weir thing was a shock to me since I did not read too many spoilers before Season 4 aired. They made the show darker in the fact that a main character took a change that they could never return back from. It did not have that happy ever after ending. That to me made the show raise it's bar.

What makes character deaths interesting is that because this is SCI FI, people can return from the dead in some form. Has happened to SG-1, SGA, Farscape, BSG, Star Trek, and I can go on forever.

A show like 24, which I love btw, will not have this happen. When you die, you stay dead.

I couldn't agree more. I'd green you if I could.

JackHarkness_Hot
May 19th, 2008, 04:15 AM
I got a question, why did he writers have to kill Weir?

Of course, some will say oh because majority of the fans didn't Weir, some of them will say it's for ratings, some will say, it's because the production didn't like TH, some say it's due to SGA being part of modern TV dynamics.

Still makes no sense, TH has always been faithful, always been supportive of SGA and her character, this isn't like the actor that played, "Speed" from CSI: Miami, where he was clearly unhappy and spoken out numerous times.

You say that cast change is good, but SG-1 didn't get 10 seasons because of constant cast change, sure once or twice, over the 10 years, that's fine, but 6 (Ford, Ronan, Carson, Keller, Weir, Carter) in 4 years, talk about extreme. This is like a bad episode of General Hospital. If you got to go down the cast change route because you as a writer couldn't be bothered to make it interesting with existing characters that you got, so you got to change them, okay, fine, do it but not at a pace of the Concorde, if you want to do that, then you know what, go change every week, cos it's clear that some of you here like this rapid change and I blame it to the fact that we as a society can't even be bothered to sit and watch a set of known characters do their magic and grow with them but rather, watch a series with unknown characters in a setting that you like, whilst doing something else, i.e. the iGeneration.

It's what you lot want, cos it's clear as stated in your posts, and don't go and say that's not what you meant, "You're going to the extreme", no I'm not. This is exactly what you want, the TPTB should scrap "SGU", make Atlantis S5 the last and go and start a new project where we only get to meet a specific character once every week.

Cos, imo yes in my opinion, in fact all this is simply my opinion, it's appalling and it's disgraceful. We have turned into a civil war-like group of fans with half wanting SGA to be like 24, let's do that, who needs Zelenka and Teyla and McKay, etc, let's just stick to Ronan cos he has a gun which fires red blasts of light, with loads of explosions, and he comes and meet random people, who we will meet once a week.

It fits with the cast change agenda, plus it's more story-focus with the concentration all on one character. Sounds totally peachy and perfect for those kind of people.

jenks
May 19th, 2008, 05:08 AM
I got a question, why did he writers have to kill Weir?

Of course, some will say oh because majority of the fans didn't Weir, some of them will say it's for ratings, some will say, it's because the production didn't like TH, some say it's due to SGA being part of modern TV dynamics.

Still makes no sense, TH has always been faithful, always been supportive of SGA and her character, this isn't like the actor that played, "Speed" from CSI: Miami, where he was clearly unhappy and spoken out numerous times.



Actually that's not true. She has said herself that she wasn't particularly pleased with her character, and that she used to nag the producers about it. I wouldn't say she was particularly supportive of SGA either, she was offered a chance to come back but she turned it down, not to mention all the unprofessional crap she's been spouting in interviews, I'm surprised they even invited her back to be honest.

Madeleine
May 19th, 2008, 05:36 AM
What has TH got to do with anything anyway? The stories are not about TH nor have they ever been, they've been about Weir, or not, as the case may be.

SG-1 made a virtue of cast stability, other shows - ER or Doctor Who for instance - have done quite the reverse. SGA seems to be treading a middle ground. Seems reasonable to me.

Briangate78
May 19th, 2008, 06:37 AM
I got a question, why did he writers have to kill Weir?



Because it's a drama series. People will die or change forever. I mean do you really want to show where everyone is safe and everything turns out fine? Sure if this was a Scooby Doo Cartoon. :rolleyes:

Because this is SCI FI characters can return and rise from the dead by certain means. Like Carson returning, is one good example.

I personally loved the direction of Weir, and thought it made her character very interesting. What I hate is that Torri declined to return next season which could of been for several eps according to SCI FI wire.

PG15
May 19th, 2008, 11:12 AM
You say that cast change is good, but SG-1 didn't get 10 seasons because of constant cast change, sure once or twice, over the 10 years, that's fine, but 6 (Ford, Ronan, Carson, Keller, Weir, Carter) in 4 years, talk about extreme.

That's more like 3 cast changes:

Ford to Ronon
Carson to Keller
Weir to Carter

For SG1...

Daniel to Jonas
Jonas to Daniel
Dr. Frasier to Dr. Lam
Hammond to O'Neill
O'Neill to Landry
Addition of Mitchell
Addition of Vala

And that's in 5 years.

How can you be sure SG1 didn't last 10 years because of changes? 5 of its years had changing casts, and the other 5 had a stable cast. Gotta wonder which one was more important, no?

I don't know about anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't want cast changes, but if it happens, then it happens. It's out of my control, and the only thing I can do is see if I enjoy it or not.

So far so good.

Briangate78
May 19th, 2008, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE=JackHarkness_Hot;8259617]



That's more like 3 cast changes:

Ford to Ronon
Carson to Keller
Weir to Carter

For SG1...

Daniel to Jonas
Jonas to Daniel
Dr. Frasier to Dr. Lam
Hammond to O'Neill
O'Neill to Landry
Addition of Mitchell
Addition of Vala

And that's in 5 years.

How can you be sure SG1 didn't last 10 years because of changes? 5 of its years had changing casts, and the other 5 had a stable cast. Gotta wonder which one was more important, no?

Wouldn't Carson returning for a recurring role make it more stable? Since he was an original character? I love when lost characters return, it truly makes the show more interesting. I looooooooooooved Season 7 of SG-1, but that doesnt' mean I did not like Jonas. He was great also.

Took me a whole season to warm up to Mitchell and Vala though. :S

Jackie
May 19th, 2008, 11:23 AM
To compare SG-1's cast changes to SGA's cast changes you need to compare via time frame. SG-1 has lasted 2 times longer so far and comparing a ten year show to a (less than 5) year show is not actually a good comparison.

SG-1 from season 1-5 we saw NO cast changes. Season 6 is when we saw Jonas arrive and Daniel go all glowing.

SGA season 1 -5 we saw...Dr. Weir replaced with Colonel Carter. Colonel Carter replaced with Woosley. (3 people right there)

Peter Grodin die
Ford ship out...somewhere.
Dr. Beckett get all crusty and then Xeroxed.
Teyla's people written out.

not including teyla's people we saw a turn over of 6 people.

In SG-1 we saw none for the same time frame.

Using current trends it would be reasonable to forecast SGA having even more turnovers if it last another 5 years.

jenks
May 19th, 2008, 11:58 AM
To compare SG-1's cast changes to SGA's cast changes you need to compare via time frame. SG-1 has lasted 2 times longer so far and comparing a ten year show to a (less than 5) year show is not actually a good comparison.

SG-1 from season 1-5 we saw NO cast changes. Season 6 is when we saw Jonas arrive and Daniel go all glowing.

SGA season 1 -5 we saw...Dr. Weir replaced with Colonel Carter. Colonel Carter replaced with Woosley. (3 people right there)

Peter Grodin die
Ford ship out...somewhere.
Dr. Beckett get all crusty and then Xeroxed.
Teyla's people written out.

not including teyla's people we saw a turn over of 6 people.

In SG-1 we saw none for the same time frame.

Using current trends it would be reasonable to forecast SGA having even more turnovers if it last another 5 years.

In the same time frame? Yes they did, and it was when SG-1 was at it's most popular too.

EdenSG
May 19th, 2008, 05:36 PM
Over 4 years I see 3 main characters in SGA written out:
Ford
Carson (coming back as reoccurring)
Weir

*Carter - actually she will not be written out till the 5th year and will be coming back as guest for several eps

I see 5 main characters in SG-1 written out:
Daniel (came back full time)
Jonas
O’Neill (came back as guest for several eps)
Hammond
Frasier

I can’t see including Teyla’s people as written out – they did disappear for a while but then were found and many were rescued in The Kindred 2. But hasn’t SG -1 “written out” entire races, such as the Tollen or Asgard?

I liked Peter Grodin, he was a great character, but still he was just a reoccurring character, not a main character. SG-1 has also written out reoccurring/secondary characters:

Jacob
Martouff

I know there were other characters in SG-1 that were written out (but not necessarily killed), just can’t think of names right now.

My personal view of cast changes:
Generally I am not happy at first, but not angry. And technically with SGA, 2 of the 4 characters that were written out as regulars (Carson and Carter) will be back for a few eps as reoccurring/guests. I would like to see some stability for the Atlantis leadership character but I'll see how that works in season 5. SGA is still a show that I fundamentally enjoy and while I am apprehensive about cast changes I am not automatically turned off by them. I tend to live under the old adage, “When one door closes another one opens.” So while I do think TPTB have missed opportunities to use the wonderful characters they already have/had, I also see opportunities for new storylines and further development of the remaining characters that a change in cast can sometimes afford.

Reiko
May 19th, 2008, 07:21 PM
» Cast changes suck and are often a big-turn off to many viewers. Not all, but many.

» TPTB messed with a formula that worked, and yes, it does piss me off. And it is also possible to have a show run for a long time with great stories without frakking raising the body count. :mckay:

Briangate78
May 19th, 2008, 07:22 PM
» Cast changes suck and are often a big-turn off to many viewers. Not all, but many.

» TPTB messed with a formula that worked, and yes, it does piss me off. And it is also possible to have a show run for a long time with great stories without frakking raising the body count. :mckay:

Well the Season 4 cast change attracted more viewers. As per the future, who knows. I see the main four characters returning, and one of the originals, Carson, returning. So I think there is more stability there since a lost character returned.

Reiko
May 19th, 2008, 07:27 PM
» Well, I'm just gonna have to take what I get. Or take some of it. Always have to have something left to squish in their faces ;)

» Um. I dunno. I sound evil :P

Briangate78
May 19th, 2008, 07:28 PM
» Well, I'm just gonna have to take what I get. Or take some of it. Always have to have something left to squish in their faces ;)

» Um. I dunno. I sound evil :P

You may actually enjoy Season 5. This new arc could be very interesting.

the fifth man
May 19th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Sure, I'd like to have a stable cast for the show. But, I know that isn't always how things work out. For the most part, I just go with the flow.

Cautious Explorer
May 23rd, 2008, 05:24 AM
Well the Season 4 cast change attracted more viewers. As per the future, who knows. I see the main four characters returning, and one of the originals, Carson, returning. So I think there is more stability there since a lost character returned.

Oh Brian, what happened to "Mr. I State the Facts". You know for a fact that replacing Weir with Carter, Carson with Keller brought in more viewers? Really? It couldn't have anything to do with a writer's strike? Or any other factors?

I wouldn't be so opposed to cast changes if I felt it was for the sake of improvement. I like Ronon better than Ford. I think that worked, and probably because it seemed to be more for plot/story purposes than for a ratings ploy. The addition of Carter and Keller were dismal disappointments for me. IMO Carter was brought in only to grab SG-1 fans and didn't add anything to the story and didn't gel with the cast at all. Keller appears to have been brought in because TPTB think the actress is great and suits the demographic they're trying to lure in. Keller is a weak and grating character who isn't believable in her role and has no chemistry with the core cast (again IMO). Breaking up a great cast just to shake things up and grab for ratings is destined to fail if you don't focus on creating vital and creative replacements.

GoSpikey
May 23rd, 2008, 05:34 AM
Newsflash, though.

A show like Stargate can never be believable if you keep the same cast for 10 years straight.

;)

Falcon Horus
May 23rd, 2008, 06:49 AM
Newsflash, though.

A show like Stargate can never be believable if you keep the same cast for 10 years straight.

;)

So, going by that logic, SG1 wasn't believable cause they pretty bmuch held the same cast for 10 years, 8 at least, with a few additions in the later seasons which weren't always welcomed either.

See, how the double standards apply... :rolleyes:

Mister Oragahn
May 23rd, 2008, 07:42 AM
SGA was hit with character change because they couldn't get their characters straight.
It's funny that some of the most boring characters like Teyla and Ronon have remained for so long.
There's no stability because most actors would rather play in something else if they had the opportunity to do so, unless they're getting a good paycheque or no other offer.

g.o.d
May 23rd, 2008, 07:47 AM
SGA was hit with character change because they couldn't get their characters straight.
It's funny that some of the most boring characters like Teyla and Ronon have remained for so long.
There's no stability because most actors would rather play in something else if they had the opportunity to do so, unless they're getting a good paycheque or no other offer.

I agree. Teyla and Ronon won't leave, especially Teyla. Rachel will rather play a wallpaper than try to find another job with her acting "abilities"

Falcon Horus
May 23rd, 2008, 08:17 AM
SGA was hit with character change because they couldn't get their characters straight.

Then it's up to TPTB to try harder, instead of taking the easy way out.


It's funny that some of the most boring characters like Teyla and Ronon have remained for so long.

Well, you gotta wonder really... :o


There's no stability because most actors would rather play in something else if they had the opportunity to do so, unless they're getting a good paycheque or no other offer.

Maybe, who knows.

ShadowMaat
May 23rd, 2008, 08:31 AM
Dunno if I'd go along with the whole "SG-1 didn't change its cast for ten whole years" thing because Jonas, Landry and Lam kinda speak otherwise. However, compare the first four seasons of SG-1 to the first four of Atlantis and yes, cast-wise there's a lot more instability in SGA. And I'm not talking about incidental recurring characters, either, I mean central cast.

ToasterOnFire
May 23rd, 2008, 08:37 AM
Lets have a show where no one dies or is at risk. Lets have a show where the enemy can never hurt the good guys. Lets have a show where characters will never develop or change, or return from the dead if they are killed. Lets have a show where no risks are taken and the same format is used in every episode and everything returns back to the way it is. Lets have a show where no characters are killed off because certain fans only watch the show because of those characters. Lets not call Stargate Atlantis, SGA, and lets call it Stargate: "Enter character's name".

Does this sound like an interesting show?
Wow BG, after reading your post I'm surprised CNN hasn't reported a worldwide shortage of straw. :S


Well the Season 4 cast change attracted more viewers.
Come on, you know you can't prove a statement like that any more than I can prove the statement "SGA maintainted its viewership in s4 only because viewers had few alternatives thanks to the strike."


However, compare the first four seasons of SG-1 to the first four of Atlantis and yes, cast-wise there's a lot more instability in SGA. And I'm not talking about incidental recurring characters, either, I mean central cast.
Exactly. It's like the show never found its footing. Maybe that's fine with those who like some instability, but I can only deal with casting musical chairs if the overall plot is strong enough to keep my interest. And it's not on SGA imo, at this point I have no idea where the show is going and I'm unconvinced that TPTB do either.

bluealien
May 23rd, 2008, 09:08 AM
Exactly. It's like the show never found its footing. Maybe that's fine with those who like some instability, but I can only deal with casting musical chairs if the overall plot is strong enough to keep my interest. And it's not on SGA imo, at this point I have no idea where the show is going and I'm unconvinced that TPTB do either.

The show found its footing fine for me and the core team has never changed. Carson and Weir were not main players no matter where Weir's name came in the titles. She was always a Hammond type of character and therefore not vital to the show as shown in season 4. The overall viewership tune in for good stories and I don't see any change in that viewership since Carson and Weir left and even in the eps they featured in during season 4 the ratings didnt change, so doesnt that show that the overall audience can carry on fine with cast changes.

I'm sure tptb know exactly what direction they want to take the show in but just because it doesn't mesh with what some viewers want doesn't mean that they don't have a clear view of where they want to take the show.

Reiko
May 23rd, 2008, 10:13 AM
» I can see how Carson can be argued not to be a main player, but Weir is definately the number one main player. She ws the leader than began the expedition. I call that I main player.

Thunderbird 2
May 23rd, 2008, 11:01 AM
The problem with most genre shows is that the casting is like a pyramid. There are key characters at the top, and yes, Dr Weir and John Shepperd were the top of that pyramid. Part of the problem is the structure of Atlantis's chain of command. Technically Landry is Shepperd's commander, as the next highest military character. Weir was a civilian. The writers also dug themselves deeper by establishing Weir's international credentials, the fact the President chose her, and she is established as the creator of the Atlantis expedition.

Dr Weir's narrative direction is an anomoly. because its clear from the way the character was punted off, the writers didn't know what to do with her, and didn't care to try. The recent description of the upcoming season 5 episode "Inquisition" got me asking the following question...

SPOILER ALERT! ATLANTIS SEASON 5 "Inquisition" (Speculative)

We learn here that Atlantis is going to be put on trial by a coolition of Pegasus galaxy races. Woolsey will be defending Team Sheppard for action taken. - Why the hell didn't the writers give Dr Weir the diplomatic teeth she was supposed to have, and show her using her skill to create such a coolition, with Atlantis at the centre of it? SG1 did this with the Jaffa, the Tokra, the Asgard and attempted to do so with the Tollan! - Dr Jackson's work is proof enough that the writers can, (or perhaps I should say could), write diplomacy alongside the action before? Indeed we saw Weir's own diplomatic strength in SG1's New Order Part 1 and 2.


I agree Weir is a Hammond type character in format. - General Hammond both being a regular and lynch pin of SG1 for seven years! Episodes like "Touchstone" and "Disclosure" spring to mind as ones that would not have worked without him. - Yet Weir was not written in that format.

I elected to go back to seasons 1 and 2 of Atlantis, and continue to follow SG1's adventures, which I have enjoyed right from the start. The writers may have a long term plan for Atlantis, they may not. The international aspects of the expedition fell to the floor, as did any political unrest back on Earth, and exploration did not seem to reach beyond aspects touched upon in SG1 and the Trek series.
However, loosing Beckett and Weir was too much for me. I have imagination enought to continue Atlantis in my own way, which is not the direction the series itself has taken.

ToasterOnFire
May 23rd, 2008, 12:01 PM
The show found its footing fine for me and the core team has never changed.
Wrong. The core team did change - Ford to Ronon.


Carson and Weir were not main players no matter where Weir's name came in the titles. She was always a Hammond type of character and therefore not vital to the show as shown in season 4.
Always? I doubt it. Yes, the "Hammond type of character" description started appearing after M&M took the helm, largely to validate their decision to remove Weir. But what did the original showrunners think of her character?

Most shows would consider leading lady to be a vital role and Weir fit that bill in the first 3 seasons. Is there a leading lady now? Most fans would say no. TPTB had a chance to step up Teyla into that role for s4, but the results were unconvincing. Expect more of the same in s5.


The overall viewership tune in for good stories and I don't see any change in that viewership since Carson and Weir left and even in the eps they featured in during season 4 the ratings didnt change, so doesnt that show that the overall audience can carry on fine with cast changes.
And I could argue that the viewership for SGA has been parsed down from s1 to a dedicated segment that will take anything TPTB gives them.


I'm sure tptb know exactly what direction they want to take the show in but just because it doesn't mesh with what some viewers want doesn't mean that they don't have a clear view of where they want to take the show.
What direction would that be? Do you know? Does anyone know? If most fans can't pick up on it then I'd argue that TPTB either a) doesn't have direction or b) poorly conveys said direction. Which one is worse?

PG15
May 23rd, 2008, 01:17 PM
Always? I doubt it. Yes, the "Hammond type of character" description started appearing after M&M took the helm, largely to validate their decision to remove Weir. But what did the original showrunners think of her character?

M&M took over at the beginning of Season 4...

ShadowMaat
May 23rd, 2008, 02:28 PM
As for the whole "finding their footing" thing it's probably worth pointing out that what you-the-fan consider good may not be what TPTB consider good and since they're the ones making the show, their opinions are the only ones that matter. We just have to live with the results, whether we like it or not. ;)

ToasterOnFire
May 23rd, 2008, 03:11 PM
M&M took over at the beginning of Season 4...
...yes? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Was Weir referred to as a "Hammond like character" before M&M took the helm or by anyone other than M&M?


As for the whole "finding their footing" thing it's probably worth pointing out that what you-the-fan consider good may not be what TPTB consider good and since they're the ones making the show, their opinions are the only ones that matter. We just have to live with the results, whether we like it or not. ;)
Live with it or turn off the show, as the case may be. Some clashes between a viewer's tastes and TPTB's tastes are to be expected with any TV show, but a point can eventually reached when the difference becomes too much. TPTB has given me too many things that I don't like (Keller, Woolsey, reset buttons, staying within the lines, dumbed down humor) and none to not enough of the things that I do (Weir, Teyla, creative and fresh stories, outcomes that keep you guessing). It's their right to make their show as they want, it's my right to change the channel and never give them another dime. ;)