PDA

View Full Version : RTD snarks about Stargate



Jedi_Master_Bra'tac
December 22nd, 2008, 02:37 AM
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/12/idoctor_whoi_creator_doesnt_care.shtml


"Stargate, can you believe it?" Davies said. "That was a surprise. Has his agent watched it?"

Argh, I can't believe how big headed this quote is. It's basically saying "my show is better than Stargate, therefore he should come to mine".

As one of the few people who thinks New Doctor Who is a pile of crap, I'm gonna be outnumbered here in my hatred of it.
Copied and pasted from a rant I had when I sat through an episode thinking they'd be a new Doctor;
It's the biggest loads of BS on TV. How can you take anything at all seriously? I know it's sci-fi but it's not remotely believable at all. A device that can destroy everything ever? All daleks can be controlled by one computer? How many times did they bring back the daleks after they "defeated them once and for all".

Some people say it's not meant to be taken seriously, but they're moments when you're clearly supposed to. Emotional scenes and the like. It's so OTT and ridiculous that when these scenes come up they just feel out of place.
This is one reason why Stargate is so much better than Doctor Who. It does what DW is trying to do successfully, strike a believable balance between humour and seriousness.
So far the only people I've meant in real life who like it are girls who like it because "David Tennant is so hot", my dad who's probably watching it for nostalgia purposes, and my little sister's 6 year old friend.
If anyones says "If you don't like Doctor Who, why do you watch it?" - I've watched less than 10 episodes, and NEARLY each time I've had nothing but bad things to say.

The only praise I have for the show is Blink, and Tennant's acting. Moffat wrote Blink, and I understand he's taking over the show in '10, so I may give it another go then.

s09119
December 22nd, 2008, 03:30 AM
I used to enjoy Doctor Who, but the camp and horrible special effects have finally killed it for me. It's just a show that doesn't take itself seriously, and while that can be great fun, Who just goes to far. Davies is jealous that the Big Bad American Series got the guy he wanted to be in his little brainchild continuation. Oh well, maybe if Stargate hasn't been known to produce much better work (and attract some rather large names), Carlyle wouldn't have come.

runnerX
December 22nd, 2008, 03:34 AM
I'm the same as you. I only whatched a few episodes of DW. I'm not trashing the show yet because i didn't had my opinion formed from only a few episodes but if it was great i would have sticked to it. RTD behaved like a 6 year old trashing another show in favor of his. He needs to grow a little maybe tune in a couple of stargate episodes so he can think before talking.

jenks
December 22nd, 2008, 03:46 AM
The success Dr. Who has had in the UK has clearly gone to his head. He himself calls it a children's show, is it really hard to believe that Carlyle wouldn't be interested? On one hand he's a got a show in the US with high production quality, billed as being darker and grittier than it's previous incarnations (that lasted 15 seasons between them) and on the other he's got Dr.Who. Not much of a choice really, I'm sure he'd much rather shoot a P90 and get into some serious character drama than spend half his time talking to guys in rubber suits.

Bagpuss
December 22nd, 2008, 04:06 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/victoriaderbyshire/2008/12/rusell_t_davies_and_the_next_d.html

Link to the interview.:) The RC/SG remarks are on there around the 4 min 20 sec mark till 4 min 34 .

Fabiano
December 22nd, 2008, 04:25 AM
This insignificant Davies had a chance to stay quiet, but he resolve shoot in his feet, good look to him....

SGFerrit
December 22nd, 2008, 04:31 AM
Don't mind RTD. He always comes out with remarks that are bound to upset some people, but it does sound like it was in jest. Even if it wasn't it's just an opinion, don't get too upset about it. I do think his Prince Charles comment a few weeks ago was hilarious.

I'd say Universe sounds more like the kind of show Carlyle would be drawn to, if it is indeed darker. Dr. Who is mostly for kids and nostalgic fans, I can't see his style of acting suiting the role as well as it would Dr. Rush, or at least what we've heard of him.

prion
December 22nd, 2008, 05:00 AM
What I can't believe is that an entire article was made on GW from one single quote from RTD. Come on, folks, geez, so he doesn't like Stargate. LOTS of people don't watch it (if everybody watched it, it would have been on network TV and not Sci Fi!)

All this article is doing is showing (at least on the comments section of where the 'article' was posted) is that some fans are taking that comment far too personally.

I expect that someone will go running off to JM's blog to go "oh the horrors!" in regards to the comment ;) And then JM will make some pithy remark, and then it will just go into a vicious cycle that will eventually devour itself, but not before dividing SG from DW fans ;)

MechaThor
December 22nd, 2008, 05:07 AM
Although I prefer Stargate more, I still really enjoy the new Dr Who and am a big fan of both shows and their spin-offs (apart from Sarah Jane adventures, since I am not a little kid, or Stargate Infinity).

However although I don't agree with what RTD said (even though I believe it was a joke more than anything). I just want to say that Dr Who is not a "Cheap and Childish" show. Infact the production values are really good when you look at its budget (which would naturally be lower than an American backed show like Stargate).

Personally I think both Stargate and Dr Who are equal on CGI, acting, make-up, sets, props and costume. However I would agree that SG has better visual effects (like explosions) and lighting departments. I just don't think people should continue to label DR Who as looking "cheap and made from cardboard" based on its original series and the 1rst from the new series, as even Stargates first series looked bad compared to what we have now. The last 2 series of Dr Who has been great, with amazing production values. When the Dr met the Devil in the new series it looked amazing and rivaled anything Stargate had done before it. And you could easily compared Dr Who's "Pompeii" set with the Stargate "Village" set, as both looked amazing. And as for Dr Who's aliens being "people wearing masks", that's a fair point, but them mask actually tend to look rather well made (like the Judoon, Face of Bow or Daleks), I mean even Stargate has had its bad "Rubber Aliens", I mean just look at the original Asgard Puppets, Serpent Guard helmets, Lego Bionicle inspired Kull Warriors and Wraith Drone Masks.

So even though Stargate is a better franchise, don't state that Dr Who is of a cheap and low quality compared to Stargate when its clearly not, infact its most likely equal. The Only difference is the budget, the filming location and the Rules of the Universe they follow, with Dr Who being more Fantasy based and less serous when it comes to universal rules making it a completely different show. Which is why both are great.

smurf
December 22nd, 2008, 05:20 AM
What I can't believe is that an entire article was made on GW from one single quote from RTD. Come on, folks, geez, so he doesn't like Stargate. LOTS of people don't watch it (if everybody watched it, it would have been on network TV and not Sci Fi!)

All this article is doing is showing (at least on the comments section of where the 'article' was posted) is that some fans are taking that comment far too personally.

I expect that someone will go running off to JM's blog to go "oh the horrors!" in regards to the comment ;) And then JM will make some pithy remark, and then it will just go into a vicious cycle that will eventually devour itself, but not before dividing SG from DW fans ;)
So true, RTD not liking Stargate is not the end of the world.

We don't even know if he doesn't like Stargate, since plenty of people are quite capable of mocking something they love. I noticed a number of the reports about RC joining Stargate had this spin. I think some people see Stargate as a bit of a guilty pleasure.

And, really, RC joining Stargate is massively out of left field.

Still, it sounds like a joke to me, and I liked RTD comment immediately afterwards "that's going to be all over the Dr. Who blogs". And the Stargate ones RTD, and the Stargate ones. :rolleyes: :D

Whistler
December 22nd, 2008, 05:35 AM
Well it makes sense that he wouldn't like it, they are very different shows, can't be to everyone's tastes. Who's to say Stargate Universe will be like the Stargate RTD is used to anyway? From what I've heard it's going to be completely different.

razzel_daxxel
December 22nd, 2008, 06:29 AM
A lot of people don't like Stargate and a lot don't like Dr Who, usally no one cares, the only real reason I can see for running this news it to get peoples' backs up, which really is stupid.... Im sure the writters of Stargate have made some distasteful comments about other shows!

I mean JK Rowling slags off other writers all the time, actors are the wrose for it, so for eveyone to get up in arms over this is just **** stiring....

As for RC....It can be hard for English actors to break through to the US, some are happy not bothering to cross the channel, but others do, if RC want to cross over then STU would be a good bet....

Both shows have plus and nimus points and to try and compare then will just cause a "Geek War", with no real purpose.... its RC choice.

Drax
December 22nd, 2008, 06:33 AM
I like both franchises. RTD's comments might have been a bit undiplomatic, but I prefer people speaking their minds rather than being false and boring.

Whistler
December 22nd, 2008, 07:09 AM
Fir the record, I do think this counts as news, it's hillarious.

Nuallain
December 22nd, 2008, 08:39 AM
The thing is, Davies doesn't actually say anything negative about Stargate at all, does he? He expresses some amount of surprise that Carlyle likes it. Or, more specifically again, that Carlyle's agent likes it.

To put it in perspective: I like Stargate; I like Edward James Olmos; but if Olmos was announced as a member of the SGU cast I'd have the same reaction as Davies about Carlyle.

I mean, c'mon, from older interviews with Carlyle I've gotten the impression:

(i) he doesn't like long work commitments
(ii) he doesn't like being in North America
(iii) he doesn't like SF
(iv) he doesn't like working with visual effects


Perhaps Davies has come to the same conclusions and is therefore, not surprisingly, wonders if Carlyle's actually quite aware of what type of show he's just signed up for which doesn't say anything about Davies' view of that show.

Consider, as well, that Davies has said nice things about Stargate in the past (calling it "brilliant" in one piece he wrote for Doctor Who Magazine; and "really good television" in another) and taken inspiration from it too - saying the Adipose (swarming little monsters in the episode Partners in Crime) were partly inspired by the Replicators, and specifying in his script for Army of Ghosts that the Sphere Room should resemble the Gate Room from SG-1. The only half-way negative thing he's ever said about the show was that he (naturally enough) preferred DW's approach of a smaller number of diverse alien planets, than Stargate's larger number of often very similar planets. But, again, that's a personal preference rather than a criticism.

In other words: relax. He's a fan. He's just a fan who's surprised Carlyle's a fan.

jenks
December 22nd, 2008, 08:48 AM
[...]
So even though Stargate is a better franchise, don't state that Dr Who is of a cheap and low quality compared to Stargate when its clearly not, infact its most likely equal. The Only difference is the budget, the filming location and the Rules of the Universe they follow, with Dr Who being more Fantasy based and less serous when it comes to universal rules making it a completely different show. Which is why both are great.

As someone who has seen a few episodes, it clearly is.

Nuallain
December 22nd, 2008, 08:57 AM
*shrug* Each to their own, I suppose. While undoubtedly Atlantis has the bigger budget per season due its longer episode count and the fact that everything just is plain more expensive in North America (particularly in terms of the take home pay of producers and stars); I can't help every week but feel that the end result is that Atlantis looks cheaper than Who.

Now, again, that's not a criticism. I'm a big fan of 20th century Who too which looks SUPER cheap in places. I just think it's odd when people diss Who's FX team compared to SGA's when really, unless it's a ship in space, SGA's CG's really not that great.

Sly12
December 22nd, 2008, 09:19 AM
My 2 Cents on all this or Pennies for the sake of being British anyways... Oranges and Apples, To compare these to shows is impossible.

Doctor Who is science 'fiction', yeh, it's totally out there, not a shread of science about it really but that's the idea, it's about imagining weird concepts like can something be bigger on the inside.

Stargate was an original concept but ultimately with regret I have to say it's dropped the standard by a long way, mainly by sticking to the American idea that a show needs to make total sense or viewers will be angry over 'discontinuety'...

P.S. Yes the Daleks come back from the dead every so often but we don't care... it's usually done better than, oh look more Replicators, more Asgard, oh look the character who's dead but not dead cause now he has a clone is back.


Doctor Who is an ever original show that will continue through the decades by never needing to make sense 100% of the time... Can you say that of any other scifi show?

Pharaoh Atem
December 22nd, 2008, 09:31 AM
he's said things like this before ..he dissed bsg before during a audio commentary

he;'s just a out spoken person from what i've gathered seeing him on tv and dvds

geewillie86
December 22nd, 2008, 10:08 AM
So, the guy who's responsible for a show that puts out lines like "wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff" is going to try to dis Stargate.

The guy who is responsible for the Sarah Jane Adventures is going to try to dis Stargate!


I do like Dr. Who, but it can be a bit ridiculous. When RTD says stuff like this, I think he loses a lot of credibility. His redeeming virtue would be Torchwood, but they've gutted that, haven't they.

Goauld System Lord
December 22nd, 2008, 10:12 AM
Insolence! :sokaranime06:

CazzBlade
December 22nd, 2008, 10:57 AM
Although I prefer Stargate more, I still really enjoy the new Dr Who and am a big fan of both shows and their spin-offs (apart from Sarah Jane adventures, since I am not a little kid, or Stargate Infinity).

However although I don't agree with what RTD said (even though I believe it was a joke more than anything). I just want to say that Dr Who is not a "Cheap and Childish" show. Infact the production values are really good when you look at its budget (which would naturally be lower than an American backed show like Stargate).

Personally I think both Stargate and Dr Who are equal on CGI, acting, make-up, sets, props and costume. However I would agree that SG has better visual effects (like explosions) and lighting departments. I just don't think people should continue to label DR Who as looking "cheap and made from cardboard" based on its original series and the 1rst from the new series, as even Stargates first series looked bad compared to what we have now. The last 2 series of Dr Who has been great, with amazing production values. When the Dr met the Devil in the new series it looked amazing and rivaled anything Stargate had done before it. And you could easily compared Dr Who's "Pompeii" set with the Stargate "Village" set, as both looked amazing. And as for Dr Who's aliens being "people wearing masks", that's a fair point, but them mask actually tend to look rather well made (like the Judoon, Face of Bow or Daleks), I mean even Stargate has had its bad "Rubber Aliens", I mean just look at the original Asgard Puppets, Serpent Guard helmets, Lego Bionicle inspired Kull Warriors and Wraith Drone Masks.

So even though Stargate is a better franchise, don't state that Dr Who is of a cheap and low quality compared to Stargate when its clearly not, infact its most likely equal. The Only difference is the budget, the filming location and the Rules of the Universe they follow, with Dr Who being more Fantasy based and less serous when it comes to universal rules making it a completely different show. Which is why both are great.

I completely disagree. I'm currently in my final year of a degree in Film and Television Production and I would be ashamed to work on Dr Who.

Wormhole
December 22nd, 2008, 11:00 AM
What I can't believe is that an entire article was made on GW from one single quote from RTD. Come on, folks, geez, so he doesn't like Stargate. LOTS of people don't watch it (if everybody watched it, it would have been on network TV and not Sci Fi!)

All this article is doing is showing (at least on the comments section of where the 'article' was posted) is that some fans are taking that comment far too personally.

I expect that someone will go running off to JM's blog to go "oh the horrors!" in regards to the comment ;) And then JM will make some pithy remark, and then it will just go into a vicious cycle that will eventually devour itself, but not before dividing SG from DW fans ;)

*Raises hands* stopped watching it two years ago. *Runs*

I'm not watching SG: Universe, that way I won't get disappointed again:(.

I've been a Who fan for years. Always will be.

prion
December 22nd, 2008, 11:46 AM
I completely disagree. I'm currently in my final year of a degree in Film and Television Production and I would be ashamed to work on Dr Who.

Lord, I'd be thrilled to work on it myself ;) Sometimes it's not about spx, etc. but just being entertained. I do find WHO well written though, the SPX great (and I'm talking the seasons shown on Sci Fi).


*Raises hands* stopped watching it two years ago. *Runs*

I'm not watching SG: Universe, that way I won't get disappointed again:(.

I've been a Who fan for years. Always will be.

I"ve watched all of SG, will take a gander at SGU and decide. Only got into WHO with the Sci Fi channel run, although do remember seeing Dalek movies as a kid with PEter Cushing going "neat" when I saw the Daleks. I"ve got three now :)



Please you insult me. Gasoline is easier. :lol:

I suppose, but I think I"d like to wait till it's down to $1.50/gallon ;)

The_Carpenter
December 22nd, 2008, 12:14 PM
RTD wrote the horrifically appalling Love and Monsters.... those in glass houses...

Though I'm inclined to think this was meant in Jest as he described the sphere room in Torchwood/ Doomsday as being like the SGC in the script, apparently the Replicators where somewhat of an inspiration for the Adipose.

Madeleine
December 22nd, 2008, 12:25 PM
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/12/idoctor_whoi_creator_doesnt_care.shtml



Argh, I can't believe how big headed this quote is. It's basically saying "my show is better than Stargate, therefore he should come to mine".

Firstly, it says nothing of the sort, it was a silly little throwaway comment of the type RTD makes all the time, about shows and people he likes OR dislikes. He says appalling things about his friends, and they just laugh.

I don't think it was meant as a dig, and people needn't take it as one unless they know otherwise.

Secondly, RTD doesn't have a show at the moment since he quit DW, but if he did he could probably take his pick of a half the actors in the UK: he's pretty well respected given that he ran a show that got average 7million viewers a week on a regular basis and before that had a stack of successes under his belt. And I doubt he'd pine away because he could only take his pick of "half the actors in the UK minus RC".

CazzBlade
December 22nd, 2008, 12:26 PM
Lord, I'd be thrilled to work on it myself ;) Sometimes it's not about spx, etc. but just being entertained. I do find WHO well written though, the SPX great (and I'm talking the seasons shown on Sci Fi).


I get why people enjoy it. There's another British programme called Bonekickers that in a lot of ways is quite terrible but I still enjoyed watching it :P I just can't get past the poor special effects, cheesy costumes etc.. :S

razzel_daxxel
December 22nd, 2008, 12:41 PM
I really don't understand the continual refrences to special effects?

If thats the only measure of a show, then half the Sci Fi's in the world should be scraped, the porblem is as more shows rely on special effects, we begin to loose character screen time, story lines etc..... Like for example the "take over" of ship battles in Stargate, it seems we cant have one episode with out someone in a shipe getting shot at, which takes screen time away from the characters!

Sadly, yes, British TV has a lower budget than the US and this is the primary reason for a lack of special effects. However this is a signe of the times, our children and grandchildren will look back on Stargate Atlantis and most likly laugh at the "Cheap special effects" :D

@ Reiko - Sadly, Free speech is only there when no one cares about what is said, if you offend someone then free speech seems to disappear! :lol:

crowmagnumman
December 22nd, 2008, 12:45 PM
Darn. I just posted a long-ish rant about this in the Robert Carlyle thread. I'll just have to abbreviate here.

I don't understand the hate for Doctor Who. I think it's the best show on television. I find it hard to believe that anyone could love Stargate Atlantis while simultaneously calling Doctor Who "cheap" or "silly." Have you actually seen the show? They may not have a massive budget, but they do a hell of a lot more with it than Stargate Atlantis has been doing lately. Am I alone on this?

That said, I also don't like hearing RTD bash Atlantis. I do think Atlantis has shown a major drop in quality over the past couple of seasons, but that's no reason to bash the whole of Stargate. For most of its run, Stargate was one of the best sci-fi shows ever made. I like Doctor Who a lot, but Stargate used to be just as good.

Anyways, since when do special effects matter in a sci-fi show? Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the writing was what mattered. The writing is what made Stargate so good originally. The writing is what makes Doctor Who so great. The writing is what made Star Trek so great. And the writing is what made the last couple of seasons of Atlantis so damn poor. And it will probably be what makes Universe poor.

KINGFRC12
December 22nd, 2008, 12:55 PM
DR Who is a good show but its totally diferent to stargate. The thing with the who is you've gotta believe the crap that is put before you in every epp. even if you know that its just been pulled outta thin air. in Dr who theres no real sicence and Even the premis of the show dose not hold up to the science that we know today. but thats all good because Dr who is just ment to be fun. its ment for you to watch and forget about your wories. However stargate is a totaly diff beast. its ment to be taken seriously most of the time, and trys to base its science with what we know and just dosent sort things out with a sonic screw-driver. Stargate is a diff kind of escape show where you know and think to yourself this could all be possibale, As for the fact that this wanna be producer said what he did so what. What dose his opinion matter to the non die hard fans of Dr who. Hes just doing what all producers do and that trying to get atention for his new epp which airs in a couple of days in the uk. What i'm trying to say the two shows a opesets of each other so whats the point of trying to compair them. thats just a waste of time

sorrie bout my spelling but its crap lol

Reiko
December 22nd, 2008, 12:57 PM
I really don't understand the continual refrences to special effects?

People are making fun of DW's special effects, I think. :S

It's true: British TV has a much smaller budget that American television does. I'll admit that Doctor Who does not have superior special effects to Atlantis.

But IMO the quality has been much more higher than Atlantis in it's past two years.

prion
December 22nd, 2008, 01:03 PM
Darn. I just posted a long-ish rant about this in the Robert Carlyle thread. I'll just have to abbreviate here.

I don't understand the hate for Doctor Who. I think it's the best show on television. I find it hard to believe that anyone could love Stargate Atlantis while simultaneously calling Doctor Who "cheap" or "silly." Have you actually seen the show? They may not have a massive budget, but they do a hell of a lot more with it than Stargate Atlantis has been doing lately. Am I alone on this?

That said, I also don't like hearing RTD bash Atlantis. I do think Atlantis has shown a major drop in quality over the past couple of seasons, but that's no reason to bash the whole of Stargate. For most of its run, Stargate was one of the best sci-fi shows ever made. I like Doctor Who a lot, but Stargate used to be just as good.

[snip]The writing is what made Stargate so good originally. The writing is what makes Doctor Who so great. The writing is what made Star Trek so great. And the writing is what made the last couple of seasons of Atlantis so damn poor. And it will probably be what makes Universe poor.

Actually, RTD did not bash Atlantis. He said "stargate." That's all. So I suppose you could take as bashing an entire franchise, who knows, and frankly, who cares?

Special effects matter a LOT in science fiction shows, at least to the key demographic (young males, 18-25, etc. etc.). I'd rather have incredible dialogue, than seeing a spaceship blow up *again*. The thing is that most science fiction is mostly fiction (if you think all the science on Stargate flies, well, um, it doesn't). I watch a show for characters over fancy spx, but if it's on SciFi, they usually want/demand that kind of stuff, although Skiffy is scraping the bottom of the barrel now in showing just badly written horror flicks.

Agree with your last paragraph, definitely.

Coaster
December 22nd, 2008, 01:07 PM
Not that it's an excuse, but RTD is well-known for being blunt and sometimes saying tactless things. Large segments of Who fandom have repeatedly gotten riled up (and not in a good way) over things he's said over the past few years even about his own show, so this is nothing new to me. ;)

Madeleine
December 22nd, 2008, 01:10 PM
Special effects matter a LOT in science fiction shows, at least to the key demographic (young males, 18-25, etc. etc.).

That's only the key demographic for SF in the US.

In the UK, it's really a question of what time it's on. If it's on during office hours, "Children". If it's on after teatime, "everyone not yet in bed".

P-90_177
December 22nd, 2008, 01:12 PM
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/12/idoctor_whoi_creator_doesnt_care.shtml



Argh, I can't believe how big headed this quote is. It's basically saying "my show is better than Stargate, therefore he should come to mine".

As one of the few people who thinks New Doctor Who is a pile of crap, I'm gonna be outnumbered here in my hatred of it.
Copied and pasted from a rant I had when I sat through an episode thinking they'd be a new Doctor;
It's the biggest loads of BS on TV. How can you take anything at all seriously? I know it's sci-fi but it's not remotely believable at all. A device that can destroy everything ever? All daleks can be controlled by one computer? How many times did they bring back the daleks after they "defeated them once and for all".

Some people say it's not meant to be taken seriously, but they're moments when you're clearly supposed to. Emotional scenes and the like. It's so OTT and ridiculous that when these scenes come up they just feel out of place.
This is one reason why Stargate is so much better than Doctor Who. It does what DW is trying to do successfully, strike a believable balance between humour and seriousness.
So far the only people I've meant in real life who like it are girls who like it because "David Tennant is so hot", my dad who's probably watching it for nostalgia purposes, and my little sister's 6 year old friend.
If anyones says "If you don't like Doctor Who, why do you watch it?" - I've watched less than 10 episodes, and NEARLY each time I've had nothing but bad things to say.

The only praise I have for the show is Blink, and Tennant's acting. Moffat wrote Blink, and I understand he's taking over the show in '10, so I may give it another go then.

Ah good ol' RTD. What a legend. :D

Madeleine
December 22nd, 2008, 01:13 PM
Not that it's an excuse, but RTD is well-known for being blunt and sometimes saying tactless things.

Yes. And saying outrageous, exaggerated-for-effect and quite frankly ridiculous things, on purpose.

If you listen to him a few times, you get a sense for when he's being serious and when he isn't ;)

Coaster
December 22nd, 2008, 01:22 PM
Yes. And saying outrageous, exaggerated-for-effect and quite frankly ridiculous things, on purpose.

If you listen to him a few times, you get a sense for when he's being serious and when he isn't ;)

He's a real treat to watch in things like the Confidentials. :D I think his often-teasing manner doesn't come across in print as well as it does in person.

P-90_177
December 22nd, 2008, 01:24 PM
Yes. And saying outrageous, exaggerated-for-effect and quite frankly ridiculous things, on purpose.

If you listen to him a few times, you get a sense for when he's being serious and when he isn't ;)

Well he is the living embodiment of the doctor in one form or the other. :P

Pitry
December 22nd, 2008, 01:31 PM
Oh so this was the end of the comment! LoL. I listened to it twice on the listen again feature, but couldn't figure out what the ending was. Cheers for that. :)

As for the comment - Sigh. People, please do relax. RTD himself has said in one of his past interviews he likes Stargate. Can't be arsed to find the exact quote, but it wa something in the spirit of "it's a good show but too militaristic" or something like that. This is an off hand comment made in a radio interview about something else entirely out of surprise, and yes, I was surprised as well to hear Robert Carlyle has signed up with Stargate. Give the man a break.

And ya know what? Maybe he's seen Stargate lately and doesn't like it too much. There are plenty of fans here who feel the same, after all, and repeatedly make comments in that spirit - who knows? Maybe RTD is one of them? ;)

(DISCLAIMER: Doctor Who has replaced Stargate as my favourite television show/ franchise a while back now. )

P-90_177
December 22nd, 2008, 02:29 PM
Oh so this was the end of the comment! LoL. I listened to it twice on the listen again feature, but couldn't figure out what the ending was. Cheers for that. :)

As for the comment - Sigh. People, please do relax. RTD himself has said in one of his past interviews he likes Stargate. Can't be arsed to find the exact quote, but it wa something in the spirit of "it's a good show but too militaristic" or something like that. This is an off hand comment made in a radio interview about something else entirely out of surprise, and yes, I was surprised as well to hear Robert Carlyle has signed up with Stargate. Give the man a break.

And ya know what? Maybe he's seen Stargate lately and doesn't like it too much. There are plenty of fans here who feel the same, after all, and repeatedly make comments in that spirit - who knows? Maybe RTD is one of them? ;)

(DISCLAIMER: Doctor Who has replaced Stargate as my favourite television show/ franchise a while back now. )

(Regarding Disclaimer: I agree. Doctor Who is by far and away above stargate in my eyes now........actually Stragate is no longer in my top 3 favorite sci-fi shows.)

s09119
December 22nd, 2008, 02:47 PM
The difference is more than just special effects; but let's be honest, watching a show with horrid VFX is just impossible sometimes! But when the writing, acting, and overall plan pull it so far above the norm that you forget the terrible visuals (remember such shows as early Star Trek series, Babylon 5, etc.), then the bad stuff doesn't matter so much.

Unfortunately, Dr. Who has simply-awful acting by most of its cast (the Doctors and most companions aside), its plot is pure-silliness and rehashing of things its done before (Stargate has done this too, I'm aware, but not to this extent), and its writing is often atrocious. That said, it has its moments where you can forget all that and simply love what you're watching, but most of the time it's very hard for science-fiction lovers to latch onto Dr. Who; it's just too campy, and the effects are what drive many away because of it.

But of course, to each his/her own. Who has a lot of potential, and if you're not the type to obsess over the more "science" parts of "science-fiction," please enjoy it!

Pitry
December 22nd, 2008, 02:52 PM
T

But of course, to each his/her own. Who has a lot of potential, and if you're not the type to obsess over the more "science" parts of "science-fiction," please enjoy it!

I'm not the type, I guess. I enjoy good writing, good acting, good storytelling, good cinematography (yes, including VFX), witty humour, original ideas and imagination, and I find DW has all of these (yes, including VFX) in abundance. :) Different strokes for different people an' all that.

Col.Foley
December 22nd, 2008, 02:57 PM
I do happen to love both series, Stargate the favorite of the two. But yeah, this could seem a little bit irksome. Of course, Pitry could be right. It could have been meant as that bit of surprise there, and more or less harmless.

As far as the rest. I view Doctor Who as something that I do not take seriously. It is a show to have pure fun with. Sometimes with dark over tones, while Gate seems to be the other way around, a serious series that goes light hearted...granted...it does this often.

As in terms of the writing. Davies has had his successes and his failures, needless to say, I cannot wait until Moffet finall takes over.

Col.Foley
December 22nd, 2008, 02:59 PM
I'm not the type, I guess. I enjoy good writing, good acting, good storytelling, good cinematography (yes, including VFX), witty humour, original ideas and imagination, and I find DW has all of these (yes, including VFX) in abundance. :) Different strokes for different people an' all that.
You know, you do bring up another one of those points. In basic, and I have said this before. When someone disses a scene of either show, or an action, or plot. I usually do not see it, at all. Its just one of those things that a lot of what has happened in Gate the last few years, I really have not seen the problems with. Same with Who.

spinny magee
December 22nd, 2008, 03:16 PM
Who cares what RTD thinks? Honestly he's just one guy.

LaCroix
December 22nd, 2008, 03:17 PM
Oh so this was the end of the comment! LoL. I listened to it twice on the listen again feature, but couldn't figure out what the ending was. Cheers for that. :)

As for the comment - Sigh. People, please do relax. RTD himself has said in one of his past interviews he likes Stargate. Can't be arsed to find the exact quote, but it wa something in the spirit of "it's a good show but too militaristic" or something like that. This is an off hand comment made in a radio interview about something else entirely out of surprise, and yes, I was surprised as well to hear Robert Carlyle has signed up with Stargate. Give the man a break.

And ya know what? Maybe he's seen Stargate lately and doesn't like it too much. There are plenty of fans here who feel the same, after all, and repeatedly make comments in that spirit - who knows? Maybe RTD is one of them? ;)

(DISCLAIMER: Doctor Who has replaced Stargate as my favourite television show/ franchise a while back now. )





I think I've found it.



http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/2006/07/03/quick-stop-interview-russell-t-davies/


Extract:



Shows like Stargate are excellent, but they have a very macho, military, hard-ass feel to them. And Doctor Who is more charming and more witty and more eccentric. So it’s to keep that lightness without being seen as a send-up, and it’s a very difficult balance act. We have very good writers and a production team who pulled that off, really.




The only fault that I see is the military aspect that RTD says. But then again, Doctor Who is a totally different show with a history of no weapons for the Doctor.

ShadowMaat
December 22nd, 2008, 03:38 PM
<mod snip>

I thought his comment was a funny bit of snark and pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things. I also think it's funny that Stargate fans are getting outraged and acting as if Stargate is some sort of highbrow performing artistry instead of another bit of light entertainment that can be just as "cheesy" as Doctor Who itself. ;) Personally I'm of the opinion that Doctor Who is the better show, but even without that I'm not sure Stargate fans should be casting aspersions as if they stand on the moral (and entertainment) high ground.

Granted, the same could probably also be said of RTD passing judgment on Stargate, but as I said, I think it was meant to be a silly, off-hand comment and it'd be kind of surprising for him not to think the best of his own show.

Each show has its own tone and aims itself at a different audience with different mentalities. There's a fair bit of overlap with folks watching both shows, but Doctor Who is still geared more toward kids (and the kids at heart) while Stargate is very definitely more adult in content. It's possible to compare the two, but I'm not sure it'd be fair to either one.
<mod snip>

Col.Foley
December 22nd, 2008, 03:42 PM
<mod snip>

I thought his comment was a funny bit of snark and pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things. I also think it's funny that Stargate fans are getting outraged and acting as if Stargate is some sort of highbrow performing artistry instead of another bit of light entertainment that can be just as "cheesy" as Doctor Who itself. ;) Personally I'm of the opinion that Doctor Who is the better show, but even without that I'm not sure Stargate fans should be casting aspersions as if they stand on the moral (and entertainment) high ground.

Granted, the same could probably also be said of RTD passing judgment on Stargate, but as I said, I think it was meant to be a silly, off-hand comment and it'd be kind of surprising for him not to think the best of his own show.

Each show has its own tone and aims itself at a different audience with different mentalities. There's a fair bit of overlap with folks watching both shows, but Doctor Who is still geared more toward kids (and the kids at heart) while Stargate is very definitely more adult in content. It's possible to compare the two, but I'm not sure it'd be fair to either one.

<mod snip>
Good point. :P
:indeed: This is exactly how I feel. the shows are so different from one another, odd that I can enjoy both so much really. But there is a lot of overlap beween the two. They are Sci Fi after all.
And...I doubt it. Who knows what Darren was doing in making this news worthy. Other then the fact that this was another popular S-F show referencing SG.

FN-P90
December 22nd, 2008, 03:48 PM
I'm the same as you. I only whatched a few episodes of DW. I'm not trashing the show yet because i didn't had my opinion formed from only a few episodes but if it was great i would have sticked to it. RTD behaved like a 6 year old trashing another show in favor of his. He needs to grow a little maybe tune in a couple of stargate episodes so he can think before talking.

I dont personaly care for doctor who. its confusing and a little gumbled for me. But it dosnt matter to me what this guy said because in my opinion Stargate is one of the best Sci Fi series ever and ill continue to watch is no matter what a man from the BBC has said. I wont hold it against him for not likeing it i mean that his opinion and he has all the right in the world to have one but really he shouldnt insult it like that especilly when alot of his fans most likely watch Stargate. Either way like i said i dont care what he said ill still like stargate and if he dosnt like that well thats his problem.

PG15
December 22nd, 2008, 03:59 PM
Meh; let the guy have his opinions. I may not agree but it's his right to express 'em.

I like Stargate way better, but there's a certain charm to DW; or at least, their season finales.

Col.Foley
December 22nd, 2008, 04:23 PM
But what happens when we love both shows with equal measure. :(
or something like that. :P

Kickoutwoolsey
December 22nd, 2008, 04:23 PM
RTD doesn't know what a good show is :mckay:.

P-90_177
December 22nd, 2008, 04:36 PM
RTD doesn't know what a good show is :mckay:.

He brought back Doctor Who.................He very clearly knows what a absoloutley amazing show is..........

cowpants
December 22nd, 2008, 05:26 PM
I'm beginning to think this is the funniest thread ever.

For those who are curious, they can listen to the interview with RTD here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/victoriaderbyshire/2008/12/rusell_t_davies_and_the_next_d.html). The bit where he discusses Robert Carlyle starts up at about 4:20.

Now, considering that he was laughing while saying the comment, and after saying it, he said, "Ha, that's going to end up on all the Doctor Who blogs tomorrow".... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it was a joke. Many of the comments in this thread and on the GW main page are a total overreaction. The GateWorld article failed to mention the tone with which the comment was made, and now people are taking this way out of context.

Not like the opinion of one guy matters, anyways.

Irish Eyes
December 22nd, 2008, 05:35 PM
I"ve watched all of SG, will take a gander at SGU and decide. Only got into WHO with the Sci Fi channel run, although do remember seeing Dalek movies as a kid with PEter Cushing going "neat" when I saw the Daleks. I"ve got three now :)

And fine Daleks they are. Are they decorated for the season this year? :)


People are making fun of DW's special effects, I think. :S

It's true: British TV has a much smaller budget that American television does. I'll admit that Doctor Who does not have superior special effects to Atlantis.

But IMO the quality has been much more higher than Atlantis in it's past two years.

DW special effects are just what I expect so they don't bother me. SGA has good special effects, until they run out of money for them at the end of the season. (Yes, I'm looking at you, season 4 finale.)

fyere
December 22nd, 2008, 06:13 PM
Heh. Maybe RTD's a little sore over SG-1 taking a bit of the bloom off DW's 'longest-running sci-fi series' rose? (Guinness Book of Records entry, anyone?)

Col.Foley
December 22nd, 2008, 06:22 PM
And fine Daleks they are. Are they decorated for the season this year? :)



DW special effects are just what I expect so they don't bother me. SGA has good special effects, until they run out of money for them at the end of the season. (Yes, I'm looking at you, season 4 finale.)
Well...this year has had some bad special effects at times. I believe someone mentioned the word 'videogameish,' and it must be bad for me to notice it. How so ever, I did not really hate the entire show for that one small flaw in that one small moment.

ShadowMaat
December 22nd, 2008, 06:40 PM
Heh. Maybe RTD's a little sore over SG-1 taking a bit of the bloom off DW's 'longest-running sci-fi series' rose? (Guinness Book of Records entry, anyone?)

Ummm... No? SG-1 had the longest continuous run, a title it took away from X-Files. Doctor Who will be starting its 31st year in the springtime, which is spread over several decades but still far outstrips Stargate for total eps produced. Or did I miss something somewhere?

s09119
December 22nd, 2008, 07:08 PM
Ummm... No? SG-1 had the longest continuous run, a title it took away from X-Files. Doctor Who will be starting its 31st year in the springtime, which is spread over several decades but still far outstrips Stargate for total eps produced. Or did I miss something somewhere?

Stargate: SG-1 was a continuous, non-interrupted-by-cancellations-etc. run. In my mind, that is far more impressive than a show being revived over and over again.

ShadowMaat
December 22nd, 2008, 07:15 PM
Stargate: SG-1 was a continuous, non-interrupted-by-cancellations-etc. run. In my mind, that is far more impressive than a show being revived over and over again.

But the point is that Stargate didn't steal the "longest continuous run" mantle from Doctor Who, it stole it from X-Files. If that was the point.

MasySyma
December 22nd, 2008, 08:20 PM
I don't get it. Why was this even a news article?

A guy, who is known for sarcasm, makes a remark that has been taken out of context that may or may not insult SGU.

So?

He's entitled to his opinion.

The Prophet
December 22nd, 2008, 08:47 PM
I don't get it. Why was this even a news article?

A guy, who is known for sarcasm, makes a remark that has been taken out of context that may or may not insult SGU.

Following on from that, and trying not to offend anybody, isn't it a standard clichéd staple that Americans don't understand British Wit/ Sarcasm, and us Brits don't understand American Exagerated and Observationalist Humour?

Although, this isn't true in the slightest, especially with globalisation and mass communication, but it's funny to see what might be used as an example that such stereotypes might still exist.

MasySyma
December 22nd, 2008, 08:52 PM
Following on from that, and trying not to offend anybody, isn't it a standard clichéd staple that Americans don't understand British Wit/ Sarcasm, and us Brits don't understand American Exagerated and Observationalist Humour?

Although, this isn't true in the slightest, especially with globalisation and mass communication, but it's funny to see what might be used as an example that such stereotypes might still exist.

I wasn't even thinking of those sterotypes when posting. I'm proof they are wrong. I'm American. :)

I've just read many interviews with RTD, and the man is sarcastic in 95% of them. He is also known for making provactive remarks.

I just don't understand why the article was news. I have an opinion about both franchises, and I enjoy SG-1 and Doctor Who. I think the article does nothing other than stir up negativity.

Amaunet
December 22nd, 2008, 09:10 PM
They way it's been said, the comment comes across as a jealous statement, if this is true...it's merely a compliment to Stargate

TameFarrar
December 22nd, 2008, 09:39 PM
As with any News Story on any media outlet you are expected to make your own determination.

GW reports many comments made by many other people all of time, some good, some bad.

However, since this thread has not only provided links to the article AND two members posted links to the recording. I think it is safe to say folks are being informed.

It was a tidbit regarding Stargate and The latest Casting choice. That is all.

Please do not derail this thread and take it off topic trying to ascertain or assign any motives to GW or Darren himself.

Lets get back to the topic at hand shall we.

Thank You
TameFarrar
GateWorld Moderator

Kor
December 23rd, 2008, 01:25 AM
As I see it, if he doesn't like stargate, that is his opinion and his business. Not everyone will like the same things, after all.

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 01:42 AM
Ummm... No? SG-1 had the longest continuous run, a title it took away from X-Files. Doctor Who will be starting its 31st year in the springtime, which is spread over several decades but still far outstrips Stargate for total eps produced. Or did I miss something somewhere?

Even if you discount the revival, Doctor Who was in production for 26 seasons straight, from November 1963 to December 1989. That much longer than SG-1 is.

Hell, for the first several years of production it was on a punishing schedule where they'd made 250 episodes before they took a production break longer than three weeks... I don't think SG-1 ever even managed to get through an entire 22 episode season without more than one break in the run of episodes.


It's interesting to see everybody's differing opinions on SG and DW. It's weird, because of how different they are. The SG fans prefer it over DW because they think it has better SFX and is more 'properly' scientific. Yet I, for instance, prefer DW partly because the SFX are better and it seems more properly about SF concepts. The SG shows are great, fun, action-adventure shows where there's an SF premise enabling the action and adventure. But DW is the show more likely to throw you into a completely alien society and then ask questions about what it means to be human.

jenks
December 23rd, 2008, 02:17 AM
But the point is that Stargate didn't steal the "longest continuous run" mantle from Doctor Who, it stole it from X-Files. If that was the point.

Actually the continuous thing is BS, Dr. Who holds that title too. All SG-1 can claim to be is the longest running North American sci-fi show, that's what it took from The X-Files.

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 02:39 AM
I think ultimately they amended it to SG-1 being the SF show currently in the longest current continuous run (the same difference, if you like, as between tallest living man and tallest ever man). That is, as soon as SG-1 finished, it lost that record to something else.

No idea what, though. Smallville probably.

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 02:48 AM
Firstly, while I love both shows....GW saying, "In the U.K., of course, Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis have been top ratings performers for Sky One, just as Doctor Who has regularly topped the charts for the BBC.", is absolutely hilarious and utterly misleading. Dr Who gets MILLIONS of viewers (13 MILLION plus for the s4 premiere), as apposed to Stargate's adverage of a 100,000 or so in the UK. It doesn't even get 1% of the viewership of Dr Who (and 25+ million people have access to the channel SGA & SG1 are on which isn't quite as much as BBC1, but not that low either). You can't compare them. When SG1 was on a terrestrial channel with the same access viewership as BBC1, it got 10's of thousands of viewers... less then 0.1% of Dr Who's viewership (though this was the UK equivalent of 'syndication'). In reverse, Dr Who has been doing very well on US television, in 2006 it had a 1.3 - 1.5 rating on the Scifi channel, comparable to SG's current ratings (sorry I can't find this years ratings). It'd genuinely be interesting to see how well SG1 & SGA did on BBC1....

Dr Who has excellent production values and effects which are 'stylised', they're not meant to be wholely realistic because its not an adult show, its aimed at kids & teens or generally as a 'family' show. It's budget, while not tiny is not that of SG but it still has as much if not more success. What it lacks in budget, it makes up for in in excellent, solid writing and great season arcs. The writing is the core of a shows success, not its budget or effects.

As for the longest running show, considering Dr Who has been running off and on since the 60s, though not continually like SG1, it is easily the longest running show. SG1 is the longest running North American show scifi show so there is a big distinction there. Though I believe SG1 holds the honor of being the longest running CONSECUTIVE scifi show (though I think Dr Who ran for 10+ one years at one point...but I'm not sure without looking it up).

And I honestly think Russell T. Davies was joking, besides he doesn't have to like SG, a lot of people dont or simply dont watch. But then, I detest soaps and dont watch them...which some of my friends think is crazy. Each to their own.

jenks
December 23rd, 2008, 03:54 AM
Anything you air prime time on BBC1 will get good ratings, especially when it's a cult classic that you advertise the living **** out of.

Jedi_Master_Bra'tac
December 23rd, 2008, 04:00 AM
And Stargate gets in the top 10 for Sky One frequently, and it's not advertised at all.
You could only compare their ratings if Stargate was on ITV1 and had as much advertising as Who does.

smurf
December 23rd, 2008, 04:28 AM
<mod snip>

It should be noted on the argument of "if the show was on a freely available channel..." SGA was on a terrestrial channel. Channel Five bought the first season and advertised the hell out of it. Unfortunately, it obviously didn't do very well for them since they only aired the one season (and, if I remember correctly, they bumped it mid-way through the season to a less favorable time for reruns of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer).

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 04:36 AM
And Stargate gets in the top 10 for Sky One frequently, and it's not advertised at all.
You could only compare their ratings if Stargate was on ITV1 and had as much advertising as Who does.

SkyOne does 'advertise the crap' out of SG at the beginning of the season and regularly during the shows run. I dont even have SkyOne and I see adds on Sky3 etc (as I only have freeview these days at home) all the time. Anyone who has Sky TV either via satalie or cable, will see those ads. Not to mention all the print and net ads.

But thats not the point.

The point I was trying to make was that GW was comparing SG's performance on Sky to Dr Who on BBC1 by saying "Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis have been top ratings performers for Sky One, just as Doctor Who has regularly topped the charts for the BBC.". You can't, thats utterly ridiculous. You can not compare two channels, one terrestrial the other pay-per-view with vastly different potential viewership. It is UTTERLY misleading and complete spin.

You can claim SG is in the 'Top 10' all you want on Sky, but it means NOTHING because Dr Who isn't on that channel. Even comparing viewing figures is misleading because SkyOne & BBC1 dont have the same 'potential viewers' i.e. the number of people who have access to the channel. Though Sky's reach is so big now, that those numbers wouldn't be vastly different. However, the number of people who actually watch SkyOne regardless of the show, is significantly less then BBC1.

It's like comparing a high school football game to the Superbowl. Yes, both games might 'sell out' and could therefore be considered to be 'popular'. But the highschool game can seat 5 thousand and the Superbowl a hundred thousand... so its utterly ridiculous to compare them. In the grand scheme of things, SG is the highschool game to Dr Who's Superbowl.


It should be noted on the argument of "if the show was on a freely available channel..." SGA was on a terrestrial channel. Channel Five bought the first season and advertised the hell out of it. Unfortunately, it obviously didn't do very well for them since they only aired the one season (and, if I remember correctly, they bumped it mid-way through the season to a less favorable time for reruns of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer).

Yup, but SG1 airred quite a bit on Channel 4 though was again bumped due to the lack of ratings or interest (the time slot was during the day, not some wee morning hour or late night slot). Though to be fair, its a syndication airring of SG1 as SGA's airring on Channel 5 was, which was AFTER the DVD's had been released & Sky had shown a bunch of reruns.

it does well on Sky because its the UK premiere and they do advertise it quite extensively. However as its adverage is 100k viewers, its still a very small minor show. And Dr Who gets pretty similar viewing figures in the US, to SGA.

I still think its utterly unfair to compare the shows though and GW's article was extremely misleading and inaccurate, not to mention irresponsible to report on taking comments out of context.

Jedi_Master_Bra'tac
December 23rd, 2008, 04:43 AM
SkyOne does 'advertise the crap' out of SG at the beginning of the season and regularly during the shows run. I dont even have SkyOne and I see adds on Sky3 etc (as I only have freeview these days at home) all the time. Anyone who has Sky TV either via satalie or cable, will see those ads. Not to mention all the print and net ads.

No it doesn't. If we're lucky we'll get one advert and that was only for stuff like 200 and Unending, compared with shows like lost and 24 which get an advert EVERY break.

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 04:50 AM
No it doesn't. If we're lucky we'll get one advert and that was only for stuff like 200 and Unending, compared with shows like lost and 24 which get an advert EVERY break.

Well I dont know what channels you've been watching, but I see plenty and I watch very little TV, most of it through work . Not to mention the mag stands with plenty of Cable & Satelite mags with SGA covers, newspaper, magazine & website banner ads. Yes, 24 gets more and is more visable but its a much MUCh bigger mainstream show from a major US network.

Comparing SGA to Dr Who on UK TV, IS like comparing SGA or SG1 to 24 on US TV...ridiculous and pointless (a bit like all the political spin used in the US election to promote Palin.... "I can see Russia from my house!").

Reefgirl
December 23rd, 2008, 04:58 AM
Ok, can I add a little fuel to the ratings row, this came from the Broadcasters Audience Research Board (the UK version of Nielson)


Sky 1
w/e 7 Dec 2008
000's
1 THE SIMPSONS (Sun 18:29) 896
2 THE SIMPSONS (Mon 19:01) 696
3 THE SIMPSONS (Mon 19:32) 604
4 STARGATE ATLANTIS (Tue 20:01) 580
5 THE SIMPSONS (Tue 19:01) 554
6 THE SIMPSONS (Fri 19:01) 544
7 FRINGE (Sun 21:00) 531
8 THE SIMPSONS (Wed 19:00) 521
9 PRISON BREAK (Tue 22:00) 512
10 THE SIMPSONS (Fri 19:33) 504


When the figures are up for the Christmas Dr Who I'll post them but 9.4 million people watched the final episode of series 4 of Dr Who

Jedi_Master_Bra'tac
December 23rd, 2008, 05:00 AM
I thought we established that comparing ratings was pointless.
Besides, ratings is no measure of how good a show is, look at Firefly.

smurf
December 23rd, 2008, 05:03 AM
Just as an aside.
It's occurred to me that the general response to RC joining Stargate is pretty much identical to the one when Christopher Eccleston was named as the original New Who.

"Wait Christopher Eccleston? The Christopher Eccleston - incredibly highly rated, serious film and television actor, Christopher Eccleston? Does he remember what Dr. Who is about?"
:D

jenks
December 23rd, 2008, 05:16 AM
it does well on Sky because its the UK premiere and they do advertise it quite extensively. However as its adverage is 100k viewers, its still a very small minor show. And Dr Who gets pretty similar viewing figures in the US, to SGA.

Where are you getting this figure from? I've never seen SGA pull in less than 300k.


I still think its utterly unfair to compare the shows though and GW's article was extremely misleading and inaccurate, not to mention irresponsible to report on taking comments out of context.

The article is biased in favour of Dr Who if anything, the only fair way to compare them would be through Sci Fi's ratings, where Stargate always beats DW.

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 05:17 AM
On the ratings thing, I agree that it's pointless in terms of trying to define the quality of a show (after all, how many brilliant TV shows have been cancelled due to low ratings?)

The only issue, really, is whether or not it's factual to claim that SGA is a highly rated popular show. It's obviously not a claim based in reality at all. SGA is a niche, cult show, while Doctor Who is a ratings juggernaut with a massive worldwide audience. Which is better than the other, though, is entirely subjective and nothing to do with ratings.

It's just a little silly for the Gateworld article to try and 'prove' Stargate Atlantis is as good - if not better - than DW by implying they get comparable ratings when (i) they really, really don't and (ii) higher ratings don't prove anything anyway!

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 05:23 AM
I thought we established that comparing ratings was pointless.
Besides, ratings is no measure of how good a show is, look at Firefly.

Agreed, which is why it was pointless and silly to suggest such a comparison in the original article. And how good a show is, is based on your personal preferences and this is a SG site after all so of course its bias towards all things SG.

However, ratings are an indication of how successful, and therefore how popular a show is. And crap shows dont get over 13 million viewers for their season premieres....as Dr Who did this year, for season 4. 13.4 million, to be precise is a very good ratings figure for a US NETWORK show and we have a significantly smaller population.

Madeleine
December 23rd, 2008, 05:30 AM
The article is biased in favour of Dr Who if anything, the only fair way to compare them would be through Sci Fi's ratings, where Stargate always beats DW.

I'd have thought the fair way to go would be to compare SG in the US with DW in the UK. That way, you are comparing native show with native show, first run with first run, target audience with target audience, like with like.

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 05:34 AM
The article is biased in favour of Dr Who if anything, the only fair way to compare them would be through Sci Fi's ratings, where Stargate always beats DW.

:confused: What's the logic there, then?

I can understand the argument that comparing ratings on Sky1 to ratings on BBC One is a bit pointless since you're comparing a flagship show on the country's largest network to a cheap foreign import on a subscription cable channel. But the reverse is also true - comparing the ratings of one of Sci-Fi's flagship shows, purposely developed to appeal to its demographic, to a foreign import they buy in syndication doesn't make much sense either.

If we were take a 'fair' approach we'd compare SGA's Sci-Fi audience to DW's BBC audience or SGA's total worldwide audience to DW's total worldwide audience... which both give the same result.


Anyway, like I said, trying to slice and dice things various ways to make SGA's ratings look better doesn't mean anything anyway. Hell, if posters here thought ratings=quality we wouldn't be here at all -- we'd be on The Mentalist forum!

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 05:36 AM
[QUOTE=jenks;9442854]Where are you getting this figure from? I've never seen SGA pull in less than 300k.QUOTE]

I said 'adverage', and SKyOne's ratings have been bottoming out and they're loosing viewers daily which caused the cheif to quit.

I dont have the charts at hand, but seriously... 100k - 300k to 9-13.4 MILLION? I dont think an extra 200k really makes much of a difference.

It's a shame, because SG1 at its height was an awesome show, it would have been really interesting to see how well it would have done on primetime BBC 1 or 2 here. Not commenting on SGA, I think its lack of success on Channel 5 despite their media blitz said it all really (and season one is still my favourite season).

razzel_daxxel
December 23rd, 2008, 05:39 AM
I'd have thought the fair way to go would be to compare SG in the US with DW in the UK. That way, you are comparing native show with native show, first run with first run, target audience with target audience, like with like.


I agree, however you would have to take into account that Dr Who has been going in the UK a lot longer than Stargate in the US. Also with the new incarnation of Dr Who doing a wonderfull of bridging the gap between old and young, not only has Dr Who got the older generation of fans i.e. my parents etc.... they also have done very well to captivate the younger viewers as well!

I think this is what Stargate Universe is attempting to do, bridge the gap between young and old, however if the age rateings on this site are anything to go by then I really dont think they need to!

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 05:39 AM
I'd have thought the fair way to go would be to compare SG in the US with DW in the UK. That way, you are comparing native show with native show, first run with first run, target audience with target audience, like with like.

Not to mention SGA only just beats DW on Scifi, so its not a convincing arguement anyway you look at it....just one trying to win the 'SG is best/more popular/more successful' arguement.

Madeleine
December 23rd, 2008, 07:07 AM
he said it because Carlyle didn't choose Doctor Who. It wouldn't matter WHAT show he'd chosen- CSI, Heroes, EastEnders- I'm sure RTD would have said something snarky about it!

I'm not sure that RC had the option to choose DW though. Was the vague and not the least bit unique rumounr that linked RC with WD ever any more than the wishful-thinking and-or speculation that is being flung wholesale at every 30-60yr old male Brit with an Equity card right now?

I don't think RTD said it because RC didn't choose DW so much as because RC got mentioned. Tha'ts all it usually takes to bring out an outrageous comment from RTD ;)

But yes, that particular comment would no doubt have been the same regardless of the show which RC had joined... or even regardless of whether it was RC or some other actor...



just look at some of the replies here! What happened to Darren's Vision Statement, huh?[snip] The VS is a work in progress at the mo. But this isn't a thread for discussing it so if you want clarification, you know where the actual thread is :)

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 07:18 AM
Well, the only thing we know is that Carlyle had said (prior to the SGU casting) he'd seriously consider the part of the Doctor if it was offered but that, well, it hadn't been offered.

Now, that may have changed since then, and he may have rejected an overture from the incoming production team. Auditioning for the part of the Eleventh Doctor began around the 22nd of October, and Carlyle was announced for Universe on December 15th so it's certainly possible. But there's been no suggestion anywhere that that happened.

fyere
December 23rd, 2008, 07:18 AM
Ummm... No? SG-1 had the longest continuous run, a title it took away from X-Files. Doctor Who will be starting its 31st year in the springtime, which is spread over several decades but still far outstrips Stargate for total eps produced. Or did I miss something somewhere?

I meant, SG-1 got some attention a while back for being the longest-running North American sci-fi series, or, as you said, longest continuous run (though I thought that DW had still had a longer-than-10-year run a while back - I'll have to look that up). They even got a Guinness Book entry with a nice picture. So a lot of people started referring to it as 'the longest-running sci-fi series *evAr!1!*' and forgetting about DW. That's all. :)

jenks
December 23rd, 2008, 07:24 AM
RC wasn't that high on the list of Dr replacements, it's not like the showrunners of SGU made the coupe of the century, what would be interesting is to see the context of that quote

How do you know that?

ShadowMaat
December 23rd, 2008, 07:30 AM
I'm not sure that RC had the option to choose DW though.
Hmmm. Good point. I was actually skeptical about that, myself and figured if RC had been offered DW he would have snatched it up in a heartbeat. ;) But still, I think there's a lot of melodrama being stirred up over NOTHING. And I still think RTD would have made a snarky comment regardless of which show was the target.

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 07:32 AM
Yeah, we don't know if he was top of Moffat's list, middle of it, or even on it anywhere at all. All we know, really is that the Sun newspaper was convinced he'd already been cast (wrongly, obviously), and that Carlyle gave the following response:

"Nobody has been in touch with me about Doctor Who, so I really don't know where that came from ... But would I do it? Possibly."

I think a lot of people took the view that if an actor as fine and well regarded and in demand as Carlyle says even he'd "possibly" be your lead actor you beat a path to his door pronto. But, like I said, there's been nothing leaked at all about who Moffat is actually considering.

jrd231
December 23rd, 2008, 07:34 AM
When I first heard about Doctor Who coming to Sci-Fi and found out the premise (I had never heard of it before) I was excited. Then I watched some episodes and it was horrible. The writing was bad and the special effects were ridiculous. In one episode there were these huge blob looking things that looked about as good as somebody wearing a Barney costume.

The show was horrible and for this guy to ask if his agent watched Stargate is laughable. The answer is yes he watched Stargate, right after he turned off Doctor Who after watching 5 minutes of it.

Reefgirl
December 23rd, 2008, 07:39 AM
How do you know that?
See post 106


Hmmm. Good point. I was actually skeptical about that, myself and figured if RC had been offered DW he would have snatched it up in a heartbeat. ;) But still, I think there's a lot of melodrama being stirred up over NOTHING. And I still think RTD would have made a snarky comment regardless of which show was the target.
Yep, you ask any male actor in the UK if they want to play/appear in Dr Who and you get a resounding yes, apart from David Ogden Stiers I've noticed no big names beating a path to Bridge studios

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 07:43 AM
The show was horrible and for this guy to ask if his agent watched Stargate is laughable. The answer is yes he watched Stargate, right after he turned off Doctor Who after watching 5 minutes of it.

You know, I think if my agent refused to put me up for a lead role in a major primetime network show, showered in awards, and pulling down 10m viewers just because he didn't personally like it, I'd sack 'em!

Reefgirl
December 23rd, 2008, 07:50 AM
You know, I think if my agent refused to put me up for a lead role in a major primetime network show, showered in awards, and pulling down 10m viewers just because he didn't personally like it, I'd sack 'em!
Are we talking Stargate or Dr Who here?

ShadowMaat
December 23rd, 2008, 07:53 AM
Are we talking Stargate or Dr Who here?

Does it matter? ;) I think it'd apply to ANY major show. If an agent is making decisions based on personal bias rather than on numbers and his client's talents/personality then he can't be a very reliable agent. :P

Reefgirl
December 23rd, 2008, 08:19 AM
True I guess, but an agent can advise his client, if for instance his client gets an offer to appear in a show that has regularly been panned by the critics and viewers, gets mocked by every comedien on the circuit and has been moved to the 2am sunday night slot, he's going to warn his client that this could dent his reputation as a serious actor, if the actor goes ahead and the show bombs and his career is in ruins, he can't say he wasn't advised

HirogenGater
December 23rd, 2008, 08:39 AM
Seems like a snarky thing to say. Oh well, I like Stargate better anyway.

jenks
December 23rd, 2008, 08:48 AM
See post 106

All it says is that he was announced as the lead for SGU after the casting for the next doctor had begun. I'm not saying it happened, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for RTD's outburst was because Carlyle had snubbed them in favour of Stargate.



Yep, you ask any male actor in the UK if they want to play/appear in Dr Who and you get a resounding yes, apart from David Ogden Stiers I've noticed no big names beating a path to Bridge studios

I think you're exaggerating the appeal, the show has attracted mediocre film actors at best, no one of note.

ShadowMaat
December 23rd, 2008, 09:38 AM
True I guess, but an agent can advise his client, if for instance his client gets an offer to appear in a show that has regularly been panned by the critics and viewers, gets mocked by every comedien on the circuit and has been moved to the 2am sunday night slot, he's going to warn his client that this could dent his reputation as a serious actor, if the actor goes ahead and the show bombs and his career is in ruins, he can't say he wasn't advised

But something panned by everyone and moved to a dead slot wouldn't really qualify as a "major show" would it? :P






("Major Show!" *salutes*)

Frontastic
December 23rd, 2008, 10:28 AM
I love both shows in a pretty equal amount and I always liked RTD. And I could not believe he said that! But if you listen to the interview it doesn't seem as bad if you hear him, the way he says it.

DW>SG in the UK
SG>DW in the US

I can sort of see his train of thought, it was meant in a joking way but it was still a bit below the belt.

smurf
December 23rd, 2008, 11:21 AM
All it says is that he was announced as the lead for SGU after the casting for the next doctor had begun. I'm not saying it happened, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for RTD's outburst was because Carlyle had snubbed them in favour of Stargate.

I think you're exaggerating the appeal, the show has attracted mediocre film actors at best, no one of note.
He says very clearly in the interview that he has nothing to do with the casting of the new Dr. Who. It's entirely up to Steven Moffet and his team, and it's going to take months. So I can't see how he's been snubbed.

Frankly, I doubt he'd have spoken about Stargate at all if the interviewer hadn't mentioned RC's name.


Every actor is going to say they'd like to be Dr. Who even if they don't really want to, because they're being polite, and the news story which would be generated if an actor said he didn't want to would be somewhat akin to, I don't know, someone making an offhand remark which is then reported on a fansite as a massive diss on their show.


ETA:

Yeah, we don't know if he was top of Moffat's list, middle of it, or even on it anywhere at all. All we know, really is that the Sun newspaper was convinced he'd already been cast (wrongly, obviously), and that Carlyle gave the following response:

"Nobody has been in touch with me about Doctor Who, so I really don't know where that came from ... But would I do it? Possibly."

I think a lot of people took the view that if an actor as fine and well regarded and in demand as Carlyle says even he'd "possibly" be your lead actor you beat a path to his door pronto. But, like I said, there's been nothing leaked at all about who Moffat is actually considering.
When was this response by RC?
Because if it's not long before the SGU announcement, the "possibly" may be more of a "I've just negotiated a role in a new show I can't tell you about right now, so I'm saying "possibly" because it's an answer that tells you nothing, and doesn't say I'm available right now."

AnnieS
December 23rd, 2008, 12:18 PM
Never watched Doctor Who. And after that comment. I doubt I ever will. It just goes to show Stargate is better and Robert and his agent knew it too!!!!

mateodh
December 23rd, 2008, 12:55 PM
Well, there's our plot for the Atlantis movie. The SGA crew encounters an unfamiliar and mysterious Ancient vessel heading their way. Attempts to contact it are unsuccessful and it unexpectedly fires on an approaching puddle jumpers. When it reaches Atlantis, Sheppard's team boards on a cloaked jumper to discover that the ship is a prison. They reach the bridge to confront David Tennant, playing an Ancient prisoner who has awakened to discover that it is thousands of years after the Ancients condemned him to a stasis pod and sent him to the vastness of space. Now he's come back to claim what is left of Atlantis only to find another civilization in it's place and makes havoc for them.

OK, maybe best left for fan fiction, but a DT appearance in SG would be amazing.

The_Dude
December 23rd, 2008, 01:06 PM
RTD is funny.
He reminds me of my art teacher:D

Reiko
December 23rd, 2008, 01:27 PM
I guess not but then Stargate is hardly a Major Show, in the UK anyway


It actually isn't in the US, either, more so than in the UK but still not very well-known.

Nuallain
December 23rd, 2008, 01:29 PM
When was this response by RC?
Because if it's not long before the SGU announcement, the "possibly" may be more of a "I've just negotiated a role in a new show I can't tell you about right now, so I'm saying "possibly" because it's an answer that tells you nothing, and doesn't say I'm available right now."

It was back in September, before it had even been confirmed that Tennant was leaving. Part of the quote I trimmed for (now) irrelevance was where Carlyle said he wasn't really in the business of publicly coveting other actor's jobs (since this was back when Tennant's job wasn't even known to be on offer).

And you're right on the feeling snubbed thing, too. A lot of people seem to be forgetting (or deliberately ignoring because it gets in the way of the kvetching) that Davies is not involved in Season Five of Doctor Who. He's even spoken about the difficulties of casting his specials since he doesn't know who his successors might want to cast in S5 and he has to run his lists by them (same with his plots for the specials - he has to send them to Moffat who then just 'yays' or 'nays' whether or not they conflict with his own plans without actually telling Davies what those plans are).

Willow'sCat
December 23rd, 2008, 01:30 PM
I happen to think he is right. Also where does David or Darren (whom ever is writing up the stuff on the GW homepage) get off comparing lame Sky ratings of SG-1 to BBC ratings of Doctor Who? I seriously doubt Sky gets comparable ratings for SG-1 or SGA.

Bias is never a good thing, lets stick to facts people. :cool:

Fact is RTD is so right, there is barely a commentator who can fathom at the moment why Robert would choose (if he had a choice) playing in a franchise like Stargate and not Doctor Who.

I am personally hoping it was the money. I can't think of any other good reason for him to join a dying franchise. ;)

Doctor Who longerst running scifi show in the world! Whooo! :D Fact. ;)

smurf
December 23rd, 2008, 01:39 PM
It was back in September, before it had even been confirmed that Tennant was leaving. Part of the quote I trimmed for (now) irrelevance was where Carlyle said he wasn't really in the business of publicly coveting other actor's jobs (since this was back when Tennant's job wasn't even known to be on offer).

And you're right on the feeling snubbed thing, too. A lot of people seem to be forgetting (or deliberately ignoring because it gets in the way of the kvetching) that Davies is not involved in Season Five of Doctor Who. He's even spoken about the difficulties of casting his specials since he doesn't know who his successors might want to cast in S5 and he has to run his lists by them (same with his plots for the specials - he has to send them to Moffat who then just 'yays' or 'nays' whether or not they conflict with his own plans without actually telling Davies what those plans are).
I see. Thank you for clarifying.

The thing is, without knowing when RC was approached for SGU we don't know if he, behind the scenes, ruled himself out to the producers of Dr. Who if they did approach him. Not so much snubbed as having an agreement and being good enough to honor it. I expect they have a long list of actors they'd love for the role who would simply be unavailable.

jannagalaxy
December 23rd, 2008, 02:45 PM
meh, I'm not going to let the little man bother me. :)

But it does remind me when I was younger my dad trying to get me to watch dr who with him. I tried to watch it but it wasn't for me and went to watch quantum leap and the first season of sg1 ---wow that was almost 10 years ago! :)

Willow'sCat
December 23rd, 2008, 02:46 PM
What I am really surprised at is that people are so ready to understand this comment as negative. In my book that is not only jumping to conclusions, but jumping to entirely wrong conclusions.

As far as I know from various interviews/dvd commentaries on Dr Who etc, RTD is actually a Stargate fan and a comment like "Can you believe it!" is definitely the highest praise he gives.

KethryNo, RTD has watched Stargate but he has on a few occasions laughed at how truly silly it can be, and he once said he didn't want Doctor Who to be like Stargate he didn't want fans to see them using the same forest over and over again.

Mind you classic Who did that with quarries. :P

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 02:51 PM
What I am really surprised at is that people are so ready to understand this comment as negative. In my book that is not only jumping to conclusions, but jumping to entirely wrong conclusions.

As far as I know from various interviews/dvd commentaries on Dr Who etc, RTD is actually a Stargate fan and a comment like "Can you believe it!" is definitely the highest praise he gives.

Kethry


That's because GW's headline is: "Doctor Who Producer doesn't care for Stargate." they're already attributing an opinion into its negativity, so fans are of course immediately going to react defensively to that which is irresponsible. As is trying to use 'spin' to twist facts such as comparing popularity by alluding to ratings.

At the end of the day, the facts are BOTH shows are popular, have dedicated fans and have run for a long time.

Dr Who is the longest running scifi show, consecutive or otherwise in the WORLD period.

Dr Who gets around 10 MILLION viewers, as apposed to Stargates hundreds of thousands in the UK and a couple of million in the US (Even at its height it was still less then half of what DW gets to this day). So in a pure numbers war, Dr Who wins out hands down.

And Dr Who is a major Network show in the UK, and on the same small cable channel as SG in the US. So in terms of profile, Dr Who wins out again.

Does this make the show better? Nope, because it totally depends on your perspective and perferences.

And I'll add a big seconding on what Prion said!

And personally, I think Carlyle is doing SGU to boost his US profile which if the show does well or not, is a risk but a step in the right direction and could reap substantial rewards. It's a chance to get a lead in quite a substancial US franchise and I for one, dont blame him for it.

jenks
December 23rd, 2008, 03:13 PM
Are we talking about stargate or dr who?


Dr Who.

runnerX
December 23rd, 2008, 03:19 PM
On the ratings thing, I agree that it's pointless in terms of trying to define the quality of a show (after all, how many brilliant TV shows have been cancelled due to low ratings?)

The only issue, really, is whether or not it's factual to claim that SGA is a highly rated popular show. It's obviously not a claim based in reality at all. SGA is a niche, cult show, while Doctor Who is a ratings juggernaut with a massive worldwide audience. Which is better than the other, though, is entirely subjective and nothing to do with ratings.

It's just a little silly for the Gateworld article to try and 'prove' Stargate Atlantis is as good - if not better - than DW by implying they get comparable ratings when (i) they really, really don't and (ii) higher ratings don't prove anything anyway!
Actually is the other way around. The stargate franchise has a lot more appeal than doctor who wordwide.

Reefgirl
December 23rd, 2008, 03:20 PM
Dr Who.
Right, do you live in the UK?

kethryveris
December 23rd, 2008, 03:50 PM
That's because GW's headline is: "Doctor Who Producer doesn't care for Stargate." they're already attributing an opinion into its negativity, so fans are of course immediately going to react defensively to that which is irresponsible. As is trying to use 'spin' to twist facts such as comparing popularity by alluding to ratings.

..... (snipped for space)

Pity. :(

All it seems to have achieved is to set fans against each other when there really was no need to.

There are people who like the one or the other and then some few people like me who like both shows for their uniqueness. IMO they are so different, there simply is no ground for comparison and thus no basis for this unnecessary "fight".

As to RC's reasons for choosing to accept the SGU role - does it matter? Whatever happens with SGU, that will be based on more than this one actor and only time will tell whether we will like it or not and why.

I still like Stargate and Dr Who and RTD (:D). The only one I'm a little disappointed in is Darren for raising such a red flag on GW news. It could have been presented in a more neutral way.

:(

I hate it when two of my fandoms are at war.

Kethry

Madeleine
December 23rd, 2008, 03:50 PM
Actually is the other way around. The stargate franchise has a lot more appeal than doctor who wordwide.

Out of interest, are you saying this based on anything factual (eg # of worldwide viewers, worldwide DVD sales, number of countries airing it) or are you speaking of your gut feeling (I have to admit that DW is quirkier than SG and perhaps so in a rather you-won't-get-it-if-you-aren't-British sort ofway)

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 03:58 PM
Actually is the other way around. The stargate franchise has a lot more appeal than doctor who wordwide.

[mod snip]

SG airs on a US cable channel with a small audience share in the US, and on a pay-per-view network in the UK.

Dr Who is one of the flagship shows for the UK equivalent of a major US network, which is also a HUGE international broadcaster and has sold worldwide for over 35 years. It gets as many viewers as some major US shows even today after 35+ years and various incarnations, has more merchendise then you can shake a stick at, has been translated into pretty much every language and has DVD's up the wazoo. Not to mention its shown in a primetime slot and survives in that slot as a ratings giant.

Since when has SG attained those feats? SG has NEVER been a major network show, has always been on a specialist cable channel and had varied time slots. As much as we would all love to see or imagine it as a 'major' show, its not and never will be anything close to what Dr Who is, or 24, or Lost, or Heroes or any of the major network shows. And thats NO reflection on how good the show is, its a simple business fact.


There are people who like the one or the other and then some few people like me who like both shows for their uniqueness. IMO they are so different, there simply is no ground for comparison and thus no basis for this unnecessary "fight".

...

I still like Stargate and Dr Who and RTD (:D). The only one I'm a little disappointed in is Darren for raising such a red flag on GW news. It could have been presented in a more neutral way.


Totally agree with you. I love both Dr Who and SG, for completely different reasons. I'm not in a habit of watching a show because its 'scifi' or 'action' but because I find something compelling about it, the story and characters.

And I also agree on the lack of any kind of impartiality when it comes to some of the news articles and especially this one....not exactly leading by example, nor is it professional.

ShadowMaat
December 23rd, 2008, 04:08 PM
Personally I think BOTH shows/franchises are popular and well-known within scifi fandom.

Madeleine
December 23rd, 2008, 04:14 PM
You are kidding right? Cos if you're not thats hilarious and sadly, delusional no matter how much you love the show.

SG airs on a US cable channel with a small audience share in the US, and on a pay-per-view network in the UK.

To be fair though, a US cable channel is not the laughable graveyard that UK cable channels are.

While the major US networks can be compared with the UK's terrestrial channels (allowing that the US networks probably create a far greater volume of quality stuff), the cable channels don't bear comparison at all.

UK cable channels do not create original output with the sole and occasional exception of SkyOne. US cable channels make their own shows.

If major US and UK channels are apples & oranges, small ones are pears & photocopies of drawings of pears ;)

TJuk
December 23rd, 2008, 04:32 PM
To be fair though, a US cable channel is not the laughable graveyard that UK cable channels are.

While the major US networks can be compared with the UK's terrestrial channels (allowing that the US networks probably create a far greater volume of quality stuff), the cable channels don't bear comparison at all.

UK cable channels do not create original output with the sole and occasional exception of SkyOne. US cable channels make their own shows.

If major US and UK channels are apples & oranges, small ones are pears & photocopies of drawings of pears ;)

Ah yes, but that was my point. Comparing an essentially 'Network' show, to a cable show and saying the 'cable' show is bigger/better/more popular is a bit daft. There's a big difference between mainstream popularity and cult popularity even if some fans refuse to accept that.

And yes, US networks do produce much more content then the UK's (thank GOD! we'd all be bored to death otherwise), but then they have the money to do it. Not to mention, 1 of the major 3 'networks' in the UK is a public broadcaster, so has to deal with limited funds and strict mandates. The BBC produces a massive amount of original programming some of it with international partners, which is part of the BBC's charter. Much of this is then sold internationally, the profits of which are then put back into creating those original programmes. But thats still a very limited resource, hence Dr Who's smaller budget...but just look what they do with it! Major US networks are fully commercial entities, so have vaster resources and very few of the limitations placed on the BBC and other public broadcasters.

And I totally agree about the cable channels. However, we're comparing SkyOne to Scifi (who have been financial and creative partners for a number of years e.g. BSG wouldn't even have made it to a 1st seaon without it). Then the comparison is plausible.

Puddle-Jumper
December 23rd, 2008, 05:04 PM
The success Dr. Who has had in the UK has clearly gone to his head. He himself calls it a children's show, is it really hard to believe that Carlyle wouldn't be interested? On one hand he's a got a show in the US with high production quality,

Well its not fair to think that carlyle wouldn't be interested cos I can assure that carlyle grew up watching that show and any actor from the UK would love to play him.... but I would guess that he didn't want to give up a lead role in a big american show because he might become the next doctor.

And guys you can't really slag him off for not liking stargate, he is allowed to have an opinion, and don't you think its a bit odd he is drawing media attention a few days before the doctor who christmas special airs? Its a publicity thing more then anything else...

ShadowMaat
December 23rd, 2008, 05:10 PM
A publicity thing? Does anyone- other than hardcore Stargate fans- actually give a rat's what RTD says about Stargate? The interview as a whole is probably geared towards publicity, but I doubt his comment about Carlyle was intended as an attention-grabber.

smurf
December 23rd, 2008, 06:04 PM
UK cable channels do not create original output with the sole and occasional exception of SkyOne. US cable channels make their own shows.

If major US and UK channels are apples & oranges, small ones are pears & photocopies of drawings of pears ;)
That's not true. Of the channels which would be considered "cable" in the US - in the UK I believe it's called "multichannel" which covers cable/satellite/freeview - the following also create their own programming; BBC3, BBC4, ITV2, More4, E4, Dave, and Virgin1. We could also include MTV, but that comes under the banner of MTV Europe so it's not just UK per se.
Obviously, I'm not including community channels, religious channels, and the like.

It's actually not that dissimilar to US cable with a very small number of channels (usually the ones backed by a larger media entity) producing original stuff.

agentCarterfanboy
December 23rd, 2008, 09:06 PM
As someone who has seen a few episodes, it clearly is.

I was a bit put off by the RTD statement, I said so too on a Whovian listserve. I want to clear up though that Doctor Who is definitely not cheap, just because a show is colorful doesn't mean it is cheap. I HATE to say this as I love Stargate to death, more than DW, but the writing on WHO is extremely good with a lot more angst than Stargate, every episode is Superb... I hate myself now.... Oh the words I have uttered! I am sorry....

jenks
December 24th, 2008, 02:15 AM
Right, do you live in the UK?

Yes.


[mod snip]

SG airs on a US cable channel with a small audience share in the US, and on a pay-per-view network in the UK.

Dr Who is one of the flagship shows for the UK equivalent of a major US network, which is also a HUGE international broadcaster and has sold worldwide for over 35 years. It gets as many viewers as some major US shows even today after 35+ years and various incarnations, has more merchendise then you can shake a stick at, has been translated into pretty much every language and has DVD's up the wazoo. Not to mention its shown in a primetime slot and survives in that slot as a ratings giant.

Since when has SG attained those feats? SG has NEVER been a major network show, has always been on a specialist cable channel and had varied time slots. As much as we would all love to see or imagine it as a 'major' show, its not and never will be anything close to what Dr Who is, or 24, or Lost, or Heroes or any of the major network shows. And thats NO reflection on how good the show is, its a simple business fact.



Totally agree with you. I love both Dr Who and SG, for completely different reasons. I'm not in a habit of watching a show because its 'scifi' or 'action' but because I find something compelling about it, the story and characters.

And I also agree on the lack of any kind of impartiality when it comes to some of the news articles and especially this one....not exactly leading by example, nor is it professional.

You're not seriously comparing Dr Who to shows like Lost, 24 and Heroes are you? In terms of world wide appeal they're not even in the same league.

Caladria
December 24th, 2008, 04:35 AM
Really? We're expressing surprise that RTD expressed surprise that Robert Carlyle has agreed to do what is (as much as I love the Stargate franchise) a niche market programming?

So was I. So was everyone else who'd heard of him. He was the lead in a film that was nominated for four Oscars (same year as Titanic, don't judge it for not winning). The few bits of tv I've seen him do have been primetime, peak audience slots. And as much as I love Stargate, it's not shown on a major network at a peak time (and it'll never get the 49.something% audience share that some Doctor Who episodes get (that probably translates as quite a big number in terms of Neilson, right?). One in six people in the country watch some episodes, never mind as a percentage of people who were actually watching tv at the time). That doesn't make it better, necessarily, it just makes it more watched [disclaimer: in native country - i.e. country of financial dependance, on first viewing, with no adjustment for relative population size], with a different audience (family viewing, not the male 18- whatever that the Stargate people are interested in. Doctor Who goes for mum, dad and kids.)

As for RTD, he's listed as the 15th most powerful person in media in the UK (highest television producer); this gives him the ability to say pretty much whatever he wants (whether he should or shouldn't is a different question). And his manner of saying things is a bit... umm... Russell-ish. He is disparaging of things he likes, he does self-mock (I can't think of any Stargate producers/writers who might log onto the major fan forum "to see how **** they are") and he does poke gentle fun (hands up who hasn't poked gentle fun at PX-"That Same Forest Again". No-one? It's a fan thing, really, isn't it?), mainly because he does appear to be genuinely fond of Stargate (hey, at least he has an awareness of it; that's more than you could say for most tv producers in either country)



So you don't consider the following to be 'Major stars'?
Simon Callow
Pauline Collins (twice)
Anthony Head
Roger Lloyd Pack
Maureen Lipman
Derek Jacobi
Peter Capaldi
Phil Davis
Colin Salmon
Steve Pemberton
Alex Kingston
David Troughton, son of Dr Number 2, Patrick Troughton

And that's just the new series, Classic Who had it's greats too'

Now, if we're going to do that, let's be accurate... ;)

Sir Derek Jacobi

Also, you forgot Kylie Minogue (mini pop princess, like getting Britney Spears, if Britney Spears could act)
And Peter Kay! (nothing in the US, admittedly, but keeps topping UK "favourite comedian" lists)
Geoffrey Palmer (Admiral what's-his-face in one of the Pierce Brosnan Bonds, acts a lot with Judi Dench)

Not forgetting impressive leads:

Catherine Tate, who had her own primetime BBC show and gave it up for a year and moved to Cardiff. A show that's been nominated for six BAFTAs, two British Comedy awards and an Emmy (that's a US one, right? So, by US definitions, she's successful). And all that in a run of three years.

Chris Ecclestone (28 Days Later, Heroes)

David Tennant (Harry Potter. Harry Potter, for god's sake. The most successful franchise in the world, at the minute)




That's not true. Of the channels which would be considered "cable" in the US - in the UK I believe it's called "multichannel" which covers cable/satellite/freeview - the following also create their own programming; BBC3, BBC4, ITV2, More4, E4, Dave, and Virgin1. We could also include MTV, but that comes under the banner of MTV Europe so it's not just UK per se.

You can't really count BBC3, BBC4, ITV2 or 3, More4 or E4, though; they might provide original programming, but they are just the non-terrestrial/analogue channels of the three major giants of terrestrial tv - the BBC, ITV and Channel 4; things that do well on BBC3, for example, often get given a reshowing, with more advertising, on BBC1 (Casanova, Little Britain).

Reefgirl
December 24th, 2008, 05:01 AM
Really? We're expressing surprise that RTD expressed surprise that Robert Carlyle has agreed to do what is (as much as I love the Stargate franchise) a niche market programming?

So was I. So was everyone else who'd heard of him. He was the lead in a film that was nominated for four Oscars (same year as Titanic, don't judge it for not winning). The few bits of tv I've seen him do have been primetime, peak audience slots. And as much as I love Stargate, it's not shown on a major network at a peak time (and it'll never get the 49.something% audience share that some Doctor Who episodes get (that probably translates as quite a big number in terms of Neilson, right?). One in six people in the country watch some episodes, never mind as a percentage of people who were actually watching tv at the time). That doesn't make it better, necessarily, it just makes it more watched [disclaimer: in native country - i.e. country of financial dependance, on first viewing, with no adjustment for relative population size], with a different audience (family viewing, not the male 18- whatever that the Stargate people are interested in. Doctor Who goes for mum, dad and kids.)

As for RTD, he's listed as the 15th most powerful person in media in the UK (highest television producer); this gives him the ability to say pretty much whatever he wants (whether he should or shouldn't is a different question). And his manner of saying things is a bit... umm... Russell-ish. He is disparaging of things he likes, he does self-mock (I can't think of any Stargate producers/writers who might log onto the major fan forum "to see how **** they are") and he does poke gentle fun (hands up who hasn't poked gentle fun at PX-"That Same Forest Again". No-one? It's a fan thing, really, isn't it?), mainly because he does appear to be genuinely fond of Stargate (hey, at least he has an awareness of it; that's more than you could say for most tv producers in either country)
Agreed





Now, if we're going to do that, let's be accurate... ;)

Sir Derek Jacobi
Oops my bad, and boy does he carry some acting weight with him, I Claudius, Cadfael, Gladiator, The Oddessa File, Day of the Jackal and more Shakespeare than you can shake a stick at


Also, you forgot Kylie Minogue (mini pop princess, like getting Britney Spears, if Britney Spears could act)
I was giving Kylie the benefit of the doubt there, she's hardly a great actress but it was quite a coup getting her back into acting after 20 years

And Peter Kay! (nothing in the US, admittedly, but keeps topping UK "favourite comedian" lists)
I'll leave my opinions unsaid, I really don't like Peter Kay

Geoffrey Palmer (Admiral what's-his-face in one of the Pierce Brosnan Bonds, acts a lot with Judi Dench)
Yep and, as has been mentioned, Colin Salmon, not forgetting Samantha Bond (Miss Moneypenny) in the Sarah-Jane Adventures. And while we're on the subject what about getting Alan Dale and James Masters to appear in Torchwood


Not forgetting impressive leads:

Catherine Tate, who had her own primetime BBC show and gave it up for a year and moved to Cardiff. A show that's been nominated for six BAFTAs, two British Comedy awards and an Emmy (that's a US one, right? So, by US definitions, she's successful). And all that in a run of three years.
I was plesently surprised by Catherine Tate as Donna, I've never been a fan of her comedy show but she really shone in series four


Chris Ecclestone (28 Days Later, Heroes)
I thought he was brilliant as Derek Bentley in Let Him Have It. Apparently he became an ardent supporter of the Campaign to get him pardoned


David Tennant (Harry Potter. Harry Potter, for god's sake. The most successful franchise in the world, at the minute)
David Tennant has a lot to thank Dr Who for.

razzel_daxxel
December 24th, 2008, 05:18 AM
<mod snip>

Personally being a great fan of both, I though of RC as the next Dotor before this came to light, now that he is not going to be the next Doctor, it just leaves one question? Who will be the next Doctor?

Reefgirl
December 24th, 2008, 06:51 AM
<mod snip>
Personally being a great fan of both, I though of RC as the next Dotor before this came to light, now that he is not going to be the next Doctor, it just leaves one question? Who will be the next Doctor?
Looking back on how it went last time, when Chris Ecclestone quit, the name that cropped up very quickly and was always being talked about as a 'Favourite' was David Tennant, this time two names cropped up very quickly and are always being talked about as 'Frontrunners' Paterson Joseph and David Morrisey
it's gonna be one of those two. IMO the next Doctor has already been chosen but they're going to make us wait until after the Christmas Special has aired

smurf
December 24th, 2008, 07:28 AM
You can't really count BBC3, BBC4, ITV2 or 3, More4 or E4, though; they might provide original programming, but they are just the non-terrestrial/analogue channels of the three major giants of terrestrial tv - the BBC, ITV and Channel 4; things that do well on BBC3, for example, often get given a reshowing, with more advertising, on BBC1 (Casanova, Little Britain).
By that argument, Sci Fi and USA are just facets of NBC, and Showtime is a CBS testing ground seeing as they bumped Dexter and a couple of other shows over for a while.

Like Sci Fi they have their own channel executives and budgets, their own channel ideals, they make original programming designed for the audience of their channel according to those ideals, and although some of it gets bumped (or syndicated would be a better term) on to the mothership a lot of the programming does not.

Yes, none of these smaller networks in both the UK, and the US, would be as successful without being part of (and having access to) the funding of their media giant parent, but the point was to counter the impression that all, bar Sky One, of the UK "cable" channels are little more than hours of reruns.

smurf
December 24th, 2008, 07:40 AM
Looking back on how it went last time, when Chris Ecclestone quit, the name that cropped up very quickly and was always being talked about as a 'Favourite' was David Tennant, this time two names cropped up very quickly and are always being talked about as 'Frontrunners' Paterson Joseph and David Morrisey
it's gonna be one of those two. IMO the next Doctor has already been chosen but they're going to make us wait until after the Christmas Special has aired
I remember the BBC spent the entire first season denying the rumour that Eccleston wasn't intending to play the role long term, when they'd known from the point he signed the contract.

My vote is for Paterson Joseph. His is a name which sticks out as... unusual and he's been associated with it too readily, much like Tennant was. And I think he'd be perfect for it.

wizz_kid_sid
December 24th, 2008, 08:04 AM
I like Dr Who and Stargate. But honestly, RTD shouldn't really say stuff like that.. if he thinks he can do a better job, then he shouldn't have quit Dr Who! =P

TJuk
December 24th, 2008, 09:37 AM
Really? We're expressing surprise that RTD expressed surprise that Robert Carlyle ...

...snipped...

David Tennant (Harry Potter. Harry Potter, for god's sake. The most successful franchise in the world, at the minute)


Great post! Totally agree....except:


You can't really count BBC3, BBC4, ITV2 or 3, More4 or E4, though; they might provide original programming, but they are just the non-terrestrial/analogue channels of the three major giants of terrestrial tv - the BBC, ITV and Channel 4; things that do well on BBC3, for example, often get given a reshowing, with more advertising, on BBC1 (Casanova, Little Britain).

It's a bit of a grey area, because as smurf said, this would make a lot of US 'channels' the same in regards to their parent being one of the major networks (i.e. Scifi is part of the NBC/Universal). Technically there are 4 major networks in the UK; BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and BSkyB. The terrestrial channel FIVE is supported by BSkyB which also does some free to air channels on top of its pay-perview stuff.


You're not seriously comparing Dr Who to shows like Lost, 24 and Heroes are you? In terms of world wide appeal they're not even in the same league.

Heroes gets...or rather got about 10 million viewers at its height in the US. Dr Who got 13.4 in the UK (or higher, that was last season) and adverages 10 million in a country with a population of 60 million...thats 1 in 6. It's not currently on a US network channel which is a shame, so you cant truely judge its 'success' as IMO The Scifi Channel isn't the appropriate channel for the show (because its a family show). A TV series doesn't have to originate in the US to have 'world wide' appeal. How do you think Dr Who has survived for 35+ years? Name me a US TV show, thats been broadcast worldwide and STILL being made, after nearly 4 decades?

hamatau'ri
December 24th, 2008, 09:50 AM
he's said things like this before ..he dissed bsg before during a audio commentary

he;'s just a out spoken person from what i've gathered seeing him on tv and dvds

He dissed BSG! I was hesistant to post here but Pharaoh Atem your post has done otherwise. Is RTD out of his mind? DW is a good show (well was, IMO some of the "Martha" and "Donna" episodes were very childish and just not up to the quality of the "Rose" episodes, and even of the old era, keeping in mind which year they were made ;) ) Even still, IMO it isn't as good as Stargate , well at least now it isn't. IT definetly isn't as good as BSG though - IMO one of the best shows on TV - an all rounder for CGI, writing and acting. So RTD, take a good look at your show befor you start shunning others!

Pitry
December 24th, 2008, 09:51 AM
I remember the BBC spent the entire first season denying the rumour that Eccleston wasn't intending to play the role long term, when they'd known from the point he signed the contract.


Niotpicky and offtopic-y, but once CE's departure has leaked (after the transmission of the first episode), the BBC confirmed... they also mention Tennant in the same press release, that's why he was everyone's favourite.

smurf
December 24th, 2008, 12:48 PM
Niotpicky and offtopic-y, but once CE's departure has leaked (after the transmission of the first episode), the BBC confirmed... they also mention Tennant in the same press release, that's why he was everyone's favourite.
I didn't know that. I got my info from someone in a newspaper bemoaning that the BBC shouldn't have been stringing people along.
Never trust journalists. :lol:
<mod snip>
"Ex-Dr. Who Showrunner expresses surprise at casting, displays weird British humor"
:D

JohnDuh
December 24th, 2008, 04:12 PM
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/12/idoctor_whoi_creator_doesnt_care.shtml
""Stargate, can you believe it?" Davies said. "That was a surprise. Has his agent watched it?""


Argh, I can't believe how big headed this quote is. It's basically saying "my show is better than Stargate, therefore he should come to mine".


No. It says "That isn't a very good show, why would a quality actor like him join it" (and if you check the net there are thousands who have already expressed the same sentiment, even here) Davies has left Dr. Who, so its not a question of joining "his show".



This is one reason why Stargate is so much better than Doctor Who. It does what DW is trying to do successfully, strike a believable balance between humour and seriousness.


Actually it doesn't. Its just because you are in love with it that you are blind to the faults :)

JohnDuh
December 24th, 2008, 04:20 PM
This insignificant Davies had a chance to stay quiet, but he resolve shoot in his feet, good look to him....

Except that most actors in the UK wants to work with him, and his shows has more viewers than Atlantis - but apart from that, yes quite insignificant.

TJuk
December 25th, 2008, 02:59 AM
Except that most actors in the UK wants to work with him, and his shows has more viewers than Atlantis - but apart from that, yes quite insignificant.

No kidding! He is one of the biggest producers in the BBC, which is one of the biggest Broadcasters in the WORLD. Not just the UK with its mirad of TV & Radio channels there's also the World Service and BBC American, news outlets all over the world and much more.

Yeah, thats 'insignifcant'...not.

Don't be so disrespectful, Davies was JOKING!!!! In the same vein as Mallozzi's style of humour (which some people love, and others always take the wrong way), it seems to be a producer thing...

Jedi_Master_Bra'tac
December 25th, 2008, 03:52 AM
Actually it doesn't. Its just because you are in love with it that you are blind to the faults :)

The river tells no lies, though standing on the shore the dishonest man still hears them.

rovex
December 25th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Frankly i was shocked RC joined Stargate. He is a movie actor now mostly and it does seem odd for him to join a relatively small cable channel sci-fi show.

Stargate is a great show but its not a big deal in the way Star Trek was at its peak in the late 80s and early 90s or the way Dr Who is now in the UK. It IS a strange decision to make. I can only assume that it will mean SG:U will be much more edgy and adult and less safe, they way SG1 was at times, but Atlantis never was.

iolanda
December 25th, 2008, 10:58 AM
Who can blame him? I was shocked myself ;)

No, honestly, there are so many diffences between DW and Stargate, that its not surprising that a guy doing the one thing isn't really fond of the other one.

ori soldier
December 25th, 2008, 11:39 AM
Who can blame him? I was shocked myself ;)

No, honestly, there are so many diffences between DW and Stargate, that its not surprising that a guy doing the one thing isn't really fond of the other one.

the thing is that for a television producer to actively go out and say his program is better than someone elses is dispicable, arrogant and big headed. DW is more popular and i would have expected RC to go with that instead of SGU but still the fact that he the nerve to say hes better than someone else is pathetic.

also i just watched the DW christmas special and i dont know how he can diss stargate after writing that piece of bull. DW is a prime example of writing where things just happen they aren't explained and they rip off just about every other franchise ever (this week it was transformers... no seriously it was THAT bad)

kiwigater
December 25th, 2008, 01:54 PM
I still feel that it was just RTD being flippant and silly. He often is, and I doubt he meant anything by it. Listen to any of the episode commentaries he does and they're filled with silliness.

Acolyte Of Bli'l'ab
December 25th, 2008, 02:07 PM
Personally I find it amusing, he's just another product of the sensationalist attention seeking UK media, and those people live in their own universe away from real reality, where the only thing that matters is popularity contests, winning awards from people who think their opinions are somehow more valid than the average person being a "star" and being ass kissed for writing any old contrived rubbish cos it has guest-stars and pop-culture references only people of said pop-culture will get or care about. I feel sorry for him more than anything. Its just another reminder of why I dont own a Television. The idiots lantern, quite right. :)

jenks
December 26th, 2008, 08:39 AM
Heroes gets...or rather got about 10 million viewers at its height in the US. Dr Who got 13.4 in the UK (or higher, that was last season) and adverages 10 million in a country with a population of 60 million...thats 1 in 6. It's not currently on a US network channel which is a shame, so you cant truely judge its 'success' as IMO The Scifi Channel isn't the appropriate channel for the show (because its a family show).

Yes, but look at what Heroes has to compete with compared to Dr Who. It's a cult classic that's been remade, and advertised to death and aired prime time on the biggest channel in the country, it has no competition at all. If it can't even beat the best shows on the Sci Fi channel then it doesn't stand a chance against the biggest US shows like Lost, Heroes etc etc.


A TV series doesn't have to originate in the US to have 'world wide' appeal. How do you think Dr Who has survived for 35+ years? Name me a US TV show, thats been broadcast worldwide and STILL being made, after nearly 4 decades?

Dr Who hasn't been made for nearly 4 decades though has it? And even if it had, what has that got to do with anything? It still can't compete with the top US shows, it lacks quality in all areas, I'm surprised anyone would think it could.

SGFerrit
December 26th, 2008, 01:17 PM
Ok, who do you consider to be major British film and TV stars?

Robert Carlyle;)

Reefgirl
December 26th, 2008, 02:16 PM
Robert Carlyle;)
Anyone else?

Caladria
December 26th, 2008, 03:25 PM
Yes, but look at what Heroes has to compete with compared to Dr Who. It's a cult classic that's been remade, and advertised to death and aired prime time on the biggest channel in the country, it has no competition at all. If it can't even beat the best shows on the Sci Fi channel then it doesn't stand a chance against the biggest US shows like Lost, Heroes etc etc.

Actually, I think Doctor Who does comparitively well against Heroes (Heroes is shown - by the BBC - at a 9pm timeslot, only two weeks after the US showing. It's one of the few - definitely the only well-advertised - foreign import the BBC has shown in years.)

Perhaps it might beworth considering that SciFi have just done a bad job with it? (I think we can all agree that SciFi are absolutely brilliant at advertising things for Stargate. And by brilliant, I do, of course, mean rubbish.) American networks seem to think that the only people that watch sciience fiction or any type of cultish show are young and male. Therefore, they gear their advertising towards young, male audiences. On its best days, Stargate completely ignores this and produces brilliant episodes. On its worst days, you can kind of see the targetting (Hi, Anise *eyeroll*). Doctor Who is made specifically to be enjoyed by seven year olds, and their brothers and sisters, and their mums and dads, and their grannies and grandads. The idea always was, the family had their tea on a Saturday evening, sat down, and watched Doctor Who together.

In other words, Skiffy are excluding the target audience before the titles roll.

Also, it's quirky and British-inventiveness heavy. Interviews with Terry Pratchett (Discworld) and Nick Park (Wallace and Gromit) suggest that American corporate suits don't get this at all (e.g. America was not ready for "Death as a sympathetic character - can ya get rid of him?" Six months before Bill and Ted. Also suggesting that Wallace and Gromit should drive a pickup because it was "cooler")




Dr Who hasn't been made for nearly 4 decades though has it? And even if it had, what has that got to do with anything? It still can't compete with the top US shows, it lacks quality in all areas, I'm surprised anyone would think it could.

I'm tempted to say that perhaps you could take it up with the Hugo awards (new Who has won every year it's been eligible; i.e. the last three years straight) and the British Film and Television Awards - BAFTAs are Emmy's for British tv, rather than American, (nominated several times, won best drama in 2006) and a handful of other awards (special award as outstanding writer for RTD, although his previous work undoubtedly helped; craft BAFTAs for Stephen Moffatt, the guy who's taking over next year)

I'll contain myself, though, and point out that the last person to be surprised was RTD. And look where that got us.

smurf
December 26th, 2008, 04:31 PM
<mod snip>

Yes, but look at what Heroes has to compete with compared to Dr Who. It's a cult classic that's been remade, and advertised to death and aired prime time on the biggest channel in the country, it has no competition at all. If it can't even beat the best shows on the Sci Fi channel then it doesn't stand a chance against the biggest US shows like Lost, Heroes etc etc.
That's a strange argument.
Of course a foreign made show with a very particular foreign sensibility, designed for a younger audience that Sci Fi appears to be aimed at won't beat the best shows specifically designed for their audience in mind. In much the same way Heroes does not beat the majority of shows on BBC2 - not even when it costs $4million per episode and the Brits quite like their sci-fi. Dr Who coming close says something about its appeal (or Sci Fi's lack of decent programming :P)

As a fan of Sci Fi's programming you probably wouldn't want it to beat their shows anyway, otherwise I'm sure you'd be waving goodbye to those shows much sooner than after five years.

Reiko
December 26th, 2008, 07:58 PM
American networks seem to think that the only people that watch sciience fiction or any type of cultish show are young and male. Therefore, they gear their advertising towards young, male audiences. On its best days, Stargate completely ignores this and produces brilliant episodes. On its worst days, you can kind of see the targetting (Hi, Anise *eyeroll*). Doctor Who is made specifically to be enjoyed by seven year olds, and their brothers and sisters, and their mums and dads, and their grannies and grandads. The idea always was, the family had their tea on a Saturday evening, sat down, and watched Doctor Who together.

I think Caladria hit it right there ...

And yet Doctor Who is enjoyed by tons of adults and has a huge adult fanbase. And a huge international fanbase, which is, yes -- growing in popularity in the US.

(I share your frustration in the US television industry's young and male stereotype. Ugh.)

JackHarkness_Hot
December 27th, 2008, 12:04 AM
The main difference I have noticed between DW and SG is that, when DW is on here (uk), you don't have to be a fan of Sci-Fi to watch it whereas with SG, when one mentions "Stargate", they go, "Nah, I'm not into science fiction".

I like both DW and SG, if the producer of DW doesn't like SG, so? Is it going to stop me from watching both? Move on peeps.

Reefgirl
December 27th, 2008, 03:02 AM
I was going to post "wow, you really haven't been around the Stargate folders recently" but that would be... um... a joke, yes, yes that's a joke. ;)

That's a strange argument.
Of course a foreign made show with a very particular foreign sensibility, designed for a younger audience that Sci Fi appears to be aimed at won't beat the best shows specifically designed for their audience in mind. In much the same way Heroes does not beat the majority of shows on BBC2 - not even when it costs $4million per episode and the Brits quite like their sci-fi. Dr Who coming close says something about its appeal (or Sci Fi's lack of decent programming :P)

As a fan of Sci Fi's programming you probably wouldn't want it to beat their shows anyway, otherwise I'm sure you'd be waving goodbye to those shows much sooner than after five years.
To add some figures to those facts, in the last 6 weeks Heroes has made it into the top ten viewed shows on BBC2 twice, once at number 7 once at number 10. Do you want to know what was at number 1 for those entire 6 weeks....(Wait for it)...Top Gear!! 3 men in an aircraft hanger beat a $4,000,000 per ep show. It seems the Brit's, men and women, prefer Jezza, Hamster and Capt Slow and fast cars to sci fi


The main difference I have noticed between DW and SG is that, when DW is on here (uk), you don't have to be a fan of Sci-Fi to watch it whereas with SG, when one mentions "Stargate", they go, "Nah, I'm not into science fiction".

I like both DW and SG, if the producer of DW doesn't like SG, so? Is it going to stop me from watching both? Move on peeps.
Agreed

Integrabyte
December 27th, 2008, 03:59 AM
Ok, who do you consider to be major British film and TV stars?

The Stig!!!!!

jenks
December 27th, 2008, 04:09 AM
Ok, who do you consider to be major British film and TV stars?

You never said anything about TV, but anyway, these are the sorts of names I'd say could be called stars:

Ian McKellen
Orlando Bloom
Keira Knightley
Daniel Craig
Clive Owen
Ray Stevenson

etc etc

Agent_Dark
December 27th, 2008, 04:34 AM
So you don't consider the following to be 'Major stars'?
Simon Callow
Pauline Collins (twice)
Anthony Head
Roger Lloyd Pack
Maureen Lipman
Derek Jacobi
Peter Capaldi
Phil Davis
Colin Salmon
Steve Pemberton
Alex Kingston
David Troughton, son of Dr Number 2, Patrick Troughton

And that's just the new series, Classic Who had it's greats too'

never heard of any of them

Caladria
December 27th, 2008, 05:07 AM
You never said anything about TV, but anyway, these are the sorts of names I'd say could be called stars:

Ian McKellen
Orlando Bloom
Keira Knightley
Daniel Craig
Clive Owen
Ray Stevenson

etc etc

I guess my point is: at the end of the day, if Ian McKellen did a Doctor Who I wouldn't be that surprised. There'd be an "oh, cool, they got him to do one!" but there wouldn't be the complete shock of Robert Carlyle in Stargate, purely because Stargate is viewed as a cult programme and Who isn't.

Of course, if you pick people who only do major films in the US, then their chances of a guest spot in any television show are going to be minimal at best, whatever the standard, UK or US *eyeroll*. "Stars who are a big thing in the UK" is slightly different to "British stars who are a big thing in the US".

If you're trying to twist the knife, then there is a major British star, who's starred in films, that does do television - in the US. "Hugh Laurie"?

(Isn't Kylie Minogue well-known in the US, anyway? I thought she was global.)

But, Sir Derek Jacobi would fit in right there? Admittedly, mostly theatre work, and mostly Shakespeare (and seeing as your major stars all made their name in the US I'm guessing that the Royal Shakespeare Company means nothing, right?), but Gladiator was, I believe, a modest success in the US.

I, Claudius?. Won an Emmy for a guest appearance in Frasier? Gosford Park? The Golden Compass? (actually, that was with Daniel Craig, so if we're playing Kevin Bacon, then Daniel Craig is fairly close...2 degrees separated..)

EDIT: Also, it's probably worth pointing out that the guest star in this year's Christmas Special is a guy who did star in The Other Boleyn Girl, with Scarlett Johannson (David Morrissey, as the Uncle - it wasn't the lead, but it was definitely a major supporting character)

But I will admit, most of the people who do guest spots in Doctor Who can walk unrecognised through LA, even if they can't walk unrecognised through London (Of course, this is skewed by the fact that major parts in Doctor Who - the Doctor, the companion, the Master - make an actor recognisable to the general public in the UK

jenks
December 27th, 2008, 05:44 AM
I guess my point is: at the end of the day, if Ian McKellen did a Doctor Who I wouldn't be that surprised. There'd be an "oh, cool, they got him to do one!" but there wouldn't be the complete shock of Robert Carlyle in Stargate, purely because Stargate is viewed as a cult programme and Who isn't.

Who isn't a cult program? Of course it is!


Of course, if you pick people who only do major films in the US, then their chances of a guest spot in any television show are going to be minimal at best, whatever the standard, UK or US *eyeroll*. "Stars who are a big thing in the UK" is slightly different to "British stars who are a big thing in the US".

I'm talking about major films in general.


If you're trying to twist the knife, then there is a major British star, who's starred in films, that does do television - in the US. "Hugh Laurie"?

Eh?


(Isn't Kylie Minogue well-known in the US, anyway? I thought she was global.)

I don't think she's well known over there, more popular in Europe and Aus etc.


But, Sir Derek Jacobi would fit in right there? Admittedly, mostly theatre work, and mostly Shakespeare (and seeing as your major stars all made their name in the US I'm guessing that the Royal Shakespeare Company means nothing, right?), but Gladiator was, I believe, a modest success in the US.

I, Claudius?. Won an Emmy for a guest appearance in Frasier? Gosford Park? The Golden Compass? (actually, that was with Daniel Craig, so if we're playing Kevin Bacon, then Daniel Craig is fairly close...2 degrees separated..)

EDIT: Also, it's probably worth pointing out that the guest star in this year's Christmas Special is a guy who did star in The Other Boleyn Girl, with Scarlett Johannson (David Morrissey, as the Uncle - it wasn't the lead, but it was definitely a major supporting character)

But I will admit, most of the people who do guest spots in Doctor Who can walk unrecognised through LA, even if they can't walk unrecognised through London (Of course, this is skewed by the fact that major parts in Doctor Who - the Doctor, the companion, the Master - make an actor recognisable to the general public in the UK

I think it takes more than being recognisable to make someone a star, the cast of all the soaps are pretty recognisable to most people, but I wouldn't call them stars.

Pitry
December 27th, 2008, 06:48 AM
Yes, but look at what Heroes has to compete with compared to Dr Who. It's a cult classic that's been remade, and advertised to death and aired prime time on the biggest channel in the country, it has no competition at all. If it can't even beat the best shows on the Sci Fi channel then it doesn't stand a chance against the biggest US shows like Lost, Heroes etc etc.





You're saying "cult classic" as if it's a guarantee it would work. The BBC avoided reviving Doctor Who for years out of the thought it'[s going to fail. Before series 1 was transmitted, people were only betting on how much they're going to fail. When the alst episode of the classic series aired, DW was a joke in the TV industry and viewers and at an all time low viewership.

The fact it's been revived to stellar ratings and reviews, that it keeps on getting stronger with ratings every year, that they did the almost impossible in the ratings/AI department last year says the reason DW is a success isn't just cos it's a cult classic. It's a success cos it's considered to be well dnoe and interesting by a lot of people, quite a number of them has never watched the original show before the new one.

jenks
December 27th, 2008, 06:53 AM
You're saying "cult classic" as if it's a guarantee it would work. The BBC avoided reviving Doctor Who for years out of the thought it'[s going to fail. Before series 1 was transmitted, people were only betting on how much they're going to fail. When the alst episode of the classic series aired, DW was a joke in the TV industry and viewers and at an all time low viewership.

The fact it's been revived to stellar ratings and reviews, that it keeps on getting stronger with ratings every year, that they did the almost impossible in the ratings/AI department last year says the reason DW is a success isn't just cos it's a cult classic. It's a success cos it's considered to be well dnoe and interesting by a lot of people, quite a number of them has never watched the original show before the new one.

I think the fact that it is Dr Who is the only reason people over here forgive all the cheesy and tacky things about it, I think if it had been a brand new series and not a remake it would have been canned after a few episodes.

Pitry
December 27th, 2008, 07:23 AM
I think the fact that it is Dr Who is the only reason people over here forgive all the cheesy and tacky things about it, I think if it had been a brand new series and not a remake it would have been canned after a few episodes.

Well, as a non Brit who had never even watched a single episode of Doctor Who before Rose and definitely didn't have any particular reason to want to like it and give it credit and have now become sucha fan as to watch quite a bit of the classic series as well, I think you're wrong.

Well, me and the vast majority of my friends who also didn't have the DW background adn who have been converted to being fans. :) Seriously - we appraoched it as a new series, some of them it took quite a lot of time to convince to give the show a try. In the end, even those who haven't fallen in love with it admit it's at least nice, they jsut don't see why the rest of us adore it so much. I don't mind the cheese and tacky thnigs about it, I think it's a part of its charm.

Caladria
December 27th, 2008, 07:32 AM
Who isn't a cult program? Of course it is!

Sorry - "purely a cult programme" would have been better - Who, in the UK, gets treated as not a cult programme but as a major drama - it gets nominated for things not as "best sci fi" or "best cult" but as "best drama" and the stars take home "best actor/actress" "most popular actor/actress" awards - it sits up with the other major dramas that wouldn't be considered cult and holds it weight - therefore, dealing with it as purely a cult programme is slightly illogical.(classic Who, yes, that's cult).

It's mainstream entertainment, in other words.



I'm talking about major films in general.

Yes, but that varies from country to country. I'd never realised there were people in the Western World who hadn't heard of the Full Monty until people started saying, "Who's Robert Carlyle?" I just thought that the phrase "Full Monty" came automatically with thoughts of steelworkers stripping to the soundtrack of Hot Chocolate. Because, to me, the Full Monty is a major film.

As long your major films demand US success above all, you're limiting yourself to Hollywood, basically.



I don't think she's well known over there, more popular in Europe and Aus etc.

Ah, well. Maybe America has more sense then I give it credit for.



I think it takes more than being recognisable to make someone a star, the cast of all the soaps are pretty recognisable to most people, but I wouldn't call them stars.

What is the definition of star, then? The calibre of acting that people do? Because there's plenty of pretty good theatre actors that wouldn't class as stars (Ian McKellen, then, is a star because of his excellent Shakespearean work with the RSC or because he's Gandalf?)

Or maybe it's the arena in which they're famous for? John Simm, for example, would class as a major British tv star because of starring roles in Life on Mars and Doctor Who, but would he not class as a major tv star purely on the basis of lack of US exposure?

jenks
December 27th, 2008, 07:44 AM
I would class a star as someone who film makers would make a reasonable effort to cast, not the sort of actors that turn up for auditions and gets the part. Someone who has the name and the talent to attract work to themselves, rather than those who need to go looking for it.

SGFerrit
December 27th, 2008, 08:21 AM
Ian McKellen is a good one. Patrick Stewart and Ewan McGreggor are some more off the top of my head.

Reefgirl
December 27th, 2008, 08:24 AM
Nah :p. Brits like people who have had their teeth whitened ;).
And are quite short


The Stig!!!!!
His Boney Cousin was in Silence in the library/Forest of the dead


You never said anything about TV, but anyway, these are the sorts of names I'd say could be called stars:

Ian McKellen
Orlando Bloom
Keira Knightley
Daniel Craig
Clive Owen
Ray Stevenson

etc etc
Ian McKellen: Has appeared in Corrie
Orlando Bloom: Casualty/Midsommer Murders
Keira Knightley: Her first appearence was in The Bill
Daniel Craig: Sharpe, Our Friends in the North (which also starred Chris Ecclestone)
Clive Owen: Chancer/Boon
Ray Stevenson: Who?

See a pattern emerging here?


never heard of any of them
Simon Callow: Amadeus, Four Weddings
Pauline Collins (twice): Upstairs Down Stairs, Thomas and Sarah, Shirley Valentine
Anthony Head: Oh come on you must remember him as Giles in BtVS
Roger Lloyd Pack: Trigger in Only Fools and Owen in Vicar of Dibley
Maureen Lipman: Re:Joyce
Derek Jacobi: Cadfael, I Claudius, Gladiator
Peter Capaldi: Waking the Dead, Skins, The Devil's Whore
Phil Davis: The Curse of Steptoe, Ashes to Ashes, Vera Drake, Bleak House
Colin Salmon: James Bond
Steve Pemberton: League of Gentlemen
Alex Kingston: ER
David Troughton, son of Dr Number 2, Patrick Troughton: Sharpe



I guess my point is: at the end of the day, if Ian McKellen did a Doctor Who I wouldn't be that surprised. There'd be an "oh, cool, they got him to do one!" but there wouldn't be the complete shock of Robert Carlyle in Stargate, purely because Stargate is viewed as a cult programme and Who isn't.

Of course, if you pick people who only do major films in the US, then their chances of a guest spot in any television show are going to be minimal at best, whatever the standard, UK or US *eyeroll*. "Stars who are a big thing in the UK" is slightly different to "British stars who are a big thing in the US".

If you're trying to twist the knife, then there is a major British star, who's starred in films, that does do television - in the US. "Hugh Laurie"?

(Isn't Kylie Minogue well-known in the US, anyway? I thought she was global.)

But, Sir Derek Jacobi would fit in right there? Admittedly, mostly theatre work, and mostly Shakespeare (and seeing as your major stars all made their name in the US I'm guessing that the Royal Shakespeare Company means nothing, right?), but Gladiator was, I believe, a modest success in the US.

I, Claudius?. Won an Emmy for a guest appearance in Frasier? Gosford Park? The Golden Compass? (actually, that was with Daniel Craig, so if we're playing Kevin Bacon, then Daniel Craig is fairly close...2 degrees separated..)

EDIT: Also, it's probably worth pointing out that the guest star in this year's Christmas Special is a guy who did star in The Other Boleyn Girl, with Scarlett Johannson (David Morrissey, as the Uncle - it wasn't the lead, but it was definitely a major supporting character)

But I will admit, most of the people who do guest spots in Doctor Who can walk unrecognised through LA, even if they can't walk unrecognised through London (Of course, this is skewed by the fact that major parts in Doctor Who - the Doctor, the companion, the Master - make an actor recognisable to the general public in the UK
Thank you for answering that

I would class a star as someone who film makers would make a reasonable effort to cast, not the sort of actors that turn up for auditions and gets the part. Someone who has the name and the talent to attract work to themselves, rather than those who need to go looking for it.
See further up this posting for my response to the list of people you put down as 'Proper' British stars and you will see that they all started in television, actors can't be choosy about where they start life, they can say "No I'm not doing TV, I want to star in films only" but then they'll be lucky if they get cast in a ad for loo cleaner. Beggers can't be choosers

Caladria
December 27th, 2008, 10:04 AM
I would class a star as someone who film makers would make a reasonable effort to cast, not the sort of actors that turn up for auditions and gets the part. Someone who has the name and the talent to attract work to themselves, rather than those who need to go looking for it.

Sir Derek Jacobi, then, is definitely a star.

There is a lot of difference between "work" and "film", though. I would imagine that quite a few actors get offered a fair bit of work, but not all of it will be film.

(actually, I think from the Confidentials a lot of the time, the production crew of Who do sit around and think, 'who do we want for this part?' but I'm willing to acknowledge that well-known in the industry - enough to be offered a job like that - is not necessarily well-known.)

Although "stars" will go looking for work themselves, if they desire it enough - Ian McKellen asked to go on Coronation Street, because he likes it. Corrie, presumably, wet themselves, then wrote a part for him. Kylie was on Doctor Who, not because she's a jobbing actress but because she wanted to be on Doctor Who (or alternatively, on telly on Christmas Day, being watched by millions).

Actually, by those definitions, the writers of Who are probably counted as stars (George Lucas wanted to meet with RTD to discuss Star Wars and was politely turned down; Stephen Moffatt was chased, from all reports, by Steven Spielburg to write Tintin, with promises of protection from the media and networks. And then he knocked him back for the second and third of the trilogy in favour of Doctor Who).

(If you'll include Comic Relief sketches, the list of people that have played the Doctor can include: Rowan Atkinson, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, and Joanna Lumley)

Reefgirl
December 27th, 2008, 10:13 AM
Sir Derek Jacobi, then, is definitely a star.

There is a lot of difference between "work" and "film", though. I would imagine that quite a few actors get offered a fair bit of work, but not all of it will be film.

(actually, I think from the Confidentials a lot of the time, the production crew of Who do sit around and think, 'who do we want for this part?' but I'm willing to acknowledge that well-known in the industry - enough to be offered a job like that - is not necessarily well-known.) and for young up and coming actor's too. Colin Morgan admitted that it was his part in Dr Who that helped him get the lead part in Merlin, would Freema Agyman have got her part in Little Dorrit if all she had on her CV was Crossroads?


Although "stars" will go looking for work themselves, if they desire it enough - Ian McKellen asked to go on Coronation Street, because he likes it. Corrie, presumably, wet themselves, then wrote a part for him. Kylie was on Doctor Who, not because she's a jobbing actress but because she wanted to be on Doctor Who (or alternatively, on telly on Christmas Day, being watched by millions).
Appearing in a soap was on Sir Ian's 'Things to do before I die' list, another was playing a Pantomime Dame, which he did, as Widow Twanky in the Palladium's Aladdin, how many top stars would lower themselves to appear in Panto? Lot's of American's apparently


Actually, by those definitions, the writers of Who are probably counted as stars (George Lucas wanted to meet with RTD to discuss Star Wars and was politely turned down; Stephen Moffatt was chased, from all reports, by Steven Spielburg to write Tintin, with promises of protection from the media and networks. And then he knocked him back for the second and third of the trilogy in favour of Doctor Who).

(If you'll include Comic Relief sketches, the list of people that have played the Doctor can include: Rowan Atkinson, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, and Joanna Lumley)
How many writers can actually say to Spielberg "Nah, I've got a gig with Dr Who" and get away with it

TJuk
December 27th, 2008, 10:33 AM
I think the fact that it is Dr Who is the only reason people over here forgive all the cheesy and tacky things about it, I think if it had been a brand new series and not a remake it would have been canned after a few episodes.

One man's 'cheesy and tacky' is anothers 'fun, escapist delight, entertaining' etc. It's down to perspective and taste. And Dr Who is styled to be the way it is...its not meant to be realistic! So its not like its trying to be serious, failing and coming off as cheesy. SG has had its own fair share of cheesy and tacky in its time when stuff hasn't quite hit the mark ('Irrespnisible' jumps to mind with all the bloody 'buxom wenches') or some dodgey guest star has hammed it up.

What about critical acclaim? Dr Who and Stargate have been up for many an award together, and Dr Who has beaten it many, many times, and other shows have left SG cold time and again. As Mallozzi has commented on, in his own blog.

Dr Who is not meant to be overly realistic, its aimed at families and kids. It's writing is the thing thats won awards over the last 4 seasons. Has SGA won ANY awards for its writing? How many awards has it won or even been nominated for? Bugger all! And critical success is a far better judge because they at least try to look at the product over all, and more importantly as its success. And thats US awards as well as British, mainstream and scifi orientated.

If you ask a Stargate fan which you think has better writing, and you're going to get a very biased answer. Ditto on a DW fan.

And who in Stargate is a 'major' star? SG1 had Richard Dean Anderson yes, but he's always been a TV star (from of the old days of when TV stars were ONLY TV stars and didn't cross over onto feature film, only MOTW). How many big guest stars has it truely had? Or SGA? ALL of its stars are small time TV stars in the US, and many started out as unknowns, especially the Canadian actors. DW has many actors that have had decent parts in HUGE movies as listed in other posts. So its not exactly a point in SG's favour.

jenks
December 27th, 2008, 10:49 AM
Ian McKellen: Has appeared in Corrie
Orlando Bloom: Casualty/Midsommer Murders
Keira Knightley: Her first appearence was in The Bill
Daniel Craig: Sharpe, Our Friends in the North (which also starred Chris Ecclestone)
Clive Owen: Chancer/Boon
Ray Stevenson: Who?

See a pattern emerging here?

See further up this posting for my response to the list of people you put down as 'Proper' British stars and you will see that they all started in television, actors can't be choosy about where they start life, they can say "No I'm not doing TV, I want to star in films only" but then they'll be lucky if they get cast in a ad for loo cleaner. Beggers can't be choosers

Er, how is any of this relevant? Who said anything about how they started their careers?

Reefgirl
December 27th, 2008, 11:01 AM
One man's 'cheesy and tacky' is anothers 'fun, escapist delight, entertaining' etc. It's down to perspective and taste. And Dr Who is styled to be the way it is...its not meant to be realistic! So its not like its trying to be serious, failing and coming off as cheesy. SG has had its own fair share of cheesy and tacky in its time when stuff hasn't quite hit the mark ('Irrespnisible' jumps to mind with all the bloody 'buxom wenches') or some dodgey guest star has hammed it up.

What about critical acclaim? Dr Who and Stargate have been up for many an award together, and Dr Who has beaten it many, many times, and other shows have left SG cold time and again. As Mallozzi has commented on, in his own blog.

Dr Who is not meant to be overly realistic, its aimed at families and kids. It's writing is the thing thats won awards over the last 4 seasons. Has SGA won ANY awards for its writing? How many awards has it won or even been nominated for? Bugger all! And critical success is a far better judge because they at least try to look at the product over all, and more importantly as its success. And thats US awards as well as British, mainstream and scifi orientated.

If you ask a Stargate fan which you think has better writing, and you're going to get a very biased answer. Ditto on a DW fan.

And who in Stargate is a 'major' star? SG1 had Richard Dean Anderson yes, but he's always been a TV star (from of the old days of when TV stars were ONLY TV stars and didn't cross over onto feature film, only MOTW). How many big guest stars has it truely had? Or SGA? ALL of its stars are small time TV stars in the US, and many started out as unknowns, especially the Canadian actors. DW has many actors that have had decent parts in HUGE movies as listed in other posts. So its not exactly a point in SG's favour.
Agreed, to my knowledge the only 'major' star I've seen in SG is David Ogden Stiers

Er, how is any of this relevant? Who said anything about how they started their careers?
You did say some time back that you didn't consider TV stars to be 'Major' stars, Everyone has to start somewhere and TV is usually it, you can't dismiss TV as 'not as important as film' there are some actors, British and American, that are infinitly better on TV than any film stars

jenks
December 27th, 2008, 11:12 AM
You did say some time back that you didn't consider TV stars to be 'Major' stars, Everyone has to start somewhere and TV is usually it,

Yes, but back then they weren't stars.


you can't dismiss TV as 'not as important as film' there are some actors, British and American, that are infinitly better on TV than any film stars

I can, and do, because it's not. There may be actors on television that are better than some film actors, but they're the exception to the rule, because film makers demand higher standards of acting, and actors would generally rather get films deals that TV ones.

TJuk
December 27th, 2008, 11:55 AM
Yes, but back then they weren't stars.

I can, and do, because it's not. There may be actors on television that are better than some film actors, but they're the exception to the rule, because film makers demand higher standards of acting, and actors would generally rather get films deals that TV ones.


5-10 years ago that might have been true but you're living in the past. A decade ago (were you even out of short trousers 10 years ago?), there was a very definative line between TV & Film actors. Especially in the 'golden age' of cinema where a film star wouldn't be seen dead involved with anything tv. But these are the days when actors were contracted to a studio 'stable' and worked exclusively for that studio until their contracted expired or more likely, they were washed up. The industry has signifcantly evolved and moved on since those days. The snobbery between the two industries has long since gone, and the lines have broken down. Even the lines between different genres have broken down (such as documentary to feature film). To say anything else is to have absolutely no idea about the industry, how it works and its evolution over the last few decades.

'Movie' stars can and do start their careers in TV. And BIG movie stars now also look for solid TV deals as well as film and sometimes even over film deals (because they're thinking about the bigger 'business' picture). 5+ years ago, this wouldn't have happened because of the fear they would be stigmatised as a 'TV' actor, but this is most definately not the case anymore.

And as for "that are better than some film actors, but they're the exception to the rule, because film makers demand higher standards of acting" what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. And what an insult to a tremendous wealth of talent in the TV industry who CHOOSE not to work in film for many, many different reasons.

Look at Steven Speilberg, James Cameron and many other big directors who choose to produce a story as a TV mini-series or even a serial over feature film. The seperation between the two industries now is purely the 'format' i.e. films are 90-120 mins on adverage. Where a mini-series can be 6+ hours and a serial 20+ hours. The budget can be just as big, the rewards and critical acclaim, and the talent they draw to the project on par with any feature film.

nx01a
December 27th, 2008, 12:12 PM
Yes, but back then they weren't stars.
Score one point for finding good talent for cheap.;)
I can, and do, because it's not. There may be actors on television that are better than some film actors, but they're the exception to the rule, because film makers demand higher standards of acting, and actors would generally rather get films deals that TV ones.
Make a few million dollars for 3 or so months of work crying alot in a shower, win an Oscar, demand even more money for a movie. Works for lots of actors. :P Some film actors can't hack it doing plays or tv series, some tv and stage actors can't hack it doing movies.

Who cares what RTD said? He's known for that dry humour, and I doubt he'd actually diss other professionals in the same game he's [or was] in.

And why the hate, people? If you don't like the comment or the commentator, fine, but it's spilling over into the show he creates [created]. He's a bad man and his show's bad, obviously. Anyone want to start bashing 'Queer as Folk', cause he made that, too. :) Then again, you can bash that for other reasons.

To be honest, I find Doctor Who to be far more dramatic than SGA. I found the plight of the enslaved Ood so much more engaging than the average 'free a few villagers from the Wraith' incident. We see characters actually go through hell and evolve [Rose, Martha, Donna] and the Doctor's also gone through a change in outlook over the last 4 seasons. I also like the effects... most of the time. Every series has cgi letdown. Look at SGA's 'Brainstorm' or the end of 'The Last Man'.

Who has all of space and time and human emotion as is ingredients, the stories it can tell are honestly limitless. If you don't show that sheer awe and wonder in the 'whimsical' nature of the storytelling itself [as well as the horror of human base nature and the dark things of the cosmos], then you're doing the concept a disservice. As for what's 'wrong' with the show, SGA has its strengths and weaknesses, as does Doctor Who, as did SG-1, as does BSG, as does Star Trek...

jenks
December 27th, 2008, 12:15 PM
5-10 years ago that might have been true but you're living in the past. A decade ago (were you even out of short trousers 10 years ago?), there was a very definative line between TV & Film actors. Especially in the 'golden age' of cinema where a film star wouldn't be seen dead involved with anything tv. But these are the days when actors were contracted to a studio 'stable' and worked exclusively for that studio until their contracted expired or more likely, they were washed up. The industry has signifcantly evolved and moved on since those days. The snobbery between the two industries has long since gone, and the lines have broken down. Even the lines between different genres have broken down (such as documentary to feature film). To say anything else is to have absolutely no idea about the industry, how it works and its evolution over the last few decades.

Was that really necessary? Never mind, I'm flattered that you've had to resort to such childish attacks so early in the discussion.



'Movie' stars can and do start their careers in TV. And BIG movie stars now also look for solid TV deals as well as film and sometimes even over film deals (because they're thinking about the bigger 'business' picture). 5+ years ago, this wouldn't have happened because of the fear they would be stigmatised as a 'TV' actor, but this is most definately not the case anymore.

A few movie actors take roles in TV shows for the sake of exposure yes, but in high quality shows with massive appeal, not in shows like Dr Who, it's simply beneath big name actors.


And as for "that are better than some film actors, but they're the exception to the rule, because film makers demand higher standards of acting" what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. And what an insult to a tremendous wealth of talent in the TV industry who CHOOSE not to work in film for many, many different reasons.

Any ambitious actor would rather work in film than TV, better money, better work conditions and hours. The only reason actors choose TV over Film is usually down to their private life, not to do with the quality of the production.


Look at Steven Speilberg, James Cameron and many other big directors who choose to produce a story as a TV mini-series or even a serial over feature film. The seperation between the two industries now is purely the 'format' i.e. films are 90-120 mins on adverage. Where a mini-series can be 6+ hours and a serial 20+ hours. The budget can be just as big, the rewards and critical acclaim, and the talent they draw to the project on par with any feature film.

Shows like Band of Brothers and Rome are few and far between, they may be able to compete with film in terms of production quality, but the few who can are insignificant compared to the overwhelming majority of TV that can't.

Caladria
December 27th, 2008, 12:41 PM
A few movie actors take roles in TV shows for the sake of exposure yes, but in high quality shows with massive appeal, not in shows like Dr Who, it's simply beneath big name actors.

And I thought we had established already that Doctor Who does have mass appeal... one in six people in a country watching an episode (and a bog-standard, non-series opener or ender episode)




Any ambitious actor would rather work in film than TV, better money, better work conditions and hours. The only reason actors choose TV over Film is usually down to their private life, not to do with the quality of the production.

But quite a lot of actors do have a private life. Simon Pegg, Ricky Gervais, Hugh Laurie, for example: all British actors with wives/families in the UK, still live in the UK, and who have to commute to work in the States. And that's off the top of my head. How many non-US stars just wouldn't want to leave their families? And like the stability of a tv role far too much to try and break into cinema?

(Simon Pegg! He's another big name star that's appeared in Who, and, I would suspect, purely for the love of it. And that wasn't before he became big; this was after he'd done Band of Brothers, after he'd done Shaun of the Dead, after Spaced, although admittedly, the year before he did a Mission Impossible.)


And for a lot of actors it seems to be a preference thing, anyway. It's not about money or CGI budget, or you'd never get your Ian McKellens or your Patrick Stewarts or your David Tennants or your Rob Lowes doing theatre. They choose to work in the medium they like - a lot of actors choose to work in the theatre for the love of it, with the occasional on-camera stint to pay the bills, in which case tv is their best option; three weeks to guest star in an episode of Who, say, then back to the theatre for the next season of plays.



Shows like Band of Brothers and Rome are few and far between, they may be able to compete with film in terms of production quality, but the few who can are insignificant compared to the overwhelming majority of TV that can't.

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is cr*p.

I could always claim that the vast majority of films can't pack enough story into the 90-280 minutes, or try and pack too much in, and therefore the depth and different shots that you can use in television and the familiarity of characters makes some television far excel films. Swings and roundabouts. One medium isn't better, merely different.




And if I haven't said it before, any Stargate or Who fan yelling "cheese!" is deeply hypocritical. Both series can be pure, glorious Stilton at times. Cheese isn't necessarily bad. Goa'uld, anyone? Blokes in gold dresses with far too much eye makeup and snakes in their head and lines like "Jaffa, kree!" It's brilliant; I love it, and it's pure cheese. Similarly for Who and its killer pepper-pots. Both shows are at their very best when they have a serious undercurrent overlaid with silliness (Disclaimer: iMHO, Window Of Opportunity is slightly genius because it's daft and silly and breaks your heart, in those last scenes).




How many writers can actually say to Spielberg "Nah, I've got a gig with Dr Who" and get away with it?

Ha! Didn't Spielburg give him his blessing and say that the world was a better place with Doctor Who in it? And this after Moffatt couldn't finish the second film because of the WGA strike?

Pitry
December 27th, 2008, 12:42 PM
I can, and do, because it's not. There may be actors on television that are better than some film actors, but they're the exception to the rule, because film makers demand higher standards of acting, and actors would generally rather get films deals that TV ones.

Oh I dunno about that. When I compare actors like David Tennant, Catherine Tate, David Morrissey, Billie Piper etc etc to some of the names from your list, i. eOrlando Bloom, Keira Neightly... I know which of these I consider to be the better actors, even if they didn't star in Hollywood blockbusters.

Reefgirl
December 27th, 2008, 01:16 PM
Look at Steven Speilberg, James Cameron and many other big directors who choose to produce a story as a TV mini-series or even a serial over feature film. The seperation between the two industries now is purely the 'format' i.e. films are 90-120 mins on adverage. Where a mini-series can be 6+ hours and a serial 20+ hours. The budget can be just as big, the rewards and critical acclaim, and the talent they draw to the project on par with any feature film.

Ridley Scott started his career making Adverts

Flyboy
December 27th, 2008, 01:21 PM
I don't see how film actors are automatically better... usually I think it's just 'more sex appeal' or more 'cool'. Jim Carrey and Will Smith, whilst having both come of age in their careers, began their film life as frankly, awful actors. How many times did we have to endure Will Smiith simply being himself pretending to be a pilot or a cowboy? Always, ALWAYS the same character down to his actions and tastes. Same with Jim Carrey. Now a GOOD actor, is something totally different, and they may not get paid the same as the likes of Smith, but theyre not determined by media format.

Flyboy
December 27th, 2008, 01:28 PM
[insert name] associated with [insert show] said something bad about Stargate! Commence attacks on [insert name] and snipe away at [insert show] for good measure!!
*shrugs* Everyone knows RTD is a pain in the arse. Frankly I think Doctor Who is simultaneously vastly superior and infinitley worse than Stargate in terms of quality. When Doctor Who is good, it's bloody amazing - Human Nature anyone? But when it's bad... it's cheese tastic and cringe worthy. Stargate generally manages to be a constant middle ground, with occasional episodes peaking above. That's my opinion anyway.

prion
December 28th, 2008, 09:14 AM
I would class a star as someone who film makers would make a reasonable effort to cast, not the sort of actors that turn up for auditions and gets the part. Someone who has the name and the talent to attract work to themselves, rather than those who need to go looking for it.

'Star' is a vague term. While if you say 'star,' most people will say Tom Cruise, brad Pitt, or whoever is the flavor of the month (seriously, you're only as good as your marketing machine). Star doesn't always translate to good work. I mean, Tom Cruise *can* do good work but does some real turkeys, ditto with Will Smith (still cringing from the five minutes of Wild Wild West I saw).

Some of the most talented folks in the entertainment industry aren't 'stars' per se, but background folk, or character actors - they'll never get lead actor/actress roles/nominations, but without them, the lead actors, etc. have nothing to bounce off of .

Skydiver
December 28th, 2008, 12:55 PM
Honestly, who gives a fig what he thinks????

I watch what i want to watch, not what some guy that i've never met and will never meet thinks i should watch.

Stargate4Eva
December 28th, 2008, 01:51 PM
I read what he said and really didn't care what he thought of Stargate, he sounds like he is just mad that the actor he wanted chose to go someplace else. RTD needs to get over it and move on!

Reefgirl
December 28th, 2008, 02:03 PM
I read what he said and really didn't care what he thought of Stargate, he sounds like he is just mad that the actor he wanted chose to go someplace else. RTD needs to get over it and move on!
Where on earth has it been said that RTD wanted Robert Carlyle to be the Doctor, anyway it's not up to him it's up to the new guy, Stephen Moffat

PG15
December 28th, 2008, 02:51 PM
Because Disses makes the thread sound negetive and that's not what Shiney Happy Gateworld is about now

Funny; there were some in this very thread that said its negative subject betrayed the "happy shiny Gateworld" mantra, and now that the mods have tried to nudge it into slightly less-negative territory, they get this.

Poor mods; they can never win.

prion
December 28th, 2008, 03:45 PM
Funny; there were some in this very thread that said its negative subject betrayed the "happy shiny Gateworld" mantra, and now that the mods have tried to nudge it into slightly less-negative territory, they get this.

Poor mods; they can never win.

I thought the whole purpose of this thread was to discuss the "Doctor Who producer doesn't care for Stargate" article, which in itself is supposition ;) Yes, the title changed... mysteriously.

SGFerrit
December 28th, 2008, 04:06 PM
Not exactly 3 series with strong followings and a mantlepiece full of awards is it

Stargate is currently two series with strong followings and a mantle piece full of awards. Next year it'll be 3, most likely.

And please tell me your quote is just general and not talking about Dr. Who, because if your including The SJ Adventures now I think I might just collapse into a laughing fit;)

Willow'sCat
December 28th, 2008, 04:06 PM
I like Dr Who and Stargate. But honestly, RTD shouldn't really say stuff like that.. if he thinks he can do a better job, then he shouldn't have quit Dr Who! =PI agree about RTD being a bit more coy with his comments, it certainly wouldn't harm him.

Then again he was asked and he answered. Can't fault the man for that, I can fault GW for making the bias healine out of it that they did. :cool: Oh but that has apparently changed now... so all is good. :rolleyes:

SGFerrit
December 28th, 2008, 04:09 PM
I agree about RTD being a bit more coy with his comments, it certainly wouldn't harm him.

Then again he was asked and he answered. Can't fault the man for that, I can fault GW for making the bias healine out of it that they did. :cool: Oh but that has apparently changed now... so all is good. :rolleyes:

No he wasn't. All that was said was 'Robert Carlyle is out of the running'. RTD wasn't asked to make any snarky comments. It just seems to be in his nature.

Flyboy
December 28th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Stargate is currently two series with strong followings and a mantle piece full of awards. Next year it'll be 3, most likely.

And please tell me your quote is just general and not talking about Dr. Who, because if your including The SJ Adventures now I think I might just collapse into a laughing fit;)
Hey! I LIKED SJA.

Agent_Dark
December 28th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Simon Callow: Amadeus, Four Weddings
Pauline Collins (twice): Upstairs Down Stairs, Thomas and Sarah, Shirley Valentine
Anthony Head: Oh come on you must remember him as Giles in BtVS
Roger Lloyd Pack: Trigger in Only Fools and Owen in Vicar of Dibley
Maureen Lipman: Re:Joyce
Derek Jacobi: Cadfael, I Claudius, Gladiator
Peter Capaldi: Waking the Dead, Skins, The Devil's Whore
Phil Davis: The Curse of Steptoe, Ashes to Ashes, Vera Drake, Bleak House
Colin Salmon: James Bond
Steve Pemberton: League of Gentlemen
Alex Kingston: ER
David Troughton, son of Dr Number 2, Patrick Troughton: Sharpe


They're no more 'big name stars' than the likes of Richard Dean Anderson, Beau Bridges or Mitch Pileggi to name a few. And Stargate is certainly able to pull in 'known' actors for guest roles - David Ogden Stiers, Richard Kind, Kari Wuhrer, Robert Patrick, Dan Castellaneta, Ronny Cox, Lou Gossett Jr., Isacc Hayes, William Devane, Adam Baldwin...

I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove. Dr Who can attract alot of British talent. Stargate can attract alot of North American talent.

Willow'sCat
December 28th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Stargate is currently two series with strong followings and a mantle piece full of awards. Next year it'll be 3, most likely.

And please tell me your quote is just general and not talking about Dr. Who, because if your including The SJ Adventures now I think I might just collapse into a laughing fit;)Um, what noteable awards for acting and writing has Stargate won? LATELY? I really want to know?

*sits with head in hands waiting*

SGFerrit
December 28th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Lately? I think the most recent one for Atlantis is the People's Choice award for best Science Fiction show, which isn't that impressive but the fact it beat BSG and Dr. Who to it is pretty good. I don't know if Jewel Staite won her acting award for Missing? I think Brad Wright got an award for Atlantis before he left, but I know certain people like to look at season 1-3 as seperate entities.

In regards to SG-1, I'm really not sure, but I do believe both RDA and AT have won acting awards for it. And it won it's share of 'best show awards' too. But I doubt SG-1 qualifies as 'lately';)

I know these tend to be Canadian Awards, but then I'd bet most of Dr. Who's/Torchwoods/TSJA's awards tend to be native too.

prion
December 28th, 2008, 08:20 PM
Um, what noteable awards for acting and writing has Stargate won? LATELY? I really want to know?

*sits with head in hands waiting*


Lately? I think the most recent one for Atlantis is the People's Choice award for best Science Fiction show, which isn't that impressive but the fact it beat BSG and Dr. Who to it is pretty good. I don't know if Jewel Staite won her acting award for Missing? I think Brad Wright got an award for Atlantis before he left, but I know certain people like to look at season 1-3 as seperate entities.

In regards to SG-1, I'm really not sure, but I do believe both RDA and AT have won acting awards for it. And it won it's share of 'best show awards' too. But I doubt SG-1 qualifies as 'lately';)

I know these tend to be Canadian Awards, but then I'd bet most of Dr. Who's/Torchwoods/TSJA's awards tend to be native too.

The Stargates have rarely won anything for acting. SPX, yes, but not for acting. No, Jewel didn't win the Gemini this year. As a side note, if TPTB don't submit Flanigan for "Vegas" in the next batch of Geminis, they've got rocks in their heads....

Briangate78
December 28th, 2008, 08:26 PM
Dr.who is likely bigger than Stargate in the UK, but in the U.S. the show doesn't perform on SCI FI as well as Stargate, so it is likely bigger in the states, but does it matter? No, it is what people like. Heck Family Guy does not pull in the numbers like some of the other major network shows, but it does well for the age demos which will keep it going. Success does not always equal high quality.

Pandora's_Box
December 28th, 2008, 09:41 PM
The Stargates have rarely won anything for acting. SPX, yes, but not for acting. No, Jewel didn't win the Gemini this year. As a side note, if TPTB don't submit Flanigan for "Vegas" in the next batch of Geminis, they've got rocks in their heads....

Flanigan's not eligible for a Gemini. An Emmy yes, but not the Geminis. At least I don't think so.

TJuk
December 29th, 2008, 03:58 AM
Lately? I think the most recent one for Atlantis is the People's Choice award for best Science Fiction show, which isn't that impressive but the fact it beat BSG and Dr. Who to it is pretty good. I don't know if Jewel Staite won her acting award for Missing? I think Brad Wright got an award for Atlantis before he left, but I know certain people like to look at season 1-3 as seperate entities.

In regards to SG-1, I'm really not sure, but I do believe both RDA and AT have won acting awards for it. And it won it's share of 'best show awards' too. But I doubt SG-1 qualifies as 'lately';)

I know these tend to be Canadian Awards, but then I'd bet most of Dr. Who's/Torchwoods/TSJA's awards tend to be native too.

The People's choice Award was a fan online vote at a website, hardly the most accurate measure of success especially as it wasn't a single person, single vote. It just went to show how enthusiastic and determined its fans are which is definately not a bad thing!

But its only won 2 mainstream awards for directing and one for Special FX. It's also won only 2 others at small festivals (for best show, and best programming) and of course Brad's 'Showrunner' win.

NONE for Acting, NONE for writing, NONE for best dramatic series....

Overall it's been nominated for 19 awards, had 7 wins and an additional 3 Emmy Nominations.

Brad Wright won his award for 'Best Showrunner' from the Canadian Writers Guild, so while its nice its an industry insiders award...so hardly prestigious in the entertainment world over all. He was a big fish in a very, very small pond as most of the showrunners for peer shows are American and there for NOT eligable...he didn't have much competition in other words. Not to mention SG1 had just got its 10 year run... so it was fitting his peers give him such an award.

Doctor Who has had 33 nominations and 34 wins (JUST for the current series), for a variety of awards many of which Stargate was eligiable but not even nominated for including several Hugos and Sature Awards. Not to mention 3 nominations and 2 wins for BAFTAS (which are the UK's equivalent of an Emmy).

It won the Saturn Award for Best International Series, several Hugos for best episode 3 years in a row. Various awards for the writing, acting, special FX, series as a whole... And yes, many of these Stargate was not eligable for, however there are many awards Doctor Who isn't eligable for in the US, but then Stargate has not been nominated for them either (but shows like BSG have).

And when I say 'Stargate' I mean Atlantis, as this is the current series of Doctor Who's peer i.e. they have been running almost as long as each other, and therefore competing for many of the same awards.

I think Atlantis should have at least won an award for its music by now. I also think some of the actors deserved to at least be nominated for a few awards. However, it depends how many of the actors the producers submit for awards. As the series is cancelled, and considering the expense of submitting to some of these awards, I very much doubt we'll see any of the Atlantis up for anything next year. :(

jenks
December 29th, 2008, 06:09 AM
The bulk of what DW has won are just British awards, where the competition is minimal at best...

prion
December 29th, 2008, 06:25 AM
If SGA were to win for acting, I would think David Hewlett would be the best canidate for his role in "The Shrine". SGA did step up the characters and acting, well for my taste. It's no space opera but that is also fine. ;)

Yeah, that would be a good choice.


Flanigan's not eligible for a Gemini. An Emmy yes, but not the Geminis. At least I don't think so.

Ah, you're right.


The People's choice Award was a fan online vote at a website, hardly the most accurate measure of success especially as it wasn't a single person, single vote. It just went to show how enthusiastic and determined its fans are which is definately not a bad thing!

But its only won 2 mainstream awards for directing and one for Special FX. It's also won only 2 others at small festivals (for best show, and best programming) and of course Brad's 'Showrunner' win.

NONE for Acting, NONE for writing, NONE for best dramatic series....

Overall it's been nominated for 19 awards, had 7 wins and an additional 3 Emmy Nominations.

Brad Wright won his award for 'Best Showrunner' from the Canadian Writers Guild, so while its nice its an industry insiders award...so hardly prestigious in the entertainment world over all. He was a big fish in a very, very small pond as most of the showrunners for peer shows are American and there for NOT eligable...he didn't have much competition in other words. Not to mention SG1 had just got its 10 year run... so it was fitting his peers give him such an award.

Doctor Who has had 33 nominations and 34 wins (JUST for the current series), for a variety of awards many of which Stargate was eligiable but not even nominated for including several Hugos and Sature Awards. Not to mention 3 nominations and 2 wins for BAFTAS (which are the UK's equivalent of an Emmy).

It won the Saturn Award for Best International Series, several Hugos for best episode 3 years in a row. Various awards for the writing, acting, special FX, series as a whole... And yes, many of these Stargate was not eligable for, however there are many awards Doctor Who isn't eligable for in the US, but then Stargate has not been nominated for them either (but shows like BSG have).

And when I say 'Stargate' I mean Atlantis, as this is the current series of Doctor Who's peer i.e. they have been running almost as long as each other, and therefore competing for many of the same awards.

I think Atlantis should have at least won an award for its music by now. I also think some of the actors deserved to at least be nominated for a few awards. However, it depends how many of the actors the producers submit for awards. As the series is cancelled, and considering the expense of submitting to some of these awards, I very much doubt we'll see any of the Atlantis up for anything next year. :(

the PCA is a popularity contest, and is also dependent on people clicking over and over and over again, so if you have one fan, who doesn't work, stays at home and is on the PC 24/7, well, let's just say 'spam.' ;) Atlantis actually did have a nomination (Emmy?) for music. IN fact, the announcement came out right when Skiffy foolishly cut the credits to 8 seconds. Amazingly, a few episodes later, it came back to its full glory. Guess it was mud on their face for hacking the credits of an Emmy-nominated score!

Sci Fi shows usually don't win many awards except in the technical category. The exception being Battlestar Galactica, which got a Peabody (or at least a nom, I can't recall) as it was the press' darling for quite a while. However, it won't do well in syndication as you can't just turn it on and go 'okay, I know what's going on' whereas with the Stargates, you can.

Reefgirl
December 29th, 2008, 08:44 AM
The bulk of what DW has won are just British awards, where the competition is minimal at best...
And those awards were for drama not sci fi, the competition was a lot stiffer

s09119
December 29th, 2008, 08:59 AM
And those awards were for drama not sci fi, the competition was a lot stiffer

That's what I honestly don't understand... when it comes to drama, Doctor Who just falls flat for me. I admit, I made connections with the Doctor and a few companions, but overall I just don't feel any real tugging at the heartstrings or anything. Nothing that would indicate phenomenal acting or writing. It's a mediocre (not saying bad, just medium, middle-of-the-road) show, nothing more.

TJuk
December 29th, 2008, 12:29 PM
And those awards were for drama not sci fi, the competition was a lot stiffer

Exactly! And its been going 4 years to SGA's 5 and still clocked up a lot more critical praise. And as I said, MANY awards which SGA was also up for or eligable but not nominated for. Hence mentioning Saturn Awards and Hugos which SG1 won or were nominated for several of but SGA has been sadly lacking in.

jenks
December 29th, 2008, 02:50 PM
And those awards were for drama not sci fi, the competition was a lot stiffer

Stiffer than if it was just for scifi? Yes. Stiff competition in general? No.


Exactly! And its been going 4 years to SGA's 5 and still clocked up a lot more critical praise.

Not really fair that though is it? Stargate has to compete with the likes of Lost, Heroes, BSG, SCC etc, whereas as Dr Who has to compete with what? Primeval? lol.


And as I said, MANY awards which SGA was also up for or eligable but not nominated for. Hence mentioning Saturn Awards and Hugos which SG1 won or were nominated for several of but SGA has been sadly lacking in.

Do you know how nominations work?

TJuk
December 29th, 2008, 03:26 PM
Not really fair that though is it? Stargate has to compete with the likes of Lost, Heroes, BSG, SCC etc, whereas as Dr Who has to compete with what? Primeval? lol.

No, it has to compete with some of the best mainstream drama on British TV. Theres not really any 'Scifi awards' over here. So when it doesn't compete for those, its in the US along with the aforementioned BSG, Lost and Heroes (Hugos and Saturn awards, both of which SG1 has won in the past). Stargate rarely has to contend with anything outside of its genre.


Do you know how nominations work?

As I work in TV, and just attended the RTS awards as part of a multi-award nominated (just for this year, several of which we won) programme's representatives... surprisingly yes I do.

As I noted in another post, it depends what the producers enter for consideration. But as award wins and nominations bring prestige and more importantly, are an opportunity for press and produce lots of free publicity not to mention give the studios a line to put out press releases to plug for more (see the way they plugged the crap out of the PCA?)... I'm sure they were entered for a lot more then they were nominated for.

Reiko
December 29th, 2008, 03:33 PM
And those awards were for drama not sci fi, the competition was a lot stiffer

I think that pretty much says it: DW is pretty much mainstream in it's home country. It's sci-fi, but it's no exclusively sci-fi.

SG isn't even mainstream in the US or Canada where it's produced.

How's that.

Caladria
December 29th, 2008, 04:35 PM
The bulk of what DW has won are just British awards, where the competition is minimal at best...

Judging the quality of British TV when you haven't seen most of it seems poor judgement, especially when so many of them get remade with American actors for the US market (America's Got Talent, Dancing With the Stars, The Office, Life on Mars, Queer as Folk, to name the ones I can think of right now; including the ones that flopped to the gratitude of their writers: Stephen Moffatt's Coupling, Simon Pegg's Spaced). At the International Emmys - which includes Canadian productions - "Life on Mars" - a British production starring John Simm (played The Master in Doctor Who) - won Best Drama.

In the primetime Emmys, the BBC got nine or ten nominations this year (2008), and at least one win.

But, three Hugo awards in three years seems like fairly critical acclaim, even if it is a genre award (And no SG:A nominations in the same time, and only one SG-1 nomination in "200". for comparison's sake, the one year that Torchwood - the DW spin off - has been eligible for nomination, "Captain Jack Harkness" was nominated but lost to Blink, Stephen Moffatt's contribution to Doctor Who.)


That's what I honestly don't understand... when it comes to drama, Doctor Who just falls flat for me. I admit, I made connections with the Doctor and a few companions, but overall I just don't feel any real tugging at the heartstrings or anything. Nothing that would indicate phenomenal acting or writing. It's a mediocre (not saying bad, just medium, middle-of-the-road) show, nothing more.

That's fine, it's all opinion. I could say that personally, as a rule, I love it; that Donna Noble is a brilliant character that engages me, that the end of series 4 left me in tears (because... oh, Donna!. Fate worse than death, and she was his mate, which I bl**dy loved.) and that this year's Christmas special left me a bit cold and I don't really know why. It's all emotive reactions.

Any US audiences are going to have a problem connecting, anyway - talking to US fan-friends, they don't get the jokes. Or the cultural references (Planet Zovirax, they said; what's that?)


I think that pretty much says it: DW is pretty much mainstream in it's home country. It's sci-fi, but it's no exclusively sci-fi.

SG isn't even mainstream in the US or Canada where it's produced.

How's that.

Well, it sounds pretty convincing to me! ;)

I think it's fair to say that no Stargate has ever got an audience share of 50.5% (rising to 51.6% in the last five minutes) and been the second most watched programme of the day - and come on, you're allowed to be second if you're being beaten by Wallace and Gromit [figures for The Next Doctor, from Christmas Day, unofficially recognised as the most important day in the British television year.]

s09119
December 29th, 2008, 04:37 PM
I think that pretty much says it: DW is pretty much mainstream in it's home country. It's sci-fi, but it's no exclusively sci-fi.

SG isn't even mainstream in the US or Canada where it's produced.

How's that.

SG isn't on the one major network which 99% of the country watches every night.

Caladria
December 29th, 2008, 05:35 PM
SG isn't on the one major network which 99% of the country watches every night.

BBC1 is one of the five main terrestrial channels. And if you include freeview channels (terrestrial digital channels, which most tvs get automatically) it's one amongst dozens. And it gets a weekly audience share of around 20%ish (20.3% for the week before Christmas). And that's a share of people actually watching. Audience viewing figures are declining in the UK just as they are in the US.

And the BBC has to contend with ITV, its biggest rival (I believe the last time Who lost in the ratings, it was to Simon Cowell on ITV with the X-factor final).

Plenty of things that are expected to be huge and are advertised to death flop on BBC1, because the expectation is that it will hold its own (Bonekickers, for example, which had Julie Graham and Adrian Lester in it and hyped to death, but isn't getting a second series). Doctor Who was expected to flop, back in 2005. Saturday night tv was something of a joke; lame contestant shows (Gen Game!) and re-runs of old murder mysteries, and nth showings of films. It wasn't necessarily considered a classic time for showing new drama (I think the last thing they showed as a new drama in that kind of timeslot was due South. Which ran between '95 and '98 in the UK).

Doctor Who wasn't a dead cert - it wasn't even considered to be in the running. In 2003, there was perhaps a tv movie slated, perhaps funded by a US channel and BBC Worldwide. And then the BBC got control back, offered it to Russell T Davies (whom they really wanted to work with - they offered him a drama about gay men - he'd written Queer as Folk - and a Dickens adaptation, he said, "give me Doctor Who!") it was expected to be a flop. Classic Who was a joke, spoofed and targetted by comedians.

And yet, it survived. it doesn't only get high viewing figures, it gets high audience appreciation indexes as well. It's considered to be the UK's top drama.

And its spawned like one of its monsters - programmes like Robin Hood and Merlin are Saturday night entertainment for the family, because early evening Saturday is family programme time. Doctor Who is a "Christmas tradition" (this year was the third they've done, lol).

But my point is; DW didn't survive because of its timeslot and channel, it survived despite its timeslot and channel.

Reefgirl
December 30th, 2008, 02:03 AM
SG isn't on the one major network which 99% of the country watches every night.
Why is that?


BBC1 is one of the five main terrestrial channels. And if you include freeview channels (terrestrial digital channels, which most tvs get automatically) it's one amongst dozens. And it gets a weekly audience share of around 20%ish (20.3% for the week before Christmas). And that's a share of people actually watching. Audience viewing figures are declining in the UK just as they are in the US.

And the BBC has to contend with ITV, its biggest rival (I believe the last time Who lost in the ratings, it was to Simon Cowell on ITV with the X-factor final).

Plenty of things that are expected to be huge and are advertised to death flop on BBC1, because the expectation is that it will hold its own (Bonekickers, for example, which had Julie Graham and Adrian Lester in it and hyped to death, but isn't getting a second series). Doctor Who was expected to flop, back in 2005. Saturday night tv was something of a joke; lame contestant shows (Gen Game!) and re-runs of old murder mysteries, and nth showings of films. It wasn't necessarily considered a classic time for showing new drama (I think the last thing they showed as a new drama in that kind of timeslot was due South. Which ran between '95 and '98 in the UK).

Doctor Who wasn't a dead cert - it wasn't even considered to be in the running. In 2003, there was perhaps a tv movie slated, perhaps funded by a US channel and BBC Worldwide. And then the BBC got control back, offered it to Russell T Davies (whom they really wanted to work with - they offered him a drama about gay men - he'd written Queer as Folk - and a Dickens adaptation, he said, "give me Doctor Who!") it was expected to be a flop. Classic Who was a joke, spoofed and targetted by comedians.

And yet, it survived. it doesn't only get high viewing figures, it gets high audience appreciation indexes as well. It's considered to be the UK's top drama.

And its spawned like one of its monsters - programmes like Robin Hood and Merlin are Saturday night entertainment for the family, because early evening Saturday is family programme time. Doctor Who is a "Christmas tradition" (this year was the third they've done, lol).

But my point is; DW didn't survive because of its timeslot and channel, it survived despite its timeslot and channel
Brilliant post, you've really nailed it there

jenks
December 30th, 2008, 03:14 AM
No, it has to compete with some of the best mainstream drama on British TV. Theres not really any 'Scifi awards' over here. So when it doesn't compete for those, its in the US along with the aforementioned BSG, Lost and Heroes (Hugos and Saturn awards, both of which SG1 has won in the past). Stargate rarely has to contend with anything outside of its genre.



As I work in TV, and just attended the RTS awards as part of a multi-award nominated (just for this year, several of which we won) programme's representatives... surprisingly yes I do.

As I noted in another another post, it depends what the producers enter for consideration. But as award wins and nominations bring prestige and more importantly, are an opportunity for press and produce lots of free publicity not to mention give the studios a line to put out press releases to plug for more (see the way they plugged the crap out of the PCA?)... I'm sure they were entered for a lot more then they were nominated for.

The only award that Stargate and Dr Who are likely to both compete for is the Hugo award that no one but the Dr Who fans seem to care about, but Stargate hasn't been nominated for that so we'll never know. The only other award that I'm aware of that they've both been up for is the people's choice.


I think that pretty much says it: DW is pretty much mainstream in it's home country. It's sci-fi, but it's no exclusively sci-fi.

SG isn't even mainstream in the US or Canada where it's produced.

How's that.

Well as much as it pains me to say it, the standard of TV is a lot higher in the US, that's why.


Judging the quality of British TV when you haven't seen most of it seems poor judgement, especially when so many of them get remade with American actors for the US market (America's Got Talent, Dancing With the Stars, The Office, Life on Mars, Queer as Folk, to name the ones I can think of right now; including the ones that flopped to the gratitude of their writers: Stephen Moffatt's Coupling, Simon Pegg's Spaced). At the International Emmys - which includes Canadian productions - "Life on Mars" - a British production starring John Simm (played The Master in Doctor Who) - won Best Drama.


Uh, what makes you think that? I'm not American, by the way.

Flyboy
December 30th, 2008, 05:14 AM
The only award that Stargate and Dr Who are likely to both compete for is the Hugo award that no one but the Dr Who fans seem to care about, but Stargate hasn't been nominated for that so we'll never know. The only other award that I'm aware of that they've both been up for is the people's choice.



Well as much as it pains me to say it, the standard of TV is a lot higher in the US, that's why.



Uh, what makes you think that? I'm not American, by the way.
Now see, having seen the amount of crap on US TV first hand, the good stuff being saved for certain slots on certain channels. I'd have to disagree. I think when US TV is good, it's certainly high quality, like CSI. But the majority of US TV (considering they have a LOT more of it than we do) is drivvel.

I've certanly seen shows that can rival Doctor Who, yes. But I've never seen a show that rivals Spooks. (Yes, I AM obsessed with that show).

Agent_Dark
December 30th, 2008, 05:29 AM
British drama - generally meh, but the occasional good one
British comedy - usually good

American drama - quite a lot of good ones
American comedy - generally meh, with some gems (SCRUBS!!!!!!! :>)

Reefgirl
December 30th, 2008, 06:11 AM
I find that, with a successful show, the US TV mogals tend to jump on the bandwagon until everyone is sick to death of a particular genre. It happened with CSI, Buffy and ER, they all spawned 'Bandwagon shows' and now the place is awash with rip offs. Even with successful shows, it's milked and milked and milked until there's nothing left (SG, 24, X Files to name a few) When a show is past it's sell by date isn't it better to end it gloriously, ok you'll upset a large majority of people but they'll go away with happy memories. If you keep flogging that dead horse until even the stars of the show look embarrased on screen, people are going to tune in to see if it gets better or stop watching altogether and when it's cancelled not that many people are surprised or bothered, except a few rabid fans.

jenks
December 30th, 2008, 06:38 AM
Well, if I wasn't sure before, I am now. Or you would've said so. Exports only show a small part of the picture, and the BBC gets a proportionally larger number of exports due to its commercial branch (BBC Worldwide), its size and its connections to foreign networks. Also, you don't seem to realise that classic Who is a joke to the population, and that ITV1 is just as important as BBC1 (Actually, if I had to guess I'd say Canadian, possibly Australian at an outside bet; both of those countries have networks (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example), that have a lot of ties to the BBC, giving a disproportionate representation again.

I'm British.


Now see, having seen the amount of crap on US TV first hand, the good stuff being saved for certain slots on certain channels. I'd have to disagree. I think when US TV is good, it's certainly high quality, like CSI. But the majority of US TV (considering they have a LOT more of it than we do) is drivvel.

I've certanly seen shows that can rival Doctor Who, yes. But I've never seen a show that rivals Spooks. (Yes, I AM obsessed with that show).

I think the majority of British TV is too, and while I would agree with you that Spooks is high quality, what competition does it have? It's probably the only show of it's class in the UK whereas in the US there are numerous big name shows of similar quality.

Flyboy
December 30th, 2008, 06:53 AM
I'm British.



I think the majority of British TV is too, and while I would agree with you that Spooks is high quality, what competition does it have? It's probably the only show of it's class in the UK whereas in the US there are numerous big name shows of similar quality.
Th difference is, the US majority is a lot bigger.

I think in terms of GOOD tv there's probably a proportionate amount coming from both countries. If you ask someone to name the really good US shows, we'll probably get a list involving the CSI's, House, Grey's Anatomy, Stargate, Star Trek, Heroes, 24, and so on. Which bears a striking similarity to the list I mentioned a few pages back of British drama. We both have some cracking stuff. And we both have a lot of crap. The US is probably going to have a LOT more crap than Britain because it has a LOT more TV. It will probably also have significantly proportionatly higher level of crap because... it's EASY to write crap. And whilst there's also probably a proporional level of good TV coming from the US, I'd say it would only be a tiny amount more, because it's difficult to write good TV. At the end of the day. There's some good stuff from both sides.


When you talk about Spooks and it's competition, what do you mean? In terms of spy thriller, then you're quite correct, but tbh, Spy Thrillers aren't really the big thing right now, not like they used to be (with The Avengers and all that lot). But if you mean quality that transgresses genre, then I would argue Apparitions was up there with it, as is Life On Mars. The difference is, Spooks is a serious show, not fantasy or sci fi. And a serious show is always going to feel like it has a higher quality because it can deal DIRECTLY with more serious issues...

jenks
December 30th, 2008, 07:06 AM
When you talk about Spooks and it's competition, what do you mean? In terms of spy thriller, then you're quite correct, but tbh, Spy Thrillers aren't really the big thing right now, not like they used to be (with The Avengers and all that lot). But if you mean quality that transgresses genre, then I would argue Apparitions was up there with it, as is Life On Mars. The difference is, Spooks is a serious show, not fantasy or sci fi. And a serious show is always going to feel like it has a higher quality because it can deal DIRECTLY with more serious issues...

I mean quality TV in general, I really don't think we do have TV proportionally as good as the US, maybe in terms of comedy, but that's about it IMO.

Flyboy
December 30th, 2008, 07:12 AM
I mean quality TV in general, I really don't think we do have TV proportionally as good as the US, maybe in terms of comedy, but that's about it IMO.
Now see, I'd say our comedy was where we suffered most. Just goes to show...

TameFarrar
December 30th, 2008, 07:27 AM
Hi Folks :)
while I am definitely intrigued by many of the discussions going on here :) It is not regarding the topic at hand. Please however feel free to begin a new thread regarding your discussions outside of this topic.

Thank You
TameFarrar
GateWorld Moderator

prion
December 30th, 2008, 09:53 AM
Do have a quick question for this thread. It was RTD 'disses', now it's 'snarks'. Why the change?

Pitry
December 30th, 2008, 01:41 PM
I'd say it was changed for accuracy. RTD didn't diss Stargate. Dissing Stargate would have been "has his agent seen teh show? it's such a stupid show, compelte and utter crap, I can't see why anyone would watch that!"

He didn't say that. He jsut snarked about it.

TameFarrar
December 30th, 2008, 02:57 PM
Do have a quick question for this thread. It was RTD 'disses', now it's 'snarks'. Why the change?
Because so many people here were posting how *wrong* it sounded and how it gave the wrong impression.
Since this thread was created by another member and not an *Official thread* made by GW or any of the other staff we didn't realize that it was so offensive until people stated that.

So because of the comments made in here the title was changed to try to accommodate the desires of the very people posting in here.

prion
December 30th, 2008, 03:56 PM
Because so many people here were posting how *wrong* it sounded and how it gave the wrong impression.
Since this thread was created by another member and not an *Official thread* made by GW or any of the other staff we didn't realize that it was so offensive until people stated that.

So because of the comments made in here the title was changed to try to accommodate the desires of the very people posting in here.

ah, but much of the talk was also about the wording of the article on GW.... "Doctor Who producer doesn't care for Stargate"...

Skydiver
December 31st, 2008, 08:00 AM
Folks

YOu can express your opinions about RTD's comments, but you WILL make those expressions without bashing/dissing or calling the man names.

he's as entitled to his opinion as you are, but you will keep your comments within the bounds of respect and dignity

Willow'sCat
December 31st, 2008, 08:12 PM
I'd say it was changed for accuracy. RTD didn't diss Stargate. Dissing Stargate would have been "has his agent seen teh show? it's such a stupid show, compelte and utter crap, I can't see why anyone would watch that!"

He didn't say that. He jsut snarked about it.I am not sure I would even call it a snark though.:p To say it was snarky is to imply it was wrong or a bad remark. ;)

I happen to think he was correct. :) Although maybe he was too blunt in his humour for some.

I think many out there in non-Stargate fandom (or rabid fandom) are also wondering what is up with RC signing onto Stargate.

I am still at a loss myself to explain why such a talented actor (and more to the point, one who could get better work elsewhere) would do this. :S

It is actually rather shocking! LOL:p

Kor
December 31st, 2008, 08:30 PM
I can imagine the sort of email he got the day ofter that news was out of what he said.

Willow'sCat
December 31st, 2008, 08:52 PM
I can imagine the sort of email he got the day ofter that news was out of what he said.I can imagine the hilarious retorts he would email back! LOL :p

Kor
January 1st, 2009, 09:31 PM
Yea, those could be funny to read. ;)

prion
January 2nd, 2009, 05:07 AM
I can imagine the sort of email he got the day ofter that news was out of what he said.

He doesn't bother with fan email. I had posted a link here to an article in which he commented on it, but it seems to have vanished. Oh wait, I reposted under the WHO news so you can find it there.

StarCapnRa
January 8th, 2009, 06:17 PM
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/12/idoctor_whoi_creator_doesnt_care.shtml

Argh, I can't believe how big headed this quote is. It's basically saying "my show is better than Stargate, therefore he should come to mine".

As one of the few people who thinks New Doctor Who is a pile of crap, I'm gonna be outnumbered here in my hatred of it.
Copied and pasted from a rant I had when I sat through an episode thinking they'd be a new Doctor;
It's the biggest loads of BS on TV. How can you take anything at all seriously? I know it's sci-fi but it's not remotely believable at all. A device that can destroy everything ever? All daleks can be controlled by one computer? How many times did they bring back the daleks after they "defeated them once and for all".
This is a valid point. I accept this criticism, being based on observation and reason.

Some people say it's not meant to be taken seriously, but they're moments when you're clearly supposed to. Emotional scenes and the like. It's so OTT and ridiculous that when these scenes come up they just feel out of place.
This is one reason why Stargate is so much better than Doctor Who. It does what DW is trying to do successfully, strike a believable balance between humour and seriousness.
You actually said that with a straight face. I admire your control.
May I point out that Doctor Who has been running in some form or another for MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS?
Kind of deflates that whole "SG-1: longest running sci-fi TV show" claim.

So far the only people I've meant in real life who like it are girls who like it because "David Tennant is so hot", my dad who's probably watching it for nostalgia purposes, and my little sister's 6 year old friend.
Huh. Imagine that. The only people I've met (and I meant to spell it that way) in real life who even KNOW that there was a Stargate TV show (let alone, more than one) usually spend most of their pay checks on the latest most expensive video game.
Maybe we BOTH need to get out more?

If anyones says "If you don't like Doctor Who, why do you watch it?" - I've watched less than 10 episodes, and NEARLY each time I've had nothing but bad things to say.
Me, too - but for Stargate: Atlantis.
Isn't it ironic?
Don't ya think??

The only praise I have for the show is Blink, and Tennant's acting. Moffat wrote Blink, and I understand he's taking over the show in '10, so I may give it another go then.
Don't go to any great lengths. Maybe there will be a 4th (or 5th) Stargate TV show by then.

jenks
January 8th, 2009, 07:53 PM
You actually said that with a straight face. I admire your control.
May I point out that Doctor Who has been running in some form or another for MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS?
Kind of deflates that whole "SG-1: longest running sci-fi TV show" claim.

Kind of beside the point entirely, isn't it? And there's a big difference between surviving on UK TV and surviving on US TV. Stargate isn't even in the upper echelons of shows in terms of production quality in the US yet is still leaps and bounds ahead of Dr Who. It's not so much that Dr Who is brilliant scifi, it's just that in the UK it's pretty much all we've got. How depressing...

Integrabyte
January 9th, 2009, 05:32 AM
This is a valid point. I accept this criticism, being based on observation and reason.

You actually said that with a straight face. I admire your control.
May I point out that Doctor Who has been running in some form or another for MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS?
Kind of deflates that whole "SG-1: longest running sci-fi TV show" claim.

Huh. Imagine that. The only people I've met (and I meant to spell it that way) in real life who even KNOW that there was a Stargate TV show (let alone, more than one) usually spend most of their pay checks on the latest most expensive video game.
Maybe we BOTH need to get out more?

Me, too - but for Stargate: Atlantis.
Isn't it ironic?
Don't ya think??

Don't go to any great lengths. Maybe there will be a 4th (or 5th) Stargate TV show by then.

You had me.....at the font!!!!

Jedi_Master_Bra'tac
January 9th, 2009, 07:37 AM
This is a valid point. I accept this criticism, being based on observation and reason.
Thank You


You actually said that with a straight face. I admire your control.
May I point out that Doctor Who has been running in some form or another for MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS?
Kind of deflates that whole "SG-1: longest running sci-fi TV show" claim.
At no point in my post did I make reference to length of the series, as It's not really relevant.


Huh. Imagine that. The only people I've met (and I meant to spell it that way) in real life who even KNOW that there was a Stargate TV show (let alone, more than one) usually spend most of their pay checks on the latest most expensive video game.
Maybe we BOTH need to get out more?
If you are implying that SGA fans are geeks, then you'd be correct. However there's nothing wrong with this. DW fans are too.

Me, too - but for Stargate: Atlantis.
Isn't it ironic?
Don't ya think??[/quote]
Why are you on a Stargate forum if you don't like it? First line of the vision statement says "GateWorld exists as a place for fans all over the world to enhance their enjoyment of the Stargate franchise by sharing it with others." Or are you a fan of SG1/movie/Infinity?


[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Don't go to any great lengths. Maybe there will be a 4th (or 5th) Stargate TV show by then.
Why would more Stargate series mean I can't watch another program?

Also when I wrote my post I had SG1 in mind, not Atlantis.

Caladria
January 9th, 2009, 08:28 AM
If you are implying that SGA fans are geeks, then you'd be correct. However there's nothing wrong with this. DW fans are too.

Actually, over here (in the UK) a lot of fans aren't geeks. I mean, 6.9 million people sat and watched a programme devoted to the revealing of a casting decision last week. As optimistic as I am, I don't think there are 7 million geeks in the country. Local schools offer Doctor Who toys as rewards for 100% attendance (well, one of my local schools does).


Why are you on a Stargate forum if you don't like it? First line of the vision statement says "GateWorld exists as a place for fans all over the world to enhance their enjoyment of the Stargate franchise by sharing it with others." Or are you a fan of SG1/movie/Infinity?

*raises hand* It's perfectly possible to be a fan of Stargate and not like Atlantis that much (it's okay, it's just not my thing.)


(Quoting jenks)
Kind of beside the point entirely, isn't it? And there's a big difference between surviving on UK TV and surviving on US TV. Stargate isn't even in the upper echelons of shows in terms of production quality in the US yet is still leaps and bounds ahead of Dr Who. It's not so much that Dr Who is brilliant scifi, it's just that in the UK it's pretty much all we've got. How depressing...

Doctor Who certainly has a smaller budget, sure; but it does have it's moments (it exploded Vesuvius; it does good with the budget it has). But, essentially, it's a different type of show and comparing the two in that way is pointless. Doctor Who never was designed for explosions and space shots of ships; Stargate - especially Atlantis - is. Doctor Who has moments of looking more childish, sure, but that's more to do with the fact that it's designed to appeal to kids and parents and grannies. Stargate is designed for the 13 - 25 year old male and therefore has to look "cooler".

(As an overall thing, for the record, I'd label them about level at their respective bests - "Window of Opportunity", "Heroes" etc are a match for "Girl in the Fireplace" and "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances". So I'm in no way trying to be disrepectful to Stargate. It's just... they're different shows. Who has better story and Stargate has better kaboom on an average week.)

jenks
January 9th, 2009, 11:11 AM
How can DW be considered to have a better story though, does it even have one? Companions are developed and then disposed of, trying to milk as much 'drama' as possible, then rinse and repeat, that's about it.

Flyboy
January 9th, 2009, 11:16 AM
How can DW be considered to have a better story though, does it even have one? Companions are developed and then disposed of, trying to milk as much 'drama' as possible, then rinse and repeat, that's about it.
Which is why the episodes themselves are more worthy of note. Don't get me wrong, half of Doctor Who is utter rubbish (imo), but the other half, is exceptional. In particular Human Nature/Family of Blood - an incredible tale, worthy of being a movie tbh, that is truely driven by acting and good writing.

Let's also remember, when as the last time Stargate made newspaper headlines? Doctor Who does regularly... it's more mainstream, and that's good. Good for the producers anyway. It doesn't really mean it's better quality - just... mainstream sci fi, where as most other sci fi is best appreicated by fandoms.

Caladria
January 9th, 2009, 11:52 AM
How can DW be considered to have a better story though, does it even have one? Companions are developed and then disposed of, trying to milk as much 'drama' as possible, then rinse and repeat, that's about it.

I meant "story" as in "the story that happens within the forty five minutes of a programme", rather than "overall series arc".

But I consider Stargate at it's best when it does that. SG-1 goes out, has an adventure, comes home. Something like "Urgo" or "The Nox" or "Window of Opportunity". So a story like "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances" is what I like - a self contained story within one or two episodes (not more than that, with Who - I've seen the classic Whos with lots of parts to a serial - I never knew there were so many corridors to run down :p)

And every programme is subject to the whimsy of actors - it's the way the business goes (if you dislike change, just... never watch Spooks, 'kay?)

Pitry
January 10th, 2009, 02:34 AM
How can DW be considered to have a better story though, does it even have one? Companions are developed and then disposed of, trying to milk as much 'drama' as possible, then rinse and repeat, that's about it.

... And yet, companions get a story and are well developed after 13 episodes, while, comparing, oh, I dunno, Teyla after 100 episods... ;)

jenks
January 11th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Well Atlantis is plot driven, so character development is secondary, plus it has 5+ regular characters rather than 2, and Teyla hasn't even been in 100 episodes anyway. Not sure how any of this is relevant to the original point like, DW still has no story to speak of...

nx01a
January 11th, 2009, 12:28 AM
Every season of Doctor Who is driven by a particular plot which the writers weave throughout the episodes towards the big finale. They've done it better and far more consistently than SGA, I think. Who combines 'episode of the week' with story arc.

jenks
January 11th, 2009, 12:36 AM
Every season of Doctor Who is driven by a particular plot which the writers weave throughout the episodes towards the big finale. They've done it better and far more consistently than SGA, I think. Who combines 'episode of the week' with story arc.

No they're not, none of them have been to my knowledge, they're just a series of stand alone episodes that every now and again have a blink and you'll miss it hint toward the finale. Not exactly anything special, especially given that the series are so short.

nx01a
January 11th, 2009, 12:45 AM
It's not 24. Don't expect a massive interconnected story over the course of 13 episodes. You get the sense that the story's going somewhere, towards something definitive. And those 'blink and you'll miss it' elements make watching the episodes fun to see where they're going. At least, for me.

Madeleine
January 11th, 2009, 01:09 AM
A show doesn't have to 'go' anywhere to be good. It can have connected eps without the enttire series being an arc. Ref 'Spooks', 'ER', 'Drop the Dead Donkey'...

jenks
January 11th, 2009, 02:23 AM
No one said they do, this just stemmed from someone saying DW had a better storyline than Stargate, that's all.

Caladria
January 11th, 2009, 04:32 AM
It's just... they're different shows. Who has better story and Stargate has better kaboom on an average week.)

"Who has better story.... on an average week" meant, as I clarified, within the 45 minutes each show has each week of its run. If I'd meant "season/series arc", I'd've said so.

Who's a mainstream show - it can't depend on the average viewer wanting to follow each little plot twist so each week has to be an all-encompassing story in itself, more or less. It can't depend on its average viewer having a sci fi background. It has to be at a level where a seven year old can work out what's happening and why or have it explained to him. These are constraints that only apply to Doctor Who and not Stargate. And that is why Stargate can run episodes that need a five minute "previously on Stargate" at the start and Who can't.

And, as I've already said, I like the standalone stories better on Stargate anyway.