PDA

View Full Version : Rob Cooper talks about Universe



jenks
November 5th, 2008, 02:33 PM
Across the Universe


[...]

"One of the things I'm really excited about is that we’re looking for people who are a little more identifiable and contemporary," he explains. "I always thought one of the things that was attractive about the original series was the 'everyman on the street' point of view that O’Neill had to science fiction. It made the characters identifiable. They were more like we would be in a science fiction situation, and how we would react. And that’s what we’re trying to do with the new show – create characters that are going to be challenged by the situation. The team that ends up on the ship is not really who was supposed to go, and in some cases they’re very unprepared and unqualified to be in that situation. So they don’t have all the answers as quickly, and the challenges are greater than they would be for people who have seen it all and don’t have as far to go as characters when they encounter an incredible situation."

[...]

http://stargate.mgm.com/news_detail.php?id=114

Flyboy
November 5th, 2008, 02:43 PM
Across the Universe


[...]

"One of the things I'm really excited about is that we’re looking for people who are a little more identifiable and contemporary," he explains. "I always thought one of the things that was attractive about the original series was the 'everyman on the street' point of view that O’Neill had to science fiction. It made the characters identifiable. They were more like we would be in a science fiction situation, and how we would react. And that’s what we’re trying to do with the new show – create characters that are going to be challenged by the situation. The team that ends up on the ship is not really who was supposed to go, and in some cases they’re very unprepared and unqualified to be in that situation. So they don’t have all the answers as quickly, and the challenges are greater than they would be for people who have seen it all and don’t have as far to go as characters when they encounter an incredible situation."

[...]

http://stargate.mgm.com/news_detail.php?id=114
That sounds really promising actually.

As long however, as they get rid of that horrific "teenage girl's fantasy" and "party girl" thing for all of the different characters.

Amalthea
November 5th, 2008, 09:14 PM
I don't understand how it could be an accident that the team gets there. Presumably, they have to leave from Stargate Command, which means they need some pretty high military clearance to get in the building and they don't give that out to just anyone. Also, alarms go off when the Stargate is activated, so they couldn't accidentally fall through the gate and end up on the Destiny. As Hammond once said "If someone sneezes near [the gate], I get a report."

The only way I can see it happening is if some disaster befalls Stargate Command and Landry orders them to take party chick through the gate for some protective reason. In which case, I would be much more interested in finding out how said disaster is worked out in the SGC than their lives on the Destiny.

I don't get it.

amconway
November 5th, 2008, 09:55 PM
"One of the things I'm really excited about is that we’re looking for people who are a little more identifiable and contemporary," he explains. "I always thought one of the things that was attractive about the original series was the 'everyman on the street' point of view that O’Neill had to science fiction. It made the characters identifiable. They were more like we would be in a science fiction situation, and how we would react. And that’s what we’re trying to do with the new show – create characters that are going to be challenged by the situation. The team that ends up on the ship is not really who was supposed to go, and in some cases they’re very unprepared and unqualified to be in that situation. So they don’t have all the answers as quickly, and the challenges are greater than they would be for people who have seen it all and don’t have as far to go as characters when they encounter an incredible situation."

I agree that the part quoted above sounds promising, however this just plain isn't true:

Some fans have queried the wisdom of having such young characters, but Cooper points to the youth of Stargate SG-1's cast when it launched.

"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

And this doesn't sound promising at all:


"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."

General Yogi Bear
November 5th, 2008, 09:55 PM
Sounds good to me.

Ouroboros
November 5th, 2008, 10:12 PM
I agree that the part quoted above sounds promising, however this just plain isn't true:


"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0850102/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0788218/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118480/

So he's worked with both of these people for X many years and doesn't actually know how old they are or he's just spinning.


"One of the things I'm really excited about is that we’re looking for people who are a little more identifiable and contemporary," he explains. "I always thought one of the things that was attractive about the original series was the 'everyman on the street' point of view that O’Neill had to science fiction. It made the characters identifiable. They were more like we would be in a science fiction situation, and how we would react. And that’s what we’re trying to do with the new show – create characters that are going to be challenged by the situation. The team that ends up on the ship is not really who was supposed to go, and in some cases they’re very unprepared and unqualified to be in that situation. So they don’t have all the answers as quickly, and the challenges are greater than they would be for people who have seen it all and don’t have as far to go as characters when they encounter an incredible situation."

I'd really like to believe this is true as the whole "supermen from Earth" thing is oh so played out by now, but I can't help but worry about what he means by "identifiable" in the context of the group of early 20 somthings as viewed by a modern TV producer.

ShadowMaat
November 5th, 2008, 10:17 PM
I don't understand how it could be an accident that the team gets there.
Two words: gate malfunction. ;) They were supposed to be gating to some lame function/inspection thing and wound up on the ship instead. Or a tour of the ship is the lame function/inspection thing and then someone leans against the wrong button and things go a bit wobbly. :D

amconway
November 5th, 2008, 10:20 PM
I don't understand the notion that you have to be twenty to be out of your depth when trapped on an alien space craft, or be new to intergalactic travel. Clearly age has nothing to do with how experienced a character might be. They might as well just admit they want young actors simply because they want young actors, not because it is necessary to the plot they have outlined in any way.

Aryk Celestis
November 5th, 2008, 10:22 PM
That's great and all, but I'm worried about the same thing as others... If they're not qualified at all, how the heck do they get onboard the Destiny? The only thing I can see is that the entire crew makes it onboard but is killed off by something or other and the only part of the crew that's left, is the incompetent bunch.

fwupow
November 5th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Spoilerized for space:
"After unlocking the mystery of the Stargate's ninth chevron, a team of explorers travels to an unmanned starship called the Destiny, launched by The Ancients at the height of their civilization as a grand experiment set in motion, but never completed.

What starts as a simple reconnaissance turns into a never ending mission, as the Stargate Universe crew discovers the ship is unable to return to Earth, and they must now fend for themselves aboard the Destiny. "
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/08/istargate_universei_has_a_go2.shtml

Coop's Latest comments:
"It’s an all new cast," he confirms. "There will certainly be plenty of opportunity for cross over, and there certainly might be some familiar faces in the premiere and in subsequent episodes. But the core of the show is all new."
http://stargate.mgm.com/news_detail.php?id=114


I'd guess that some scientists like Jackson, McKay, Zelenka et al, unlock the "mystery of the 9nth Chevron" and then a reconaissance team is sent. The sending of a reconnaissance team, however, doesn't explain how a couple of the 6 core cast members get there (Carpenter & Hitchcock to be precise).

Presumably there is more sending of more people later on, after all, there has to be a supply of people who will die (red-shirts). It doesn't make all that much sense for the SGC to send an inexperienced team. You'd expect the MALP to go first and then a very experienced team. It'll be interesting to see what circumstances arise that result in Col. Young & Company to be the one's who get in the gate.

AutumnDream
November 5th, 2008, 11:19 PM
What's this about cross-over? That is pretty unchill, man. I thought they were supposed to be stuck in a desperate situation?

Aryk Celestis
November 5th, 2008, 11:22 PM
^My guess is they'll get back in regular contact with Earth in about one season.

NoobTau'ri
November 6th, 2008, 03:19 AM
As long however, as they get rid of that horrific "teenage girl's fantasy" and "party girl" thing for all of the different characters.

I couldn't agree more. If there is one thing that I hate about Stargate are the writers ruining it to please the female fans by submitting to their "thunk" and "whump" fantasies. Every episode, we have some male character beaten to a bloody pulp or showing skin because the female fans want to see it. It's time for the writers to realise that 90% of sci-fi fans are male and that we don't want to see that ****. Not only that, there's the whole double-standard thing: would a board tolerate a bunch of male fans talking about how much seeing women getting beaten turns them on? Of course not. Then, there's the fact that most moderators in this board are female, another conundrum given that there are more male members than female ones in this board.

NoobTau'ri
November 6th, 2008, 03:35 AM
As for Stargate Universe, I won't watch it. Period. Only a total fan boy would watch this, and even worse have logos of it on their avatar. If I wanted to watch SGU, I would simply go watch any of the 9 different Star Trek versions out there. The premisse of SGU is retarded not only because it has been done a trillion times before, but also because nothing can beat the original Star Trek as the ultimate space exploration show. But what really pisses me off is what the writers are doing with the Ancients. They were supposed to be this god-like race possesed of technology beyond Human comprehension, and yet now we realize they were a civilization on the level of Star Trek, or 24th century Earth. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Sad. I expected so much more. I expected the Ancients to be something like "Dancers At The End Of Time", or "The Gods Themselves" from Isaac Asimov's classic, or like the Xeelee from Stephen Baxter's "The Xeelee Sequence", or at the very least like the Organians from Star Trek itself or the Vorlons from Babylon 9. You know, truly hyper-advanced civilizations that are at least millions but more likely billions of years ahead of Earth Humanity. But instead we learn from SGU that the Ancients were a basic space-farring race, like the Federation from Star Trek, that is only a few centuries ahead of where we are now. Pathetic. It pisses me off.

Stormtrooper
November 6th, 2008, 03:43 AM
^My guess is they'll get back in regular contact with Earth in about one season.

I wouldn't put it past these people :S

Skydiver
November 6th, 2008, 04:29 AM
"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

No they weren't. late 20's maybe, early 30's. They're in their 40's now and it's been 12 years since the show began (give or take) so they couldn't have been in their early 20's.

maybe their CHARACTERS were....although if daniel was born in 1969 - as it states in canon in season two - then he couldn't have been in his 20's. Unless there's some new math going on that we just dont' get ;)

And if sam was in the gulf war - early 90's - she had to have been at least 18, which also means that her character wasn't in her early 20's in the late 90's when the show began.

either revisionist history or coop's exhibiting his normal 'i remember what i want to remember and how i want to remember it' tendencies. :)

kymeric
November 6th, 2008, 05:15 AM
Spoilerized for space:
"After unlocking the mystery of the Stargate's ninth chevron, a team of explorers travels to an unmanned starship called the Destiny, launched by The Ancients at the height of their civilization as a grand experiment set in motion, but never completed.

What starts as a simple reconnaissance turns into a never ending mission, as the Stargate Universe crew discovers the ship is unable to return to Earth, and they must now fend for themselves aboard the Destiny. "
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/08/istargate_universei_has_a_go2.shtml

Coop's Latest comments:
"It’s an all new cast," he confirms. "There will certainly be plenty of opportunity for cross over, and there certainly might be some familiar faces in the premiere and in subsequent episodes. But the core of the show is all new."
http://stargate.mgm.com/news_detail.php?id=114


I'd guess that some scientists like Jackson, McKay, Zelenka et al, unlock the "mystery of the 9nth Chevron" and then a reconaissance team is sent. The sending of a reconnaissance team, however, doesn't explain how a couple of the 6 core cast members get there (Carpenter & Hitchcock to be precise).

Presumably there is more sending of more people later on, after all, there has to be a supply of people who will die (red-shirts). It doesn't make all that much sense for the SGC to send an inexperienced team. You'd expect the MALP to go first and then a very experienced team. It'll be interesting to see what circumstances arise that result in Col. Young & Company to be the one's who get in the gate.

/Agree

Im guessing they get sent there on a minor recon mission expecting nothing, and are stranded. Its like when sg1 was looking for the lost city, how man sg teams ended up in some dead-end like vis uban? Universe's cast should be like sg-23 thru 25 teams getting sent on what is probably a waste of time, except it isnt and now they have to survive and step up.

xandder
November 6th, 2008, 07:08 AM
As for Stargate Universe, I won't watch it. Period. Only a total fan boy would watch this, and even worse have logos of it on their avatar. If I wanted to watch SGU, I would simply go watch any of the 9 different Star Trek versions out there. The premisse of SGU is retarded not only because it has been done a trillion times before, but also because nothing can beat the original Star Trek as the ultimate space exploration show. But what really pisses me off is what the writers are doing with the Ancients. They were supposed to be this god-like race possesed of technology beyond Human comprehension, and yet now we realize they were a civilization on the level of Star Trek, or 24th century Earth. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Sad. I expected so much more. I expected the Ancients to be something like "Dancers At The End Of Time", or "The Gods Themselves" from Isaac Asimov's classic, or like the Xeelee from Stephen Baxter's "The Xeelee Sequence", or at the very least like the Organians from Star Trek itself or the Vorlons from Babylon 9. You know, truly hyper-advanced civilizations that are at least millions but more likely billions of years ahead of Earth Humanity. But instead we learn from SGU that the Ancients were a basic space-farring race, like the Federation from Star Trek, that is only a few centuries ahead of where we are now. Pathetic. It pisses me off.




Im guessing that you watched Atlantis, so why would you be mad at Universe because it 'apparently' paints the ancients as 'retards.' I'm sorry but nowhere in what we have heard about the new show does it state the ancients as being stupid, Atlantis on the other hand has done nothing to paint the ancients as anything but being completely stupid. They apparently couldn't do anything right, period, well maybe a couple of things, ie the satellite weapon and the time machine, everything else has been a complete disaster, they could even beat the wraith, while we have been able to hold them back and pretty much kick their ass at every turn, and thats with our 'primative' ships.

i for one am really looking foward to Universe i have high hopes that it will be a return to form for the ancients, everything we saw in SG1 regarding the ancients was positive, and they were 'GOD LIKE'
That must be the reason why the writers changed the name to lanteans in Atlantis, because they were too 'stupid' to be considered real Ancients.
Give me anything to do with the Ancients and the Altera, because they rocked, but i hope i never see anything with the lanteans again, they suck big time.

Naonak
November 6th, 2008, 07:32 AM
As for Stargate Universe, I won't watch it. Period. Only a total fan boy would watch this, and even worse have logos of it on their avatar.
:rolleyes:

NoobTau'ri
November 6th, 2008, 08:43 AM
:rolleyes:

Well, you have the Joker as avatar and Jack Bauer in your logo so that doesen't apply to you.;)

You know what I would like to see? Jack Bauer fighting the Wraith in Pegasus. At least it would give the show some credibility that Earth could defeat a very advanced and galaxy-wide civilization like the Wraith with 100 people and 3 ships.

pwells
November 6th, 2008, 08:43 AM
As for Stargate Universe, I won't watch it. Period. Only a total fan boy would watch this, and even worse have logos of it on their avatar. If I wanted to watch SGU, I would simply go watch any of the 9 different Star Trek versions out there. The premisse of SGU is retarded not only because it has been done a trillion times before, but also because nothing can beat the original Star Trek as the ultimate space exploration show. But what really pisses me off is what the writers are doing with the Ancients. They were supposed to be this god-like race possesed of technology beyond Human comprehension, and yet now we realize they were a civilization on the level of Star Trek, or 24th century Earth. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Sad. I expected so much more. I expected the Ancients to be something like "Dancers At The End Of Time", or "The Gods Themselves" from Isaac Asimov's classic, or like the Xeelee from Stephen Baxter's "The Xeelee Sequence", or at the very least like the Organians from Star Trek itself or the Vorlons from Babylon 9. You know, truly hyper-advanced civilizations that are at least millions but more likely billions of years ahead of Earth Humanity. But instead we learn from SGU that the Ancients were a basic space-farring race, like the Federation from Star Trek, that is only a few centuries ahead of where we are now. Pathetic. It pisses me off.

If people don't want to give SGU a try, that's their prerogative. But if you make judgements like that about a show without even seeing one episode, that's just harsh and presumptuous.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with seeing the pre-ascended Ancient culture and society. And before SGU, we already knew from SG Atlantis that the Ancients were not God-like because of their defeat at the hands of the wraith.

What I wouldn't want to see is their society as Ascended beings. This should remain mysterious and beyond reach, which is something I didn't like about Star Trek Voyager when they revealed details about the Q Continuum.

Lord Serapsis
November 6th, 2008, 08:48 AM
People seem to be questioning how an 'inexperienced' team would get onto such a ship. Here's an idea for how they might do it:

I have no idea where they're going with the ninth chevron, but my idea for justifying the team being on the Destiny were I writing the pilot, would be that it was expected to be quite a routine mission. The Destiny's existance is discovered in the records of the Atlantis database, which claims that it has useful technology on it (say, a ZPM, but you could change this to taste) and met with some disaster that caused it to be abandoned early in its mission.

An SG team is sent to the derelict to retrieve this, along with an expert in ancient systems (Eli Hitchcock) and an IOA observer (Chloe Carpenter) is foisted on what should be a routine search and acquisition mission.

A MALP goes through, and confirms that the structure is intact, and although there's a energy trace of a near-fully charged ZPM (or whatever you want if you're tired of ZPMs) but the entire ship is inactive, powered down by its original crew and abandoned. The team goes through in space-suits. Cue some slight comedy of trying to get the less experienced members into the things.

Throw in (for logical reasons, if they're after a ZPM) an Asgard hand held dialling stone, like Thor used on occasion, to get them back, and it should be the ideal kind of mission to send IOA types who want evidence of the Stargate Program's contuing usefulness on.

The whole thing should be a mix of the Gieger-esque look of head-suckers, and the strange, almost indian look of ancient outposts. Mysterious stone control panels, including the one from Dakara/Time Loop devices. Sculpted, organic chairs that look like something from the alien ship in Alien. Though there should be some elements of familiar design too, and of course, a stargate.

They manage to turn some systems on, in order to retrieve the ship's power core. In doing this, they discover why the ship was abandoned. Strangely, the 'disaster' that befell the crew wasn't something that made them cancel their mission; more of something personal (relatives infected by the plague?) that caused its user to abandon the ship and return home in a hurry - it was never reclaimed, because this was at the height (scale-wise, at least) of Alterran civilization; they had thousands of these things going about the universe at the time.

Unfortunately, there's a slight wrinkle. Unexpectedly, Chloe (I don't like the name much, but it's been published...) has the ATA gene, and in response to her prescence the ship is coming to life, and resuming its original mission. The first evidence of this is when the atmosphere processors come online. But after Atlantis, this is seen as normal. They only realise something's going wrong when, as they try to dial-out to report (from the ZPM's power; for added drama, the Asgard device should be one-charge) the stargate refuses to engage, because the ship has entered hyperspace, and is resuming its original mission.

They try to de-activate it, or even turn it around and head to Earth. Unfortunately, to his horror Eli discovers, when trying to get the computer to cooperate, that as well as language drift over thousands of years (which they had the foresight to take a Lantean scanner programmed to provide translations to English and Lantean for) the computer languages and even precepts underlying them, had completely changed. They have no (easy) way of changing the ship's course or settings. They are trapped...


Cue some antagonist introduction as the ship (built for speed; 90% or more of its volume should be engines, especially hyperdrive engines) arrives at its first destination, with a very unhappy SG team on it. They're not sure how to modify the stargate to return to Earth or Atlantis, and the ship was, unlike normal stargates, or even Atlantis, designed very specifically for a highly trained Alterran crew to run it, with many systems far beyond their knowledge.


Hence, it wouldn't be that they actually get on the ship by accident, so much as they'd be completely out of their depth as circumstances change a routine mission into an extraordinary one.

On an unrelated note, I don't really buy into the 'Lanteans suck, Alterrans rule' thing personally, but I do think it would be interesting to see the more ancient and mysterious 'Milky Way' style of organic, flowing architecture again. To my mind, the numerical peak of Ancient civilization was before the plague, while the Lanteans might have had more advanced technology in some areas, they seemed to have a very small population.

NoobTau'ri
November 6th, 2008, 09:03 AM
everything we saw in SG1 regarding the ancients was positive, and they were 'GOD LIKE'

This is pretty much the only statement from your post I agree with. The Ancients in SG-1 did appear god-like. True. Even the stone look to their technology appeared magical and ethereal. The Ancients of SG-1 were the god-like race I imagined the Ancients to be. They were not the Star Trek a-few-centuries-ahead-of-us race of SGA. And here's the secret of why the Ancients in SG-1 appear so ridiculously advanced: we only saw "hints" of their tech and their power. We never really got to see them or their civilization, or large concentrations of their technological devices. Pretty much the only thing of them we saw every show were stargates, and that's it. Only very occasionally we saw something like the Dakara Device, that posseses god-like power and it only "hinted" of how scarily and awfully advanced and powerful they were. In other words, the reason why the Ancients from SG-1 appear so godly advanced is because their tech was mostly the product of our imagination. Or as Arthur C Clarke once said:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic". The Ancients in SG-1 fullfilled this ideal, as we didn't even try to understand their tech because we realized that it was from a civilization literally millions and millions and millions of years ahead of us. That is, if our technology is incomprehensible for the Paleolithic cavemen from 50,000 years ago, then imagine how incomprehensible the technology from a civilization that is ahead of us a thousand times more years than we are ahead of Paleolithic cavemen is. Just imagine that for a second. As soon as the writers showed the Ancients in SGA and that most of their tech was roughly on the level of the Federation from Star trek, they completely lost their appeal and magic.

Lord Serapsis
November 6th, 2008, 09:22 AM
The decay of uber-races is, unfortunately, pretty much an unavoidable consequence of exploring them. A good comparison would be the Time Lords in the British Sci Fi series Doctor Who. Originally, quite where the Doctor (a Time Lord) came from was a mystery. When they were revealed, they were terrifyingly powerful and competant. They could effortlessly defeat any antagonist. They could erase them from history completely. Then we learnt that they were prepared to let dangerous renegades run around picking on the lesser races. Then they were threatened by an ancient mythical figure of limitless power, then they were threatened with complete destruction by one of those same renegades. Eventually they were invaded by a race countless millions of years behind them technologically, and were all around pathetic incompetants.

The smartest decision the producers of the revived Doctor Who series ever made was to write them out of the setting as having mutually annihilated (almost all of) the most powerful villain faction in 'The Last Great Time War.'

In the same manner, we might hope that Universe will restore some respectability for the Ancients by having some distance between them and the characters - inexperienced characters wouldn't be the world's greatest experts on Ancient technology, like McKay. They wouldn't be able to improve on the Ancients' designs, or any such thing. The Ancients may be treated as awe inspiring figures of the distant past again.

Skydiver
November 6th, 2008, 09:38 AM
how does the inexperienced team get on there?

little senator's daughter will be playing hookey from her daddy at the christening ceremony or wander off on a tour, and the other civilian dude will be tagging along....OMG, an emergency erupts adn there's no time to get teh civvies off the ship...or they're stow aways, the ship takes off, with its brave little skeleton crew, completes its mission but is trapped.

or it's prometheus all over again, they're on a tour, baddies try to hijack the ship, they are hostages, the baddies get defeated but they're trapped and don't know where they are

Getting civilians trapped ona ship is easy. they'll use the 'senator's sexy but spoiled kid on a tour' angle to get her on there. or they'll remake 'space camp' and the inexperienced are accidentally launched

that plot angle has been done many times before. the only question is which old movie/show they'll homage to make it happen

Jedi_Master_Bra'tac
November 6th, 2008, 10:46 AM
I don't understand how it could be an accident that the team gets there. Presumably, they have to leave from Stargate Command, which means they need some pretty high military clearance to get in the building and they don't give that out to just anyone. Also, alarms go off when the Stargate is activated, so they couldn't accidentally fall through the gate and end up on the Destiny. As Hammond once said "If someone sneezes near [the gate], I get a report."

The only way I can see it happening is if some disaster befalls Stargate Command and Landry orders them to take party chick through the gate for some protective reason. In which case, I would be much more interested in finding out how said disaster is worked out in the SGC than their lives on the Destiny.

I don't get it.

*shrugs*
Maybe Walter gets the mission files mixed up and sends them to the wrong planet.


No they weren't. late 20's maybe, early 30's. They're in their 40's now and it's been 12 years since the show began (give or take) so they couldn't have been in their early 20's.

maybe their CHARACTERS were....although if daniel was born in 1969 - as it states in canon in season two - then he couldn't have been in his 20's. Unless there's some new math going on that we just dont' get ;)

And if sam was in the gulf war - early 90's - she had to have been at least 18, which also means that her character wasn't in her early 20's in the late 90's when the show began.

either revisionist history or coop's exhibiting his normal 'i remember what i want to remember and how i want to remember it' tendencies. :)

He's using base-8

GateFanSamJack
November 6th, 2008, 10:49 AM
They could say that the people who end up on the ship were meant for an entourage of people who all happen to have the Ancient gene (Ancients used here as a plot device to give a degree of freedom in the association that puts this group of people in the same place, at the same time, not to tick-off the anti-Ancients). This entourage could have been on their way to an off-world location where a large number of people with the Ancient gene were needed to operate something with a lot of Ancient-gene activated chairs and either get to the ship by way of a mishap or the multi-chair experiment itself.

Maybe the multi-chair experiment is the ship, but doesn't seem far from areas of space they are more comfortable with. The problem comes with the whole going away from known areas of space at a high speed thing.

I'm very happy about this announcement about the characters. I couldn't stand one more Wesley Crusher. I don't have a problem with people discovering talents and developing expertise because they have to, but one more anecdote about a Starfleet Academy valedictorian winning a marathon...you know what I mean.

There's nothing wrong with people doing great things. I just have a little problem with the message that some central authority has to recognize there's something special about you first.

I don't know why they are called incompetents in this thread just because they are average. Oh, yeah, that whole thing where most of us were confined to a small room with our same-age peers with nothing meaningful to do for much of our formative years...

jenks
November 6th, 2008, 01:40 PM
"It’s an all new cast," he confirms. "There will certainly be plenty of opportunity for cross over, and there certainly might be some familiar faces in the premiere and in subsequent episodes. But the core of the show is all new."

That intrigues me, because didn't Mallozzi say that would be unlikely?

NoobTau'ri
November 6th, 2008, 02:27 PM
The decay of uber-races is, unfortunately, pretty much an unavoidable consequence of exploring them. A good comparison would be the Time Lords in the British Sci Fi series Doctor Who. Originally, quite where the Doctor (a Time Lord) came from was a mystery. When they were revealed, they were terrifyingly powerful and competant. They could effortlessly defeat any antagonist. They could erase them from history completely. Then we learnt that they were prepared to let dangerous renegades run around picking on the lesser races. Then they were threatened by an ancient mythical figure of limitless power, then they were threatened with complete destruction by one of those same renegades. Eventually they were invaded by a race countless millions of years behind them technologically, and were all around pathetic incompetants.

The smartest decision the producers of the revived Doctor Who series ever made was to write them out of the setting as having mutually annihilated (almost all of) the most powerful villain faction in 'The Last Great Time War.'

In the same manner, we might hope that Universe will restore some respectability for the Ancients by having some distance between them and the characters - inexperienced characters wouldn't be the world's greatest experts on Ancient technology, like McKay. They wouldn't be able to improve on the Ancients' designs, or any such thing. The Ancients may be treated as awe inspiring figures of the distant past again.

I couldn't agree more. I have decided to green you. Uber races that are millions and millions and millions of years ahead of us should never be shown, because there is nothing that does them justice: the Human mind simply cannot conceive such technology. The best way to describe them is to just give tangential "hints" about their power, and the leave the reader/watcher to use his imagination to fill in the gaps.

Now, if you're a genius possesed of super-human creativity, then you might try to describe an uber-race in detail but you still need to be very knowledgeable in science and posses clearly superior intelligence to describe an uber-race in detail. In my opinion, the only time this has been done successfully was by Stephen Baxter in his "The Xeelee Sequence", where he describes in precise detail an uber-race called the Xelee, which evolved for billions of years. Some of his descriptions are awe-inspiring, like the Xelee using the mass of entire galaxies as weapons by accelerating it using reverse gravitic dynamics - turning entire galaxies into ginormous meteors -, or engineering both their past and their future by creating infinite parallel universes with different laws of physics and choosing the best universe as "outcome" or "past" and then quantum transfering these parallel universes to their own universe in any locus of space-time they choose. This is the kind of utterly crazy **** that I would expect from a civilization that evolved for billions and billions of years. Completely mind-boggling ****.

flynn1959
November 6th, 2008, 02:39 PM
No they weren't. late 20's maybe, early 30's. They're in their 40's now and it's been 12 years since the show began (give or take) so they couldn't have been in their early 20's.

maybe their CHARACTERS were....although if daniel was born in 1969 - as it states in canon in season two - then he couldn't have been in his 20's. Unless there's some new math going on that we just dont' get ;)

And if sam was in the gulf war - early 90's - she had to have been at least 18, which also means that her character wasn't in her early 20's in the late 90's when the show began.

either revisionist history or coop's exhibiting his normal 'i remember what i want to remember and how i want to remember it' tendencies. :)

Well Michael being the baby of the group is still in his thirties now, he was I think 26 when SG1 started and Amanda was in her early thirties - 31/32. The characters would have been in their thirties when the show began. So it does seem that Cooper's memory is faulty.

Mister Oragahn
November 6th, 2008, 02:50 PM
- Shooting the premise with a railgun -

After knowing that sending a whole team to a distant location, notably related to the Alterans, like it happened with Atlantis, the SGC and IOA would perfectly understand the value of verification and trilpe checks.

So build a rover, basically nothing more than a stick on four wheels with a camera, a radio and a mechanical arm, plus an engine and some sensors, and program it to look around the arrival room to search for a DHD.

Program it to compose the address of a planet in the Milky Way (not Earth for obvious security measures).

If no DHD is found, either retry with a different plan or close the project.

If the equivalent of a DHD is found, wait for the robot to dial the gate back to the Milky Way.
If nothing happens within 24 hours, attempt a new mission with a different plan and try to learn why the first robot failed, notably by trying to obtain the video the first robot will have recorded, or close the project.

If you cannot design a sufficiently advanced robot, search into the Asgard database, and just in case, have the team equipped with a transportable Asgard core and a good legion of big naqahdah cores that would fit through any stargate.

Considering what happened with the Ori, you could add a not so far fetched extra degree of security by having the contact made from a world in Ida. We know the SGC can take ships over there. Therefore if **** hits the fan, it will only affect Ida, not the Milky Way.

This is how Stargate Universe never started.
Thank you.

Mister Oragahn
November 6th, 2008, 02:58 PM
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0850102/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0788218/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118480/

So he's worked with both of these people for X many years and doesn't actually know how old they are or he's just spinning.


Neither are good indicators anyway.
What matters is what is done with the characters, but the painting and the close quarters family friendly context clearly scream for mass shipping in a disturbing mix of 90120 and Captain Planet, and that through the same treatment which has made recent Stargate so subpar in regards to what was made before.

ShadowMaat
November 6th, 2008, 05:40 PM
how does the inexperienced team get on there?

little senator's daughter will be playing hookey from her daddy at the christening ceremony or wander off on a tour, and the other civilian dude will be tagging along....
If it turns out that Daddy's Little Girl really IS stowed away on the ship having a quickie with some random guy* I will LMAO. Then I will glue it back on and laugh it off again. ;)





*As I predicted here (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=8949745), and I SO call dibs on this!

Skydiver
November 6th, 2008, 05:51 PM
i doubt they'll take the 'sneaking in the closet for a quickie', not even coop can be that crass...but i'm willing to bet a temper tantrum and storming off or hiding from someone or some sort of 'oops' factor will come into play.

because the 'tragic' 'we're not supposed to be here' will be a major plot point and reason for the civvies (and may the younger military folks) to have a joint pity party for a few eps

ShadowMaat
November 6th, 2008, 06:02 PM
Oh, I think they might be that crass. I wouldn't put anything past that lot. :rolleyes:

the fifth man
November 6th, 2008, 06:38 PM
Oh, I think they might be that crass. I wouldn't put anything past that lot. :rolleyes:

Well, I guess I am one of the few that still has some faith in TPTB. I am proud of it though, and look forward to giving Universe a fair shot.

Skydiver
November 6th, 2008, 06:40 PM
who knows, maybe they'll surprise us all.

if not, cliche of the week will make an easy drinking game :D

although, the lack of accuracy in coop's statements does tend to give one pause. it seems his MO in dealing with fans hasn't changed

Jackie
November 6th, 2008, 06:46 PM
If people don't want to give SGU a try, that's their prerogative. But if you make judgements like that about a show without even seeing one episode, that's just harsh and presumptuous.


LOL...people make "judgments" about things they haven't seen, tried, smelled or tasted every single day. When you go to the store you make judgments about a product before you buy it and that judgment is usually based on packaging alone.

It's not only human to prejudge but part of our instinct to survive. Caveman managed to avoid eating things that could kill them for a reason after all.

That basic instinct has now evolved to prejudgment. If I go out to a movie for a night--I have to decide which movie I want to see. I have to make that choice on a synopsis a single sentence long.

Why is it "harsh and presumptuous" to do the same after reading many, many lines of information about a tv show?

amconway
November 6th, 2008, 07:58 PM
I couldn't agree more. If there is one thing that I hate about Stargate are the writers ruining it to please the female fans by submitting to their "thunk" and "whump" fantasies. Every episode, we have some male character beaten to a bloody pulp or showing skin because the female fans want to see it. It's time for the writers to realise that 90% of sci-fi fans are male and that we don't want to see that ****. Not only that, there's the whole double-standard thing: would a board tolerate a bunch of male fans talking about how much seeing women getting beaten turns them on? Of course not. Then, there's the fact that most moderators in this board are female, another conundrum given that there are more male members than female ones in this board.

Dude! I really have to take exception to that. As a female fan, that is never what I have wanted from the show. We've had numerous conversations about the show. Have I ever once led you to believe that I view Stargate (by which I really mean SG-1-not a huge Atlantis fan) as some kind source of a voyeristc S&M thing? It's the exploration, the ideas, and the interesting chracters that I'm there for. In fact, I believe that every conversation that I've had on this board was about ideas, ethic, canon, etc. Why would you assume that's what most of the female fans want? In fact, why would you assume that opinions on this board are necessarily representative of fans as a whole, either male or female? What an astonishingly sweeping generalization! Could I be more offended? No... No, I could not.

NoobTau'ri
November 6th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Why would you assume that's what most of the female fans want?

Just go to the characters&relationship board and you'll see dozens of multi-thousand page threads started by female fans discussing how hot it is to see Sheppard, McKay and other male characters getting beaten to a bloody pulp. Again, this would never be tolerated if male members started threads saying that it's hot to see Teyla, Sam and other female characters getting their asses kicked. It probably has something to do with the fact that most mods in this board are female, a conundrum given that 90% of Stargate fans are male. What is good for the goose is not good for the geese according to the mostly female mods of this board.

g.o.d
November 6th, 2008, 09:55 PM
unexpirienced, unprepared and in the end they're going to defeat countless of nasty enemies.just like SG-1 and FART

Ouroboros
November 6th, 2008, 10:14 PM
Neither are good indicators anyway.
What matters is what is done with the characters, but the painting and the close quarters family friendly context clearly scream for mass shipping in a disturbing mix of 90120 and Captain Planet, and that through the same treatment which has made recent Stargate so subpar in regards to what was made before.

That's the impression I'm getting. That these "identifiable relevant issues to 20 somethings meant to bring in new fans to the stargate franchise" are all going to involve them trying to bed each other while dropping pop culture lingo and doing their best to act like they're anything but characters in a "nerdy science fiction show".

I'm also loving how they're already dropping hints that the whole idea of this team being isolated on the other side of the universe is going to be at best a temporary inconvenience. You know, more or less exactly the same mistake that killed the would have been unique premise and entire sense of actual danger in Atlantis. What was that I always say about them never learning...?

ShadowMaat
November 6th, 2008, 10:33 PM
Well, I guess I am one of the few that still has some faith in TPTB. I am proud of it though, and look forward to giving Universe a fair shot.

You should be proud! With all the changes that have taken place over the years- from big things like casting to subtler things like tone and humor- and to have weathered all that AND fandom and still have faith in TPTB?? You're just the kind of audience they want and I hope they don't stab you in the back with your own enthusiasm. I'm far too cynical to have faith in anything anymore, least of all a bunch of... well, let's be polite and call them writers. ;) And like many good writers, they write what they know and love. That's exactly why I won't watch SGU. :P

Skydiver
November 7th, 2008, 04:24 AM
i think folks are making massive presumptions about what fans want

first, not all female fans want skin and whump. Do some? sure. And i have no doubt that the male fans enjoy teyla's tank tops as much as the female fans liked the arm porn of season 7 and 8.

What tends to divide the gender is....GENERALLY SPEAKING, the male fans aren't necessarily demanding an in depth plot or involved story...it's superficial. short stories, short arcs, exciting visual images - boobs butts and bombs to be totally cliched.

while, GENERALLY SPEAKING - what many female fans consider to be interesting is the more altruistic stuff...character moments, talking, interacting, dealing with each other.

(and yes, before people scream these are GENERAL stereotypes and neither of them is absolute)

if/when a show is aiming for a more general appeal, they have a mix of the exciting stuff and the 'boring character stuff'. Each group gets a 'fix' so to speak.

but we have seen a shift in recent years, where the shows have been 'advised' to cater more to the 'easier to do exciting stuff' than to the harder to do emotional stuff.

SFX are easy. they're easily quantifiable and definable and predictible. 'gimme a space battle' 'gimme the planet blowing up' 'dude, i wanna see this beauty shot of the ship with a nebula in the back ground'

easy.

Now, if you say 'i want a tender moment between sheppard and teyla'....what's a tender moment? him snogging her? or just a chat? or him looking at her or her at him....how do you define it?

and since it's harder to define, its' harder to reach a concensus of what is or isn't 'tender', so instead of spending hours debating over it, they stick with the simple and easy.

truly skilled and creative show writers/producers can juggle both extremes adn create a balance. those that lack imagination and skill and ability will find it easier to take refuge in the easy to define and easy to quantify 'shock and awe'.

unfortunatley, as more and more shows fall back on the easy, shows - in general - get more and more disposible. If all that's drawing you to a show is its effects, hey, get bored with those and there are 9 more shows doing the exact same thing. so it's easy to change channels adn find something else to watch.

viewers are fickle. and when you're using little more than glitz to attract them, they have no emotional attachment to the show and easily move on.

Stormtrooper
November 7th, 2008, 04:28 AM
That's the impression I'm getting. That these "identifiable relevant issues to 20 somethings meant to bring in new fans to the stargate franchise" are all going to involve them trying to bed each other while dropping pop culture lingo and doing their best to act like they're anything but characters in a "nerdy science fiction show".

I'm also loving how they're already dropping hints that the whole idea of this team being isolated on the other side of the universe is going to be at best a temporary inconvenience. You know, more or less exactly the same mistake that killed the would have been unique premise and entire sense of actual danger in Atlantis. What was that I always say about them never learning...?

They should also drop the 6-year contract deception, and tell SGU actors they have a job until their SG-1 counterparts and possibly McKay need one. Wanna bet the producers will suddenly and unexpectedly (= when time's right) reach the conclusion they need to bring some older characters to SGU after all? ;)

Skydiver
November 7th, 2008, 04:37 AM
i give sgu less than 2 years before they find a way for stunt casting. presuming the show lasts that long.

hey, all they need to do is have an 'asgard holographic interface' in the ship, have it programmed with the minds of the 'best and brightest' of the sgc in its databases and presto chango, instant stunt casting crossover without the team ever having to get in touch with home

Mister Oragahn
November 7th, 2008, 05:34 AM
i give sgu less than 2 years before they find a way for stunt casting. presuming the show lasts that long.

hey, all they need to do is have an 'asgard holographic interface' in the ship, have it programmed with the minds of the 'best and brightest' of the sgc in its databases and presto chango, instant stunt casting crossover without the team ever having to get in touch with home

What about my fantastic explanation (http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=9188007&postcount=31) on page 2 about why there's no reason for the premise to actually happen, if experience based on past disasters, logic and rather standard SGC safety protocols were actually followed?
You know, when Hammond would refuse sending teams away unless he was sure it was sufficiently safe, which of course any quick check of Destiny would prove to be the contrary.

I've been sitting in the dark, at a wooden table barely lit by a crass candle, at the back of an inn belonging to a small town lost on some random medieval looking world.
I saw how the new fans of SG-1, those who preferred Fargate rather than S1-S5/S7, ramming the front door, squealing and bleeding people's ears to death with their complaints about how their show was canceled for SGA.
Ahh... I never really dug those people.
Then came the other horde of drooling enraged lemmings, waving their majestic "Save X" banners, and dying in a final shriek of torment and agony as SGA was canceled for SGU.
Well, I never really liked those guys either.
Now, I can't wait for the incoming freak wave of 13 years old SGU mobs to kick in, shouting, howling and vociferating unspeakable words from the height of their restricted Playskool keyboards, pointing vengeful short fingers at the power that be for canceling SGU for that new SGX show.

I think I'll order another beer. I'm convinced they should have never touched the ninth chevron, especially with such a lousy explanation.

Mister Oragahn
November 7th, 2008, 05:50 AM
i think folks are making massive presumptions about what fans want

first, not all female fans want skin and whump. Do some? sure. And i have no doubt that the male fans enjoy teyla's tank tops...



Actually no. First because I prefer cute faces rather that blank characters for whom the only support they get is a bra and atrocious wigs.


What tends to divide the gender is....GENERALLY SPEAKING, the male fans aren't necessarily demanding an in depth plot or involved story...it's superficial. short stories, short arcs, exciting visual images - boobs butts and bombs to be totally cliched.

while, GENERALLY SPEAKING - what many female fans consider to be interesting is the more altruistic stuff...character moments, talking, interacting, dealing with each other.

(and yes, before people scream these are GENERAL stereotypes and neither of them is absolute)

The female fan description hardly sounds like a stereotype. I didn't read the words "love affair", "soap drama" and "tear jerking moments" in their description.
It's pretty much guys like boobs and shiny explosions, with fast food stories, easily assimilated, easily forgotten, all the more superficial thank you, while gals like deeper stuff, more honourable stuff (the altruistic part), character development, tension, etc.

I call that a feminist rant.
I'm sorry if the only hairy males you know have more to do with the homo erectus cousin than the homo sapiens variant of late, but for all I've seen and read, male fans are actually very engaged in the coherence of plots, the repercussions of actions, the longer arcs (while perfectly understanding that longer arcs can actually become boring in terms of show dynamics), the good characterization (beyond the soap stuff) and the intelligent themes which should have been addressed in episode A or B, but were not.

Lorr
November 7th, 2008, 06:36 AM
I'm trying to be patient and wait to see what actually shows up on screen, but it's difficult. The hints and premises revealed so far are less than inspiring, though. To me, everyting I've read has been a trainwreck of cliches, lowest common denominator tricks and ideas that have been rehashed too many times to count.

So many stories were left untold on SGA because focus was on two or three story lines. There was a whole city and galaxy to explore and Ancient thingies to find everywhere. And, new stories could have come on SG1 with the end of the Goa'uld and Ori.

Instead, we seem to be getting T&A and Zac Efron types (no offense to him) in an apparent effort to attract pre- and post-pubescents. Yikes! I sure hope not!

Ouroboros
November 7th, 2008, 08:23 AM
i think folks are making massive presumptions about what fans want

first, not all female fans want skin and whump. Do some? sure. And i have no doubt that the male fans enjoy teyla's tank tops as much as the female fans liked the arm porn of season 7 and 8.


Psssh Teyla my ass, bring on the Wraith queens!

You won't even have to worry about remembering their name in the morning!

EdenSG
November 7th, 2008, 03:58 PM
And this is the part that almost made me cry…

"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."

I want Stargate to continue. Not some peudo show that just has Stargate in the title. One of the things that has turned me off about SGU are the statements TPTB have made; “reinvent the franchise,” “retell the story for a new audience,” “We really don't want to be more of the same…,” “… will re-invent the format in a whole new way.” Now this new statement by Cooper – it just seems they are anxious to move away from the core ideas that made SG so successful and so beloved by fans. I guess young, desperate and inexperienced are in.

The more I hear about SGU the sadder I get, not angry, just sad. I am going to miss Stargate.

Skydiver
November 7th, 2008, 04:50 PM
so....gotta point out the oxy moron

'it says stargate in the title but it's also going to be something that is very different in tone'

anyone else feel a 'bait and switch' coming up?

call it 'stargate' but the round spinny thing never shows up.

what my cynical mind is thinking: let's milk the name and trick people into tuning in while what we really want to make is something totally different but we lack the faith and reputation to totally strike out on our own and really make something different

they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. milk the franchise name while 'making something new'

GraceONeill
November 7th, 2008, 06:23 PM
TBH, all this talk of SGU's premiere and how people aren't even going to give it a go makes me sad. But it's okay, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But for me, I will give it a go, just to be (hopefully) surprised in contrast to all the negative reviews its been getting from fans, before it has even started. Sure, it might not be what everyone is wanting and it does make me cautious when I see stuff like "'it says stargate in the title but it's also going to be something that is very different in tone". But seriously, what do you guys expect? Something that will make everyone happy, no matter what their age, gender, society etc?

And also, there is only so much that can be done without going too far from the original story without fans turning off anyway because it "has been done before".

ShadowMaat
November 7th, 2008, 07:10 PM
And also, there is only so much that can be done without going too far from the original story without fans turning off anyway because it "has been done before".
Oh, I have complete faith in TPTB's ability to churn out the same old shi stuff no matter how "different" they pretend their new show is gonna be from previous Stargates. ;)

rarocks24
November 7th, 2008, 07:20 PM
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0850102/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0788218/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118480/

So he's worked with both of these people for X many years and doesn't actually know how old they are or he's just spinning.



I'd really like to believe this is true as the whole "supermen from Earth" thing is oh so played out by now, but I can't help but worry about what he means by "identifiable" in the context of the group of early 20 somthings as viewed by a modern TV producer.

First off, shedding a few years of life from Amanda Tapping is a compliment. You always subtract a few years from a woman's age.

Also, Shanks was in his twenties when he started. He was born in 1970, and took on the role at the age of 27.

Ouroboros
November 7th, 2008, 07:59 PM
so....gotta point out the oxy moron

'it says stargate in the title but it's also going to be something that is very different in tone'

anyone else feel a 'bait and switch' coming up?

call it 'stargate' but the round spinny thing never shows up.

what my cynical mind is thinking: let's milk the name and trick people into tuning in while what we really want to make is something totally different but we lack the faith and reputation to totally strike out on our own and really make something different

they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. milk the franchise name while 'making something new'

And retain the liferaft of being able to throw in some recognisable characters from the prior 2 series if their daring new project starts to sink into a dark dreadful sea of fail.


First off, shedding a few years of life from Amanda Tapping is a compliment. You always subtract a few years from a woman's age.

Also, Shanks was in his twenties when he started. He was born in 1970, and took on the role at the age of 27.

So that would be mid or late 20s then right. Also note there's a difference between actor age and depicted character age.

felixtcat
November 7th, 2008, 11:17 PM
i just hope SGU is not going to be like the way most Sci fi have been,,

look at simular series....

lost in space.. trying to get home
lost world .. trying to get home
Original Battlestar Galactica ..trying to find Earth (umm Home)
Sliders... trying to get home
Voyager .. tryng to get home
Stargate infinity (ICK) BUT.... Trying to get Home
lOST ...Trying to lol find home.. then season 4 trying to get lost again LOL
Battlestar Galactia (new series) trying to find... awwe frack...
Stargate Atlantis ...trying to contact home (1st season)
Now....
Stargate Universe OMG how original.. WAIT FOR IT.. Trying to find home.

All we need now is Doctor Who Tie in with Stargate and he can bring them all home in thier own time.. Unless he gets lost then hes trying to find everyones HOMES

LOL

lets hope the quest for home makes them say.. Forget home it sux we have a shiny ship and want to explore....

Aryk Celestis
November 8th, 2008, 05:02 AM
^That's an interesting point, but you have to remember... The original Stargate movie was about trying to get home aswell..

Mister Oragahn
November 8th, 2008, 05:50 AM
^That's an interesting point, but you have to remember... The original Stargate movie was about trying to get home aswell..

Same for ALIENs and RAMBOs. ... ....

Stormtrooper
November 8th, 2008, 07:06 AM
Same for Back to the Future and Farscape, but you know what, at least the 'trying to get home' plot gives Universe a purpose and an overall story arc, and it COULD spawn some interesting standalone episodes. It's definitely preferable to a show about nothing such as the latest seasons of Atlantis. My problem with SGU is not exactly the plot. It's the 90210 casting call and the type of audience the suits are targeting.

Blistna
November 8th, 2008, 02:20 PM
And this doesn't sound promising at all:

"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."


Well, I disagree. I think having a new stargate show that is not going to be a repeat of what I seen in Atlantis and SG-1 is a good sign of something new.

(i don't take that comment bu cooper as trying to say the Stargate is not going to be used...but that it's completely different in style and presentation. not exactly sure why you don't like this comment...)


People seem to be questioning how an 'inexperienced' team would get onto such a ship. Here's an idea for how they might do it:

I have no idea where they're going with the ninth chevron, but my idea for justifying the team being on the Destiny were I writing the pilot, would be that it was expected to be quite a routine mission. The Destiny's existance is discovered in the records of the Atlantis database, which claims that it has useful technology on it (say, a ZPM, but you could change this to taste) and met with some disaster that caused it to be abandoned early in its mission.

An SG team is sent to the derelict to retrieve this, along with an expert in ancient systems (Eli Hitchcock) and an IOA observer (Chloe Carpenter) is foisted on what should be a routine search and acquisition mission.

A MALP goes through, and confirms that the structure is intact, and although there's a energy trace of a near-fully charged ZPM (or whatever you want if you're tired of ZPMs) but the entire ship is inactive, powered down by its original crew and abandoned. The team goes through in space-suits. Cue some slight comedy of trying to get the less experienced members into the things.

Throw in (for logical reasons, if they're after a ZPM) an Asgard hand held dialling stone, like Thor used on occasion, to get them back, and it should be the ideal kind of mission to send IOA types who want evidence of the Stargate Program's contuing usefulness on.

The whole thing should be a mix of the Gieger-esque look of head-suckers, and the strange, almost indian look of ancient outposts. Mysterious stone control panels, including the one from Dakara/Time Loop devices. Sculpted, organic chairs that look like something from the alien ship in Alien. Though there should be some elements of familiar design too, and of course, a stargate.

They manage to turn some systems on, in order to retrieve the ship's power core. In doing this, they discover why the ship was abandoned. Strangely, the 'disaster' that befell the crew wasn't something that made them cancel their mission; more of something personal (relatives infected by the plague?) that caused its user to abandon the ship and return home in a hurry - it was never reclaimed, because this was at the height (scale-wise, at least) of Alterran civilization; they had thousands of these things going about the universe at the time.

Unfortunately, there's a slight wrinkle. Unexpectedly, Chloe (I don't like the name much, but it's been published...) has the ATA gene, and in response to her prescence the ship is coming to life, and resuming its original mission. The first evidence of this is when the atmosphere processors come online. But after Atlantis, this is seen as normal. They only realise something's going wrong when, as they try to dial-out to report (from the ZPM's power; for added drama, the Asgard device should be one-charge) the stargate refuses to engage, because the ship has entered hyperspace, and is resuming its original mission.

They try to de-activate it, or even turn it around and head to Earth. Unfortunately, to his horror Eli discovers, when trying to get the computer to cooperate, that as well as language drift over thousands of years (which they had the foresight to take a Lantean scanner programmed to provide translations to English and Lantean for) the computer languages and even precepts underlying them, had completely changed. They have no (easy) way of changing the ship's course or settings. They are trapped...


Cue some antagonist introduction as the ship (built for speed; 90% or more of its volume should be engines, especially hyperdrive engines) arrives at its first destination, with a very unhappy SG team on it. They're not sure how to modify the stargate to return to Earth or Atlantis, and the ship was, unlike normal stargates, or even Atlantis, designed very specifically for a highly trained Alterran crew to run it, with many systems far beyond their knowledge.


Hence, it wouldn't be that they actually get on the ship by accident, so much as they'd be completely out of their depth as circumstances change a routine mission into an extraordinary one.

On an unrelated note, I don't really buy into the 'Lanteans suck, Alterrans rule' thing personally, but I do think it would be interesting to see the more ancient and mysterious 'Milky Way' style of organic, flowing architecture again. To my mind, the numerical peak of Ancient civilization was before the plague, while the Lanteans might have had more advanced technology in some areas, they seemed to have a very small population.

Best answer yet.

Ripple in Space
November 8th, 2008, 05:06 PM
No they weren't. late 20's maybe, early 30's. They're in their 40's now and it's been 12 years since the show began (give or take) so they couldn't have been in their early 20's.

Maybe he meant that they could date people in their early 20s.

Ouroboros
November 9th, 2008, 02:59 AM
Same for Back to the Future and Farscape, but you know what, at least the 'trying to get home' plot gives Universe a purpose and an overall story arc, and it COULD spawn some interesting standalone episodes. It's definitely preferable to a show about nothing such as the latest seasons of Atlantis. My problem with SGU is not exactly the plot. It's the 90210 casting call and the type of audience the suits are targeting.

Thing I loved about Farscape to is when he finally does get home he no longer wants to be there.

JohnDuh
November 9th, 2008, 08:54 AM
I could slap him.

Its funny he doesn't get it: "The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started,"

Yeah, but they have grown older - LIKE ME. I don't want to go back to kiddies - of course he's there for the money, and those who make the show have dictated "get rid of the old farts - we want new viewers - we think they are worth more income".

Oh well.

jenks
November 9th, 2008, 09:30 AM
I could slap him.

Its funny he doesn't get it: "The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started,"

Yeah, but they have grown older - LIKE ME. I don't want to go back to kiddies - of course he's there for the money, and those who make the show have dictated "get rid of the old farts - we want new viewers - we think they are worth more income".

Oh well.

I think you're the one who doesn't get it. Stargate isn't made for your sake, it's aimed in the general direction of the fans yes, but also they want it to have a broad appeal as well. As a TV series the show can't survive without gaining new fans, if all they did was pander to the noises coming out of the establish fandom then the franchise would die a slow and painful death, as the demographics they're hitting at the moment are too old to sustain it. So it's either a more mainstream Stargate, or no Stargate, at least in TV format anyway.

EdenSG
November 9th, 2008, 09:37 AM
Ah but that is the irony.

From everything that has come out so far I don’t think they are making SGU to appeal to Stargate fans. I think they truly want to build and expand the fan base, which is not necessarily a bad thing; however it seems they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Call the new show SG to keep the core fans interested but make it different to attract all new, “younger” fans. Again not a bad thing to have new fans but in their desire to have it all they could end up with a show that tries to so hard to be a little bit of everything to everyone that they end up with nothing.

Sadly I think how they see older fans (and by old I don’t mean age I mean long term fans of SG-1 and SGA) now are as just cash cows. Cancel SGA for “creative” reasons and put it into movies and DVD’s. Sure the “old” fans will buy it – they will buy anything. Meanwhile they start a new series that as Cooper put it is basically Stargate in name only to attract new, younger fans.

Heck hath no fury as a fan betrayed. And right now I am one fan who is feeling pretty betrayed.

ShadowMaat
November 9th, 2008, 09:43 AM
Sadly I think how they see older fans (and by old I don’t mean age I mean long term fans of SG-1 and SGA) now are as just cash cows. Cancel SGA for “creative” reasons and put it into movies and DVD’s. Sure the “old” fans will buy it – they will buy anything. Meanwhile they start a new series that as Cooper put it is basically Stargate in name only to attract new, younger fans.
Exactly. They don't have to appease/cater to/pander to long-time fans because they know that the "loyal" ones will watch no matter what, just because it says "Stargate" in the title. That leaves them free to go out and capture a whole new audience with a whole new premise. And hey, maybe they'll even get some of the new audience brainwashed into being "loyal", too, so that they'll go out and buy all the old SG-1 and SGA stuff even if it doesn't particularly interest them... just because it says "Stargate" on the box. :rolleyes:

Rosehawk
November 9th, 2008, 10:10 AM
I think you're the one who doesn't get it. Stargate isn't made for your sake, it's aimed in the general direction of the fans yes, but also they want it to have a broad appeal as well. As a TV series the show can't survive without gaining new fans, if all they did was pander to the noises coming out of the establish fandom then the franchise would die a slow and painful death, as the demographics they're hitting at the moment are too old to sustain it. So it's either a more mainstream Stargate, or no Stargate, at least in TV format anyway.

Shows do need to gain fans to keep franchises going. I think just about everyone would agree with that. However the demographics they are hitting are not too old to sustain it - come on 40 and 50 is not that old, it's just older than 20 and 30. And the older demographics are the ones spending the most money as well as passing their love of Stargate on to alot of the teens and 20 years old watching today.
What tptb don't get is to sustain the franchise, there is a better way to introduce a new series while getting new and younger fans, without alienating the existing, older fanbase. It's all in the marketing of the show, of which they have done a pretty poor job of it IMO.

jenks
November 9th, 2008, 11:02 AM
Ah but that is the irony.

From everything that has come out so far I don’t think they are making SGU to appeal to Stargate fans. I think they truly want to build and expand the fan base, which is not necessarily a bad thing; however it seems they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Call the new show SG to keep the core fans interested but make it different to attract all new, “younger” fans. Again not a bad thing to have new fans but in their desire to have it all they could end up with a show that tries to so hard to be a little bit of everything to everyone that they end up with nothing.

Sadly I think how they see older fans (and by old I don’t mean age I mean long term fans of SG-1 and SGA) now are as just cash cows. Cancel SGA for “creative” reasons and put it into movies and DVD’s. Sure the “old” fans will buy it – they will buy anything. Meanwhile they start a new series that as Cooper put it is basically Stargate in name only to attract new, younger fans.

Heck hath no fury as a fan betrayed. And right now I am one fan who is feeling pretty betrayed.

The fans have always been a source of money and nothing more to MGM, they're a business, you can't expect them to behave any differently. I seriously don't get this mentality that some fans have that they are somehow owed something from TPTB. Yes the franchise wouldn't exist without them, but on the other hand we wouldn't have Stargate without MGM, so it's nothing more than a trade really. I don't think the fans have any genuine claim to the idea that they're being hard done by, no matter what MGM choses to do.


Shows do need to gain fans to keep franchises going. I think just about everyone would agree with that. However the demogrpahics they are hitting are not too old to sustain it - come on 40 and 50 is not that old, it's just older than 20 and 30. And the older demographics are the ones spending the most money as well as passing their love of Stargate on to alot of the teens and 20 years old watching today.
What tptb don't get is to sustain the franchise, there is a better way to introduce a new series while getting new and younger fans, without alienating the existing, older fanbase. It's all in the marketing of the show, of which they have done a pretty poor job of it IMO.

The demographics that spend the most money on this stuff are the 20 and 30 somethings, and that's why they're the demographic that they're aiming for. And late 40's and 50's (which is the average age they're hitting) is old, too old to trust the future of the franchise to anyway. Besides, aren't most people here in their 20's and 30's (or younger), so what has anyone got to worry about? I mean McKay and Shep act like teenagers as it is, so the new series will probably more mature than what we're used to if anything...

Rosehawk
November 9th, 2008, 11:47 AM
The demographics that spend the most money on this stuff are the 20 and 30 somethings, and that's why they're the demographic that they're aiming for. And late 40's and 50's (which is the average age they're hitting) is old, too old to trust the future of the franchise to anyway. Besides, aren't most people here in their 20's and 30's (or younger), so what has anyone got to worry about? I mean McKay and Shep act like teenagers as it is, so the new series will probably more mature than what we're used to if anything...
I suppose it depends on what stuff you are talking about fans spending money on. I have gone to a few conventions and see alot of people of all ages buying stargate stuff. The commericals I see them showing during Stargate are Cialis which I don't think too many 20 or 30 would be considering taking... :P The video games they advertise, heck yeah that would be in the teen, 20 and maybe 30 year range.
The older fans typically have more of the disposable income to spread around, not to mention passing on their passions to their own kids which is a good way to help keep new and young fans wanting to watch.

I dont' know about the demographics of GW, I know alot of people here that are in their late 30's, 40's and a few in their 50's as well as alot of 20 year olds and teens, so I think GW has a pretty good mix of ages here. There probably is alot more younger fans though as they seem to be much more into all this technical stuff 'cause they have grown up with it more.

I agree that the franchise needs new fans, but there is a better way to introduce a new show then alientating their existing fan base.
In the company that I work for, marketing a new product they way that they did with SGU, by replacing an existing product with an untried product and then telling the people buying it that we no longer need them because we are going to target our new product to a different customer base... would have cost us a heck of alot more business then it would have gained and it would take us alot of work to gain that business and customers trust back.

jenks
November 9th, 2008, 12:04 PM
I suppose it depends on what stuff you are talking about fans spending money on. I have gone to a few conventions and see alot of people of all ages buying stargate stuff. The commericals I see them showing during Stargate are Cialis which I don't think too many 20 or 30 would be considering taking... :P The video games they advertise, heck yeah that would be in the teen, 20 and maybe 30 year range.

I dont' know about the demographics of GW, I know alot of people here that are in their late 30's, 40's and a few in their 50's as well as alot of 20 year olds and teens, so I think GW has a pretty good mix of ages here.

I agree that the franchise needs new fans, but there is a better way to introduce a new show then alientating their existing fan base.

We haven't even seen the show. Fans are getting alienated because they're jumping to conclusions. Honestly if people just read what the producers have said about the show then maybe they'd have a bit more faith. They've said that it needs to keep what made Stargate what it is, yet make it different as well so that it's not just more of the same. This is exactly what they said about Atlantis and now we have people campaigning to save it, why are people assuming that after 12 years of success they're now bound to fail?


In the company that I work for, marketing a new product they way that they did with SGU, by replacing an existing product with an untried product and then telling the people buying it that we no longer need them because we are going to target our new product to a different customer base... would have cost us a heck of alot more business then it would have gained and it would take us alot of work to gain that business and customers trust back.

I suspect the company you work for doesn't market a product like a TV show. Atlantis, like every other series was suffering from diminishing returns, now there was still probably enough viewers to warrant a 6th season, but then what? It's better to introduce a new show while Atlantis is still popular and there is interest in the franchise instead of waiting until it's dead, that's what they did when they introduced Atlantis, except they had the luxury of keeping SG-1 as well. Besides, it's not like Atlantis or even SG-1 are completely gone, we'll just be getting less of them.

EdenSG
November 9th, 2008, 12:39 PM
The fans have always been a source of money and nothing more to MGM, they're a business, you can't expect them to behave any differently. I seriously don't get this mentality that some fans have that they are somehow owed something from TPTB. Yes the franchise wouldn't exist without them, but on the other hand we wouldn't have Stargate without MGM, so it's nothing more than a trade really. I don't think the fans have any genuine claim to the idea that they're being hard done by, no matter what MGM choses to do.


Of course it is a business and they need to make money – I never said otherwise. Also, for the very reason of sustaining the franchise – ie: making money – as I said in my post, I can understand why they want to expand and grow the franchise and the fanbase. And I don’t believe TPTB owe me anything – nor do I believe that I owe TPTB. You are right – it is a trade off, however I am the one that gets to decide if it is worth my while to participate in.

While the decisions, (cancel SGA for “creative” reasons, SGA gets one movie and begin a new phase in the franchise with SGU) are strictly business decisions, which from a business standpoint I understand, they are also decisions that I think rests on the assumptions that all SG fans will always support anything SG as well as takes advantage of the loyalty many fans have had over the years. And yes, business decisions are made all the time that take advantage of people just so others can make more money (look at the financial meltdown in this country) - But just because it is a business decision doesn’t mean it is the right business decision nor does it mean that all fans have to agree and be satisfied with that decision nor does it mean that all fans will continue to support the franchise. So the question becomes, how long can you make business decisions that alienate, anger or take advantage of many of your core loyal customers (fans) before there is a backlash?

What I don’t understand and fear is TPTB will shoot themselves in the foot with business decisions that all but shove the existing fanbase aside and say here is a movie so shut up and be happy because you will love the new show because it has the name Stargate in it even though it is not really stargate. From a business point of view, is this smart way to market your product? Is it viable? I think TPTB have taken the wrong tact with fans on how they are implementing their decisions and this I think is a bad business decision.

I would have thought that the best way to introduce a new, in name only Stargate series that aims for new fans is to use SGA as the springboard, the same as SG-1 was the springboard for SGA. Keep the established fans (I am avoiding the word old because I am not referring to age) with SGA, draw in new fans with SGU and let them both become “hooked” on the new show then take SGA off the air. It was a business scenario that worked well for SG-1 and SGA and in fact having the two shows run together probably helped to support each other in the ratings. But TPTB see more dollar signs with taking SGA off the air to make movies and SGU for new fans – it is a business decision, and while I think the decision may make them more money in the short run, I am dubious if it will be best for the franchise in the long run. Time will tell.

Rosehawk
November 9th, 2008, 01:57 PM
We haven't even seen the show. Fans are getting alienated because they're jumping to conclusions.
Originaly the majority of the fans that were alienated were the fans in the older age group that were offended by how SGU was originally introduced. It will take tptb some good marketing campaign to undue that. The fans have a right to be upset with that...
I agree that alot of other fans saw the characters they were looking at for SGU and may be jumping to conclusions based on that but what do tptb expect when that kind of information gets out to the public. At the very least it is giving them some feedback to help them with marketing SGU when they finally start promoting the show.


Honestly if people just read what the producers have said about the show then maybe they'd have a bit more faith.
This is asking for the fans to have the faith in the producers when they haven't seen the show. And to alot of fans, faith has been lost in the producers.


They've said that it needs to keep what made Stargate what it is, yet make it different as well so that it's not just more of the same. This is exactly what they said about Atlantis and now we have people campaigning to save it, why are people assuming that after 12 years of success they're now bound to fail?
Nothing does last forever, most TV shows don't last this long so the odds are against them, however if they learn from what's around them, then maybe we can all be pleasantly surprised.


I suspect the company you work for doesn't market a product like a TV show.
No it doesn't but some products my company does marketed on TV. However the basic premise of marketing is to present your product in the best way possible so customers/fans will buy/watch your product.


Atlantis, like every other series was suffering from diminishing returns, now there was still probably enough viewers to warrant a 6th season, but then what? It's better to introduce a new show while Atlantis is still popular and there is interest in the franchise instead of waiting until it's dead, that's what they did when they introduced Atlantis, except they had the luxury of keeping SG-1 as well. Besides, it's not like Atlantis or even SG-1 are completely gone, we'll just be getting less of them.
I agree it is best to introduce a new show when the existing show is still popular, however I don't necessarily think it is the best stragety to cancel a show while it is still very popular for the sake of another new, untested show. The better stragegy would be to have at least one year of overlap, which tptb didn't want to do.

ShadowMaat
November 9th, 2008, 02:04 PM
This is asking for the fans to have the faith in the producers when they haven't seen the show. And to alot of fans, faith has been lost in the producers.
It's an interesting double standard, isn't it? You (generally speaking) look at what little info there is so far and decide it's going to be bad and get condemned for saying so when you haven't even seen it... and yet the ones doing most of the condemning are looking at what little info there is so far and deciding it's going to be good when they haven't seen it either. But that's acceptable because it is, after all, TPTB who're in charge. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that TPTB being in charge is one of the primary reasons that some of us are deciding it's going to be bad. ;)

Naonak
November 9th, 2008, 02:18 PM
It's an interesting double standard, isn't it? You look at what little info there is so far and decide it's going to be bad and get condemned for saying so when you haven't even seen it... and yet the ones doing the condemning are looking at what little info there is so far and deciding it's going to be good when they haven't seen it either. But that's acceptable because it is, after all, TPTB who're in charge. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that TPTB being in charge is one of the primary reasons that some of us are deciding it's going to be bad. ;)
A lot of us aren't saying that it's going to be good, just that we're willing to give it a fair chance. :)

jenks
November 9th, 2008, 02:30 PM
I agree it is best to introduce a new show when the existing show is still popular, however I don't necessarily think it is the best stragety to cancel a show while it is still very popular for the sake of another new, untested show. The better stragegy would be to have at least one year of overlap, which tptb didn't want to do.

It's not just up to MGM though, it's Sci Fi that has to be willing to front the money. If it turned out to be either season 6 of Atlantis or a new show I think (from a business perspective at least) they made the right decision.


It's an interesting double standard, isn't it? You look at what little info there is so far and decide it's going to be bad and get condemned for saying so when you haven't even seen it... and yet the ones doing the condemning are looking at what little info there is so far and deciding it's going to be good when they haven't seen it either. But that's acceptable because it is, after all, TPTB who're in charge. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that TPTB being in charge is one of the primary reasons that some of us are deciding it's going to be bad. ;)

If the writers are the reason you think it's going to be bad then why would care about it either way? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? You think it'll be crap because the existing writers are writing it, yet you're bothering to comment on it because it's Stargate and (presumably) you like Stargate, a show that is what it is thanks to the existing writers! And for the record, I don't praise the show, all I've done is point out the fact that most people here like Stargate, and most of us have been entertained by 10+ years of Stargate, so there is no reason for us to assume the writers will fail now, if anything we should be confident they'll succeed. Again.

Rosehawk
November 9th, 2008, 02:48 PM
It's an interesting double standard, isn't it? You look at what little info there is so far and decide it's going to be bad and get condemned for saying so when you haven't even seen it... and yet the ones doing the condemning are looking at what little info there is so far and deciding it's going to be good when they haven't seen it either. But that's acceptable because it is, after all, TPTB who're in charge. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that TPTB being in charge is one of the primary reasons that some of us are deciding it's going to be bad. ;)
Please don't use the word 'You' in this context, it's too easy to take the conversation personally :P. I haven't said that SGU was going to be bad, I haven't condemned it, though I know others have. I am not happy the way they have chosen to market this product so far and that is any fans preogrative. I am not going to jump at watching SGU just because it says Stargate....I am taking a wait and see approach, depending on how the promotions of the show goes when they start promoting it.

I do agree, it is an interesting double standard. At this point we really can't say if it is going to be good or bad until we see the final product.

Rosehawk
November 9th, 2008, 02:52 PM
It's not just up to MGM though, it's Sci Fi that has to be willing to front the money. If it turned out to be either season 6 of Atlantis or a new show I think (from a business perspective at least) they made the right decision.
That's where we differ and that is okay. I don't think it was a good business decision to cancel a show still doing good in order to make room for a new and untried show but the decision is made, it's done and it's over. Life and Franchises move on.....:cool:

ShadowMaat
November 9th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Please don't use the word 'You" in this context.
Sorry, I meant "you" in the general context rather than specifically. I'm usually better at catching that.

Rosehawk
November 9th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Sorry, I meant "you" in the general context rather than specifically. I'm usually better at catching that.
Yeah, after I re-read your post again, I made some changes to my post because I realized it wasn't directed at me but the fandom as a whole. :)

ShadowMaat
November 9th, 2008, 04:48 PM
A lot of us aren't saying that it's going to be good, just that we're willing to give it a fair chance. :)

But there have been a few who make a habit of sneering at the naysayers for condemning the show sight unseen while they're heaping praises upon it... also sight unseen. Although to be honest, the seemingly more wide-spread belief that anyone planning not to watch is behaving in an irrational or stupid manner is getting a bit tedious. And no, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I'm just saying that anyone who thinks people DON'T make snap judgments based on little info or gut feelings or pretty packaging or annoying commercials or whatever has either led a very sheltered life or is naively altruistic. It happens ALL THE TIME so why should SGU be any different? How come it's okay to not buy Campbell's Soylent Green Soup because you've heard weird rumors about it or you hate the commercials, but it's NOT okay to not watch a TV show because you think the premise sounds stupid or you've had bad experiences with the producers?

amconway
November 9th, 2008, 05:26 PM
Soylent Green Soup because you've heard weird rumors about it or you hate the commercials, but it's NOT okay to not watch a TV show because you think the premise sounds stupid or you've had bad experiences with the producers?

Damn. That's funny. You get a green for that. :) Weird rumors... Heh...

felixtcat
November 9th, 2008, 06:56 PM
i dunno maybe what the sci-fi world needs are fresh young faces, aslong as the story is good i dont care if the chicks are hot, just hope they can act. thats the main thing.

i think the 1st year will be the hardest

even in SG1 SGA the new cast and commanders kinda killed the series when oniel left i found we where watching stargate/farscape even the same humor was there and cams attitude was the same..

The SGA loosinh Elisabeth and the Doc I think hurt the show, sure Amanda Tapping Almost brought it back but leaving to Sancuary hurt the show

But a fresh look from a NEW show may be good no one was liking the idea of a new cast for atlantis completely fresh, they even switched out the actress who played wier, she went from blonde to brunet over 1 Episode Lost world to Atlantis rising 2 diffrent actresses but be accepted her and the cast over time too

Jumper_One
November 9th, 2008, 07:00 PM
The SGA loosinh Elisabeth and the Doc I think hurt the show, sure Amanda Tapping Almost brought it back but leaving to Sancuary hurt the show

wrong, check the ratings and viewers


But a fresh look from a NEW show may be good no one was liking the idea of a new cast for atlantis completely fresh, they even switched out the actress who played wier, she went from blonde to brunet over 1 Episode Lost world to Atlantis rising 2 diffrent actresses but be accepted her and the cast over time too

Lost City ;)

felixtcat
November 9th, 2008, 07:20 PM
wrong, check the ratings and viewers


Each site has its own opinions on rankings ect but i know almost everyone i know say the best season where the 1st 3 on SGA, Tapping was a nice addition, Picardo not the best since he basically came into the SG shows as a bad guy looking to shut down the SGC, many times i wanted to see him die in the show



Lost City ;)

Yea I know it was a typo LOL teaches me for doing this at bedtime

Jumper_One
November 9th, 2008, 07:45 PM
Each site has its own opinions on rankings ect but i know almost everyone i know say the best season where the 1st 3 on SGA, Tapping was a nice addition, Picardo not the best since he basically came into the SG shows as a bad guy looking to shut down the SGC, many times i wanted to see him die in the show

I'm talking about Nielsen ratings, not GW etc

neiana
November 10th, 2008, 02:15 PM
How come it's okay to not buy Campbell's Soylent Green Soup because you've heard weird rumors about it or you hate the commercials, but it's NOT okay to not watch a TV show because you think the premise sounds stupid or you've had bad experiences with the producers?

Let's see.

You "buy" things that cost "money" based on what it "looks" like and what you've heard by people who've actually "seen" and/or "tried" the product. Or, you "see" the commercial for the product. Or you "hear" someone discussing a story about the "actual" product that "actually" exists and has been "tried" by someone..."actually". Also, if it is a food or appliance you are "judging", then you are also worried about "disease" or "dangerous mechanical failures".

So comparisons?

SG:U = free (or, consider it part of your cable package?). Won't kill you (unless a toilet/aircraft engine falls in the location of your couch/sofa/chair while watching). Won't give you any sort of disease whatsoever. Has no reliable information whatsoever because IT.DOES.NOT.EXIST. yet.

A product you buy in the store? = Costs money. People have actually tried it and have given their opinions. You may have actually 'seen' the product on television or in person. Potentially hazardous to your health if there is a defect. EXISTS!

See the difference? :)

ShadowMaat
November 10th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Boy, and people accuse me of sounding condescending? Actually? LOL! It's amazing what the over-use of quotes can do to an otherwise fairly innocuous post. I'll have to remember that the next time I want to insult someone. ;)

And for the record, yeah, since I'm paying for cable I consider the shows I watch a purchase. Or maybe a "purchase." LOL!

Maybe Soylent Green is just a rumored product and isn't actually out yet, but whatever. The company's other products always leave a bad taste in my mouth, hardly ever satisfy my hunger and are always more about fancy packaging than actual content, so if/when Soylent Green Soup comes out, I won't be buying "buying" it. :D

I can't speak for others, but for me it isn't just a case of basing my decision on what few sketchy details have been released so far about SGU, it's about my personal history with the franchise. My experiences with SG-1 and Atlantis did not end well and I see no reason to believe that SGU is likely to be any different. The same people who, in my opinion, ruing SG-1 and Atlantis are going to be in charge of SGU. It doesn't matter if they add a few new faces to the ranks, the REAL people in charge will still be the Old Guard Good Ol' Boys and that, for me, says all that it needs to about SGU. I don't need to hear about how it has a younger cast or how it'll be like Stargate but completely different or how it's about a bunch of young punks tooling around the universe in an out-of-control ship performing great deeds of derring-do wherever they go... all that stuff does is put furry frosting on the urinal cake.

If SGU had a premise that was of interest to me, would I watch? Hard to say. As I recall I was a bit skeptical of SGA at first (until the addition of Hewlett as McKay) but wound up watching it anyway AND LOVED IT... for about a season or two. By the end (season 3) I hated the show AND McKay. So between that and my much more unpleasant experiences with SG-1 (I had the misfortune of being a Jonas fan) the biggest lesson I've learned from the SG franchise is that the producers are very good at ruining anything I dare to love in their shows. And given that their learning curve is improving and they managed to destroy SGA in half the time they destroyed SG-1 (IMO) then at this rate SGU will probably turn to crap by the end of season one. Why bother?

Whether it's Voyager 90210 or the most ground-breaking and visionary thing to come down the pipe in recent history, I don't care. I won't be watching. I know better.

neiana
November 10th, 2008, 05:28 PM
If you want to discuss the cost of watching SG:U, look at it this way. If you are not watching a TV program, you are paying for something you aren't using. If you are watching it, you are using it. So on a purely theoretical basis, watching a program you absolutely hate (on this particular package) is more cost efficient than watching no program from that package at all...as far as cable costs are concerned. Certainly there are other things you could be doing with your time that may offset this, but again this is speaking purely from a theoretical basis concerning your cable package. :)

As far as having a history with the company, sure. Is that not entirely, completely, and 100% different from the concept of snap judgments based on a premise? I would think so. If you don't buy a Sony product because you've had regular failures with Sony products, that has nothing to do with a snap judgment concerning the products specifications, packaging, commercials, appearance or anything of the sort. It's purely based on the company.

You've still only suggested one valid reason for not watching: "the people in charge". Not the premise. Not the casting call. None of that. Just the people who will be overseeing it. This I can agree with considering I used to stay away from products made by companies whose defects had cost me a great deal of stress in the past.

But that's not even considering whether those "bad ends" were after several great years. Then you have to decide if something ending badly completely changes the balance of the greatness that leads up to it.

suse
November 10th, 2008, 05:38 PM
If you want to discuss the cost of watching SG:U, look at it this way. If you are not watching a TV program, you are paying for something you aren't using. If you are watching it, you are using it. So on a purely theoretical basis, watching a program you absolutely hate (on this particular package) is more cost efficient than watching no program from that package at all...as far as cable costs are concerned. Certainly there are other things you could be doing with your time that may offset this, but again this is speaking purely from a theoretical basis concerning your cable package. :)

As far as having a history with the company, sure. Is that not entirely, completely, and 100% different from the concept of snap judgments based on a premise? I would think so. If you don't buy a Sony product because you've had regular failures with Sony products, that has nothing to do with a snap judgment concerning the products specifications, packaging, commercials, appearance or anything of the sort. It's purely based on the company.

You've still only suggested one valid reason for not watching: "the people in charge". Not the premise. Not the casting call. None of that. Just the people who will be overseeing it.

And that's not even considering whether those "bad ends" were after several great years. Then you have to decide if something ending badly completely changes the balance of the greatness that leads up to it.

Actually it was pointed out that Those In Charge only took half the time to destroy what was liked about the second show as compared to the first. A great few eps before drivel aren't enough - imo - to watch. Especially as most shows take a bit to find their rhythm.

To be honest (and on topic) Coop is much of the reason I won't watch. I saw what was done to Sg-1. Yes, he wrote some great stuff for it. Unfortunately I find it quite likely that much was changed in the scripts between writing and filming by other EPs because his version of "sexy" and "fun" and "our hero" doesn't gel with what came before Gekko left and Wright was focusing on SGA (which had it's own set of problems).
suse

Skydiver
November 10th, 2008, 05:49 PM
cooper's involvement is also part of my trepedation about universe.

he may feel he's making a great show, and skiffy and mgm might as well...but their defintion of 'great' isn't mine. Seasons 9 and 10 proved that to me.

in fact, between him and joe mallozzi, my tastes are about 180 degrees different from theirs.

i'll likely watch universe, but it's going to be something casual,and i'm certainly not going to get invested in it...for as long as it lasts that is :)

ShadowMaat
November 10th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Exactly. Coop and Joe are involved and that's enough to guarantee a sticky end (and yes, you can interpret that in any way your perverse gutter-trawling minds want). :P

I also tend not to trust hype coming from the producers. Well, hype in general, but when the producers start talking about how awesome their show is I take it with a big grain of salt on the rim of a margarita and let the evidence* speak for itself. Some of the eps of SGA that Joe has hyped as being fantastic were, IMO, among some of the worst.






*And "evidence" in this case can also mean "previous body of work."

Skydiver
November 10th, 2008, 06:06 PM
with these guys...the harder they sell, the less it is to my tastes, while the ones they say little about tend to be the ones i like more.

my preferences are opposite of theirs

Killdeer
November 11th, 2008, 01:22 AM
Cooper AND Wright are the reasons I'm not watching. I'm sorry, but I'm as fed up with BW as with Cooper at this point, maybe more so. And I think Gero is going to be associated with it too, right? Another reason not to watch. I used to like Gero, but I've not been impressed lately with his work on Atlantis. :(

jenks
November 11th, 2008, 08:52 AM
Brad and Rob are the people who wrote Lost City, yeah, they don't know what they're doing!

Killdeer
November 11th, 2008, 08:58 AM
Yes, well. I'm not as enamoured with Lost City as every one else seems to be. Although I would take it any day over Continuum.

Jumper_One
November 11th, 2008, 11:10 AM
Cooper AND Wright are the reasons I'm not watching. I'm sorry, but I'm as fed up with BW as with Cooper at this point, maybe more so. And I think Gero is going to be associated with it too, right? Another reason not to watch. I used to like Gero, but I've not been impressed lately with his work on Atlantis. :(

you didn't like S&R, FC and TLT?


Brad and Rob are the people who wrote Lost City, yeah, they don't know what they're doing!

LC's an awesome two-parter :D

Killdeer
November 11th, 2008, 02:02 PM
you didn't like S&R, FC and TLT?

No, didn't watch, and didn't watch. As I said, I haven't been all that happy with MG's episodes lately.

Jumper_One
November 11th, 2008, 02:22 PM
No, didn't watch, and didn't watch. As I said, I haven't been all that happy with MG's episodes lately.

so you didn't even watch those eps?

Killdeer
November 11th, 2008, 02:26 PM
so you didn't even watch those eps?

Yes, that's what I said. *raises eyebrow* I was pretty discouraged with the last few episodes leading up to that, so I stopped watching after Tracker. I don't like the way MG deals with some things, and I was frustrated with the show anyway. And I was very leery of MG episodes after S&R (and yes, I know, I'm the only one :(). I read a lot of reviews to see whether I wanted to watch them but I just couldn't get up the motivation. It wasn't until Prodigal aired that it sounds like something I might actually be interested in again. And Prodigal was a good episode, a great episode in fact, but I still have no great burden to go back and watch the ones I missed.

smurf
November 11th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Brad and Rob are the people who wrote Lost City, yeah, they don't know what they're doing!
Writing one/two good episodes isn't the same as producing 20 good episodes. Sure they're great on the rare occasions, but this is a series we're talking about not a single movie.


The issue I have is they seem to have lost the ability to plan their stories long term - BW in particular, I'm not sure RCC ever had it after seeing his stint as show-runner. They may start reasonably well, but I now expect it to fall apart pretty swiftly when they start going after the cool ideas, rather than the logical, non-canon destroying, ones.
And seeing they've decided to start with a "cool" idea.... :P

Skydiver
November 11th, 2008, 04:36 PM
writing a good story has little bearing on whether or not a person can run a show


cooper can be a great writer....but he seems t lack the vision to look more than 43 minutes down the road. a good show runner needs to keep all 20 eps on the table and think about them and how #3 effects #18

coop lacks that skill, at least in my opinion.

nx01a
November 11th, 2008, 05:09 PM
The writers and producers need to take a weekend retreat and plot out the major events that should occur over the presumable [5 years?] life of the show. There's plenty of room for stand alone episodes, but just know what direction you want to go in and what's happening next.
It's sad more shows don't follow the Babylon 5 model.

Skydiver
November 11th, 2008, 05:14 PM
yeah, i enjoyed B5, even with the messup that was season five.

I think that's why i liked it so much, it was structured and well paced, not this stop and start, fast and slow of most shows

Briangate78
November 11th, 2008, 05:25 PM
Well Michael being the baby of the group is still in his thirties now, he was I think 26 when SG1 started and Amanda was in her early thirties - 31/32. The characters would have been in their thirties when the show began. So it does seem that Cooper's memory is faulty.

LOL, they cancelled my favorite show for SGU. With that said, the same said producers don't even have the knowledge capicity to know what age the cast was for a show they producers for 10 years. Michael Shanks was the only one in his 20's. I also have read a lot of contradicting arguements with SGU. This show is not going to have the successful launch like SGA did, imo. I gotta say I am very concerned for the Stargate Franchise. Thank goodness for the SG-1 and SGA movies.


Edit: I want to apologize for my little outburst. Anytime Atlantis has an amazing, epic, raising the bar episode, I cannot accept the fact it is being canned when it is still performing well.

nx01a
November 11th, 2008, 05:30 PM
Don't jinx it! We might soon see SG-1 and SGA movies shelved in favour of 2 seasons of Universe a year!

Briangate78
November 11th, 2008, 05:33 PM
Don't jinx it! We might soon see SG-1 and SGA movies shelved in favour of 2 seasons of Universe a year!

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b253/marcm1978/Funny%20pics/Brianwrong.gif

nx01a
November 11th, 2008, 05:37 PM
:D
We haven't seen the actors yet, much less the show. It's too early to form an opinion, but I'm hoping they make the entirety of the series like SGA's first season.

Jumper_One
November 11th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Don't jinx it! We might soon see SG-1 and SGA movies shelved in favour of 2 seasons of Universe a year!

ugh

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee163/Jumper_One/73790155.gif


cute video, but you can't hotlink something that's 2 megs :)

Mister Oragahn
November 16th, 2008, 12:33 PM
I think you're the one who doesn't get it. Stargate isn't made for your sake, it's aimed in the general direction of the fans yes, but also they want it to have a broad appeal as well. As a TV series the show can't survive without gaining new fans, if all they did was pander to the noises coming out of the establish fandom then the franchise would die a slow and painful death...

Looks at SG-1 s8-10 and SGA...

Yes. A slow painful death. The signs are already there.

jenks
November 16th, 2008, 12:36 PM
Looks at SG-1 s8-10 and SGA...

Yes. A slow painful death. The signs are already there.

You mean season 8-10 or SG-1 that has spawned 2, probably 2 DVD movies? Or Atlantis that has lasted 5 years and has spawned a DVD movie of its own? Yeah, the franchise is just wasting away...:rolleyes:

neiana
November 16th, 2008, 04:41 PM
LOL, they cancelled my favorite show for SGU. With that said, the same said producers don't even have the knowledge capicity to know what age the cast was for a show they producers for 10 years.

Any siblings? Quick! How old are they?
How old are your parents?
How old are your friends?
How old is your SO?

I hope you got them ALL right. :)

amconway
November 16th, 2008, 04:55 PM
Any siblings? Quick! How old are they?
How old are your parents?
How old are your friends?
How old is your SO?

I hope you got them ALL right.

I certainly know how old my family members are. C'mon, who doesn't?
As for friends, I know how old anyone that I've known for ten years is. It gets mentioned...

But that's all beside the point. He would have to have a pretty good idea of the general age of the actors because, at the time of casting, there was some discussion as to whether, at 26, Michael Shanks was too young for the role. Clearly, they decided that he was not (or just plain too good not to cast), but that casting question would have not only made him aware of Michael Shanks' age, but told him that all the other actors were older, by implication.

ShadowMaat
November 16th, 2008, 05:44 PM
I certainly know how old my family members are. C'mon, who doesn't?
*raises hand* I haven't a clue. ;) Well, except that my mom is 70 and I only know that because I wrote a poem for her invitations and remember the "three score and ten" bit. :D

I don't find it that unbelievable that TPTB could get the age range of their actors wrong when they get so much else wrong, too although I do think Coop probably rounded down a bit to make it sound better.

Skydiver
November 16th, 2008, 05:46 PM
i tend to agree with shadow...coop remembered it how he wanted to remember it to prove a point to himself...that a 20-something cast was nothing new and that they'd done it before so would you people stop whining please :) (not YOU people, the general you)

amconway
November 16th, 2008, 06:03 PM
I figure it was spin, plain and simple. The only question is how much spin he thought he was putting on that top. ;)

Skydiver
November 16th, 2008, 06:16 PM
spin hard enough and long enough, you get so dizzy you fall flat on your bum

amconway
November 16th, 2008, 06:25 PM
Heh, indeed! ;)

JohnDuh
November 26th, 2008, 09:47 AM
I think you're the one who doesn't get it.


Well, I think you are wrong. I know exactly how its working.



Stargate isn't made for your sake,


No kidding. And if you opened you eyes you would see tons of people LIKE ME who have the same problem. While I can't speak for others, I really am speaking for them as well.



it's aimed in the general direction of the fans yes, but also they want it to have a broad appeal as well.


And broad appeal means making it stupid, because hey, the stupid are easier to please. Just another reason to check out.



As a TV series the show can't survive without gaining new fans, if all they did was pander to the noises coming out of the establish fandom then the franchise would die a slow and painful death, as the demographics they're hitting at the moment are too old to sustain it. So it's either a more mainstream Stargate, or no Stargate, at least in TV format anyway.

Anything called "a franchise" deserves to die.

JohnDuh
November 26th, 2008, 09:58 AM
It's an interesting double standard, isn't it? You (generally speaking) look at what little info there is so far and decide it's going to be bad and get condemned for saying so when you haven't even seen it... and yet the ones doing most of the condemning are looking at what little info there is so far and deciding it's going to be good when they haven't seen it either. But that's acceptable because it is, after all, TPTB who're in charge. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that TPTB being in charge is one of the primary reasons that some of us are deciding it's going to be bad. ;)

Very well put, I would have given you some reputation if i could, but this lame board doesn't allow that. So i'll have to settle for quoting you ;)

JohnDuh
November 26th, 2008, 11:07 AM
I do agree, it is an interesting double standard. At this point we really can't say if it is going to be good or bad until we see the final product.

No but we are allowed to have an opinion about what we think is the most likely outcome. And regardless of the outcome, people will still disagree.

Briangate78
November 26th, 2008, 07:45 PM
spin hard enough and long enough, you get so dizzy you fall flat on your bum

I have never seen so much spin on a new show before. When shows like BSG, SGA, and Eureka first were introduced in their concept and pre-production phase it was like here is the show here are some ads and they all took off. This is like a desperate attempt by the producers almost telling the fans "YOU WILL LIKE THIS SHOW, BECAUSE WE SAID IT'S GOOD!" :S

amconway
November 26th, 2008, 07:58 PM
I have never seen so much spin on a new show before.
That's because you've never seen the introduction of a show so badly bungled before-and a lot of the can be laid at the feet of Scifi execs.

Killdeer
November 26th, 2008, 08:00 PM
This is like a desperate attempt by the producers almost telling the fans "YOU WILL LIKE THIS SHOW, BECAUSE WE SAID IT'S GOOD!" :S

:lol: Yeah, that's about right.

Briangate78
November 26th, 2008, 08:02 PM
That's because you've never seen the introduction of a show so badly bungled before-and a lot of the can be laid at the feet of Scifie execs.


:lol: Yeah, that's about right.

It's obvious that SGA was cancelled for SGU, anyone with a brain knows that. It just seems the producers and even the network have to make it sound like the Stargate fans will love this show, and it will be great, and you will forget about Atlantis. Well, imo, people will forget about SGA, but they also will not be watching SGU. :S

Rosehawk
November 26th, 2008, 08:05 PM
No but we are allowed to have an opinion about what we think is the most likely outcome. And regardless of the outcome, people will still disagree.
Never said that we weren't allowed an opinion. I was responding to a post by ShadowMaat where she makes a very valid observation.



It's an interesting double standard, isn't it? You look at what little info there is so far and decide it's going to be bad and get condemned for saying so when you haven't even seen it... and yet the ones doing the condemning are looking at what little info there is so far and deciding it's going to be good when they haven't seen it either. But that's acceptable because it is, after all, TPTB who're in charge. Never mind the fact that TPTB being in charge is one of the primary reasons that some of us are deciding it's going to be bad.

Briangate78
November 26th, 2008, 08:07 PM
Never said that we weren't allowed an opinion. I was responding to a post by ShadowMaat where she makes a very valid observation.

A major problem with SGU is not necessarily the concept, but how everything went down. They did the wrong thing with the Atlantis fans. You cannot dangle a carrot over someone's head and expect them to always bite.

Rosehawk
November 26th, 2008, 08:47 PM
A major problem with SGU is not necessary the concept, but how everything went down. They did the wrong thing with the Atlantis fans. You cannot dangle a carrot over someone's head and expect them to always bite.

I agree with you. I am pi$$ed off with the way they chose to handled this whole situation. You don't insult a major part of your fanbase they way they did...they are much better and frankly more professional ways to have said we want to attract more viewers without making the older fanbase feel like they no longer have value to give to the show.
Until that was said, I had always felt that Stargate was a show for virtually all age groups, not just people under 35.

However, I do believe the way they introduced SGU was intentional, they knew that it was going to get fans upset, heck it is most likely a marketing gimick because it is going to keep the fanbase talking until SGU comes out.

These guys are in the business of creating images...I feel that they do know what they are doing, which to me is the sad part because it means they really don't care about the loyal older fans who are out there. I guess in their business as people get older they have to find other avenues to stay in the business as acting roles get less and less as we age...why not treat the fanbase the same way. :(

For me it's not so much the carrot they are trying to dangle over fans heads, I've lived and worked with people enough to know that people expect you to believe them just because they tell you something, whether it is true or not. Ultimately the decision is mine to make for me, not theirs.

It's just a shame that they gave up on SGA, I really felt it had at least two more years in it.

Briangate78
November 26th, 2008, 08:55 PM
I agree with you. I am pi$$ed off with the way they chose to handled this whole situation. You don't insult a major part of your fanbase they way they did...they are much better and frankly more professional ways to have said we want to attract more viewers without making the older fanbase feel like they no longer have value to give to the show.
Until that was said, I had always felt that Stargate was a show for virtually all age groups, not just people under 35.

However, I do believe the way they introduced SGU was intentional, they knew that it was going to get fans upset, heck it is most likely a marketing gimick because it is going to keep the fanbase talking until SGU comes out.

These guys are in the business of creating images...I feel that they do know what they are doing, which to me is the sad part because it means they really don't care about the loyal older fans who are out there. I guess in their business as people get older they have to find other avenues to stay in the business as acting roles get less and less as we age...why not treat the fanbase the same way. :(

For me it's not so much the carrot they are trying to dangle over fans heads, I've lived and worked with people enough to know that people expect you to believe them just because they tell you something, whether it is true or not. Ultimately the decision is mine to make for me, not theirs.

It's just a shame that they gave up on SGA, I really felt it had at least two more years in it.

These execs are not always successful. This show could very well crash and burn. As per the young viewers. Atlantis was finding new younger viewers everyday.

They want a product that attracts a wide age fan base especially younger. Shows like "Family Guy" are a goldmine. They do wonders for the network in that 18 to 49 year old demo.

If you are over 49, you don't count to the network anymore, sorry. :S

As per Atlantis ending, they were really starting to dive into the characters the last two seasons. There are still many more stories that can be told. It is a real shame.

Rosehawk
November 26th, 2008, 09:16 PM
These execs are not always successful. This show could very well crash and burn. As per the young viewers. Atlantis was finding new younger viewers everyday.
I agree, though I think there is enough of the fanbase still intact that SGU will mostly likely do well, at least at first.
One of the reasons why I really like SGA was because of it's broad appeal to viewers of all age groups.


They want a product that attracts a wide age fan base especially younger. Shows like "Family Guy" are a goldmine. They do wonders for the network in that 18 to 49 year old demo.
I don't get the feeling that SGU is going to appeal to a wide age fan base, so it makes me wonder why they chose to market SGU the way they did.


If you are over 49, you don't count to the network anymore, sorry. :S
I know, isn't that sad. Actually it feels like it is more 40 and older. I think people 50 and older do watch less TV but that's because there is not alot of shows that appeal to that age group.


As per Atlantis ending, they were really starting to dive into the characters the last two seasons. There are still many more stories that can be told. It is a real shame.
I agree.

jenks
November 26th, 2008, 11:03 PM
Well, I think you are wrong. I know exactly how its working.

Your posts would suggest otherwise.


No kidding. And if you opened you eyes you would see tons of people LIKE ME who have the same problem. While I can't speak for others, I really am speaking for them as well.

Not really, there are a few dozen (at most) on an internet forum.


And broad appeal means making it stupid, because hey, the stupid are easier to please. Just another reason to check out.

No it doesn't. By broad appeal they mean more mainstream, like shows like Lost, Heroes, Fringe etc. none of which are what I would call stupid.


Anything called "a franchise" deserves to die.

Why?

flynn1959
November 27th, 2008, 12:04 AM
If you are over 49, you don't count to the network anymore, sorry. :S

.

Well, that's a real shame as that is the age group with the biggest disposable income. And in that age group surveys show time and time again that it is the women who make most of the financial decisions. As the world plunges into recession I would have thought the prudent thing to do would be to appeal to the broadest group possible, including those that might still be in a position to buy things. But what do I know - I'm just a 49 year old female with spare cash.:)

g.o.d
November 27th, 2008, 04:59 AM
I have never seen so much spin on a new show before. When shows like BSG, SGA, and Eureka first were introduced in their concept and pre-production phase it was like here is the show here are some ads and they all took off. This is like a desperate attempt by the producers almost telling the fans "YOU WILL LIKE THIS SHOW, BECAUSE WE SAID IT'S GOOD!" :S

yeah, very similar to the "best season evah" statement about SGA;) :D

Flyboy
November 27th, 2008, 05:19 AM
yeah, very similar to the "best season evah" statement about SGA;) :D
To be fair, I reckon it is the best season ever...

g.o.d
November 27th, 2008, 05:22 AM
To be fair, I reckon it is the best season ever...

I don't...

Briangate78
November 27th, 2008, 06:23 PM
yeah, very similar to the "best season evah" statement about SGA;) :D

Well I actually disagree with SCI FI's statement. :)


To be fair, I reckon it is the best season ever...

2nd best for me! :p



I don't...

I don't either, Season 4 was. :p

Briangate78
November 27th, 2008, 06:26 PM
I agree, though I think there is enough of the fanbase still intact that SGU will mostly likely do well, at least at first.
One of the reasons why I really like SGA was because of it's broad appeal to viewers of all age groups.


I don't get the feeling that SGU is going to appeal to a wide age fan base, so it makes me wonder why they chose to market SGU the way they did.


I know, isn't that sad. Actually it feels like it is more 40 and older. I think people 50 and older do watch less TV but that's because there is not alot of shows that appeal to that age group.


I agree.

I was watching football on TV today. They had half-time shows for each game. One game had "The Jonas Brothers" and the other "Jesse McCarthy" I literally had to leave the room it was so bad.

This is what is happening with TV, it is really sad.

Rosehawk
November 27th, 2008, 06:37 PM
I was watching football on TV today. They had half-time shows for each game. One game had "The Jonas Brothers" and the other "Jesse McCarthy" I literally had to leave the room it was so bad.
Well my daugher would have loved them except she hates football! :P

Briangate78
November 27th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Well my daugher would have loved them except she hates football! :P

You just nailed it! They are trying to attract younger viewers to a football game. :p

the fifth man
November 27th, 2008, 06:47 PM
Personally, I am not saying this show will necessarily be the best thing ever. But I am willing to give it a fair shot before I judge it. I can't believe how some people are overreacting, on both sides. Let's just see it first.

Briangate78
November 27th, 2008, 06:50 PM
Personally, I am not saying this show will necessarily be the best thing ever. But I am willing to give it a fair shot before I judge it. I can't believe how some people are overreacting, on both sides. Let's just see it first.

So will I. I just have never felt this way about a new show on the horizon. I just feel because it's replacing SGA, it has to be a worthy replacement. You know? In a way I'm nervous to the fact that it may not be good, and I will have lost SGA and any other hope for a new Stargate show to get into. :(

Skydiver
November 27th, 2008, 06:54 PM
I'm not emotionally attached to SGA enough to condemn SGU out of 'anger' or 'disappointment'...however, going by all that's been released thus far, i'm too old and too female for TPTB to give a damn about me or what i might like(remember the SG1 days? when anyone that didn't love s9 and 10 were dismissed as 'women with issues' and were 'too stupid' to recognize how good the show was?)...so if they don't care about me and are telling me that i'm 'worthless', why the heck should i care about them?

It'll be something to watch and maybe they'll surprise me. But my expectations are very low...and, right now, my emotional attachment is 0.

humanityspotential
November 27th, 2008, 06:59 PM
It'll be something to watch and maybe they'll surprise me. But my expectations are very low...and, right now, my emotional attachment is 0.

I'm with you.

It's the best way to be because then there's no disappointment if it's crap and nice warm fuzzy excitement if it is good. (you suffer the disappointment later on when they eventually muck it up)

I would just like more info. It's almost December.

Briangate78
November 27th, 2008, 07:06 PM
I'm not emotionally attached to SGA enough to condemn SGU out of 'anger' or 'disappointment'...however, going by all that's been released thus far, i'm too old and too female for TPTB to give a damn about me or what i might like(remember the SG1 days? when anyone that didn't love s9 and 10 were dismissed as 'women with issues' and were 'too stupid' to recognize how good the show was?)...so if they don't care about me and are telling me that i'm 'worthless', why the heck should i care about them?

It'll be something to watch and maybe they'll surprise me. But my expectations are very low...and, right now, my emotional attachment is 0.

It would seem that the Stargate franchise has not been really your cup of tea the past several seasons, SG-1 and SGA included. Oh well maybe SGU could change that, or it will continue your dissapointment with the franchise.

BTW, I was not crazy about Season 9 of SG-1, felt the transition was done really bad.

humanityspotential
November 27th, 2008, 07:12 PM
It would seem that the Stargate franchise has not been really your cup of tea the past several seasons SG-1 and SGA included. Oh well maybe SGU could change that, or it will continue your dissapointment with the franchise.

BTW, I was not crazy about Season 9 of SG-1, felt the transition was done really bad.

There was a transition?? I enjoyed Season 10 but 9 just seemed to fall out of the sky from nowhere.

SGA is still entertaining. And I have the feeling that despite trying to remain neutral that I won't be disappointed by SGU. A bit of escapism from the real world is all I want.

Briangate78
November 27th, 2008, 07:14 PM
There was a transition?? I enjoyed Season 10 but 9 just seemed to fall out of the sky from nowhere.

SGA is still entertaining. And I have the feeling that despite trying to remain neutral that I won't be disappointed by SGU. A bit of escapism from the real world is all I want.

Yeah good point. Season 9 was an utter mess, until the end it started to get better. Seasom 10 was good. They found their footing and produced some great eps like "The Quest" and "Pegasus Project".

As per SGU, I am still cautiously optimistic. But we shall see. We still need to get more info before making a decision.

amconway
November 27th, 2008, 07:29 PM
Yeah good point. Season 9 was an utter mess, until the end it started to get better. Seasom 10 was good. They found their footing and produced some great eps like "The Quest" and "Pegasus Project".

Agreed about season 9, although I still enjoyed the bits where Vala wasn't being a pain in the butt (in the first half of the season) and only a had a few problems with the second half. Season 10 was lightyears better, and had some excellent episodes. I was very disappointed that it was cancelled right when things came together

Skydiver
November 28th, 2008, 06:29 AM
season 7 and 8 were okay, although very uneven. s9 was a mess. And it was complicated by the hard sell and rather pushy attitude of 'it's fantastic, why can't you idiots see it' attitude from certain members of tptb. they seemed to think if they pushed hard enough and repeated how great it was often enough, we'd all come aorund to seeing what a fantastic job they were doing.

really, all they did, was tell us to bugger off and go away...but leave your set on please cause we need the ratings. :rolleyes:

season 10 was a bit better. Still too little too late, but a bit better. Likely because someone sat coop down during the hiatus and said 'dude, listen to the fans, there's a bit of truth in all their 'complaining''.

i tihnk season 10 was doomed from the get go however. all they wanted was the 200th eps and the publicity, and once they had that, they didn't need the show anymore.

Classic stargate, created under the watchful eyes of Michael Greenburg was an intellilgent and witty show, full of gentle humor and a sense of adventure. As MG's participation faded, the 'adult' nature of hte show faded and the frat boys took over. and suddenly 'wedgies' were high humor and boobs, butts and bombs were the goal for every episode.

the show took a hard 180 in appeal and flavor. And it won't ever go back to the magical combination of wit and humor and adventure that started the franchise off.

SGU is doomed because it's going to be made in the image of countless cookie cutter shows in the past. boobs, butts and bombs, shallow plots, pretty people and rewritten homages laced iwth cliches.

I give it two seasons at the most. Because, really, has ANYTHING under coop's control lasted any longer????

It'd just be nice if they'd have the backbone to make a whole new show...WITHOUT MILKING A FRANCHISSE, and stand on their own two feet, instead of warping the work of others into a mere shadow of its former glory

Briangate78
November 28th, 2008, 06:35 AM
season 7 and 8 were okay, although very uneven. s9 was a mess. And it was complicated by the hard sell and rather pushy attitude of 'it's fantastic, why can't you idiots see it' attitude from certain members of tptb. they seemed to think if they pushed hard enough and repeated how great it was often enough, we'd all come aorund to seeing what a fantastic job they were doing.

really, all they did, was tell us to bugger off and go away...but leave your set on please cause we need the ratings. :rolleyes:

season 10 was a bit better. Still too little too late, but a bit better. Likely because someone sat coop down during the hiatus and said 'dude, listen to the fans, there's a bit of truth in all their 'complaining''.

i tihnk season 10 was doomed from the get go however. all they wanted was the 200th eps and the publicity, and once they had that, they didn't need the show anymore.

Classic stargate, created under the watchful eyes of Michael Greenburg was an intellilgent and witty show, full of gentle humor and a sense of adventure. As MG's participation faded, the 'adult' nature of hte show faded and the frat boys took over. and suddenly 'wedgies' were high humor and boobs, butts and bombs were the goal for every episode.

the show took a hard 180 in appeal and flavor. And it won't ever go back to the magical combination of wit and humor and adventure that started the franchise off.

SGU is doomed because it's going to be made in the image of countless cookie cutter shows in the past. boobs, butts and bombs, shallow plots, pretty people and rewritten homages laced iwth cliches.

I give it two seasons at the most. Because, really, has ANYTHING under coop's control lasted any longer????

It'd just be nice if they'd have the backbone to make a whole new show...WITHOUT MILKING A FRANCHISSE, and stand on their own two feet, instead of warping the work of others into a mere shadow of its former glory

See it's different with Atlantis, imo. It seems a lot of folks are loving the last 2seasons and the ratings as a fact (Which I know people are tired of hearing) are doing better than Season 3's dip. I know I will get in trouble for saying that the majority likes it rather than hates it, but that is just my opinion and observation.

But I remember with SG-1 it was a lot of fans upset, and it almost felt like the majority of any internet fan fandom was upset with SG-1. I was not too frequent on Gateworld, I was posting on sCI FI.com a lot and noticed it there. I could only imagine how GW was.

Anyway, I think it was funny how you said someone likely had to sit down Coop and say, yo dude, listen to the fans, lol. :p

amconway
November 28th, 2008, 08:04 AM
suddenly 'wedgies' were high humor and boobs, butts and bombs were the goal for every episode.
That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I don't think that describes seasons 7 or 8 at all, and while I didn't care for the way they handled Vala's character (still don,t actually, although I'm becoming accustomed...), boobs is the only one that really applies to season 9. Season 10 was was pretty solid-the only problem with it was that Michael Shanks had to (well, wanted to, I'm sure) take paternity leave. The show really suffers when he isn't there. They did rely on things going bang too much in seasons 9 and 10, and the characterizations were way too broad in season 9. but still... That's overly harsh...

Skydiver
November 28th, 2008, 09:37 AM
my post wasn't clear, i said in season 7 and 8 things changed, but in s9, that's when MG left totally, and that's when things took the frat house turn.

as to the show suffereing when MS was gone....2 eps here, 2 eps there....that's how he took his time off. 2 eps if the first half, 2 in the second. and he got a plot arc for his 2 eps off.

as to SGA, season 1 and 2 were okay, but i do agree that s3 was pretty mediocre. We were back to the 'let's stunt cast from earth'. I enjoyed 4 a bit more and i do admit its because i had sam and i had lorne to look forward to. Even as i enjoyed it a bit more, the characters were still badly handled and poorly treated. Season 5 has had some great episodes (the prodigal for example), then we get junk like remnants and brain storm.

I would love it if universe surprises me and recaptures the magic of classic stargate.

but when i look at the stuff coop & co have cranked out since season 9...i'm not very hopeful that what they're making is the kind of show that will appeal to me.

amconway
November 28th, 2008, 09:46 AM
Put that way, I have to say that I agree with you, although I would probably use a different analogy to describe the problems and I didn't have as great an issue with season ten.
As for SGA, I agree completely-I share your fears about SGU, as well...
I do find myself enjoying a lot of the episodes from season 9 and 10 more now than I did when they first aired. Probably because the changes in characterization are less jarring when they don't immediately follow on the heels of season. 8. I do fast forward over a lot of the Vala bits though, especially the ones where she is behaving inappropriately on Earth with no apparent consequences.

Skydiver
November 28th, 2008, 09:57 AM
there were parts of s10 that were good. Uninvited was kinda fun from the 'monster of the week' angle (although they lose points for moving jack's cabin several states and not realizing it), LITS and TRNT were ok, just too close together to be workable...it was like they hit hiatus, realized that they hadn't done anything with sam and cranked out a couple of eps to satisify some internal quota

then we get stuff like bounty, bad guys, the OTT violence of Talion (teal'c gets super duper jaffa revenge over a woman we've not heard a peep about in 10 years) and family ties and the sheer stupidity of a series finale that never happened - basically they just rewrote moebius.

it was like they didn't care anymore. about continuity, about realism, about anything but seeing how many jokes they could squeeze in 43 minutes. The second half of s10 did seem - to me - like them just cranking out whatever popped into their heads to fulfill thier commitment.

season 5 hasn't been quite as self-indulgent,but it has been to a bit.

Briangate78
November 28th, 2008, 10:00 AM
my post wasn't clear, i said in season 7 and 8 things changed, but in s9, that's when MG left totally, and that's when things took the frat house turn.

as to the show suffereing when MS was gone....2 eps here, 2 eps there....that's how he took his time off. 2 eps if the first half, 2 in the second. and he got a plot arc for his 2 eps off.

as to SGA, season 1 and 2 were okay, but i do agree that s3 was pretty mediocre. We were back to the 'let's stunt cast from earth'. I enjoyed 4 a bit more and i do admit its because i had sam and i had lorne to look forward to. Even as i enjoyed it a bit more, the characters were still badly handled and poorly treated. Season 5 has had some great episodes (the prodigal for example), then we get junk like remnants and brain storm.

I would love it if universe surprises me and recaptures the magic of classic stargate.

but when i look at the stuff coop & co have cranked out since season 9...i'm not very hopeful that what they're making is the kind of show that will appeal to me.

I thought you liked Remnants? I think they was Joe M's best ep of all time. Well when you stack it up against Irresponsible and Whispers that ain't a fair comparison. :p

Skydiver
November 28th, 2008, 10:04 AM
i got the titles confused. Remnants was too confusing and too jumbled. for my taste, the hallucinations were dragged on too long and too scrambled. It was more missed opportunity than anything else.

for my opinion, what would have made remnants great would have been

if shep had fought kolya with 'this is not real, this is not real' instead of buying the whole 'some piece of ancient tech brought me back from the dead'

Prodigal was great however.

Flyboy
November 28th, 2008, 10:30 AM
my post wasn't clear, i said in season 7 and 8 things changed, but in s9, that's when MG left totally, and that's when things took the frat house turn.

as to the show suffereing when MS was gone....2 eps here, 2 eps there....that's how he took his time off. 2 eps if the first half, 2 in the second. and he got a plot arc for his 2 eps off.

as to SGA, season 1 and 2 were okay, but i do agree that s3 was pretty mediocre. We were back to the 'let's stunt cast from earth'. I enjoyed 4 a bit more and i do admit its because i had sam and i had lorne to look forward to. Even as i enjoyed it a bit more, the characters were still badly handled and poorly treated. Season 5 has had some great episodes (the prodigal for example), then we get junk like remnants and brain storm.

I would love it if universe surprises me and recaptures the magic of classic stargate.

but when i look at the stuff coop & co have cranked out since season 9...i'm not very hopeful that what they're making is the kind of show that will appeal to me.
I think in terms of the story they were trying to tell in S9 and 10, TPTB did a very good job, and I am very much a fan of the Ori story line, but I do agree that the jokes and indeed the campiness of a lot of the show became far too much to bear, particularly where Vala is concerned, a character who was fantastic in S8 if you ask me.

As for Atlantis, I personally think S1 and 5 are the two best seasons of that show and demosntrate the best writing. I've always prefered SG1 frankly except (on the few times) when SGA is gone very military - usually when Caldwell or Ellis are involved actually. It was nice to see in SGA S2 Ep 2 a standard Air Force uniform at a table (ie Caldwell) who was in standard AF working dress. But I think SGA has suffered from the stunt casting of Carter, (come they openly said it was meant to be Woolsey, Carter's inclusion feels REALLY forced), and silly clone story lines.

Skydiver
November 28th, 2008, 11:25 AM
i could have tolerated the ori (although the whole real world preachy aspect put me off several times...the ori were such a social commentary it was sad...and waspoorly done, imho( but yeah, vala was too campy. too goofy. Keep her hte kick butt ex-host from PU and she'd have been fine. but the bustier clad, pigtailed sexpot???? so didn't fit in with the show.

as a recurring ally? great. even a semi-regular that eventually had to take refuge at the sgc, it would have worked. but - to me - her intro in s9 was just symbolic of the issues many had. and, iirc, coop pimped her as hard and using much the same language as they are now with universe.

how can I believe that they're trying something new when they keep referring to the old as being their guidepost?

they're pimping universe with the same hard sell that they used for s9 and 10, so i don't have much illusion that it'll be much different.

The6thRace
November 28th, 2008, 11:27 AM
Carter's inclusion feels REALLY forced), and silly clone story lines.


And you can tell how little she impacted by how fast she was out of there. I mean a main character just being told 'you are being replaced' at the beginning of season 5 - replaced without any fight or objection from Carter - really shows that they didn't really care about the writing for the character, just about the fact that they had someone from SG-1 to pull in more ratings.

A major event happening to a main character should of had a lot bigger impact. Sure, we got to see her immediately after (relatively speaking) in Continuum, but it was just back to business as usual. Guess she never really liked commanding Atlantis enough to put up a fight on the way out.

Briangate78
November 28th, 2008, 11:54 AM
Don't worry about SGU, there will be plenty of Boobs, Butts and overhead cleavege shots. ;)

Flyboy
November 28th, 2008, 11:56 AM
And you can tell how little she impacted by how fast she was out of there. I mean a main character just being told 'you are being replaced' at the beginning of season 5 - replaced without any fight or objection from Carter - really shows that they didn't really care about the writing for the character, just about the fact that they had someone from SG-1 to pull in more ratings.

A major event happening to a main character should of had a lot bigger impact. Sure, we got to see her immediately after (relatively speaking) in Continuum, but it was just back to business as usual. Guess she never really liked commanding Atlantis enough to put up a fight on the way out.

Ironic really that Woolsey showed way more balls than Carter did on that matter.

Thing is, whilst I actually liked SGA Carter a lot more than SG1 9&10 Carter, she didn't bring anything to the show. They couldn't use her science skills, lest she upstage McKay, she couldn't use her military skills, lest she upstage Sheppard, she was just there and rather uninteresting. Not bad, just... uninteresting. Woolsey on the other hand, was an interesting character, with lots of conflict and issues. They should have just brought him in from the word go.

SGFerrit
November 28th, 2008, 12:10 PM
Ironic really that Woolsey showed way more balls than Carter did on that matter.

I think we all know why that is, and it's got nothing to do with Carter 'showing less balls' than Woolsey.

Killdeer
November 28th, 2008, 12:11 PM
Thing is, whilst I actually liked SGA Carter a lot more than SG1 9&10 Carter, she didn't bring anything to the show. They couldn't use her science skills, lest she upstage McKay, she couldn't use her military skills, lest she upstage Sheppard, she was just there and rather uninteresting. Not bad, just... uninteresting. Woolsey on the other hand, was an interesting character, with lots of conflict and issues. They should have just brought him in from the word go.

I completely agree - with everything.

Skydiver
November 28th, 2008, 02:29 PM
And i am sure that carter's 'uselessness' has nothing to do with the inability of these writers to write females as anything but

someone's girlfriend
babe of the week
sexy alien

Woolsey plays into their favored characterization 'geeky male making good'...he's mckay with a more mellow personality. (and slightly less hair ;) )

and i do agree, carter was not used to her fullest potential...and she fell victim to, like you said, them not trying to tick off other parts of the fandom. they didn't want to tick off the mckay fans, they didn't want to tick off the shep fans...the fact that she was breathing ticked off many of the weir fans. :)

she was doomed.

and they played it so easy and careful that, in most of her episodes, she didn't do anything uniquely carter, because they were too afraid to step on anyone's toes to allow her to do that.

there were plenty of times when she could have used her skills from the past, but those opportunities were ignored.

and these folks, that took a 10 year established character and couldn't make her fit in a spin off, have the skills and ability to successfully create and develop a show that's capable of standing on its own and possesses the ability to last for years????

IMHO, superficial is all they're good at. they may want to think they can spin epics with a rich continuity, but i think they get too distracted by the bright and shiny and indulging their inner homage. I don't think any of them have the drive and concentration to do a JMS and build and develop a full 5 year story. IMHO, they can barely handle a 5 episode arc without contradicting their own continuity and canon.

ShadowMaat
November 28th, 2008, 04:43 PM
TPTB's attitude toward smart people gets REALLY tedious after a while.

Skydiver
November 28th, 2008, 04:46 PM
that's cause they don't want the fans that go 'umm, dude, how can teyla's child be named after her father and be named toran if her father was named something else?' or 'umm, how did jack's cabin in minnesota get moved to silver springs colorado?'

they just want fans that go 'ooh, isn't that space ship cool?' 'did you see that explosion?'
'isn't she hot?'

SylvreWolfe
November 28th, 2008, 06:42 PM
TPTB's attitude toward smart people gets REALLY tedious after a while.


Would they know a smart person if they ever met one?

ShadowMaat
November 28th, 2008, 06:54 PM
Would they know a smart person if they ever met one?

The rules of the forum make it difficult for me to provide an accurate answer to this question. :D Suffice to say, "no" would be part of it. ;)