PDA

View Full Version : After all this hype about SGU being for a younger audience...



Finger13
October 1st, 2008, 07:01 PM
How old are you guys?

I searched for a similar thread and didn't find anything, but I just thought it would be interesting to see.

I sat down when I was 8 years old and watched the series premiere, and have followed every episode of SG-1 and SGA to this very day. I loved it then and I love it now, and I had always thought that SG-1 was appealing to all age groups. But the controversy over SGU's targeted audience has me wondering otherwise?

dhaken666
October 1st, 2008, 08:07 PM
I'm 19, almost 20. I've been watching Stargate since I was about 15 or so. I probably would have started watching it sooner if I had realized how awesome it was! Lol But I'll give it a whirl. I've heard how it was supposed to be targeted at a younger audience, and I don't think that's a great idea. I think if they do that, they could possibly lose some of the fans they already have. I already believe both SG-1 and Atlantis are great for most age groups! I hope they keep it that way for Universe as well.

General Yogi Bear
October 1st, 2008, 08:08 PM
Started watching at 14 in 1997. Today I'm 25. I'm still a big fan.

Amagoul
October 1st, 2008, 08:13 PM
im 19 and ive been watching since 1997.

Raven6666
October 1st, 2008, 08:23 PM
I've pretty much known about Stargate since I was about 9, although since a nineyearold has a slightly more limited memory capability (read as :less trained), I couldn't remember the name of the series, nor when it was usually on. Wasn't a big fan at that time, I just liked how pretty the active wormhole was. (Don't touch strange things...?)

Although, my memory can remember things from about 6 years ago, I can remember me getting into SG a lot only about 3 years from now. I never had a big imagination, so I let Stargate do it for me. Although I was mainly watching it for like the effects, the acting of it all just kept me watching, to see how things developed. I don't want to be stereotyped as a teenage boy who likes Sci-Fi, since many people have commented on how mature I can actually be (about 10 years older than what I am now), and noticing that, I prefer to watch for how the characters develop, and the inclusion of space battles is just a bonus now.

Mind you, I'm only 18 right now, so I've pretty much followed Stargate on it's entire run, even though I can't exactly remember anything prior season 5 from it's first run.

If it's going to be anything like the redo of 90210, then Stargate will lose my faith. (For your info, what I though of the first episode of the new 90210 series that the people didn't really go anywhere or set up a good basis, hated it, and I plan to never get hooked in by it.)

I just hope they won't stuff up entirely and make the possible 4th series like a Sesame Street.

LostCityGuardian
October 1st, 2008, 08:47 PM
I'm 20, going on 21 very soon. But apart from a hiatus of a few years when there was no Stargate on TV in NZ (at least not at watchable times), I've been a fan since the first airing of Children of the Gods in 1997.

Of course, a thread like this is bound to give somewhat biased results, because I think its likely that people in the under-25 age demographic are more likely to join and post on a forum like this. However, the responses will be interesting on this thread anyway.

Drizzt Do'Urden
October 1st, 2008, 09:09 PM
started watching it when i was 10 and now im 18 so it's been nearly half my life watchin stargate lol. I just hope universe aint bad though I mean I'll give it a chance

jenks
October 1st, 2008, 09:31 PM
How old are you guys?

I searched for a similar thread and didn't find anything, but I just thought it would be interesting to see.

I sat down when I was 8 years old and watched the series premiere, and have followed every episode of SG-1 and SGA to this very day. I loved it then and I love it now, and I had always thought that SG-1 was appealing to all age groups. But the controversy over SGU's targeted audience has me wondering otherwise?

The average viewer is in their 40's, the average fan, at least on these forums, isn't.

GatorProduct4
October 1st, 2008, 09:36 PM
my story is actually by chance. I started actually watching SG-1 on DVD when I gratuated college, but I always liked the science fiction genre. I was 14 in 1997 and my Dad used to watch it on syndication, it aired on Saturdays since we didn't have cable. I remember walking by the tv and seeing Teal'c and asking my dad, "what's that guy's story? what is that thing on his head?" and I also remember saying.."hey, isn't that MacGyver?"I saw the first movie and thought it was cool, but never got that into it.
Then one day (about 2 years ago) my dad and I were out shopping and they had all the seasons on sale (1-8) and I said to my dad, "don't you like that show?" and he said "hell yes!" and bought them all. Periodically I would walk by the living room where he was and watch it for a couple minutes and then walk away. Then one day I walked by again and he was watching "Lost City 1 & 2" and I've been hooked ever since.
Ironically, I only started watching it on TV during season 10, right when it was going off the air...crap! I was so mad I became a fan at the end of it all.
So accidentally it has become my all time favorite show and still is.
So I will be watching SGU to check it out and give it a chance just like I did for SG-1 and SGA.
So now I'm 26 and still love SG-1

Daedalus-304
October 1st, 2008, 09:40 PM
If it's going to be anything like the redo of 90210, then Stargate will lose my faith. (For your info, what I though of the first episode of the new 90210 series that the people didn't really go anywhere or set up a good basis, hated it, and I plan to never get hooked in by it.)

I just hope they won't stuff up entirely and make the possible 4th series like a Sesame Street.

No in the middle, just make it like one of those non-stop action shows, boys 7 - 12 watch. Meaning: who cares about stuff like Character development, just shoot something and make a ship blow up.

boeli
October 1st, 2008, 10:07 PM
i'm 16 years now found out about stargate when i was like 11 watched it ever since

Krisz
October 1st, 2008, 10:30 PM
I'm at the older end of the viewership. I watched the movie in the cinema in 1994 at the grand old age of 36! :D I loved the whole idea of the Stargate and the alien mythology behind it that was introduced in the movie. I didn't know that a TV series was made until I came across the re run of Season one on Sky TV in 1998 whilst channel surfing, it was the episode 'The Broca Divide'. I went out and bought the episodes I missed to catch up and started watching avidly when season 2 started airing in the UK in September of that year.

Whilst I didn't get into Atlantis as much as I did with SG-1 I've watched it and enjoyed it on the whole. I will give Universe the same chance, can't really know if it gets you hooked or not until you watch it. So if the series has a good storyline with good characters that can carry an entertaining storyline then being 50 or 15 doesn't really matter at the end of the day. We'll all be sitting there watching if it entertains us! :)

katikatnik
October 1st, 2008, 11:13 PM
I'm 29. I watched SG-1 from the very beginning but never loved it as much SGA, don't know why...

mattyg1987
October 2nd, 2008, 12:17 AM
The average viewer is in their 40's, the average fan, at least on these forums, isn't.


Where abouts do they get their numbers from? Because I bet the REAL average age if they were to ask every viewer of Stargate SG-1 or Atlantis, is less than 40!

RobMcB1985
October 2nd, 2008, 12:20 AM
I'm 23 been watching Stargate since the Film way back when and never missed an Episode of SG-1 or Atlantis since it started also got all on DVD including the 3 films (Well 1 Blu-Ray)

Nadji
October 2nd, 2008, 12:49 AM
I'm still a spring chicken, 18 years of age. A little concerned about the 'younger audience' even though I am closer to my 20's then to my 40's as it moves away from traditional Stargate. Having said that, with the wealth of experience on their side I have complete faith in TPTB to be just as successful if not more successful then their previous endeavours.

stevencastelein
October 2nd, 2008, 01:01 AM
i'm 26 and i started watching in 1997 and i'm still in love with the franchise, what can i say the stargate is like an addiction

DesertFox2020
October 2nd, 2008, 01:28 AM
Im only 14, 3 years ago I found a book version of the movie at my school's library, loved it, so I watched the movie, and then by the time I discovered the series it was season 9. The first episode I saw live was Arthur's Mantle even though I had watched other episodes as re runs on sci fi before then, so I was a little confused about some things, but I loved it. Soon after I discovered that SGA was just as good, if not better, and that contrary to my previous belief, it was very connected to SG-1. So while I may be considered new to the franchise I have seen probly every episode of both shows. And while I wish SG-1 and SGA hadn't been cancelled, I will give Universe a chance. Also it has kinda taken over my life, everything I do now is usually in some way related to stargate.

Korumera
October 2nd, 2008, 02:58 AM
I'm 27 on the moment will be 28 in february and started watching well when the movie was released and the show after that so that's 1995 or something like that in holland.

I dont mind they make the cast a bit younger.

huntress
October 2nd, 2008, 03:54 AM
28

angela23
October 2nd, 2008, 05:47 AM
:sheppard: I'm part of the younger audience, I guess. I love watching SGA. I started SGA about 3 Years ago, never watched SG1. A friend of mine has been watching all of Stargate, he is a great fan of Stargate. I started watching SGA with him and it he got me hooked on it, never cut get into SG1. But I like watching SGA, love the Characters and actors in it. Never been much of a sci fi fan bevore. Love Joe Flanigan, he looks cute even to a 20 year old. I watch the show every week now and own all the DVD's. I don't know if I will watch SGU, it doesn't sound promising, I will have to see who plays in it. If I don't care for the actors I won't watch it.:sheppard:

Lady Margaret
October 2nd, 2008, 06:22 AM
I'm 17, watched the show since I was 9. Love it!

I'm a little uneasy about SGU, but it is the same writers who brought us SG1 and SGA, so I'll give it a chance.

rens14
October 2nd, 2008, 06:23 AM
15 and was 9 when They started airing it for the first time in Holland and I became a real fan when they had before the new episodes so I could catch up

StoyBoy720
October 2nd, 2008, 07:09 AM
I'm 24.

Got into SG when I was 21; in the fall of 2005 (so beginning of Season 9/Season 2 for those keeping records lol). I was asked to check out some Stargate by my friend who wanted to make a fan film (Stargate: Hades - coming soon!)

In addition to that, my girlfriend at the time was a big fan since she was in middle school, so we watched the movie and started SG-1 together.

We broke up shortly thereafter but I kept watching; and quickly too. I went from Season 1 to the midpoint of Season 9 (and the first season and a half of Atlantis) in about a month. Take that, Ben Browder! lol

Blistna
October 2nd, 2008, 07:16 AM
I'm 19, almost 20. I've been watching Stargate since I was about 15 or so. I probably would have started watching it sooner if I had realized how awesome it was! Lol But I'll give it a whirl. I've heard how it was supposed to be targeted at a younger audience, and I don't think that's a great idea. I think if they do that, they could possibly lose some of the fans they already have. I already believe both SG-1 and Atlantis are great for most age groups! I hope they keep it that way for Universe as well.


It is a family show, so your right and wrong -- because the believed target audience is 47. And also...they are going to loose fans now matter what. You believe they lost fans with Atlantis? Well, they did -- almost lost me.

Point is, they are going to loose fans, so the question is, how can they gain more fans?

Also, I'm 20 and will be 21 next week. :-)

crowmagnumman
October 2nd, 2008, 08:48 AM
I'm 20. It must have been around the 4th season of SG-1 when I started watching. I'd already seen the original movie when I was little and liked it a lot. I liked the show immediately. Been a fan ever since. Atlantis doesn't always impress me that much. Especially lately. But I still watch. First Contact was pretty good.

If Universe ended up as good as classic SG-1, then I would love it. But if it's just Stargate dumbed-down for a younger audience, then I'll be an unhappy fan.

chaostheory6682
October 2nd, 2008, 09:10 AM
I'm 26 and I have been a fan of Stargate since the movie. I loved SG1, like SGA but I'm not so convinced about this Stargate universe. It just doesn't have the sound of a good storyline like the others.

stargatefan7693
October 2nd, 2008, 02:52 PM
I am 15 and I own seasons !, 5,7,8, & 10 of SG-1. My first live episode of Stargate was the first episode of season 9 of SG-1. I look forward to every new episode and i can't wait for SGU and it's appeal to a younger audience, (although i was pleased with the casts of both Shows (SG-1 & SGA). Richard Dean Anderson was the best!). That's All Folks!!!

Lt.Col.Errandboy
October 2nd, 2008, 07:12 PM
I've been into the Stargate franchise since the movie - the James Spader/Kurt Russell one, that is!!:p

SG-1 hooked me, but it was Atlantis that caught, skinned and fried me!! Joe Flanigan is the most gorgeous man in two galaxies! (and younger than me, hahahah - I'm 47!)

Karyyk
October 2nd, 2008, 08:04 PM
By the sound of things, at least as far as the fans go, they already had the younger audience nailed...

AvatarIII
October 3rd, 2008, 01:49 AM
i think that they thing that the problem is that the people who were young are growing up, and perhaps growing out of stargate, they want to hook in new viewers, pick up the BSG fans, retain the SG-1 and SGA fans, and get somoe new non-sci-fi fans in too. they want it all!! but they can't have it all :(

artemisdesari
October 3rd, 2008, 03:15 AM
I'll be 23 a week today (friday) and I've been a fan of Stargate since the movie although this was when it aired for the first time on tv. I can remember hiding behind a cushion and being completely terrified and intregued at the same time, so when they started showing the tv show, I was immediately hooked on that too.

It makes me sad that the idea of trying to aim Universe at a younger audience implies that they now think I'm too old to watch Stargate. But then, at 14 I thought that Richard Dean Anderson was the hottest thing in this galaxy!

So I've grown up a little bit and I much prefere Joe Flannigan, but the point that I'm making is that there doesn't need to be a cast of young people to draw in young people, and I didn't start to watch SG1 because of anyone, I just watched because it was interesting.

They already have a young audience, why do they need to try and write the show for young people???

GhostPoet
October 3rd, 2008, 10:48 AM
I'm 30, going on 18.

Promethius30
October 3rd, 2008, 10:57 AM
I am 16 but iv watched stargate from when i was 7 or 8,
but i think stargate does not appele to teenagers i have one friend who likes stargate unlike shows such as heroes that everyone seems to like there no reason why universe can't be more appealing to younger audience with out making it the OC. I just think people are been far too negative because the at the moment no one knows what its going to be like and already people are boycotting it.

JohnDuh
October 3rd, 2008, 01:52 PM
The average viewer is in their 40's, the average fan, at least on these forums, isn't.

Indeed. But soon it will be the ex-fans who are in their 40's and the ones in this forum will be right on target ;)

Col. Tomorian
October 3rd, 2008, 02:04 PM
I'm 32 going on 23! Lol...

CazzBlade
October 3rd, 2008, 03:28 PM
I'm 20, been watching since the original film, but I will not be watching SGU

pie eater general
October 4th, 2008, 08:56 AM
just topped the big three-zero... and yep, i will probably be giving sgu a try... whether i will stick it out will depend strongly on the quality of the writing and of the way in which the plot is set up... but i will admit that i am a little concerned with the way it all seems to be going at the moment...

Luna
October 4th, 2008, 05:13 PM
I have been a fan since I was 14. I saw lots of episodes on showtime and eventually Sci-fi when I was around 8-13 because my parents watched it. I just didn't get into SG until I was older. I will be 20 in two weeks.

RE687
October 4th, 2008, 05:50 PM
I actually remember seeing the original Stargate film in theaters when I was 6 in 1994. Unfortunately my family didn't get cable until 1999 and we didn't have Cinemax or Scifi so I couldn't watch Stargate SG-1. I kind of forgot about the series until 2005 when I saw the Stargate Atlantis episode "The Defiant One". Ever since then I've been hooked. I will watch Stargate Universe as I am a fan of the overall saga even if its geared towards a younger audience.

Atlantis1
October 4th, 2008, 06:27 PM
I'm nearly 53. I have watched Stargate since the movie came out. My real love in the stargate shows is SGA.

Darynlxm
October 5th, 2008, 02:09 PM
Im currently 22, and I ahve been watching Stargate since the first episode. I was 12 back then, give or take.

I actually remember dropping Star Trek from my list of SciFi shows when I started watching Stargate. Haha.

oh, as a side note. my roomie, Will is 22 as well.

And we also got his fiance, Alyssa into Stargate too, shes 21

Integrabyte
October 5th, 2008, 02:37 PM
In 1994 when the film came out, my cousins invited me to see it. I left 10 minutes into the film. It was horrible. After those boring minutes, I said, never ever Stargate. I started watching SG reruns on Sky because I was very ill and I was very bored after 1 week cooked up inside the house. This was summer 2006. First episode I saw? Window of Opportunity? Did I understand what was going on, who was who, and why was why? Nope, but I laughed my bum off. I went out and bought the DVDs. A friend wanted to give me the original film but I said pass. I saw S1 to S8, joined GW, continued with S9 and S10. Sky had dibs on the finale.

They canceled SG1 and like every other fan out there I was crossed with the unfinished story. I decided to stay in one night, and again on SKY, I saw Common Ground. I was impressed with the episode and saw a few SGA eps on Sky. Went out, bought the DVDs but the show was not as good as SG1. I followed SGA for the Lost City. Seeing they lost themselves in sexual innuendos, I gave up on Atlantis.

Universe? Won't bother watching. If SGA had recycled SG1 stories, I can only imagine what SG Universe will have.

To close, I am fairly new to stargate and still young. Mid twenties.

Booklover
October 5th, 2008, 02:56 PM
I'm going on 54. I saw the original Stargate movie, and then when the series started I watched it primarily because of Richard Dean Anderson. And I've been a major fan ever since. Especially of Atlantis. I'll give SGU a try, but so far it doesn't sound too promising. Perhaps it will turn out better than it sounds. I hope.

Suzieb
October 5th, 2008, 03:56 PM
I'm almost 44 and I've been following Stargate since the original movie.

mrscopterdoc
October 6th, 2008, 06:06 AM
I am over 30 and have been a fan since the original movie. I only watched SG1 here and there. Then I got into SGA and have recently got all the SG1 DVD's and have started from the beginning.

Slyke
October 6th, 2008, 09:24 AM
I'm 21 and I have been watching Stargate ever since the movie came out in 1994. I think I was what? 6 - 7 years old then? I like grew up with Stargate, lol.

I do have concerns about this "Young Audience" business though.

I can't watch BSG I don't know why... it's just soo.... not funny or exciting or anything.

ST:VOY though I love.

I hope that TPTB do a good job!

Pitry
October 6th, 2008, 02:48 PM
24, been watching since the movie in, what, 1996? and the more they seem to try adn appeal to my age group the less I enjoy Stargate...

_Famrir_
October 6th, 2008, 05:46 PM
13 almost 14 i have been watchin staragte since i was like 10.

gatechick
October 6th, 2008, 06:27 PM
I am 32 and started watching Stargate 3 years ago when my husband introduced me to the series.

the fifth man
October 6th, 2008, 07:58 PM
I am 27, and I've been watching Stargate since SG-1 began in 1997. That, and I saw the Stargate movie when it came out in 1994.

Ikaros
October 7th, 2008, 03:57 AM
I am 34, i saw all Stargate in a few months, last winter and spring.
I know people at their 40+ watching it(my brother and his friends) and i also know people at their 15+ watching it (my students).
Stargate has been a link between two generations. A common interest and a base for dialogue. Just a show, but so different from all mainstream shows.

talyn2k1
October 7th, 2008, 04:05 AM
Started watching at 14 in 1997. Today I'm 25. I'm still a big fan.

Same here.

If you take the posts in this thread as a *rough* gauge of the average of an SG viewer, then PTB aren't really aiming alot lower than Stargate's current audience.

sky_qp1d
December 11th, 2008, 01:49 AM
i started watching sg series since 1997, i was 16 then and still watching it now.. I bought two complete sets of both sg1 and sga and still watching it every now and then.

SG1Commander
December 11th, 2008, 10:02 AM
I'm 21 and have been watching since 1997.

Gate Rider
December 11th, 2008, 10:40 AM
I'm 15 and I've been watching since about season 6 of SG-1. I've seen every episode of SG-1 and Atlantis. I love both series but SG-1 will always be number 1 for me.:D

I hope they don't make Universe non-stop action like young boys tend to like.

somme
December 11th, 2008, 11:27 AM
I was 11 and watched from the very beginning, I'm 22 now and have no qualms with the "younger cast" thing. Change is good.

jenks
December 11th, 2008, 11:52 AM
Same here.

If you take the posts in this thread as a *rough* gauge of the average of an SG viewer, then PTB aren't really aiming alot lower than Stargate's current audience.

This thread isn't an accurate gauge though, not even a rough one. According to the Nielsen figures, the average age of Stargate's viewers are 47, which is a problem.

Blistna
December 12th, 2008, 11:29 AM
I'm 19, almost 20. I've been watching Stargate since I was about 15 or so. I probably would have started watching it sooner if I had realized how awesome it was! Lol But I'll give it a whirl. I've heard how it was supposed to be targeted at a younger audience, and I don't think that's a great idea. I think if they do that, they could possibly lose some of the fans they already have. I already believe both SG-1 and Atlantis are great for most age groups! I hope they keep it that way for Universe as well.

First off, to the first poster...I am 21 and I started watching every week when SG-1 went to Sci-Fi. Since then I have pretty much seen every episode from reruns on Sci Fi.

Now to DH666...I would normally agree, however I feel that they will loose fans no matter what; but how can they get more fans? If they continue to cater to the same people at some point viewership will go down. I think -- and I don't believe I'm alone in this -- that SGU can be a new start. It could be bad, too. But even if it just turns out to be a SGA clone....I mean, I'm happy with SG! Season Five. I love it...and I remember how I loved S4 and ppl were saying "S4 sucks" "S4 just isn't as good as S3"...um, sorry! S4 was the best until S5. In fact, I really can't remember seeing an episode in S5 i didn't enjoy. ;-) And thats what I look for in a TV show.

Also...Glad your watching SGU!! :-) I know I'll be doing the same.

The_Carpenter
December 12th, 2008, 12:42 PM
I'm 23... started watching when SG-1 first started on UK TV (so probably 97/98)

I feel that the younger cast will ruin what is a potentially interesting concept... sadly!

ed263
December 12th, 2008, 01:17 PM
I'm 45. Saw the movie, because I love Kurt Russell!

Didn't know it was a TV series until half way through season 3, starting watching because of MacGyver!!

Just to give more info about ages of people who watch:
Mom - 75
Brothers - 50 and 48
Sister-in-law - 50
Aunt - 68
Friends - 45, 30, 50, 44,
Nephew - 18

All only watch SGA, I introduced them all to SGA! :)
Also, only myself and my nephew go online to the internet for show related stuff and my nephew only goes on line for anime stuff.

Krisz
December 12th, 2008, 01:18 PM
I'm 50 and first saw the movie on TV in 1995. I loved the idea of the mythology and the mystery around the stargate itself. I wasn't aware of a TV series until I came across the SG-1 season one rerun on Sky One in the summer of 1998. (I lived in the UK then) I was hooked after 3 episodes and tuned in for the second season which was first broadcast that autumn and never stopped looking forward to the next season.

I didn't get into SGA as much as SG-1 mainly due to moving to Canada in 2005 where SGA was shown on a premium movie channel that I didn't really want to pay extra for. Luckily they showed SG-1 on the Canadian sci fi show channel that I had on my cable package, otherwise I would have had to get that movie channel, I couldn't miss my SG-1 which was and is still my favourite Stargate show! I now get SGA when the seasons come out on DVD, cheaper to wait and enjoy them without ad and broadcasting breaks!

The idea of SGU being aimed at a younger audience doesn't bother me at all. For me the key is being able to watch an engaging story unfold, driven by believable likable characters. It doesn't matter then, how old the cast is or which age demographics are watching!

I'm up for watching a good adventure set in the Stargate universe, let's see if SGU delivers this. :)

SuperG
December 12th, 2008, 02:58 PM
I'am 38 and I think a lot of people make a big deal on one key word in the concept. younger.
For the sci fi part it totaly mean nothing.
For character building and back story it does.

If age is a problem and that viewer only can strongly relate to simmilar people.
Only US Airforce personel would watch the show and only the people with ages wich have some regular airtime.
Silly isn't it.

It might be that if they didn't mention it and just cast and make the thing nobody notice.
But now every one will watch out for this heavy discussed charracters age thing.

A adult is a adult. Some 2 year warriers in a normal regular squad instead of 5 to 10 year veteran and elite people.
So no more saving the world or galacies. But deep space survival. In a more realistic underdog situation.

I don't care much about 22 or 45 year old exploring the gate networks.
.
Works both for me. I am more into sci fi. Espacialy with starships

Alteran of Atlantis
December 12th, 2008, 07:23 PM
I'm 14. :) I am the younger audience, people! Take that TPTB!

Ava H.
December 13th, 2008, 12:45 AM
23 here. And I don't care for the ages as long as the characters and their introduction is credible.
Everytime I hear about 'younger audience' and stuff it reminds me off ep '200' of SG1 with that spoof about "young SG1". Hilarious :D And now it's reality ... not that amusing.

PG15
December 13th, 2008, 01:01 AM
20, almost 21.

The young cast doesn't worry me...as long as they're not stereotypes on screen.

VOOK
December 13th, 2008, 04:50 AM
22, been watching since the start. Stargate and it's characters has molded who I have become as a person - and perhaps I have taken too much snippyness from O'Neill.

Watched all of SG-1 as best I could while it was on TV here, then had to get it in alterative means, been watching all of Atlantis and will watch SGU. Younger cast doesn't worry me too watch, it can't be as bad as the Jaffa episodes of Season 7 can it?

My entire family watch SG with me and have been watching SG1, SGA and will watch Universe with me, that's my 18 year old brother, 50+ year old dad and my 45 year old mother.

Lucario
December 13th, 2008, 11:26 AM
I am 21 years old and have been watching Stargate SG 1 since I was 14. I don't mind younger characters on the show but for me from what I have seen from the case of SGU there is to many young people in the main character slot. What I liked about SG 1 and SGA is the fact that with the younger cast there were generally older people to off set them. The creators had the balance between younger and older people and for some reason I am not seeing this in the new Stargate show. That is my biggest complaint with the show. Who knows the show might be good, the only way to figure that out is to watch it. Still though there are things that I have read that doesn't make me feel real good with the new show.

Willow'sCat
December 13th, 2008, 10:30 PM
How old are you guys?

I searched for a similar thread and didn't find anything, but I just thought it would be interesting to see.

I sat down when I was 8 years old and watched the series premiere, and have followed every episode of SG-1 and SGA to this very day. I loved it then and I love it now, and I had always thought that SG-1 was appealing to all age groups. But the controversy over SGU's targeted audience has me wondering otherwise?We did have a thread where peeps gave age and gender, and some location. Probably lost in the Off-Topic section by now. ;)

I was one who watched the movie after it came out on video, I watched SG-1 from day one as I love me some RDA, bless that man. I didn't watch SGA until the US was well into the second season as I live in Australia.

I loved SG-1 until Jonas left, I stuck with it a bit longer then that but my heart wasn't in it anymore. I loved SGA in the beginning, but sadly now I haven't even bothered to watch the last few eps and will probably only barely be aware of the movie when it does come out, will not be buying it, well maybe due to David Hewlett being it I may get someone else to buy it for me! lol

I am not planning on watching SGU, if I happen to come across it or if a "friend" says it is good or watchable, I may give it a look but I am mostly only on GW now for the Doctor Who related threads. My first and constant scifi love. :)

I think the age thing is the least of SGUs problems. The same writers (and all male) and the same PTB is a much bigger problem in my book. :cool:;)

Oh and I am 38.

Ganthet Jr.
December 14th, 2008, 12:22 AM
I'm in my last month as a 21-year-old. So I suppose I'm a "youngin'", but I prefer older characters. However, I'm not TOO terribly worried. I figure the writers know what to avoid, since they know what to parody (in reference to the young segment of 200).

GateofDOOM
December 14th, 2008, 12:22 AM
I'm 20 and when I was kid I...avoided Stargate like the plague. :P

If I watched it, it was only to make fun of it.

A couple of years ago I was trying to watch Alias on the Space channel and Stargate came on right after Alias. Since I was too lazy to change the channel....
It's a good thing it was season five that was showing, since now that I own all the box sets I can safely say that seasons one and two would not have gotten me all worked up about it although I do enjoy them now.

I picked up SGA last summer, but am not enjoying season five. And so, I've come full circle to only watching Stargate for the laughs.(Okay...that's an exaggeration, but it cycles neatly don't cha think?)

flea247
December 14th, 2008, 12:23 AM
im 20 and have been watching for 2 years i think.... i saw the original movie about 10 yrs ago on tv and the odd ep on tv when my mum watched it but i was never alowed to stay up and watch it as it was on so late. then we got magical austar and i saw "The Quest pt 1" on sci fi and was hooked!!! since then i have bought all seasons of SG1 and SGA and both AOT and Continuum and have watched them all numerous times. i am finally getting the original movie this xmas and my collection shall be complete

Ava H.
December 14th, 2008, 01:45 AM
Just to make things clear (Im not that familiar with SG background) --- ALL the writers are MEN??? :confused:
Well, that explains a lot ...

SylvreWolfe
December 14th, 2008, 09:23 AM
It seems that a lot of this discussion, or debate, wraps around a confusion over the reason some people are upset. A lot of this thread seems to be about a younger cast. That would be fine, but TPTB said they wanted to attract a younger audience. That means that however old you are and however long you've been watching the franchise, they still want someone else. SGU is about attracting a different audience. A lot of fans are upset about this, with cause. There are fans that have been watching since the original movie, the first episode and from then on. They have been loyal fans throughout. And now, TPTB are chunking on them in favor of attracting someone else. They are dumping on loyal, faithful fans, they are dumping shows, in favor of a new, unestablished audience.
It's understandable that there are fans who take that as an insult. TPTB are basically telling the longtime loyal fans they don't matter anymore, that TPTB don't care about them and don't want them anymore.
And it doesn't matter if you are 80 years old or 18 years old, you don't matter to these people.

SylvreWolfe
December 14th, 2008, 09:25 AM
Just to make things clear (Im not that familiar with SG background) --- ALL the writers are MEN??? :confused:
Well, that explains a lot ...


Yep, and it does explain a lot about the franchise, not just the casting for this show

Briangate78
December 14th, 2008, 09:42 AM
It seems that a lot of this discussion, or debate, wraps around a confusion over the reason some people are upset. A lot of this thread seems to be about a younger cast. That would be fine, but TPTB said they wanted to attract a younger audience. That means that however old you are and however long you've been watching the franchise, they still want someone else. SGU is about attracting a different audience. A lot of fans are upset about this, with cause. There are fans that have been watching since the original movie, the first episode and from then on. They have been loyal fans throughout. And now, TPTB are chunking on them in favor of attracting someone else. They are dumping on loyal, faithful fans, they are dumping shows, in favor of a new, unestablished audience.
It's understandable that there are fans who take that as an insult. TPTB are basically telling the longtime loyal fans they don't matter anymore, that TPTB don't care about them and don't want them anymore.
And it doesn't matter if you are 80 years old or 18 years old, you don't matter to these people.

You pretty much summed it up. I starting watching SG-1 from the beginning when it was on Showtime, I was 18 years old at that time. Now after 15 Seasons and 2 movies, they don't care about me anymore? Screw them! I'll only support SG-1 and SGA from now on if SGU is utter crap and as people are calling it, is Stargate Jr. If the show is great, then I'll sing a different tune, but right now I have a lot of doubts.

g.o.d
December 14th, 2008, 10:24 AM
I don't give a frak about SGU. From now, it can only suprise me

Briangate78
December 14th, 2008, 10:31 AM
I don't give a frak about SGU. From now, it can only suprise me

Right now I am looking forward to the last ep of SGA, well looking forward is more like wish it was not going to end, but should be an epic ep. You may even like that one also.

Then we got the final half of BSG, and then after that, I dunno. Hmm at least Family Guy will be around a long time. That show got cancelled twice and came back even stronger.

Plus we have more SG-1 and SGA movies which I hope Alan Mccullough gets his hand on the script.

g.o.d
December 14th, 2008, 10:38 AM
Right now I am looking forward to the last ep of SGA, well looking forward is more like wish it was not going to end, but should be an epic ep. You may even like that one also.

Then we got the final half of BSG, and then after that, I dunno. Hmm at least Family Guy will be around a long time. That show got cancelled twice and came back even stronger.

Fringe, The Plan, Caprica a some other scifi show.

Briangate78
December 14th, 2008, 10:40 AM
Fringe, The Plan, Caprica a some other scifi show.

Do you watch 24? Great show!

g.o.d
December 14th, 2008, 10:45 AM
Do you watch 24? Great show!

I'Ve just finished the 4th season. Right now I'm watching DS9. I've never liked Star Trek so much, but this is great. REminds me the great Babylon 5 in many ways

humanityspotential
December 14th, 2008, 12:59 PM
I'Ve just finished the 4th season. Right now I'm watching DS9. I've never liked Star Trek so much, but this is great. Reminds me the great Babylon 5 in many ways

Oh I love DS9!!

With the younger audience debate, I find it interesting what they think a younger audience will want.

I've watched SG-1 from a tween and I loved it. I was so excited when I heard they were making the movie into a TV series.

It was about the adventure not the age of the cast or how attractive they were (though all the SG-1 cast are attractive) Have younger audiences really become that superficial? (then again with all the crap that is churned out that people watch...)

I don't want to crucify the show before it starts, but don't all audiences, no matter the age want good stories? I mean pretty things are all well and good but you soon get sick of them. There has been a lot of focus of the cast and I think the TPTB need to give us more story tidbits if they want the long term fans to watch (though this doesn't seem to be the case)

PG15
December 14th, 2008, 01:14 PM
It seems that a lot of this discussion, or debate, wraps around a confusion over the reason some people are upset. A lot of this thread seems to be about a younger cast. That would be fine, but TPTB said they wanted to attract a younger audience. That means that however old you are and however long you've been watching the franchise, they still want someone else.

Not really.

Only the truly self-centered fan thinks they're specifically talking about him/her. Fact is, the average age of Stargate fans is 47 or something, and they no doubt want to reduce THAT age. They know the numbers, they know they have fans of almost all ages, but they also know that a mass majority of their fans are older, and they don't want that, I guess.

So if you're in your 20s, or even 30s, it's not an issue.

That's how I see it, anyway.

And there is nothing preventing older people from tuning in.

flynn1959
December 14th, 2008, 01:40 PM
Not really.

Only the truly self-centered fan thinks they're specifically talking about him/her. Fact is, the average age of Stargate fans is 47 or something, and they no doubt want to reduce THAT age. They know the numbers, they know they have fans of almost all ages, but they also know that a mass majority of their fans are older, and they don't want that, I guess.

So if you're in your 20s, or even 30s, it's not an issue.

That's how I see it, anyway.

And there is nothing preventing older people from tuning in.

Apart from the fact that they don't seem to want us - or our money!

Why should they want to reduce the age of the viewers anyway? People live longer than ever now and that is only going to increase. Older people have more disposable income. They buy more things. They are, as a rule, much more loyal. They pick a show and stick with it to a far greater extent than the younger ones who tend to be more fickle.

The whole world is slipping into recession, now is so not the time to drive away loyal fans, especially loyal fans with money to spare and I'm afraid that means us old people!

I am almost fifty, have paid off my mortgage so I have quite a bit of spare cash.I love Stargate, always have, and have spent a small fortune on it in the past. I have no interest in Universe because it is aimed at a younger audience and will no doubt contain a very young cast.

humanityspotential
December 14th, 2008, 01:45 PM
I'm 24 and I don't want a young cast for the sake of a young cast.

I watched it as an 13yo and they didn't need a young 'hip' cast to draw me in. It makes me feel old complaining about it.

Briangate78
December 14th, 2008, 03:37 PM
I'm 24 and I don't want a young cast for the sake of a young cast.

I watched it as an 13yo and they didn't need a young 'hip' cast to draw me in. It makes me feel old complaining about it.

Excellent point, like I said I was 18 yo when I first started to watch Stargate. The cast age average was like double my age, but I still enjoyed it. I don't want to see people in their 20's failling in love with eachother there are other shows for that. :S

Krisz
December 14th, 2008, 03:47 PM
And there is nothing preventing older people from tuning in.

Forgetting where we put the TV remote controller does! :P:D

ed263
December 14th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Forgetting where we put the TV remote controller does! :P:D

:lol: And then forgetting that you can actually use the buttons on the TV!


god, been there, done that! :o

PG15
December 14th, 2008, 04:28 PM
There are buttons on the TV now? Since when?!

Alteran of Atlantis
December 14th, 2008, 04:39 PM
I'm 24 and I don't want a young cast for the sake of a young cast.

I watched it as an 13yo and they didn't need a young 'hip' cast to draw me in. It makes me feel old complaining about it.

I'm 14 and I'm complaining. I get enough teenage drama in real life, don't need that on my favorite TV show! That's why I avoid MTV. :) Stargate attracted me because it was science fiction, not romance.

Krisz
December 14th, 2008, 04:52 PM
There are buttons on the TV now? Since when?!

On my tv they are cunningly hidden under a flap that is seamlessly moulded in between where the speakers are! See, old people haven't got a chance!

I was able to find out where they were hidden because I'm one of those few who know the secret of how to reset a video clock! Such mysteries as buttons on a tv are easily understood by such as us! :P :D

PG15
December 14th, 2008, 05:17 PM
I was able to find out where they were hidden because I'm one of those few who know the secret of how to reset a video clock!

Pfft, yeah right. The video clock is one of the mysteries of life; no feeble Human brain can comprehend its workings, to speak nothing of *snicker* reseting it. You're not fooling anyone!

:p

The buttons on my TV are on top, strangely enough. Still, I'd rather waste 5 minutes searching for the remote than use the buttons. It's just the principle of the thing. ;)

Alan
December 14th, 2008, 05:47 PM
I'm 27 and I don't give a rat's butt about the ages of the main characters! This series is being brought to us by the creators of two fantastic TV series - Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis. Both series have, between them created a whole new, amazing and unique take on sci-fi and great characters to believe in and given me many, many hours of joy.

I predict that Stargate: Universe will be no different. It's a continuation and expansion on the fantastic mythologies started by it's two sister shows and that knowledge has me very excited. Those are the things that are important to me - Stargate Continued...

the fifth man
December 14th, 2008, 06:09 PM
I'm 27 and I don't give a rat's butt about the ages of the main characters! This series is being brought to us by the creators of two fantastic TV series - Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis. Both series have, between them created a whole new, amazing and unique take on sci-fi and great characters to believe in and given me many, many hours of joy.

I predict that Stargate: Universe will be no different. It's a continuation and expansion on the fantastic mythologies started by it's two sister shows and that knowledge has me very excited. Those are the things that are important to me - Stargate Continued...

That is why I am hopeful for SGU as well. I have loved both SG-1 and Atlantis, and still have a lot of faith in TPTB. They have yet to seriously let me down, so I will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt until I actually see Universe for myself.

Briangate78
December 14th, 2008, 06:32 PM
That is why I am hopeful for SGU as well. I have loved both SG-1 and Atlantis, and still have a lot of faith in TPTB. They have yet to seriously let me down, so I will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt until I actually see Universe for myself.

They let me down by ending SGA, when there were more stories to be told.

Replicator Fifth
December 14th, 2008, 06:36 PM
They let me down by ending SGA, when there were more stories to be told.

There seemed to be lot unsaid and explained. why couldn't they have Stargate Atlantis AND SGU? I would have watched both.

SylvreWolfe
December 14th, 2008, 07:09 PM
Not really.

Only the truly self-centered fan thinks they're specifically talking about him/her. Fact is, the average age of Stargate fans is 47 or something, and they no doubt want to reduce THAT age. They know the numbers, they know they have fans of almost all ages, but they also know that a mass majority of their fans are older, and they don't want that, I guess.

So if you're in your 20s, or even 30s, it's not an issue.

That's how I see it, anyway.

And there is nothing preventing older people from tuning in.


There is nothing specific about it. TPTB are dumping an entire fandom after that fandom created their franchise for them

Only these self centered PTB think they can ride loyal fans for two shows only to dump them for a *younger* different target audience.

And any fan who doesn't think they are important to the success of a tv show or movie is a brainwashed, driveling idiot.

SylvreWolfe
December 14th, 2008, 07:11 PM
There seemed to be lot unsaid and explained. why couldn't they have Stargate Atlantis AND SGU? I would have watched both.


Because Brad Wright, in all his humility, stomped his widdle feet and made demands. He only wanted to continue SGA as movies or not at all, no compromise.

PG15
December 14th, 2008, 09:38 PM
Or, you know, the budget may have something to do with it.


There is nothing specific about it. TPTB are dumping an entire fandom after that fandom created their franchise for them

How do you figure? I posted my reason for thinking my way, what's yours?

And so what if the "fandom" created their franchise for them (and of course, their actually making the show meant...what?)? Surely we did it to support the franchise and not for personal gain? Heck, if I knew I could dictate policies at Stargate HQ by supporting the franchise, I'd buy a lot more merchandise.

We aren't shareholders; we're just random people who happen to like their product. Once we don't like their product, or they start making other things, then we'll stop purchasing their product. Simple. If they end up successful regardless, then more power to them; if they end up floundering and bankrupt, then that's the way it shall be. Who knows.

There's certainly no point to get angry over it. Why bother?


Only these self centered PTB think they can ride loyal fans for two shows only to dump them for a *younger* different target audience.

Well, it's their show, their franchise. They can do whatever they want with it. Besides, targetting any audience is just a phrase; we all know that the usual result is a wide range of audience members from young to old. Who cares if they're gonna try to bring more young people in; if I end up still liking it, then I'll keep watching.

People really needs to get more mellow around here. It's like any little utterance by TPTB starts a tidal wave.

_Ancients_
December 14th, 2008, 10:57 PM
I'm 28 and don't really care the age of the new cast as long as the characters are developed well and the writing is strong.

GateGipsy
December 15th, 2008, 03:12 AM
Hi, I'm 41 and a stargate fan (sorry, I feel like I'm at some sort of addicts meeting :))

Any new show is going to get pitched at that 'younger' feel. It is just today's way of saying a modern approach. I hope it doesn't mean that we're going to get shaky camera angles, that's a bit old hat now. Robert Carlyle has been announced as the new lead and for my mind, that is a brilliant way to shoot two birds with one stone. He is an actor that will appeal to young and old alike. And don't think that just because they're going for a younger feel, means that it will be all teenage angst. BSG has a younger 'feel' and audience, and that's definitely not all teenage angst. If they're going to go down the 'younger' route of faster, snappier story lines then I'm all for it. I was a huge early fan of X Files for that reason - it was darker, edgier with more intelligent storylines than anything else on TV plus it wasn't wrapped up in romance. I loved DS9 for the same reason. It can work, and it does work.

And the fact that I think Robert Carlyle is totally hot and sex on legs has nothing to do with it whatsover :)

prion
December 15th, 2008, 05:49 AM
Hi, I'm 41 and a stargate fan (sorry, I feel like I'm at some sort of addicts meeting :))

Any new show is going to get pitched at that 'younger' feel. It is just today's way of saying a modern approach. I hope it doesn't mean that we're going to get shaky camera angles, that's a bit old hat now. Robert Carlyle has been announced as the new lead and for my mind, that is a brilliant way to shoot two birds with one stone. He is an actor that will appeal to young and old alike. And don't think that just because they're going for a younger feel, means that it will be all teenage angst. BSG has a younger 'feel' and audience, and that's definitely not all teenage angst. If they're going to go down the 'younger' route of faster, snappier story lines then I'm all for it. I was a huge early fan of X Files for that reason - it was darker, edgier with more intelligent storylines than anything else on TV plus it wasn't wrapped up in romance. I loved DS9 for the same reason. It can work, and it does work.

And the fact that I think Robert Carlyle is totally hot and sex on legs has nothing to do with it whatsover :)

Carlyle is a great actor, but I don't think the writers will be able to give him the caliber of writing he's been accustomed to. However, I think the gig was too good to pass up (sorta like Sinise on CSI: NY). The show is skewing young - the casting sides, plus comments from Skiffy execs and Wright confirm that.

Doubt they'll screw up the camera work as they have to keep the franchise within a certain parameter because if they don't make it like Stargate SG/1/A to a degree, you'll lose audience, plain and simple. There will be a certain percentage of viewers who will tune in simply because it says "Stargate" in the title. A certain percentage of those viewers will no doubt stop watching after the pilot episode, while they'll attract new ones as well.

The main problem with the show is that so far, there is no indication they have hired any new writers. Yes, they do need (and I hate this word) 'fresh' writers, because otherwise we ARE going to see SG1 and SGA episodes just rewritten into SGu episodes. Mark my words (oh, have always wanted to say that!).

THe only plus is that this character wasn't in the casting sides that have gone far and wide across the web. Maybe negative fan reaction to them made the producers think twice, but then again, Kate Hewlett alluded that she's too old for SGU, which means, the rest of the cast will probably just be old enough to legally get a drink ;)

GateGipsy
December 15th, 2008, 06:02 AM
The stargate writers have given us some excellent scripts. Even episodes that I didn't rate in their final form, like Avenger 2.0, were based on a good story premise (imagine how that episode would have played with McKay in the role instead). So I'm not worried about that. Plus, the TV industry is full of people who have been around for decades, writing top quality, award winning shows after shows. In my experience, throw together a good script and either (at the very least) some good acting talent, or good directing, and you will always get good TV.

I don't expect SGU to be as amazing for me as SG1 was, because nothing has ever effected me like that show, not even DS9 or the X Files, both of which I adored. And I know that it will be very surprising indeed for a TV show to ever get under my skin in that way again. But I am optimistic that SGU will be good, watchable, entertaining TV - now (which is why I'm now posting here, until today I hadn't been playing in the SGU folder).

Amalthea
December 15th, 2008, 11:09 AM
I think we all knew that the leader would be a little older. I think this is a positive development, though, since Mr. Carlyle is much older than I had imagined. I can't help but wonder if getting him is what made them change the leader from a early 40-somethings colonel to a pushing 50 doctor. If so, I find that quite exciting- it tells me they're not beholden to the idea of a younger cast and will just go with the actors and actresses that are best, regardless of age. Hopefully!

leiasky
December 15th, 2008, 11:26 AM
I'm a bit more encouraged by them casting Carlyle. He's nearly as old now as RDA was when they cast him in SG-1. I'm still not interested in watching a 20's somethings 90210 on a spaceship, but I am encouraged that they've at least cast a mature, talented actor in the lead role. Hopefully, they'll take the same care with casting the rest of the characters.

I'm 34 and have watched stargate since its premier in 1997.

PG15
December 15th, 2008, 01:27 PM
I think we all knew that the leader would be a little older. I think this is a positive development, though, since Mr. Carlyle is much older than I had imagined. I can't help but wonder if getting him is what made them change the leader from a early 40-somethings colonel to a pushing 50 doctor. If so, I find that quite exciting- it tells me they're not beholden to the idea of a younger cast and will just go with the actors and actresses that are best, regardless of age. Hopefully!

Actually, we'd be getting at least two old people, because Robert ain't playing Col. Young.

He's playing Dr. Rush.

Amaunet
December 15th, 2008, 02:56 PM
I'm 18 and I was 7 when I first started watching SG. I'm still not sure why they are targeting a younger audience. The way they have produced SG1 & SGA in the past has drawn in both young & old viewers fairly equally. The part of success of many tv shows is their ability to do that. I believe that variety in audience is important to the franchise...so why the need to target a specific area?

prion
December 15th, 2008, 03:21 PM
I'm 18 and I was 7 when I first started watching SG. I'm still not sure why they are targeting a younger audience. The way they have produced SG1 & SGA in the past has drawn in both young & old viewers fairly equally. The part of success of many tv shows is their ability to do that. I believe that variety in audience is important to the franchise...so why the need to target a specific area?

Studios are going for younger audiences becuase younger people are less discriminate in how they spend. In other words, they don't save. They spend dollars that otherwise more responsible older folk would save. They also want to suck in the gaming crowd, because even with the Recession, people are still gaming.

Amalthea
December 15th, 2008, 03:34 PM
Actually, we'd be getting at least two old people, because Robert ain't playing Col. Young.

He's playing Dr. Rush.

Yeah, I know he's Dr. Rush, I was speculating that Col. Everett would get the axe. Although 2 old people is exciting! LOL Unless they start doing some math and feel they need to get four 20-year olds to average out the two old guys. LOL

PG15
December 15th, 2008, 03:40 PM
:D

No worries though, Young ain't cut.

Alan
December 15th, 2008, 03:48 PM
Yeah, I know he's Dr. Rush, I was speculating that Col. Everett would get the axe. Although 2 old people is exciting! LOL Unless they start doing some math and feel they need to get four 20-year olds to average out the two old guys. LOL


:D

No worries though, Young ain't cut.

Yeah, I'm with PG15 on this, Amalthea. And check out Joe Mallozzi's latest blog entry for more on the Young and Rush leadership. Joe makes it sound like this team are really out on the edge and totally unprepared for what they've gotten themselves into.

leiasky
December 15th, 2008, 03:50 PM
Which makes me wonder exactly HOW these people got into ANY position to go through the Stargate at ALL, if they're not prepared to do the unexpected . . . unless Eearth is attacked and they're evacuating young brilliant minds off the planet . . .

jenks
December 15th, 2008, 03:55 PM
I'm 18 and I was 7 when I first started watching SG. I'm still not sure why they are targeting a younger audience. The way they have produced SG1 & SGA in the past has drawn in both young & old viewers fairly equally. The part of success of many tv shows is their ability to do that. I believe that variety in audience is important to the franchise...so why the need to target a specific area?

You'd think that, but it's not true, the Nielsen figures are the only reliable ones they have, and according to those the average age of Stargate viewers is nearly 50. With a fan base that old they really have no choice but to aim a bit younger, it's either that or watch the franchise die out.

Replicator Fifth
December 15th, 2008, 03:58 PM
I'm 18 and I was 7 when I first started watching SG. I'm still not sure why they are targeting a younger audience. The way they have produced SG1 & SGA in the past has drawn in both young & old viewers fairly equally. The part of success of many tv shows is their ability to do that. I believe that variety in audience is important to the franchise...so why the need to target a specific area?

so have I. Nothing is more attractive to a tom girl who loves science then space ships and aliens!

Steelbox
December 16th, 2008, 02:29 AM
22 her been an SG fan for 4 years now. I think i am so addicted that i am at least giving a try on any series based on Stargate.

leiasky
December 16th, 2008, 07:37 AM
You'd think that, but it's not true, the Nielsen figures are the only reliable ones they have, and according to those the average age of Stargate viewers is nearly 50. With a fan base that old they really have no choice but to aim a bit younger, it's either that or watch the franchise die out.

They should give that box out to people in the current generation, then. I've never been a fan of Nielsen ratings. I know a LOT of people and don't know anyone who has one. . . tell me the demographic isn't skewed . . .

PG15
December 16th, 2008, 01:04 PM
They do.

I think there are 100,000 homes with those boxes. They are also forbidden to tell anyone that they have it.

jenks
December 16th, 2008, 01:13 PM
They should give that box out to people in the current generation, then. I've never been a fan of Nielsen ratings. I know a LOT of people and don't know anyone who has one. . . tell me the demographic isn't skewed . . .

Like PG15 said, they do. In fact they make a point of giving boxes to people from all different demographics so as to get the most accurate stats possible.

MediaSavant
December 16th, 2008, 02:09 PM
Studios are going for younger audiences becuase younger people are less discriminate in how they spend. In other words, they don't save. They spend dollars that otherwise more responsible older folk would save. They also want to suck in the gaming crowd, because even with the Recession, people are still gaming.

There are a couple of key reasons.

--Two of the biggest advertising spenders are fast food and movies. Both target younger people because younger people are the heaviest consumers of both

--Older people watch a lot more TV, which means the advertisers who do target them--and there are some--find there is no shortage of TV shows to advertise in. Pricing is negotiated and "supply and demand" based. Since there's a high supply of ratings for reaching older people, it drives down the price to advertise in the show. Because the supply of ratings for younger people are lower, it drives up the price.

Krisz
December 17th, 2008, 09:26 AM
Hi, I'm 41 and a stargate fan (sorry, I feel like I'm at some sort of addicts meeting :))

Any new show is going to get pitched at that 'younger' feel. It is just today's way of saying a modern approach. I hope it doesn't mean that we're going to get shaky camera angles, that's a bit old hat now. Robert Carlyle has been announced as the new lead and for my mind, that is a brilliant way to shoot two birds with one stone. He is an actor that will appeal to young and old alike. And don't think that just because they're going for a younger feel, means that it will be all teenage angst. BSG has a younger 'feel' and audience, and that's definitely not all teenage angst. If they're going to go down the 'younger' route of faster, snappier story lines then I'm all for it. I was a huge early fan of X Files for that reason - it was darker, edgier with more intelligent storylines than anything else on TV plus it wasn't wrapped up in romance. I loved DS9 for the same reason. It can work, and it does work.

And the fact that I think Robert Carlyle is totally hot and sex on legs has nothing to do with it whatsover :)

LOL! Welcome to Gaters Anonymous!

I'm wondering if SGU will be Stargate's 'DS9', if it does shake up the 'comfortable' view of the Stargate universe in the way DS9 did the Trek universe then it will for me be a great show to watch. DS9 was for me the most thoughtful of all the Treks and SGU would bring a really fresh twist to things in Stargate if it captures that same 'feel'. On the other side, DS9 was not really embraced by many Trek fans because it was so different from what came before.

SGU may find its new audience if it's as successful as DS9 was with character development, and creates a really believable world in which these characters live, warts and all!

GateGipsy
December 17th, 2008, 11:50 AM
That is a gross generalisation Alan! I've been a stargate fan for 12 years now starting with the movie, and an online fan since 2001.

Dimbo_Sama
December 17th, 2008, 12:27 PM
I've been watching since the film.

and I'm 20 now. so... yeah my life has pretty much been Stargate, Babylon 5 and TNG.

lol

I don't care what age they have the characters so long as it's not a bunch of Lieutenants or Sergents knocking about cause that's beyond rediculous.

And I'll watch any Stargate so long as it's compelling and entertaining

Stargate Answers
June 10th, 2009, 05:53 PM
I was of the age 10 when i first started watching stargate atlanits.
I loved the series then and i still love it. What i have heard about stargate universe doesn't really appeal to me. Although i will still watch the first episodes of the show with high hopes that it will still meet the requirements of my stargate fix.

If i'm watching then the show must have appealed to the younger viewers.

Why didn't they just continue with the current show for 5 more seasons then introduce the show to the next generation.

I think why they canceled stargate atlantis is a little scetchy.

Although i'm wondering how young do they want the people who watch the show to be. 5 years old. Surely something that appeals to a five year old wouldn't appeal to an adult.

With this i ask for your oppinion on the Show "Stargate Universe"
Also i wish to know the age of anyone when they first started watching stargate.

Maybe the moderators could set up a poll using age groups
"10 or younger", "10-20", "20-40", and "40 or older"

Also moderators if this has been done before feel free to close this thread.

Also i remind every visitor to this thread that i am only 16 years old and therefore don't have the time to look at all the threads to see if this has been done.

If any so called "bashing" appears on this thread i will either close it or notify the moderators. "Which ever is possible"

Ulkesh47
June 10th, 2009, 06:05 PM
I only started watching Stargate last year. (I regret that I wasn't exposed to it sooner:mckay:) I am now 16, just like you, and I for one will watch anything with the word Stargate in the title.
So... while I have expectations for SGU to fulfill as far as a true Stargate show goes, I will definitely be faithfully tuning in, no matter the style/feel of the show.

Descent
June 10th, 2009, 06:12 PM
College/Young Adult crowd, I assume. :) While Stargate so far has tended to draw older viewers (40s-50s), I feel like anyone 14 and up could watch the shows. SGU seems to be aiming for that certain age group that they really haven't attracted before.

jenks
June 10th, 2009, 06:42 PM
18-40 ish, the people who spend the most money. I understand that there are younger people who watched Atlantis, but that doesn't change the fact that the average age of Atlantis viewership was around 50, and that's why every other commercial during the break was either products for either bald or impotent old men. That isn't where SyFy want to be, they want to be able to advertise more mainstream stuff and this make more money, and for that they need a younger audience than they're getting.

Vyse99
June 10th, 2009, 07:33 PM
I only started watching Stargate last year. (I regret that I wasn't exposed to it sooner:mckay:) I am now 16, just like you, and I for one will watch anything with the word Stargate in the title.
So... while I have expectations for SGU to fulfill as far as a true Stargate show goes, I will definitely be faithfully tuning in, no matter the style/feel of the show.

But why though? If the style/feel turns out being so radically different then the old shows that you fell in love with what's the point? I mean I really don't understand watching a show just because of the name in it, I for one had 0 interest in Stargate Infinity. Don't get me wrong I'm gonna give SGU a fair try but if its not what I'm come to expect from Stargate or enjoyable for different reasons I'm not gonna force myself to watch it.

As for the topic at hand I'm 25 right now and have been watching Stargate since the movie.

escyos
June 10th, 2009, 08:51 PM
i was like 7 when i saw the stargate movie, my brother had seen it in the cinemas so we hired it out and i loved it, next year i saw a commercial about SG-1 and i was hooked! I dont really think the producers are catering the show for 5 year olds and if anyone thinks that then they might actually be 5 :S

like previosuly said that average age was 50, so younger can be anything less than 49....thats quite a large group of people. and ANY shows can appeal to ANY age group...i know a 30 year old who still watches cartoons designed for pre-schoolers....hes a little weird...

starburst
June 11th, 2009, 12:18 AM
I was about 13 when Stargate SG-1 started, and was watching it at whatever age they SkyOne were showing it for the first time (probably about 14 or 15 I cant remember).

What people seem to forget is even though they had the idea for Universe while making Atlantis it was not the producers decision to finish that show, just like SG-1 before it that choice was made by SciFi.

As for the age they are aiming for, I would guess mayb the high school to late 20s

Stargate Answers
June 11th, 2009, 03:48 AM
I was only joking when i was talking about 5 year olds. But wouldn't a wider market and not a younger market benefit both, the original lovers of stargate and the up coming people who will likely get hooked on the show.

What i am glad about is the fact that they will still be making stargate SG-1 and Atlantis movies. But for how long will they continue to make those.

So if i get this right the average viewer age for the stargate Atlantis Shows was about 50. It doesn't seem right i don't know anyone over the age of 45 that watches the show. Obviously they are out there but i know more people aged between 20 and 30 that watch the show than any other age group.

I give you this for information.
My Brother who is now 26 always loved the stargate SG-1 shows. when stargate SG-1 was canceled he still had high hopes for stargate Atlantis. I know now that after two seasons of stargate atlantis he finished watching and no longer liked the series. I know for a fact that he will not be watching Stargate Universe.

I would have hoped that syfy could of continued with atlantis but just changed slightly how they wrote the scripts and did filming.

i'm australian so i have no marketing opportunities for syfy

I will say atlantis seemed a little rushed. But still accomplished satisfying my stargate fix.

I will raise another question i hope people will answer. Do we really want to watch a documentary when we are looking for sci fi?
(question based on reports of filming similarities to documentaries.)

P.S thanks to everyone posting on this thread so far.

Tich
June 11th, 2009, 04:32 AM
I started watching Stargate SG1 when I was 11, again with the reasonable delay caused by international viewing. I've liked the series ever since.

I do hope they might some day re-open the possibility of renewing the Atlantis series, I think I enjoy Atlantis more then SG1 in some sense.

Oh well, so far I own ever DVD of Stargate made, so I'm pretty happy with it.

Cameron Mitchel
June 11th, 2009, 04:36 AM
But why though? If the style/feel turns out being so radically different then the old shows that you fell in love with what's the point? I mean I really don't understand watching a show just because of the name in it, I for one had 0 interest in Stargate Infinity. Don't get me wrong I'm gonna give SGU a fair try but if its not what I'm come to expect from Stargate or enjoyable for different reasons I'm not gonna force myself to watch it.

As for the topic at hand I'm 25 right now and have been watching Stargate since the movie.
Things don't always stay the same. A show can be good without being the same as the old one. The movie was radically different (yes) than the show, yet you still watched the show. As for me, I can't remember what age I was. Probably 12 I want to say. Started with Season 7, saw many reruns and came to Gateworld to know the rest.

pkprd869
June 11th, 2009, 04:41 AM
I was 16 when I started watching SG-1. When I was in college, there were 8 out 35 us in the fraternity that were Stargate fans. So, the show does appeal to younger adults. I'm not sure how TPTB are going to appeal more toward folks my age (early 20's). The occasional "Kirkette" of the week is ok once in awhile. Some soap opera-type drama now and again is ok. I'll give universe a chance, I just hope it doesn't turn in to Stargate:The OC.

Vyse99
June 11th, 2009, 04:45 AM
Things don't always stay the same. A show can be good without being the same as the old one. The movie was radically different (yes) than the show, yet you still watched the show. As for me, I can't remember what age I was. Probably 12 I want to say. Started with Season 7, saw many reruns and came to Gateworld to know the rest.

Yes that's why I said "or enjoyable for different reasons".

Phenom
June 11th, 2009, 06:58 AM
18-40 ish, the people who spend the most money. I understand that there are younger people who watched Atlantis, but that doesn't change the fact that the average age of Atlantis viewership was around 50, and that's why every other commercial during the break was either products for either bald or impotent old men. .

I just got this great mental picture of George Costanza sitting on his recliner eating chips watching Atlantis getting ready to ring up for nasal impotence sprays :)

ferrari20092
June 11th, 2009, 07:15 AM
They told us the target age as 30-40 is what the show is aimed at, as opposed to the 40's in the last 2 shows.

SuperG
June 11th, 2009, 09:37 AM
I 'am 38 but wenn producers say younger!
I would say Younger then what? What's the age reference this younger complies to?
And how much younger?

if it wasn't SG releated without referende it could be 2 years to the oldest on earth minus 1 jaar. that a 100+.
it isn't your age either. so if your sixteen 2 to 15 ?

Younger then previous cast! That make more sense.
I woud say start or end of the two series or average. Or specific SG1 or atlantis?
Exact reference is vague to me.

Other facts. Base evacuation.
It's still US airforce. So teens no 20+ and ++ yes.

Later facts
Regular forces survival evacuate lost in space theme. No heroism oriented. Drama focus.

That's straight forward.
Bad equiped. Also inefficent mix of people. Not competent unprepared for the task at hand. Dramatised. Surfival less exploring.

Drama character development inner team conflict driven.

with that Aimed at larger adult adience. Soap in sci fi setting. following the hype and what in the mode at the moment. Lost, BSG drama focused.

So younger like 5 is extreem silly to think of. Unlike there a a mention of manga or cartoon style to it. Wich it isn't.

Atantis cansel why?
Well you must know the people who call the shot, to know why. And every one who has directly to deal with them. These people will not let that out of the bag. As they are dependant on them. Don''t irritate the people who feeds you.
I don't know that bussness. But I have a geuss. Scifi channel and series are a commercial thing. It's a commercial channel depending on advertisement.

with that view numbers are a large influence on greenlighting next seasons. Also the aim at what demograph. Some are bigger then others.

Altho I love sG franchise Atlantis and SG1. The majority not. It doen't apeal to a large public. The why and how is beyond my expertise. So the next Scifi show down the drain.

But i blame the commercelity behind of this expensive creative undertake. Wich can not service nich series aimd at a specific smaller audience. I miss firefly and lot of other, because the demographic is to small.

Nothing to do about.

Altho my preference is action hero realism exploring alien and spaceship focused favorism. If the series has his strong point and is entertainable I watch it.

Altho I dislike heavy char development inner team conflict stuff and focus on the team.
I watch BSG. HAd it's moment ad lesser once in my point of view.
No pro blem with survival. 20+ youngsters.

katikatnik
June 11th, 2009, 10:16 AM
I have to wonder, though. They want to aim SGU at younger audience making announcements like "death is a big part of this show" and it'll be "sexier and grittier"? Is that what they expect these so called "younger people" to seek out? Death, sex, killing and depression? I don't know, I'm 29 but I would take a team adventure of the "Midway" kind over loveless boinking, backstabbing agenda and suicidal depression... But maybe I'm not their desired demo of whatever kind...

Detox
June 11th, 2009, 10:36 AM
They want what every other TV show wants. 18-34.

The key demographic. The holy grail of advertising money.

I'm sorry, but like Jenks said, the demos for SG-1 and SGA just wasn't paying the bills. The people who watched those shows generally would not attract big advertisers a show like Battlestar Galactica would.

Krisz
June 11th, 2009, 10:40 AM
They told us the target age as 30-40 is what the show is aimed at, as opposed to the 40's in the last 2 shows.

I don't think the target audience for SG-1 and SGA were ever meant to be aimed at those in their 40's specifically. For some reason it turned out that a large part of the audience turned out to be women in their 40's!

The show would be aimed at the 18-49 age range logically, being as someone has already pointed out, the demographic with the money to get the show on cable or satellite and buy the DVD's.

As always I think if the original concept is sound and interesting, the storytelling and characterisation well rounded, there will be something for everyone, no matter what age they are. :)

Rac80
June 11th, 2009, 10:41 AM
tweens to twenties I suppose..."more money than sense" as my grandmother used to say! ;) It is the prime demographic because they have disposable income and spent it freely. (no nasty things like mortgages and bills to pay!)

katikatnik
June 11th, 2009, 11:01 AM
They want what every other TV show wants. 18-34.

The key demographic. The holy grail of advertising money.

I'm sorry, but like Jenks said, the demos for SG-1 and SGA just wasn't paying the bills. The people who watched those shows generally would not attract big advertisers a show like Battlestar Galactica would.

Well, if they want the 18-34 demo then they have to move the show to another night. Young people usually aren't at home on Friday at 9-10pm so they watch it either online via iTunes or they download it illegally - SGA was among the 10 most pirated shows every week for a reason.

Detox
June 11th, 2009, 11:07 AM
Well, if they want the 18-34 demo then they have to move the show to another night. Young people usually aren't at home on Friday at 9-10pm so they watch it either online via iTunes or they download it illegally - SGA was among the 10 most pirated shows every week for a reason.

What other night? Friday's the safest night because then they don't have to compete with all the major network programming on Monday through Thursday.

And SGA's heavily pirated, because it's shown exclusively on cable. Cable programs are generally pirated more because not everyone have the channel as opposed to network shows. Not to mention people pirating from other countries that don't have first run episodes of Stargate.

And let's face it, SG-1 and Atlantis had a really really weird demo. They attracted an obscene amount of middle-aged women, something I like to dub the "soccer mom" demo. And advertisers hate them because they don't have a huge disposable income and they don't buy lots of needless crap. Have you seen the convention pics? Most of the people there are middle-aged women.

katikatnik
June 11th, 2009, 11:18 AM
What other night? Friday's the safest night because then they don't have to compete with all the major network programming on Monday through Thursday.

Actually, SyFy boasted how Eureka was their best rated scripted show airing Tuesday at 9pm - that I'm not sure, if it's 8 or 9 or maybe 10? :confused: But they pointed out repeatedly how well the show did. Friday is a really bad place for the young demo on every channel possible, be it cable or not. Look at the demo on Fox or NBC - it barely climbs over 1.5 in the 18-49 demo. Only CBS does better with its procedurals.

And about the so called "soccer moms" - the fact that it's them attending the cons and paying ridiculous money for pictures and whatnot should tell the advertisers who has the most disposable income and is willing to pay for stuff like that.

jenks
June 11th, 2009, 12:22 PM
What other night? Friday's the safest night because then they don't have to compete with all the major network programming on Monday through Thursday.

And SGA's heavily pirated, because it's shown exclusively on cable. Cable programs are generally pirated more because not everyone have the channel as opposed to network shows. Not to mention people pirating from other countries that don't have first run episodes of Stargate.

And let's face it, SG-1 and Atlantis had a really really weird demo. They attracted an obscene amount of middle-aged women, something I like to dub the "soccer mom" demo. And advertisers hate them because they don't have a huge disposable income and they don't buy lots of needless crap. Have you seen the convention pics? Most of the people there are middle-aged women.

But less people watch TV on a Friday...

PG15
June 11th, 2009, 01:58 PM
And about the so called "soccer moms" - the fact that it's them attending the cons and paying ridiculous money for pictures and whatnot should tell the advertisers who has the most disposable income and is willing to pay for stuff like that.

We're not talking about memorabilia related to the show; we're talking about the crap advertised in the commercials shown during the show.

Basically, advertisers want people that not only have disposable income, but are loose with it.




So if i get this right the average viewer age for the stargate Atlantis Shows was about 50. It doesn't seem right i don't know anyone over the age of 45 that watches the show. Obviously they are out there but i know more people aged between 20 and 30 that watch the show than any other age group.

That is kinda irrelevant; people you know represent too small a sample size, unless you know millions.


I will raise another question i hope people will answer. Do we really want to watch a documentary when we are looking for sci fi?
(question based on reports of filming similarities to documentaries.)

The filming style is similar to documentaries, but the stories and substance will still be scifi (and drama).

Anyways, as to the topic, I started watching in 2005, so that would make me...17 at the time.

Rac80
June 11th, 2009, 03:51 PM
We're not talking about memorabilia related to the show; we're talking about the crap advertised in the commercials shown during the show.

Basically, advertisers want people that not only have disposable income, but are loose with it.



That is kinda irrelevant; people you know represent too small a sample size, unless you know millions.



The filming style is similar to documentaries, but the stories and substance will still be scifi (and drama).

Anyways, as to the topic, I started watching in 2005, so that would make me...17 at the time.

ah you mean stupid people!!!!!;)considering the ratings so-called reality tv gets, there are plenty of those out there!
<<<not a "soccer mom" a "band mom" but I know the same thing really! :D

gateoff
June 11th, 2009, 05:23 PM
I don't know how young they want to go but they can't be going too young with clips like this:

http://jacehall.tv/2009/05/11/jace-hall-show-and-stargate-universe/

Kameryn
June 11th, 2009, 06:49 PM
I was among the younger crowd to watch SGA, apparently, I was only 15 when I started, I'm now 19. Four of my friends, all roughly about the same age as I, also watched it every week. None of us want to watch SGU.
Also, I'm sure we can't be the only ones to know this, but America is vain, especially the age group they're apparently aiming for. We loved SGA for the characters, and they were all nice to look at on top of that. SGU characters are not and just seem like flat wannabe's of other characters from other shows.

pkprd869
June 11th, 2009, 07:23 PM
I think some of the statistics in determining age and ratings are skewed. When in college, yeah, we time delayed at least half of a season. Friday night, well you can guess what us frat boys were doing. Teenagers and folks into their late 20's or early 30's probably go out Friday nights. From what I understand Neilson ratings can't take into account time delaying episodes. And the estimates that do try and take into account time delays aren't very reliable.
{edit for clarity}
Therefore; the ratings demographic gets skewed toward folks that are in their 40's and 50's and stay in more during the weekends. So advertisers seek that group. Us time delayers who are usually younger and go out just skip commercials all together.

Lahela
June 11th, 2009, 09:25 PM
I think some of the statistics in determining age and ratings are skewed. When in college, yeah, we time delayed at least half of a season. Friday night, well you can guess what us frat boys were doing. Teenagers and folks into their late 20's or early 30's probably go out Friday nights. From what I understand Neilson ratings can't take into account time delaying episodes. And the estimates that do try and take into account time delays aren't very reliable.
{edit for clarity}
Therefore; the ratings demographic gets skewed toward folks that are in their 40's and 50's and stay in more during the weekends. So advertisers seek that group. Us time delayers who are usually younger and go out just skip commercials all together.

Which is why they don't count you in the ratings. Ratings are used to sell advertising time, and few advertisers are going to pay huge amounts of money to place an ad in a show that they know over half the viewing audience will skip. *shrugs* C'est la vie :)

As to the question... my eldest son was five when the original movie came out in Australia and a friend of mine took him to see it. He loved it so I saw it, and I loved it too. We were sitting in front of the TV waiting anxiously for CotG. My youngest saw the later seasons of SG1 (I guess he would have been about 5 when he started watching them) and SGA from the start, and at 11 has now gone back to CotG to catch up with the rest of the family. But my elderly parents also watch both shows and have done since the beginning.

I suppose my point is that while the networks or whatever might aim a show at a certain demographic, the viewing audience will inevitably be made up of a much wider ranger of ages. It's just a question of taste :)

Phenom
June 12th, 2009, 02:10 AM
Its funny that they base whole TV shows on satisfying a ratings system that is so antiquated that it is about as accurate as a sundial.

Actually that is offensive to sundials. They are way more accurate than TV ratings systems.

pkprd869
June 12th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Its funny that they base whole TV shows on satisfying a ratings system that is so antiquated that it is about as accurate as a sundial.

Actually that is offensive to sundials. They are way more accurate than TV ratings systems.

:indeed:

Lahela
June 12th, 2009, 05:55 AM
Its funny that they base whole TV shows on satisfying a ratings system that is so antiquated that it is about as accurate as a sundial.

Actually that is offensive to sundials. They are way more accurate than TV ratings systems.

*nods enthusiastically* There must be a better way for a rapidly changing world. Maybe one day the TV PTB will figure that out.

lmoroney
June 12th, 2009, 06:07 AM
*nods enthusiastically* There must be a better way for a rapidly changing world. Maybe one day the TV PTB will figure that out.

Actually I think we're at the dawn of that rapidly changing world right now.

With more and more TV going onto the net (Hulu etc), and the returns that TV Producers have been getting from that, the ship is beginning to turn.

I've had discussions with many TV Show producers (cant talk too much about that right now, but you'll see something in this space soon ;) ), but even moving a show like SGU to the Friday night slot isn't as much a 'death slot' as it used to be.

I figure the network is thinking that people are going to DVR the show, buy the DVDs, watch it on sci-fi.com/hulu etc. so they may as well have 2m viewers in a slot where with another show they'd get nothing.

And when it comes to ratings etc. it's usually Network aggregation based, and not just show based for ad sales. Thus if they can pull 2.5m viewers on a Friday night when a non showcase show would only pull .5m, they'll always put the showcase on Friday. That's why IMHO, Eureka is moving there too.

And back to the question of how old they want SGU fans. With the stuff my 11 year old daughter has seen from it, she's excited, and 'cant wait until October', and it's by no means a show aimed at someone her age.

That being said, she watched SG1 with me when she was about 4. Every Friday night she wanted to see 'Sam'. :sam:

Laurence

Phenom
June 12th, 2009, 02:36 PM
There is no way we are at the dawn of anything to do with a TV revolution, particularly in terms of how the industry works. The way we, as consumers, watch TV is changing rapidly (internet downloads/Tivo etc) but there are a lot of industry types with their heads firmly in the sand who aren't embracing it.

I just can't imagine how an advertiser could take any figures given to them by a TV network seriously when it comes to how many watch a program at any given time? It is paramount to just guesswork.

Alan Wake
June 12th, 2009, 03:26 PM
I say they should target the 1-4 age group. Who needs sesame street or barney when you can have stargate?

That's a whole generation the producers are missing!

Let's not forget the elderly homes too.

lmoroney
June 12th, 2009, 10:49 PM
There is no way we are at the dawn of anything to do with a TV revolution, particularly in terms of how the industry works. The way we, as consumers, watch TV is changing rapidly (internet downloads/Tivo etc) but there are a lot of industry types with their heads firmly in the sand who aren't embracing it.

I just can't imagine how an advertiser could take any figures given to them by a TV network seriously when it comes to how many watch a program at any given time? It is paramount to just guesswork.

I respectfully disagree :)

TV Shows used to live or die on the power of Neilsen alone. While that is still the most powerful force in the TV universe, DVD sales and performance on sites such as Hulu are broadening the horizon.

'Owners' of TV shows (MGM 'own' Stargate) are now looking beyond the basic ratings to determine what their investment in a show should be. The key right now are the networks. Sci-Fi have to get a particular rating to make a profit at a particular license-fee-per-episode, and may decide to cancel if they fall below a certain amount -or- the owner of the show can adjust the license amount, taking a loss for the 'on-air' value of the show, knowing that they can make the loss back in dvd/internet viewings down the road.

It's that -or- which is new, and which is growing.

I can't talk a whole lot about it right now, but, having worked with some 'owners', they are beginning to see where the future lies, and are beginning to move towards it. The fact that Hulu was -started- and -funded- by the content owners should speak volumes...

Laurence
:tealc:

Lahela
June 13th, 2009, 01:17 AM
I respectfully disagree :)

TV Shows used to live or die on the power of Neilsen alone. While that is still the most powerful force in the TV universe, DVD sales and performance on sites such as Hulu are broadening the horizon.

'Owners' of TV shows (MGM 'own' Stargate) are now looking beyond the basic ratings to determine what their investment in a show should be. The key right now are the networks. Sci-Fi have to get a particular rating to make a profit at a particular license-fee-per-episode, and may decide to cancel if they fall below a certain amount -or- the owner of the show can adjust the license amount, taking a loss for the 'on-air' value of the show, knowing that they can make the loss back in dvd/internet viewings down the road.

It's that -or- which is new, and which is growing.

I can't talk a whole lot about it right now, but, having worked with some 'owners', they are beginning to see where the future lies, and are beginning to move towards it. The fact that Hulu was -started- and -funded- by the content owners should speak volumes...

Laurence
:tealc:

I imagine that bolded bit is a very important aspect for cable shows like SG. I would guess the owners would make a fair whack selling the showing into syndication? In which case it's not just the SciFi figures they'd be thinking about. I'm ever the optimist :)

JohnDuh
June 13th, 2009, 02:19 PM
If any so called "bashing" appears on this thread i will either close it or notify the moderators. "Which ever is possible"

If you put bashing in quotes it means you don't mean bashing, what do you mean then? :D

As for age, I would guess late teens early twenties. The "hard to reach" demographic.

EdenSG
June 13th, 2009, 05:14 PM
I respectfully disagree :)

TV Shows used to live or die on the power of Neilsen alone. While that is still the most powerful force in the TV universe, DVD sales and performance on sites such as Hulu are broadening the horizon.

'Owners' of TV shows (MGM 'own' Stargate) are now looking beyond the basic ratings to determine what their investment in a show should be. The key right now are the networks. Sci-Fi have to get a particular rating to make a profit at a particular license-fee-per-episode, and may decide to cancel if they fall below a certain amount -or- the owner of the show can adjust the license amount, taking a loss for the 'on-air' value of the show, knowing that they can make the loss back in dvd/internet viewings down the road.

It's that -or- which is new, and which is growing.

I can't talk a whole lot about it right now, but, having worked with some 'owners', they are beginning to see where the future lies, and are beginning to move towards it. The fact that Hulu was -started- and -funded- by the content owners should speak volumes...

Laurence
:tealc:


Interesting – I hope the networks and producers and owners are looking at other ways – it is about time.

But if they are looking at different ways of measuring a show’s performance/value then how much will demos matter? I ask this because if someone is streaming from Hulu, or buying a DVD, there is no way I know of that they would know how old that person is. No one asks my age my when I watch Hulu or buy a DVD.

If the SYFY network is looking for a younger demo as they said in their press release when announcing SGU, then they are the ones who would benefit most from a younger demo as they are the ones who get the ad revenue from showing the show on TV as they don’t sell the DVD’s.

MGM has made its money more on the back side – from DVD sales and selling eps on iTunes. The problem is if MGM is looking for DVD sales to make the bulk of profit, well we have been reading about how the DVD market is not so good lately. And how would itunes factor in, or selling episodes on Amazon? From what has been said, MGM gets the profit from itunes, not NBC/Universal. If SGU is streamed on Hulu, that would benefit NBC/Universal not MGM. Streaming vs. selling eps would require new deals between the two companies – each fighting for a piece of the profit pie.

The other thing is that MGM always made money from selling SG into syndication on other channels other than SyFy. SG-1 did well in syndication, SGA not quite well as SG-1. The younger age demo would matter in syndication because the ad revenue is higher for a younger demo. But the syndication market in pretty much stagnant – and shows that are more serialized tend to have less syndication value and lower profits than those who are not serialized. So this avenue of profit may also be much less viable for MGM.

I don’t think SyFy is looking for a real young demo, I think they are aiming for 25 – 45; but I think that they are looking at the rating for that demo to be a good deal higher than SG-1 or SGA. Younger demo = higher ad revenue. If it doesn’t reach the level that SyFy needs to make a healthy profit, they will not want to renew it, which means MGM would have to lower their licensing fess – maybe by a lot – in order to get it picked up. If MGM has to lower licensing fees they will still want to turn a profit, but between a stagnant syndication market, lower DVD sales, MGM being in deep debt – they may be reluctant to do so. So I still think, at least at this point, that a higher rating in key younger demos on SyFy is a key component to their renewal of SGU.

Ulkesh47
June 13th, 2009, 07:43 PM
But why though? If the style/feel turns out being so radically different then the old shows that you fell in love with what's the point? I mean I really don't understand watching a show just because of the name in it, I for one had 0 interest in Stargate Infinity.
You're implying/assuming that I wouldn't be interested in SGU if it wasn't Stargate. Not the case.

As for Infinity, it actually had good elements to its concept (a future where the Stargate is public knowledge), hence some mild interest. I won't speak to the quality of the series itself, but because of the Stargate connection, parts of the concept are somewhat interesting to me.

Detox
June 14th, 2009, 11:59 AM
Also, I'm sure we can't be the only ones to know this, but America is vain, especially the age group they're apparently aiming for. We loved SGA for the characters, and they were all nice to look at on top of that. SGU characters are not and just seem like flat wannabe's of other characters from other shows.

Sweet! You're from the future too?! Can you tell us who wins the gold medal for men's hockey in the 2010 Olympics? I'm dying to know but I don't want to wait that long.

jelgate
June 14th, 2009, 12:13 PM
Sweet! You're from the future too?! Can you tell us who wins the gold medal for men's hockey in the 2010 Olympics? I'm dying to know but I don't want to wait that long.

Sweeden. But I have it on good authority they are cheating due to their Martian goalie.

Coronach
June 14th, 2009, 01:26 PM
Sweet! You're from the future too?! Can you tell us who wins the gold medal for men's hockey in the 2010 Olympics? I'm dying to know but I don't want to wait that long.

My sentiments exactly when I had read that. And I'm not sure about others, but I can certainly say that (at least for me), the cast of SGU is not bad to look at, and there are some that are very attractive. I guarantee they will all have a thunk and/or appreciation thread in due time...and a few already do, :P.

jelgate
June 14th, 2009, 01:28 PM
My sentiments exactly when I had read that. And I'm not sure about others, but I can certainly say that (at least for me), the cast of SGU is not bad to look at, and there are some that are very attractive. I guarantee they will all have a thunk and/or appreciation thread in due time...and a few already do, :P.

The thing about thunk threads is that each character will be attractive to some fans. Their is no denying it every main character will have a thunk no matter how strange it may seem. To this day I still do understand how McKay has such a huge thunk thread.

Coronach
June 14th, 2009, 01:55 PM
The thing about thunk threads is that each character will be attractive to some fans. Their is no denying it every main character will have a thunk no matter how strange it may seem. To this day I still do understand how McKay has such a huge thunk thread.


I agree. It was just the very objective tone of the poster that said "SGU characters are not" that made me raise an eyebrow.

Also, did you mean to say you still don't understand how McKay has such a huge thunk thread? :D

jelgate
June 14th, 2009, 02:11 PM
Also, did you mean to say you still don't understand how McKay has such a huge thunk thread? :D
Thats exactally what I meant. Too much booze on that vacation:P

Atlantis Rocks
June 16th, 2009, 02:21 PM
My sentiments exactly when I had read that. And I'm not sure about others, but I can certainly say that (at least for me), the cast of SGU is not bad to look at, and there are some that are very attractive. I guarantee they will all have a thunk and/or appreciation thread in due time...and a few already do, :P.
Each to his or her own opinion, as it always comes down to individuals perceptions & views as it should be, I personally don’t agree, NONE of them appeal at all visually or character bios (actually especially visually), though it doesn’t help that I personally don’t like Robert Carlyle very much never have, so that’s nothing to do with Stargate in general an I really don’t make a point of watching any shows with an actor I don’t care for NO matter how good a show might be, sorry for me its just a turn off.


And let's face it, SG-1 and Atlantis had a really really weird demo. They attracted an obscene amount of middle-aged women, something I like to dub the "soccer mom" demo. And advertisers hate them because they don't have a huge disposable income and they don't buy lots of needless crap. Have you seen the convention pics? Most of the people there are middle-aged women

18-40 ish, the people who spend the most money. I understand that there are younger people who watched Atlantis, but that doesn't change the fact that the average age of Atlantis viewership was around 50, and that's why every other commercial during the break was either products for either bald or impotent old men. That isn't where SyFy want to be, they want to be able to advertise more mainstream stuff and this make more money, and for that they need a younger audience than they're gettingAs for ratings, as far as I understand its only the US ratings that are taken into account, so IMO that doesn’t accurately reflect HOW many people globally view Stargate or accurately tells what the demographic is, an somebody must be making money buy selling Stargate to companies like SKY1 oh an as far as the ads in between are concerned, I don’t think they are especially aimed at my age group with is 44, I suppose even though I’m not actually a mum, I’d be classed as someone said a middle aged soccer mum due to my gender/age etc. I personally find that attitude quite insulting, I don’t see why it would be considered "obscene" to have large amount of middle-aged female viewers, unless there is something wrong with a female being science fiction fan that I'm unaware off, didn’t really think sci fi was gender specific, I’ve been a sci fi fan since little girl starting with Blakes 7 & Logans Run an I wasnt in my 40s when I first started watching Stargate,as I saw the original film at the pictures!! but if that’s what TPTB are also assuming what a bunch of sexist not very nice people IMO, I thought we had move a way from that sort of bigotry ( but maybe not). But that said at a lot of cons there seems to be a VERY large amount of younger people Male & Female already, so it I don’t get at all.

Well my disposable income is as good as someone between 18-40 but they don’t want it so be it, I'm sure there are MANY ex SGA actors futures projects I can spend it on, which I will more than be happy to do, and go to cons an see the said SGA actors.

Also SGA & SG1 were always shown in the UK on Tues at 8pm or occasionally it was on Mondays at 8pm. To my knowledge its never been shown on Fridays. Even BSG & Eureka where shown on Tue's, BSG at 9pm and Eureka took over SGA time slot. Also on Sci Fi Dollhouse and Knight Rider are on mid week an Sanctuary well was shown on a free view channels first ITV2 an that was mid week, its now only just gone to Sci Fi channel an is still not shown on a Fri also pretty much the same for Heros’s on BBC2, so there is a definite trend here that shows these types of programmes early to late weekdays BUT rarely if ever on Fridays. I don’t know what the viewing figures are but I wouldn’t have thought that SKY1 would keep getting SGA/BSG etc.. an showing them early in the week if the ratings were crap.

But what do I know, I’m just a sado middle aged women who is now DEEMED to old to watch SGU, shucks not gonna loss any sleep over that one.

PG15
June 16th, 2009, 02:27 PM
Once again, the advertisers would rather appeal to males 18-34 (or 49) because they spend money on what's being advertised in the commercials, not just on the show itself.

Coronach
June 16th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Each to his or her own opinion, as it always comes down to individuals perceptions & views as it should be, I personally don’t agree, NONE of them appeal at all visually or character bios (actually especially visually), though it doesn’t help that I personally don’t like Robert Carlyle very much never have, so that’s nothing to do with Stargate in general an I really don’t make a point of watching any shows with an actor I don’t care for NO matter how good a show might be, sorry for me its just a turn off.

I can live with this :cool:


Well my disposable income is as good as someone between 18-40 but they don’t want it so be it

But what do I know, I’m just a sado middle aged women who is now DEEMED to old to watch SGU, shucks not gonna loss any sleep over that one.

With all due respect, TPTB never said they didn't want to attract your particular demographic. They may have issued statements about wanting to expand the demographics they attract, but holding that against them is unfair. This is what all show runners do, and pretty much what every businessperson does as well.

I can't figure out where this sentiment came from, and I can only chalk it up to exaggeration over a comment by TPTB that has been perpetuated ever since.

jenks
June 16th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Well my disposable income is as good as someone between 18-40 but they don’t want it so be it, I'm sure there are MANY ex SGA actors futures projects I can spend it on, which I will more than be happy to do, and go to cons an see the said SGA actors.


Funnily enough, when TV execs make decisions that the success of the show depends on, they don't tend have your personal finances in mind. Shows take money to succeed, so unless you're willing to personally fund the show you really have no reasonable grounds to complain. Stargate has an old viewership, which means the adverts being shown during Stargate are not for lucrative products, the ones that make the networks money. So unless the franchise gains new viewers the situation is just going to get worse and worse until Stargate just isn't commercially viable any more, and the only way to avoid this is to bring in new blood, and that means younger viewers. That doesn't mean older viewers aren't appreciated, but the simple fact of he matter is that younger ones make the network more money, and make the future of the franchise safer, so it's either appeal to this audience and help secure the safety of the franchise, or stick solely with the existing one and watch Stargate die. I doubt many people when they really think about it are so selfish as too want the latter.

Col. Matarrese
June 17th, 2009, 08:50 PM
I think I was around 6 or 7 when I started watching, and I'm 17 now...I tried to make a staff weapon out of the plastic spoons that came with the failed McDonald's drink "McFlurry" (do they still make those?). Anyway, I think they're trying to get it into the 18-30 demo, because, as was stated before, they spend the most money. SyFy wants to be "hip and trendy", so they're going to try to get to the age group that "sets the trends" (even though we all know who *really* does that).

latvian_stargatefan
June 17th, 2009, 10:19 PM
I think that it appeals mostly to people over 35 and before 18. It's a pretty good family show, aside from the pilot there are no nude/sex scenes and excessive violence. I mean, I started to watch SG-1 when I was living with my parents and was in my teens. I used to watch it with my father and we loved it. Of course, I watch it now too although I don't live with my parents anymore but I guess most of the people still watch it as a family show because it is a family show- and therefore the demo is till 18-20 and after 35 that isn't exactly where the advertisers want it to be... BSG wasn't a family entertainment and it was really for people between 20-35 mostly, I wonder what they'll do with SGU. I think it'll still be family show but will they draw in more of the most spending demo???

capricaabydos
June 18th, 2009, 09:34 AM
I was 20 when I started watching SG but I did not get hooked until SGA and I been addicted since 2004 now I watch it religiously. Mon - Fri and Sundays on a local channel my 10 year old is not attracted to SG in any way but my 8yr old loves SG-1 my 4 and 2yr olds like SGA so you are never too young to fall in love with SG I'm 25 now and I regret not falling in love with it sooner

Detox
June 18th, 2009, 11:21 AM
Anyway, I think they're trying to get it into the 18-30 demo, because, as was stated before, they spend the most money. SyFy wants to be "hip and trendy", so they're going to try to get to the age group that "sets the trends" (even though we all know who *really* does that).

It's been said numerous times, they're not trying to get into that age-group to be hip and trendy, they're trying to get into it because it keeps the network running. It's the age group everyone wants. And yes, 18-34 are worth far more to advertisers than 34+.

Here's a perfect example.

House and NCIS. House averages 12 million viewers, but gets around 5.0 in in the 18-34 demos. NCIS gets 18 million viewers, but its 18-34 is only around 3.2. And so because of that, House is worth much more to advertisers than NCIS is, even though NCIS has 6 million more viewers in total. And NCIS is notorious for having a large middle-aged female fanbase.

How do you tell how successful a show is financially? Look at the advertisements. If it has car ads, video game ads, big retailer ads, alcohol ads, then it's financially successful.

Hell, why do you think NBC was so desperate to move Conan into the 11:30 spot? Because he attracts a much larger youth crowd than Leno.

Ulkesh47
June 21st, 2009, 07:21 AM
Anyway, I think they're trying to get it into the 18-30 demo, because, as was stated before, they spend the most money. SyFy wants to be "hip and trendy", so they're going to try to get to the age group that "sets the trends" (even though we all know who *really* does that).
Even if the kind of show SGU will be is "hip and trendy" and thus aiming for a slightly younger demo, surely SGU will have some of the opposite effect, attracting older viewers because of its "human drama" or whatever.

jenks
June 21st, 2009, 01:36 PM
Even if the kind of show SGU will be is "hip and trendy" and thus aiming for a slightly younger demo, surely SGU will have some of the opposite effect, attracting older viewers because of its "human drama" or whatever.

More adult material generally attracts younger viewers ironically, probably because older viewers are a bit more prudish.

escyos
June 21st, 2009, 04:16 PM
More adult material generally attracts younger viewers ironically, probably because older viewers are a bit more prudish.

OMG is there nudity?....I am soooo watching it now!....anyway....i agree, young people (18-24) would want to watch shows taht depict a more adult nature instead of play school.

Oh and i was always gonna watch the show regardless of if it turned out to be the young sg1 sketch from 200 or not

Rac80
June 21st, 2009, 04:38 PM
More adult material generally attracts younger viewers ironically, probably because older viewers are a bit more prudish.


OMG is there nudity?....I am soooo watching it now!....anyway....i agree, young people (18-24) would want to watch shows taht depict a more adult nature instead of play school.

Oh and i was always gonna watch the show regardless of if it turned out to be the young sg1 sketch from 200 or not

gratuitous sex and violence is NOT more adult at all! I find it immensely ironic that what appeals to pubescent boys is considered "adult" by the tv/movie industry. Older viewers are not more prudish, we just like foreplay and real plots. Some chickie-poo or stud-muffin taking off their shirt is not going keep us watching, we want something that makes us think! Give us plots, dialogue, and more than the "hook-up-of-the-week" to look forward to. That is why I didn't like BSG, long on titilation-- short on real plots.

Vladius
June 21st, 2009, 04:40 PM
You gotta indoctrinate them in your agenda very young. 2 years old at the least.

escyos
June 21st, 2009, 04:57 PM
gratuitous sex and violence is NOT more adlut at all! I find it immensely ironic that what appeals to pubescent boys is considered "adult" by the tv/movie industry. Older viewers are not more prudish, we just like foreplay and real plots. Some chickie-pooor stud-muffin taking off their shirt is not going keep us watching, we want something that makes us think! Give us plots, dialogue, and more than "hook-up-of-the-week" to look forward to. That is why I didn't like BSG, long on titilation-- short on real plots.

to start off i was joking and as much as it would be a wonderous theme in tv (also a joke) i doubt the producers would put in such things...remember they are the ones who have been providing us with GOOD television for years.

i also seriously doubt that SGU will EVER turn into a "hook-up-of-the-week", that is a steroetype blown completely out of proportion when the producers used the term "younger"

jenks
June 22nd, 2009, 01:36 AM
gratuitous sex and violence is NOT more adult at all! I find it immensely ironic that what appeals to pubescent boys is considered "adult" by the tv/movie industry. Older viewers are not more prudish, we just like foreplay and real plots. Some chickie-poo or stud-muffin taking off their shirt is not going keep us watching, we want something that makes us think! Give us plots, dialogue, and more than the "hook-up-of-the-week" to look forward to. That is why I didn't like BSG, long on titilation-- short on real plots.

No one said anything about gratuitous sex or violence.

JadedWraith
June 22nd, 2009, 04:55 AM
No one said anything about gratuitous sex or violence.
Yeah...sadly.;D

I am coming to terms with the aimed at a younger audience part. I hope that doesn't mean they are going to stupify (is that a verb?) the writting. Or make it so terribly grim. It sounds grim. But I am waiting for the chance to watch it before judging it.

Coronach
June 22nd, 2009, 07:08 AM
Yeah...sadly.;D

I am coming to terms with the aimed at a younger audience part. I hope that doesn't mean they are going to stupify (is that a verb?) the writting. Or make it so terribly grim. It sounds grim. But I am waiting for the chance to watch it before judging it.

Awesome! That's very cool of you.

And I wouldn't worry too much about those comments. My general impression is that they just want a broader audience, not that they specifically desire only one demographic.

retiredat44
June 22nd, 2009, 03:24 PM
if they want young people to watch, and also want to bring in Homosexuals and Religions, then I would say they want 16 and older... hopefully not younger....

jenks
June 22nd, 2009, 03:54 PM
if they want young people to watch, and also want to bring in Homosexuals and Religions, then I would say they want 16 and older... hopefully not younger....

Er...what? :confused:

Pandora's_Box
June 22nd, 2009, 04:06 PM
if they want young people to watch, and also want to bring in Homosexuals and Religions, then I would say they want 16 and older... hopefully not younger....

:: does a double take ::

Ooooookaaaay then....

Col. Matarrese
June 22nd, 2009, 04:08 PM
:: does a double take ::

Ooooookaaaay then....

I think he's saying that the addition of a homosexual character was to bring in homosexual viewers. I'm assuming "Religions" is supposed to be "religious", which I don't *quite* understand the reasoning for. I don't get why people under 16 can't handle homosexuality and religion, but...I don't pretend to understand everything.

Pandora's_Box
June 22nd, 2009, 04:13 PM
I think he's saying that the addition of a homosexual character was to bring in homosexual viewers. I'm assuming "Religions" is supposed to be "religious", which I don't *quite* understand the reasoning for. I don't get why people under 16 can't handle homosexuality and religion, but...I don't pretend to understand everything.

This is assuming that Stargate has never touched on religion before?

Hello, Ori.

And a bunch of other instances that I can't be bothered to remember...

jelgate
June 22nd, 2009, 04:14 PM
This is assuming that Stargate has never touched on religion before?

Hello, Ori.

And a bunch of other instances that I can't be bothered to remember...

SG1 was all about religion especially in the early seasons.

Col. Matarrese
June 22nd, 2009, 04:30 PM
This is assuming that Stargate has never touched on religion before?

Hello, Ori.

And a bunch of other instances that I can't be bothered to remember...

Oh, SG-1 went all over with religion. Ori, that episode where Teal'c was drowned, the whole premise of the Goa'uld in the first place...false religion. It's definitely been a theme of the franchise before, which is why I don't get why it was mentioned as being something for ages 16 and up, and implied that it would be new to Stargate as a whole.

escyos
June 22nd, 2009, 06:04 PM
BSG suddenyl brought in a gay character and i was like what the hell! i dont hate the gays, i even have a few friends who are gay, but it still is a controversial topic that the majority doesnt want to hear and see.

but then again if there were no gay characters then there would be complaints about that.

Pandora's_Box
June 22nd, 2009, 06:14 PM
No one said anything about gratuitous sex or violence.

I'd like to say something about gratuitous sex and violence....

Everything has a time and a place.

Coronach
June 22nd, 2009, 07:19 PM
BSG suddenyl brought in a gay character and i was like what the hell! i dont hate the gays, i even have a few friends who are gay, but it still is a controversial topic that the majority doesnt want to hear and see.

This shouldn't really have a bearing on what stories TPTB have a desire to tell, and what characters they choose to use to do so. But that's not really a discussion for this topic.

Also, BSG's main character was never acknowledged as such on actual episodes...I think it was on the "Razor" episodes, or online mini-sode things.


but then again if there were no gay characters then there would be complaints about that.

I'd imagine there'd be comments/complaints, you're probably right. These complaints would be based on a desire for a more accurate portrayal of society though, which is what TPTB have stressed they'd like to do.


It's definitely been a theme of the franchise before, which is why I don't get why it was mentioned as being something for ages 16 and up, and implied that it would be new to Stargate as a whole.

I don't understand this either. 16 seems a bit arbitrary to say that religion and sex is now an appropriate topic.

Ryan24
June 22nd, 2009, 07:26 PM
Well I'm 20 and Ive been watching Stargate since I was 15 :)

escyos
June 23rd, 2009, 12:34 AM
This shouldn't really have a bearing on what stories TPTB have a desire to tell, and what characters they choose to use to do so. But that's not really a discussion for this topic.

Also, BSG's main character was never acknowledged as such on actual episodes...I think it was on the "Razor" episodes, or online mini-sode things.

I'd imagine there'd be comments/complaints, you're probably right. These complaints would be based on a desire for a more accurate portrayal of society though, which is what TPTB have stressed they'd like to do.

I don't understand this either. 16 seems a bit arbitrary to say that religion and sex is now an appropriate topic.

i know it shouldnt and chances are it wont, but why bother bringing it in at all, exccep to try to rope in certain demographics..still as long as they dont do anything distatseful on tv i should be fine. (kind of like on the simpsons where they say taht fox turned a hardocre porn channel so gradually) if that happen to sci-fi it might be a little weiord

sorry about the grammer and speling mistakes inm a litle drunk

Col. Matarrese
June 23rd, 2009, 12:41 AM
i know it shouldnt and chances are it wont, but why bother bringing it in at all, exccep to try to rope in certain demographics..still as long as they dont do anything distatseful on tv i should be fine. (kind of like on the simpsons where they say taht fox turned a hardocre porn channel so gradually) if that happen to sci-fi it might be a little weiord

sorry about the grammer and speling mistakes inm a litle drunk

When this is the case, I find it best to get myself as far from the internet as possible until it passes. Just a tip ;)

System_Lord_Remus
June 23rd, 2009, 01:18 AM
I'm 22 and I started watching SG1 when i was 13....been watching the SG franchise ever since

escyos
June 23rd, 2009, 07:52 AM
When this is the case, I find it best to get myself as far from the internet as possible until it passes. Just a tip ;)

i would liek to agree with you (ive done some stupid things online while intoxicated) theres not much else for me to do here whilst drunk.

Coronach
June 23rd, 2009, 08:11 AM
i know it shouldnt and chances are it wont, but why bother bringing it in at all, exccep to try to rope in certain demographics.

The fact that someone's gay isn't enough to rope in the gay demographic. Sure, it might intrigue them and make a few want to watch, but if they just don't like Sci Fi, then they wouldn't stick around. You wouldn't say that shows having straight people is enough to make a straight person want to watch it, would you?


still as long as they dont do anything distatseful on tv i should be fine. (kind of like on the simpsons where they say taht fox turned a hardocre porn channel so gradually) if that happen to sci-fi it might be a little weiord

sorry about the grammer and speling mistakes inm a litle drunk

I don't know the Simpson's reference you mentioned, but I don't think Fox is a hardcore porn channel :P. Also, they haven't really done distasteful things in past Stargate, so I don't know why they'd start now. Then again, everyone has a different definition of distasteful.

pkprd869
June 23rd, 2009, 11:25 AM
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but if they really want to increase the demographic among people my age (20's to 30's) don't air the show on Friday Night. I understand not wanting to compete with network TV and sports. But when you're a niche market, that's how it goes.

escyos
June 23rd, 2009, 12:31 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but if they really want to increase the demographic among people my age (20's to 30's) don't air the show on Friday Night. I understand not wanting to compete with network TV and sports. But when you're a niche market, that's how it goes.

friday night is fine with me, i get drunk on thursday and saturday, leaving friday to recover :D

Madwelshboy
June 23rd, 2009, 12:35 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but if they really want to increase the demographic among people my age (20's to 30's) don't air the show on Friday Night. I understand not wanting to compete with network TV and sports. But when you're a niche market, that's how it goes.

It's sci-fi many night for original shows. no matter what they want in the demo, they will never change it.


friday night is fine with me, i get drunk on thursday and saturday, leaving friday to recover :D

Dam I miss the days when i was drunk, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday :cool:

pkprd869
June 23rd, 2009, 06:35 PM
Oh the college drinking days. Who needs bar specials, just have your own stock and find some buddies. I know Friday is SciFi's original programming night. Not competing with network TV makes it that night. Oh well, I'll just leave the room during the incontinence and viagra commercials.

dee
June 28th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Im in my forties, and I will not watch a show that is sex, death ,depresstion filled and grittier. I just saw Transformers II and did not like it at all. All it was about was toilet humur,drugs and sex, not a movie that was supposed to target kids as well as adults, poeple acually walked out on the movie, it didnt need that trash. Dont you writers and producers understand that? I just got by beetlejuise cartoon dvds so your not alone,I also watch cartoons.

Grifff
June 29th, 2009, 03:22 AM
well i started watching sg1 when i was 13 after i whatched unending on skyone when its came out, now im 15 and after watching the reruns 2 or 3 times i think the seris is great but for atlantis, wow its not even half as good as sg1, ive only watched each episode of SGA once because i think its crappy i only watched it for my weekly fill of sifi

but i think its unrealistic for the men behind stargate to aimSGU at 13 years or younger becuase most teenagers/children will find it boaring apart from the few exceptions

Coronach
June 29th, 2009, 06:40 AM
but i think its unrealistic for the men behind stargate to aimSGU at 13 years or younger becuase most teenagers/children will find it boaring apart from the few exceptions

Orly? You realize if they were aiming at 13 year olds or younger (hint: they're not...specifically), then said demographic likely wouldn't find it boring. That's really the whole point of targeting demographics. More research goes into than "Oh...well this sounds cool, so I know they'll like it".

Generalizations are bad, as we haven't seen the show to make such specific predictions.

Puddle-Jumper
June 29th, 2009, 10:53 AM
I don't think its neccessarily an age thing, but more about getting fans from outside the usual sci-fi fanbase ya know,

VolrathEvincar
June 30th, 2009, 05:26 PM
I've watched many scifi and drama series end before they really able to expand and evolve. This is a terrible thing, I cry at night when I think about if Firefly made it to ten seasons, but with a successful franchise like Stargate the exact opposite problem presents itself.

I'm not worried about Stargate becoming stagnant and terrible like Star Trek with Enterprise, but I am worried that even though I own every season of Stargate ever made, I may not be a fan of the new series.

The reasons that I bought my first box set of Stargate SG-1 was because of the references to ancient cultures and religion, because of the sense of morality that came from great scifi writing, because of the dynamic teams saving the world from certain doom. I don't know if I can swallow those things being replaced by edgier actors made for a younger generation, Lost type character development and story, and darker plots just to expand it's audience. I know that they aren't betraying the fans, they're really trying to come up with something new, but I still can't help but feel like they are.

The point of Stargate to me wasn't to be like those shows new edgy scifi shows, it was be like itself. But now the franchise is having some sort of midlife crisis where it needs to do something to make it feel younger.

Look, I don't really want to judge before I see it, but I definitely didn't feel like this when Atlantis came out. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that, even if you're old and you've got wrinkles, bowtox helps but it makes you look a little gross, but ultimately it will make your face look more messed up in the long run and until you die. I think we have to consider that when we are all at Stargate's funeral, we might just look in the casket and make that face that everyone makes when they smell rotting meat. I know I'll be getting drunk in mourning.

Cheers.

Coronach
June 30th, 2009, 06:21 PM
I'm not worried about Stargate becoming stagnant and terrible like Star Trek with Enterprise, but I am worried that even though I own every season of Stargate ever made, I may not be a fan of the new series.

This is where the post stopped being a fair opinion, and turned into just more of the same. I understand being a bit apprehensive, but the reasoning seems a bit off.


The reasons that I bought my first box set of Stargate SG-1 was because of the references to ancient cultures and religion, because of the sense of morality that came from great scifi writing, because of the dynamic teams saving the world from certain doom.

SGU has the potential to provide all of this, save for saving our world. Sure, it'll be less-focused on the survival of all of Earth, but that doesn't mean there won't be good stories about alien cultures, religion and faith, and stories with a sense of morality.


I don't know if I can swallow those things being replaced by edgier actors made for a younger generation, Lost type character development and story, and darker plots just to expand it's audience.

Why is this just to expand its audience? Good stories can't be about when they involve in-depth character development, darker plots and "edgier" (whatever that means) themes? Also, where do you get the notion that these additions are strictly for the younger generation? I know plenty of young people who don't like stories like BSG and Lost. Generalizations are bad.


I know that they aren't betraying the fans, they're really trying to come up with something new, but I still can't help but feel like they are.

So you know they're tryin to do something good, but you "feel" that they're actually not at the same time? :confused:


The point of Stargate to me wasn't to be like those shows new edgy scifi shows, it was be like itself. But now the franchise is having some sort of midlife crisis where it needs to do something to make it feel younger.

So Stargate won't be "Stargate" with these changes? This is exactly why I made that other thread asking this very question, yet most decided to just respond with "of COURSE it'll still be Stargate", as if it was that obvious. Apparently, it's not to some...


Look, I don't really want to judge before I see it, but I definitely didn't feel like this when Atlantis came out. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that, even if you're old and you've got wrinkles, bowtox helps but it makes you look a little gross, but ultimately it will make your face look more messed up in the long run and until you die. I think we have to consider that when we are all at Stargate's funeral, we might just look in the casket and make that face that everyone makes when they smell rotting meat. I know I'll be getting drunk in mourning.

Re: the bolded. I couldn't actually pick out what the point of this was.

major davis
June 30th, 2009, 06:30 PM
This is where the post stopped being a fair opinion, and turned into just more of the same. I understand being a bit apprehensive, but the reasoning seems a bit off.



SGU has the potential to provide all of this, save for saving our world. Sure, it'll be less-focused on the survival of all of Earth, but that doesn't mean there won't be good stories about alien cultures, religion and faith, and stories with a sense of morality.



Why is this just to expand its audience? Good stories can't be about when they involve in-depth character development, darker plots and "edgier" (whatever that means) themes? Also, where do you get the notion that these additions are strictly for the younger generation? I know plenty of young people who don't like stories like BSG and Lost. Generalizations are bad.



So you know they're tryin to do something good, but you "feel" that they're actually not at the same time? :confused:



So Stargate won't be "Stargate" with these changes? This is exactly why I made that other thread asking this very question, yet most decided to just respond with "of COURSE it'll still be Stargate", as if it was that obvious. Apparently, it's not to some...



Re: the bolded. I couldn't actually pick out what the point of this was.

Coronach, you are my new hero,

"See, we agree on everything"

Can we be gatehead SGU defending buddies(I have been defending SGU on youtube, from the less civilized stargate fans)?

Coronach
June 30th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Coronach, you are my new hero,

"See, we agree on everything"

Can we be gatehead SGU defending buddies(I have been defending SGU on youtube, from the less civilized stargate fans)?

Lol, I'm just tired of people being presumptuous about SGU in ways that we can't possibly know yet.

Ex. You can know whether or not the concept appeals to you (i.e. SGU not having much contact with Earth).

You can't know, however, that SGU is going to be like BSG.

This is the only point I'm trying (and have been trying) to make. Once it airs, I don't care if people don't like it. At least they've given it a try.

major davis
June 30th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Lol, I'm just tired of people being presumptuous about SGU in ways that we can't possibly know yet.

Ex. You can know whether or not the concept appeals to you (i.e. SGU not having much contact with Earth).

You can't know, however, that SGU is going to be like BSG.

This is the only point I'm trying (and have been trying) to make. Once it airs, I don't care if people don't like it. At least they've given it a try.

Yeah you should read the comments on Frantic on youtube. It drives me nuts.

Also, I am typing this as a very famous band is right next to me, yet the forum intrests me more, I can't imagine the hundreds of thousands of fans that are dying to be in my shoes. Random, and you probably wouldn't care, just tired, music camp is fun, sounds like twitter now, I am tired, might have to log off soon.

Also, that was a serious question.

Coronach
June 30th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Yeah you should read the comments on Frantic on youtube. It drives me nuts.

Also, I am typing this as a very famous band is right next to me, yet the forum intrests me more, I can't imagine the hundreds of thousands of fans that are dying to be in my shoes. Random, and you probably wouldn't care, just tired, music camp is fun, sounds like twitter now, I am tired, might have to log off soon.

Also, that was a serious question.

Haha, what band are you sitting next to right now? I think it sounds interesting, actually, and so does my music-loving friend who is reading this over my shoulder.

Also, I would help you out on YouTube, but my impression is that YouTube trolls are even worse than the bashers we get here. By the way, not saying the OP is a basher (certainly not the worst I've seen here in GW), but I think some of their points are flawed.

major davis
June 30th, 2009, 06:51 PM
Haha, what band are you sitting next to right now? I think it sounds interesting, actually, and so does my music-loving friend who is reading this over my shoulder.

Also, I would help you out on YouTube, but my impression is that YouTube trolls are even worse than the bashers we get here. By the way, not saying the OP is a basher (certainly not the worst I've seen here in GW), but I think some of their points are flawed.

A Christian Band called Barlow Girl.

There are other bands here such as Newsboys, Pillar, and Toby Mac. You might have heard of them. And Michael Tait is here. He was in a band called DC Talk.

It'c called camp electric. Google it if your interested. :)

LostCityGuardian
June 30th, 2009, 06:58 PM
Its one of those days today. How about we stop with a new thread bashing SGU every few hours? Or at least just one per day?

Quadhelix
June 30th, 2009, 07:12 PM
I know it has pointed out before, but the whole "younger audiences" thing has been really, really overstated: when they say "younger audiences" they mean "people in their thirties."

In other words, SGU won't be like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iULvH7HrD9c), and it certainly won't be like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XukV58Y18m8).




The reasons that I bought my first box set of Stargate SG-1 was because of the references to ancient cultures and religion, because of the sense of morality that came from great scifi writing, because of the dynamic teams saving the world from certain doom.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Stargate isn't really "science fiction." If you replaced the word "Stargate" with "Magic Portal," the word "Goa'uld" with "Demon," etc., you would have a fairly interesting fantasy setting. Some might argue that making the Stargate use wormholes instead of magic and making the Goa'uld alien parasites instead of mythical demons places Stargate in the realm of "science fiction."

They would be wrong.

In order to be "science fiction," the science has to be, if not 100% accurate, then at close as a feasible for the purposes of storytelling. As Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html#fiction) puts it, "Imagine a historical fiction novel where Napoleon at Waterloo defeated the knights of the Round Table by using the Enola Gay to drop an atom bomb."

The problem is that Stargate tends to treat the science in an equally cavalier fashion. The Stargate supposedly breaks people down into energy before sending them through a wormhole, much like a Star Trek transporter...combined with a wormhole. The problem with this idea is that the human body being "converted" into energy would be the equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence) of setting off a 1.5 Gigaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) bomb; this isn't even taking into consideration the immense computational power needed. They could have said, "The Stargate's inner workings are too far beyond our current knowledge for us to understand," thereby sidestepping the entire issue, but they didn't.




I don't know if I can swallow those things being replaced by edgier actors made for a younger generation, Lost type character development and story, and darker plots just to expand it's audience. At 20 and never having seen Lost, thus completely unaware of what "type" of character development it uses, I can't help but ask how character development is a bad thing. The focus of any story, whether it is science fiction, western, romance, or even horror, should always be the characters, and how the events of the story affect and change them.

VolrathEvincar
June 30th, 2009, 08:17 PM
I actually like what Coronach has to say. I mean, you're right, I can't really know what is going to happen or how SGU is going to play out. It's just that all we can really do is speculate about it, and that's what I'm trying to do.

But really, we have heard enough to make the assumption that it will not be mythology centric like it has before.
Gateworld sez:
"Universe will attempt to appeal to a broader audience, drawing new viewers into the Stargate world. The show will be "a little more character-based, a little less rooted in a sci-fi mythology," co-creator Brad Wright told GateWorld. "It really does come down to characters and stories that are engaging, and that people want to see -- that they feel like they haven't seen before."

If I can just speculate without having a rotten tomato thrown at me for a second, I would speculate that it means that it will be "a little more character-based, a little less rooted in a sci-fi mythology." Potential to have that kind of this is minimized when the producer says there is going to be less of it.

Also I would like to defend the part that I said about appealing to a younger audience. Hey, I agree generalizations are bad, but the only way to understand the direction of the show is to put yourself in the shoes of the producers and the executives in charge of the money. What they do is make generalizations about their viewing audience to get better ratings. And "edgier" means more cut, cool and hip. For example the "younger, edgier" SG-1 in "200".

The next comment was kind of petty, but what I meant was that it's not like they are actually "betraying" us but I do feel like the scifi fans of Stargate are being put aside.

And you know what, it still will be Stargate but it will be a Stargate that is far from where the franchise started. Some change is good, and I guess that you can cut me down for thinking it, but I'm not confident in getting rid of those Stargate qualities that made the show great.

And I'm sorry for putting together a poor ending metaphor, but the point is that IF(Alright? Jesus.) SGU is a two season sinker, perhaps people will only be able to remember the end of the series rather than the beginning. If Jacko had died in 89' people would probably look at him like Elvis rather than how they do now. No offense Jacko.

Thank you for responding Conorach, you actually changed my outlook.

But......uh, let's see.

Major Davis, make an original name and stop being a follower. When we make our own opinions, despite the fact that what we put out there what others might criticize. Agreeing with someone and not giving any input at all is like yelling, "YEA, FOOL!" After your friend has giving a compelling argument in a serious discussion. It's useless. And BTW it's Gateworld.net not whatsyourfavhipsterband.net.

BTW Quadhelix, I'm not sure how you can tell someone that I'm (we're) wrong about the fact that Stargate is science fiction when all the producers, writers, actors and exects have said that it is science fiction. BTW Quad if you know more about Stargate than the people that made it, then stop reading now. By your definition of what science fiction is, anything that is far enough away from modern science is fantasy. So I guess that means that most everything that is considered science fiction today, including the original Star Trek, the pioneer series of science fiction isn't actually science fiction. The point of science fiction is to create technologies that might be invented someday for the purposes of storytelling. Even if it seems impossible now, the point is you have no idea what we could do in 500 years with our current rise in technological development.

Also, I'm not saying character development is a bad thing, I just don't want it to hold precedent over the concepts that I hold dear in the series.

Cheers.

PG15
June 30th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Hey, I agree generalizations are bad, but the only way to understand the direction of the show is to put yourself in the shoes of the producers and the executives in charge of the money. What they do is make generalizations about their viewing audience to get better ratings. And "edgier" means more cut, cool and hip. For example the "younger, edgier" SG-1 in "200".

...And that would be a generalization of the producers and executives in charge of the money.

The whole point of the 200 sketch is that it's a parody of what stereotypical "younger generation" shows are. They know what not to do (i.e. that sketch).


The next comment was kind of petty, but what I meant was that it's not like they are actually "betraying" us but I do feel like the scifi fans of Stargate are being put aside.

Speak for yourself, please.


Major Davis, make an original name and stop being a follower. When we make our own opinions, despite the fact that what we put out there what others might criticize. Agreeing with someone and not giving any input at all is like yelling, "YEA, FOOL!" After your friend has giving a compelling argument in a serious discussion. It's useless. And BTW it's Gateworld.net not whatsyourfavhipsterband.net.

This did not earn you any brownie points, armchair mod.

VolrathEvincar
June 30th, 2009, 08:28 PM
Since 1997 and I'm 21. Um, I'm bad at math so I'll leave that up to others. I thought it was more for the teeny kids I see in front of my office, wearing girl pants and laying their bleached bangs over one eye.

Pandora's_Box
June 30th, 2009, 08:30 PM
The next comment was kind of petty, but what I meant was that it's not like they are actually "betraying" us but I do feel like the scifi fans of Stargate are being put aside.


Yes, because nothing says, "We hate you all" like brand new aliens and spaceships.

Col.Foley
June 30th, 2009, 08:31 PM
My two cents on this: Well I am waiting for it to actually air before I judge, but its stargate so I remain hopeful. Any way, those two cents:

I think that when one tries to 'appeal' to a younger audience they are trying to pander to that audience and draw in people to the show that they have not had, by using those themes, to 'broaden things' but of corse the danger is that you will alienate long term and faithful fans who will not like this, them focusing on one group instead of the others and leaving out the themes that those others enjoy.

But it seems like, to me in this case, that the Producers are acting differently then what they are saying. For at the moment they have hired a reasonably well rounded cast of actors and actresses to star and guest star in their show. So all we have really is to wait and see how things play out.

Coronach
June 30th, 2009, 08:42 PM
I actually like what Coronach has to say. I mean, you're right, I can't really know what is going to happen or how SGU is going to play out. It's just that all we can really do is speculate about it, and that's what I'm trying to do.

No, I completely agree with this. I just don't like a lot of the comments that I keep seeing, that are things we couldn't possibly know, and probably couldn't infer in any case.


But really, we have heard enough to make the assumption that it will not be mythology centric like it has before.

Certainly not based on Earth mythology, no. There is the possibility for completely new mythologies to come out though. We'll certainly see, as I thought there was a quote about wanting to expand on new mythologies.

Brad Wright does say:



BW: Exactly. When the show goes for 10 years and 5 years, respectively, you create a mythology and a world within which the stories take place that has to acknowledge each other. And we are so far away now from the Milky Way and/or Pegasus [Galaxies]. It's such a completely new start.

So yes. They're far away from the Pegasus and MW galaxies, so obviously these mythologies (except for the Ancients) won't tie in as much. It doesn't stop the exploration of new and exciting mythologies though. I'm certainly interested to see where it goes. I agree with you, though, in that we'll really have to wait and see how it's handled.


Also I would like to defend the part that I said about appealing to a younger audience. Hey, I agree generalizations are bad, but the only way to understand the direction of the show is to put yourself in the shoes of the producers and the executives in charge of the money. What they do is make generalizations about their viewing audience to get better ratings. And "edgier" means more cut, cool and hip. For example the "younger, edgier" SG-1 in "200".

I really hope you're not saying SGU will be like ep. 200 of SG1. I don't think you're saying this, but it wouldn't be the first time I've seen it if so. Think about it this way: why would TPTB make a parody of a "young and hip" SG1, knowing full well how ridiculous it is, and then turn around and do that on SGU expecting us to think it's good? That's absurd, so I'll assume you weren't implying this.


The next comment was kind of petty, but what I meant was that it's not like they are actually "betraying" us but I do feel like the scifi fans of Stargate are being put aside.

On the contrary, at least for me. I feel like they're trying to branch out and alter what they've been doing for the past 15 seasons to give us something new and exciting. Sure others may have liked the old formula, but I think (though I can't support this statistically) that even more are willing to embrace the new style, or at least give it a shot.


And you know what, it still will be Stargate but it will be a Stargate that is far from where the franchise started. Some change is good, and I guess that you can cut me down for thinking it, but I'm not confident in getting rid of those Stargate qualities that made the show great.

I won't (and don't think I did?) cut you down. I just think that people are focusing too much on buzz-words as reasons to think SGU will be a 180 from what we've seen in the past. I don't think it's going to be this radically different. I may be proven wrong though.


And I'm sorry for putting together a poor ending metaphor, but the point is that IF(Alright? Jesus.)

:confused:


SGU is a two season sinker, perhaps people will only be able to remember the end of the series rather than the beginning. If Jacko had died in 89' people would probably look at him like Elvis rather than how they do now. No offense Jacko.

I dunno, I think this is another improper metaphor. Sure we remember the bad things about his life, but all I've heard recently are people mourning his death and actually feeling sad that he's gone, as he was quite influential in his early life. Hell, I even heard someone say today "how come the fact that Michael Jackson is dead suddenly changes what people say about him?".

That's all neither here nor there, but I'm not sure it matters either way. If Stargate goes down for this, at least they went down trying something new and exciting. I guarantee another season of the same wouldn't have looked any better for Stargate's legacy.


Thank you for responding Conorach, you actually changed my outlook.

Thanks :D. Glad I could shine light on something at least.

VolrathEvincar
June 30th, 2009, 09:19 PM
OK PG, I know that you got thousands of posts for making nonconstructive replies like this, but please save it for people that are into cutting arguments apart, not people who actually want some real input. The point of me putting this up there is because I wanted someone to prove me wrong and make me feel better about the series, not to tell me to speak for myself when I was speaking for myself. When you preface a sentence with "I feel" that means your speaking for yourself, kk? I wasn't a girl scout so lack of brownie points is not a problem. I just want to engage, not chop every persons post down so I can tell them how wrong they are. It's a forum, not a member measuring contest.

Col.Foley.....hell yes. If the producers just talking and not walking, then goody gumdrops. All I can say is Brad Wright, don't let me down, yo!

Oh yea, and Coronach, I suppose what I mean is that Earth based mythology has a direct and recognizable connection to history, and I think that history is one of the major influences in science fiction. Kind of like "lessons of days gone by teach us what will come to pass", you know? Again, you are right that we will see how it will be handled, because when you create your own mythology you have to base it somewhat in what you know. I mean, do we know any cultures that aren't from Earth? No. So I guess in the mythology aspect it comes to my own personal faith in Brad Wright and his writing ability. Maybe it won't be so bad.....

And big ROFL to the "200" connection, I just meant that it was a good example of "edginess", not exactly what it will be. Look it's just that there is a demand for those type of characters in the ratings. So, NOT TO GENERALIZE OR ANYTHING LOL, but if you are a producer of an extremely successful show and if you want it to go on, there MIGHT be a point where you make a Faustian bargain in that you will combine what the company who owns the show wants and what you as a producer wants. It's sometimes the nature of the business. Again, Brad has to be your homeboy. (Just a joke, BW is not Jesus)

And BTW since posting this I think that you are right, I might be in the minority since I'm not really excited about the change, well, worried about it more accurately. If that's so, then I guess I should correct that by saying that instead of letting the fans down, Brad Wright is letting only me down personally, which makes him my new arch-villain! LOL. But, on a more serious note, if it was the right move for the series as well as the majority of the fans, which even if it doesn't include me, then I respect it.

I'm giving up on metaphors, somehow I screw them up. The point is, Coronach, that I hope you are right about how Stargate is remembered and I am wrong. And I guess it is better to try to change, go out swinging, than it is to throw the same thing into the mix. Again, it would have been the right thing for me personally, but not for the general Stargate fan....uh....populace?

Anyway, now I will definitely watch the new show objectively rather than in general prejudice.

Cheers.

PG15
June 30th, 2009, 09:49 PM
OK PG, I know that you got thousands of posts for making nonconstructive replies like this, but please save it for people that are into cutting arguments apart, not people who actually want some real input. The point of me putting this up there is because I wanted someone to prove me wrong and make me feel better about the series, not to tell me to speak for myself when I was speaking for myself.

Actually, you were apparently speaking for the "scifi fans" who were being "betrayed"; adding "I feel" doesn't really change what comes after; really I had no problem with your views until you went off on another poster for...what? Not posting the way you want him to? He wasn't even talking to you for cryin' out loud. You just attacked him unprovoked. Thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine. Oh, and now you're going off on me by ridiculing my apparent waste of 16-whatever posts that has no relation to my posts or the topic at hand. Good job.

Anyways, your post is not the first of its kind. What it all boils down to is that you don't want Stargate to change; that's fine; however, it looks like it is changing, considering that pretty much every source within the show keep saying how different it is. To what degree it changes, we don't know. What we do know is that there will be humor; there will be trips through the Stargate; there will be adventures off-world; there will be action scenes; there will be sweet CGI; there will be science-stuff and some good-ole scifi concepts as well; but at the same time, there will be more distrust and friction among the main cast instead of "one happy team"; the characters will be "less perfect" since they weren't made to be in the situation they're in unlike SG1 or the Atlantis Expedition; there will be more death; there will be more focus on character interaction rather than fighting the obviously-evil bad guys; and the series will be shot more "realistically", whatever that means.

So there you go.


I wasn't a girl scout so lack of brownie points is not a problem. I just want to engage, not chop every persons post down so I can just how wrong they are. It's a forum, not a member measuring contest.

I'm sorry, but this is how it's done sometimes. It's much easier to talk about individual points within a long post by breaking it up into small quotes than to...not; at least from my perspective.

Pandora's_Box
June 30th, 2009, 09:51 PM
OK PG, I know that you got thousands of posts for making nonconstructive replies like this, but please save it for people that are into cutting arguments apart, not people who actually want some real input.

Hmmm...what if that input requires cutting arguments apart because they are inherently fallacious? Not necessarily saying yours are, I'm just pointing out that the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Col. Matarrese
June 30th, 2009, 10:26 PM
since at least 1996, and I'm 17 now.

Puddle-Jumper
June 30th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Well being a harcissis I was born with all the knowledge that I needed to.......

I mean ya Im 19 and I started watching when I was about 10 or so... stargate certainly isn't real, and I certainly wasn't born off world HAHAHAHAHAHA.....







phew... dodged a bullet there :cool:

GuHNDoi
June 30th, 2009, 10:44 PM
Saw the Movie when I was 13(1995), Saw Children of the Gods when I was 16 (1998), I am 27 (2009)now.:)

Quadhelix
July 1st, 2009, 05:36 AM
But really, we have heard enough to make the assumption that it will not be mythology centric like it has before. Neither was Stargate Atlantis (unless I'm completely missing what you're saying), but I'm guessing that you still watched that.

If I'm wrong on that, feel free to correct me.





And "edgier" means more cut, cool and hip. Really? I was under the (I guess mistaken) impression that "edgy" meant something along the lines of "gritty," or "emotionally charged." I'm not that up on modern terminology, so what do I know?




BTW Quad if you know more about Stargate than the people that made it, then stop reading now. I never said, nor suggested, nor implied that I knew more about Stargate than anybody. However, knowing what just about everyone knows about it, I don't see how it can be called "science fiction" when the science is so heavily hand-waved.




By your definition of what science fiction is, anything that is far enough away from modern science is fantasy. To one extent or another. I don't think that I have seen any televised science fiction, outside of a few possible exceptions.



So I guess that means that most everything that is considered science fiction today, including the original Star Trek, the pioneer series of science fiction isn't actually science fiction. Yes, that just about sums up my opinion. If the science is bad, then I don't see how it can be called science fiction.

That is not, of course, to say that Star Trek, Stargate, etc. are bad shows. They are wonderful shows and I enjoy almost every minute of them. All that it means is that the term "science fiction" is not the best description that could be used to describe them; "science fantasy" or "speculative fiction" would be far better terms.




The point of science fiction is to create technologies that might be invented someday for the purposes of storytelling. Even if it seems impossible now, the point is you have no idea what we could do in 500 years with our current rise in technological development. If something is theoretically impossible, that is, forbidden by current scientific theories, then our intrepid science fiction writer must either ignore the current theory (in which case, the "science" is gone from the story) or make up a new theory explaining why the old theory doesn't apply under the new conditions.




And big ROFL to the "200" connection, I just meant that it was a good example of "edginess", not exactly what it will be. Look it's just that there is a demand for those type of characters in the ratings. So, NOT TO GENERALIZE OR ANYTHING LOL, but if you are a producer of an extremely successful show and if you want it to go on, there MIGHT be a point where you make a Faustian bargain in that you will combine what the company who owns the show wants and what you as a producer wants. It's sometimes the nature of the business. Again, Brad has to be your homeboy. (Just a joke, BW is not Jesus) From what we can tell so far, most of the talk of being "younger and edgier" was just industry buzz. We know, for example, that about a third of the main cast will be in their early-to-mid forties, and the youth and inexperience of the younger crew members is supposedly a major thematic point.




And BTW since posting this I think that you are right, I might be in the minority since I'm not really excited about the change, well, worried about it more accurately. I don't think you are, but the two major points being reiterated is that the talk about Stargate Universe being "younger and edgier" was mostly buzz and that, even if it was not, you might be pleasantly surprised by the result.

VolrathEvincar
July 1st, 2009, 08:22 AM
16,000. Not sixteen whatever. My point is that when I make a comment on a thread, I don't just quote every single sentence that I find incongruous to the point or in error. That really does no body good, just like agreeing with someone on a forum. IDK maybe I have a screwed up sense of the way that things work in forums, but if I got onto random people's forums just to agree with someone then talk about something else in the middle of the thread like it's my own personal IM, I would expect to have someone say something about it. Like, stop it.

I just figured out the quote button thing BTW so here goes:


I'm sorry, but this is how it's done sometimes. It's much easier to talk about individual points within a long post by breaking it up into small quotes than to...not; at least from my perspective.

Hey, I don't have a problem with individual points, you're right it's even easier to read. What I am talking about was how every single one of those points was useless to me. I wanted someone to present some sort of argument, and convince me, not make asinine comments on small sections of text. The point is that I didn't draw anything from what you said, there was no argument. Just do me a favor and reread your post and tell me if you see anything that could make my outlook on SGU better.

Ok Quad,

Neither was Stargate Atlantis (unless I'm completely missing what you're saying), but I'm guessing that you still watched that. If I'm wrong on that, feel free to correct me.

Well definitely not 100 percent as much SG-1 for sure, but there was enough initial mythology to wet my appetite like; The Lost City of Atlantis, Vampires. And once you get by that you start to notice that there are some characters and plots that are mildly connected to literature. Does Michael not remind anyone else of The Phantom? (of the opera, not the superhero)
That is true, Atlantis didn't really use mythology as much, but they kept the team dynamics alive, scifi outlook (even if it doesn't really exist :confused:) and the real peril of impending doom. SGU doesn't appear to be as similar.

Well you know, I was under the impression that gritty and emotionally charged really didn't refer to the characters at all, but the shooting style. I mean, when it's gritty it's more guerrilla style. And, how do you get MORE emotionally charged characters? Isn't it their job to be emotionally charged? Who's more emotionally charged than RDA? It's semantics man, if you're looking in a dictionary it's right, but in context it's not at all.

And wow, I'm going to try to contain myself but I have to admit I completely and totally disagree with you about science fiction. To lump scifi in with fantasy is the equivalent of spitting in to every scifi writers face. There is a reason there are fantasy writers and there are scifi writers. At the most basic level, where it all comes from, they are fundamentally different in the plots, the ideals and especially the message they send. Where as fantasy makes people stop thinking about the present and start thinking about how cool it would be to live in Ironforge or Stormwind (Go Alliance!), a true escape from having to live in today's society. Science fiction is the opposite, where people look towards the future. It makes us consider and be mindful about it, something that the human species is not very good at. I think that Grell said it best (you remember Grell, he's a robot!) while quoting a quote that I am now quoting:

"Science fiction is an existential metaphor that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Isaac Asimov once said: "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinded critics and philosophers of today, but at the core of science fiction, it's essence has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

You can't just judge a genre based on whether or not science believes it to be possible, but what the story is ultimately made to convey and how it is told. That is too narrow of a definition to appropriately categorize any genre. Also read this:

FICTION: 1: something invented by the imagination or feigned ; specifically : an invented story.

FANTASY: 1: a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived.

SCIENCE FICTION: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component.

I mean fiction and fantasy are almost the same, and I could definitely look at the definition for science fiction and think that it is more accurate definition for Stargate then fantasy. The point I'm trying to make is that in semantics, no one can win, no one will ever think they are wrong about it. It's like arguing with someone over what the best band ever is. No functiona.


If something is theoretically impossible, that is, forbidden by current scientific theories, then our intrepid science fiction writer must either ignore the current theory (in which case, the "science" is gone from the story) or make up a new theory explaining why the old theory doesn't apply under the new conditions.

Ok, if we have learned anything from history it is that science evolves as our knowledge does. To say that once you go into the realm of theoretical impossibility ends science's role has merit, but you have to understand science fiction writing before you judge like that. The Stargate is a vessel for storytelling that is necessary for the continuation of the plot. Just because one thing can't be backed up scientifically doesn't mean everyone starts using magic instead of science. If that were so, then why do the producers bother to read up on physics, or mathematics to make sure that what they write down and say is a correct scientific term? When one abandons science altogether, that is when scifi truly becomes fantasy.


From what we can tell so far, most of the talk of being "younger and edgier" was just industry buzz. We know, for example, that about a third of the main cast will be in their early-to-mid forties, and the youth and inexperience of the younger crew members is supposedly a major thematic point.
I don't think you are, but the two major points being reiterated is that the talk about Stargate Universe being "younger and edgier" was mostly buzz and that, even if it was not, you might be pleasantly surprised by the result.

Dude, I really hope so. Seriously. I know I got no facts to back this up, so don't take me too seriously, but when I watched the trailer for the first time, I got this crazy Lost feeling, like it will be more about the suspense and the twists and turns. Even the headline in the trailer, "The only mission is survival," kind of sounds like it's walkin' that line. THAT IS A BLATANT ASSUMPTION THAT IS IN NO WAY FACTUAL. And really, that is probably coming from the fact that I hate Lost, and that is really only my deepest darkest fear for the series. ANYTHING BUT LOST! NOOOOOOO!

No matter what, I'm going to buy a bottle of jack and sit down in front of the TV for the premier, just like the Punisher (to wallow if I don't like it, and to party if it's rockin'). If it sucks, I will plot my vengeance just as he did.

P.S Pandora's Box, good point. Totally not mutually exclusive. I guess I just don't bother replying when I see that kind of thread.

Cheers.

Mr Evil 37
July 1st, 2009, 08:50 AM
I'm 15. Started watching Stargate about a year ago. Already watched every single piece of Stargate created so far.

Stormtrooper
July 1st, 2009, 08:55 AM
16,000. Not sixteen whatever. My point is that when I make a comment on a thread, I don't just quote every single sentence that I find incongruous to the point or in error. That really does no body good, just like agreeing with someone on a forum. IDK maybe I have a screwed up sense of the way that things work in forums, but if I got onto random people's forums just to agree with someone then talk about something else in the middle of the thread like it's my own personal IM, I would expect to have someone say something about it. Like, stop it.

I hear ya, VolrathEvincar :)

Atri
July 1st, 2009, 09:17 AM
I'm 21 now and started watching Stargate when I was 11 or so. I really didn't care that some characters like O'Neill, for example, were older, as long as they were written well. Beside the awesome story arcs in the earlier seasons of SG1, it were the characters and the bonds between them that really made me into a fan.

So if the stories of SGU are well written, then there's a chance that I will like it, no matter how old the characters are. You must remember that at the beginning of SG1 Shanks and Tapping were in their late twenties, I think, but they still played their roles well.

I remember first seeing the trailers for SGA and how excited I was about them going to Atlantis, then the first episode and how they were going to be cut off entirely from the Milky Way. It was something new and exciting, but still Stargate. SGA still retained all that Stargate was and if SGU manages to do the same, then perhaps there's hope for a show that is worthy to follow into the footsteps that are left behind by SGA and SG1.

PG15
July 1st, 2009, 12:54 PM
16,000. Not sixteen whatever.

Actually, 16,832; the "whatever" meant the some hundreds of posts that I didn't care to check out...until now.


My point is that when I make a comment on a thread, I don't just quote every single sentence that I find incongruous to the point or in error. That really does no body good, just like agreeing with someone on a forum.

Good for you, but other people don't have to follow your personal rules. It's up to the Mods. Report the off-topic posts if you wish; heck, report this one if you want.


Hey, I don't have a problem with individual points, you're right it's even easier to read. What I am talking about was how every single one of those points was useless to me. I wanted someone to present some sort of argument, and convince me, not make asinine comments on small sections of text. The point is that I didn't draw anything from what you said, there was no argument. Just do me a favor and reread your post and tell me if you see anything that could make my outlook on SGU better.

Uh...why in God's name should I post to make you feel better? Why should I post to your benefit at all? Why should I post anything with regards to you? I don't know which forums you frequent, but Gateworld's different; just because you start a thread doesn't mean you own it; once it's started, people can post whatever they want as long as it's vaguely on topic, or even a few off-topic posts assuming they don't branch off into a whole other topic that takes over the thread.

Oh, and personally insulting people is not good. There, that's to your benefit. :p

leiasky
July 1st, 2009, 01:39 PM
Good for you, but other people don't have to follow your personal rules. It's up to the Mods. Report the off-topic posts if you wish; heck, report this one if you want.

You know. It's not often that we agree, but in this, I couldn't agree more.

Are all 5,000 of my posts going to be called worthless now? :)




Uh...why in God's name should I post to make you feel better? Why should I post to your benefit at all? Why should I post anything with regards to you? I don't know which forums you frequent, but Gateworld's different; just because you start a thread doesn't mean you own it; once it's started, people can post whatever they want as long as it's vaguely on topic, or even a few off-topic posts assuming they don't branch off into a whole other topic that takes over the thread.

Oh, and personally insulting people is not good. There, that's to your benefit. :p


I could kiss you for this. But, you know, I think I'll refrain and just say, I agree. Well said and all that jazz. :)

And god forbid this be accused of being useless post #69, I'll add a comment that might, depending on people's perceptions, be on topic for this thread . . .

I hate change. Everyone does, whether they admit it or not. The good, glory days of Stargate are over in my opinion. I hold little hope that SGU will rekindle the magic I felt when watching SG-1.

SGA, though I did like it, wasn't much like the Stargate I knew and loved. I barely squeeze into the age demographic for this new, edgier, show and even what little we've seen so far makes me skeptical.

But I will definitely give it a shot and maybe new teasers that are released will generate a bit more interest on my part.

VolrathEvincar
July 1st, 2009, 01:45 PM
PG, I have a feeling like the only thing that anyone can say to you to make you understand that I don't want your nonconstructive input, OMG your right, I had a PGevelation! It's so clear now! If you talk to me anymore, I might just loose all of the knowledge thou hast bestown upon me!

Look, I had a personal reason for posting it, I know I don't own it, but just as people can say whatever they want in it, I can respond in kind (Within forum rules). And your are right, why should you care? But, if you are posting and you don't care about my outlook, why are you posting? More likely than not your are like me, we both need new girlfriends. Well, at least I do. :(

You can post back if you want, you're right that it is a mostly free forum inside of a partially free country, but you haven't really passed out any wisdom, but....uh, thanks for trying.

And Liesky? That Russian? Anyway, yea fo sho PEOPLE hate change, that's why true change comes out of adversity. Like I said before, I think we just have to sacrifice a goat to BW or something and hope he sends us that sweet sweet Stargate rain from the heavens instead of toilet water. Hope is all we have left.

Cheers.

PG15
July 1st, 2009, 01:53 PM
But, if you are posting and you don't care about my outlook, why are you posting?

I posted in the first place because you insulted a forum poster for no good reason. I continue to post because you continue to reply to me.

By the way, I did offer my views on this whole SGU situation in one of my previous posts.

VolrathEvincar
July 1st, 2009, 02:00 PM
Oh. Well, Holier than thou is a strange attitude to have on a forum. I'm not sure how anyone can say whatever they want on a thread except me. But you know what, I suppose it isn't right to question your will, so my bad.

Cheers.

PG15
July 1st, 2009, 02:08 PM
Now you're getting it. :)

Pandora's_Box
July 1st, 2009, 05:42 PM
But, if you are posting and you don't care about my outlook, why are you posting?

Because he wanted to state an opinion? I'm sorry, I didn't realise anyone needed a better reason than that.