PDA

View Full Version : Would an episode re-order have saved the franchise?



beafly
May 31st, 2011, 10:03 AM
So, I'm waiting for Netflix to put up the final episode of SGU and can't help but ponder the early demise of the series.

At least for my taste, Season 2 has been a far more enjoyable ride. I almost dumped it after Season 1 for reasons I and many other have stated, pace, melodrama, non-episodic nature, etc. but am glad I didn't as Season 2 had some redeeming value.

So here is my question... If they had simply re-ordered the episodes, pushing more of the action of season 2 into season 1 and spread the slower paced drama from season 1 into season 2, 3, 4 and 5... Would we be excited about an upcoming Season 3 right now instead of mourning the death of the SGU series?

Thoughts?

Orion Antreas
May 31st, 2011, 11:25 AM
Those were my thoughts exactly. I was going to post a similar topic, but never got around to it. I think if they had spread out the heavy drama, and some of the so-called 'slow parts', it would have retained the audience viewership. Just my 2¢.

Good thread topic. :)

RafK2
June 7th, 2011, 12:04 PM
I have to say my preference would be for ongoing TV series such as SG1, Star trek etc to come to an end. Its too much of a punt for the networks and really frustrating for the viewer when a story is started and not allowed to continue due to the inevitable declining audience figures. In recent history the only show i consider that has been given a satisfying run is BSG, which clearly had a story to tell which was allowed to be completed. Lost also was given the chance but, well we all have our views on that one!

I would prefer mid length runs, say 6 - 10 episodes that complete there story within that series, maybe give them the potential for a sequal but ultimately the primary story of that season should be completed in that season.

The second reason i would prefer that format would be the potential to tell different stories. Hypothetically lets say SGU was limited to that kind of show 10 episodes. then the following year there might be a different SG story, theres so much to see in the cannon, SG: Hammond (for want of a better title) SG: Infiltrators (telling Telfords original infiltration into the LA etc. SG: west wing (some kind of galactic politics) etc

We wouldnt get as indepth story but at least we would get closure on them, and ultimately the net result would be a massively expanded well realised cannon. Thats my desire. I know other people prefer long drawn out epics though

Steelbox
June 7th, 2011, 12:46 PM
So, I'm waiting for Netflix to put up the final episode of SGU and can't help but ponder the early demise of the series.

At least for my taste, Season 2 has been a far more enjoyable ride. I almost dumped it after Season 1 for reasons I and many other have stated, pace, melodrama, non-episodic nature, etc. but am glad I didn't as Season 2 had some redeeming value.

So here is my question... If they had simply re-ordered the episodes, pushing more of the action of season 2 into season 1 and spread the slower paced drama from season 1 into season 2, 3, 4 and 5... Would we be excited about an upcoming Season 3 right now instead of mourning the death of the SGU series?

Thoughts?

True it could have saved the series. It was the main point of concern for many fan, that the slow pace and melodrama would detriment the series to much. And it ultimately did.

DigiFluid
June 7th, 2011, 12:47 PM
I swear we just had a re-order thread like 2 months ago...

morrismike
June 7th, 2011, 03:42 PM
It would have been better to just leave out the stuff that wasn't needed.

Lythisrose
June 7th, 2011, 04:14 PM
I think alot of the character building scenes from the first season could have been used as flashbacks throughout the run of the show. Get to the action a bit quicker, but still use all that stuff as the show progressed.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 7th, 2011, 04:20 PM
What the hell is wrong with a serialized television show? It's an opportunity to tell longer stories. I, for one, hate episodic TV. It's a waste of the medium.

morrismike
June 7th, 2011, 04:25 PM
What the hell is wrong with a serialized television show? It's an opportunity to tell longer stories. I, for one, hate episodic TV. It's a waste of the medium.
If it's good tv it is fine. The reality is that show most be interesting enough that surfers will stop and come back next week. SGU had a larger loyal fanbase and all they had to do was hang on to it while they added new fans. They didn't hang on to old fan and didn't gain new ones. This has nothing to do with serialized or episodic tv.

Ser Scot A Ellison
June 7th, 2011, 04:29 PM
Morrism,

The OP complains about the serial nature of SGU in his opening post. I'm simply curious about why the OP dislikes serialized television?

magictrick
June 7th, 2011, 04:39 PM
No it wouldn't have.

It is all speculation anyway. Doing this may have lead to other unforeseen issues. There are some other reasons for the drop in ratings, and I don't think this is one of them.

Pharaoh Atem
June 7th, 2011, 07:46 PM
It would have been better to just leave out the stuff that wasn't needed.

everything was needed

s09119
June 7th, 2011, 08:07 PM
everything was needed

Pretty much this.

morrismike
June 8th, 2011, 03:02 AM
everything was needed
Plenty of material chased more people away than brought in. There was a lot missing early on that would have held viewers. The loss of women viewers is unacceptable for a third series of an established franchise. There certainly was enough filler in every episode to bring in some meaningful elements of the franchise. It was so bad early on that Syfy had to fabricate trailers to avoid giving the whole episode away by showing just 30 seconds.

I found a tshirt for you diehard season 1.0 fans.
http://www.zazzle.com/never_give_up_frog_choking_heron_tshirt-235615380989862570

beafly
June 8th, 2011, 10:50 AM
Morrism,

The OP complains about the serial nature of SGU in his opening post. I'm simply curious about why the OP dislikes serialized television?

You and I have already debated this topic. And I'd consider the horse long dead. Here were my posts on the topic (yours are sprinkled in there as well)...

http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/74280-something-is-off..*Spoilers-Ep1-through-quot-Faith-quot-onward*?p=11437836&viewfull=1#post11437836

I had this concern at the very begining of SGU. The change from an episodic to series plots is the biggest change in the franchise (character drama vs. action/adventure is the second). Only time will tell how successful it is I guess.

One of the reason's I kept tuning into SG1 was that each episode was a self contained adventure complete with it's own climax and resolution. An escape from reality with a pretty pink bow for me to enjoy at the end of a hard day's work. Sure there were over-arching seasonal plots, but for the most part, every episode had you feeling satisfied.

SGU just doesn't leave the same taste in your mouth. It's a different one. Not a bad one necessarily, but a different one. And I think we can all agree, that people have different taste, and some of us are likely to not enjoy SGU as much as SG1 or SGA.

http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/74280-something-is-off..*Spoilers-Ep1-through-quot-Faith-quot-onward*?p=11441495&viewfull=1#post11441495

I believe that the later seasons of SG1 did an excellent job of providing episodic resolution and still maintaining the longer more epic plot lines you speak of. I don't' believe the two are mutually exclusive.

I understand your point of view and I agree in many aspects. For me, if I'd like to engage in real thinking I read a book. I sit in front of the TV to be entertained, not frustrated. Cliffhangers seem to be en vogue, but I find them thoroughly aggravating. Wrap it up for me. Start something new next episode, season, etc.

I'm curious to know how much different my opinion of SGU might look if I were watching the entire series over a long weekend as opposed to drawn out over 6 months or more. I'm the kind of guy that will sit down and read a 500 page novel in a couple days to the exclusion of all else, just because I can't stand things un-finished. SGU leaves me with the un-finished feeling.

To each his own right?

http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/73023-Why-is-everyone-mad-about-SGU-1.0?p=11228572&viewfull=1#post11228572

So... what you're saying is, if I just wait for the beginning of Season 2, I can alleviate my disdain for SGU non-episodic nature by just watching the Season 1 marathon. :)

Hmmm... I've waited 3 months for the second half of Season 1, what's another 6 months for the rest of it un-interrupted!

http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/75399-Looking-back....and-now?p=11601780&viewfull=1#post11601780

Try to sum up my thoughts on season 1 but the bottom line is I'm checking out on SGU until the series is canceled. Then I'll probably buy the box set and watch it all back to back. I hope for the Stargate Franchise's sake the show does well enough to stay afloat.

There were few parts I enjoyed.

There were many parts I abhorred.

Fans on the site here won't have to listen to my harsh criticism of the snore drama and lack of episodic nature anymore. Which is probably a plus for you. At the same time, I won't be contributing to DVR ratings either.

Cheers!

I did wait to watch Season 2 until all but gauntlet was available on Netflix. I watched them back to back and enjoyed it much more than Season 1. I had to wait a couple weeks for Gauntlet to show up.

I was merely posting an observation I made in those weeks, sorry I couldn't locate the other thread on the topic.

Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble
June 8th, 2011, 11:50 AM
How could you leave the character development until season 2 when we have seen the characters for an entire season. If you want action show you should just watch a different show instead of making SGU something it is not.

morrismike
June 8th, 2011, 02:32 PM
How could you leave the character development until season 2 when we have seen the characters for an entire season. If you want action show you should just watch a different show instead of making SGU something it is not.

The development of season 1 was all but set aside and they magically transformed into sane rational human beings for season 2. You didn't notice the radical change between seasons? The wasn't the result of "character development".

Jacdru
June 8th, 2011, 04:45 PM
So, I'm waiting for Netflix to put up the final episode of SGU and can't help but ponder the early demise of the series.

At least for my taste, Season 2 has been a far more enjoyable ride. I almost dumped it after Season 1 for reasons I and many other have stated, pace, melodrama, non-episodic nature, etc. but am glad I didn't as Season 2 had some redeeming value.

So here is my question... If they had simply re-ordered the episodes, pushing more of the action of season 2 into season 1 and spread the slower paced drama from season 1 into season 2, 3, 4 and 5... Would we be excited about an upcoming Season 3 right now instead of mourning the death of the SGU series?

Thoughts?

I think if they had tons of action and more exploration of the ship in Season 1 they could have retaken the fans from SGA and probaly added to it by having a BSG/Voyager kinda story line. And also had remember that if you make a character go through a major change its a good idea to make it last more then one epsiode.

But instead they had to kill viewers by insanly boring earth stories and other things that would fit better in a soap about a teenage drama queen named Chloe.

morrismike
June 8th, 2011, 04:51 PM
I think if they had tons of action and more exploration of the ship in Season 1 they could have retaken the fans from SGA and probaly added to it by having a BSG/Voyager kinda story line. And also had remember that if you make a character go through a major change its a good idea to make it last more then one epsiode.

But instead they had to kill viewers by insanly boring earth stories and other things that would fit better in a soap about a teenage drama queen named Chloe.

http://geekfurious.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-geek-tv-show-has-youngest-viewers.html
It seems like the bad soap opera intended to snare the women viewers backfired badly.

KEK
June 8th, 2011, 05:43 PM
There wasn't any. There was character drama though, but I don't recall the producers ever saying they took that direction in order to pull in more female viewers. In fact I'm not sure why they would even bother, it's not the demo that's most lucrative, and the franchise already had a decent female following anyway. The show was geared toward young adult males, not women.

morrismike
June 8th, 2011, 05:57 PM
There wasn't any. There was character drama though, but I don't recall the producers ever saying they took that direction in order to pull in more female viewers. In fact I'm not sure why they would even bother, it's not the demo that's most lucrative, and the franchise already had a decent female following anyway. The show was geared toward young adult males, not women.

The average age was mid 40s and 70% men. The franchise "had" a decent female following and failed miserably in getting young males. This show had the oldest malest fanbase out there. If a man, woman and family are gonna watch tv and the wife absolutely isn't going to watch SGU, then that is 2 lost fans. Continuing to say (over and over) there were no soap elements doesn't make it true.

KEK
June 8th, 2011, 08:27 PM
The average age was mid 40s and 70% men. The franchise "had" a decent female following and failed miserably in getting young males. This show had the oldest malest fanbase out there. If a man, woman and family are gonna watch tv and the wife absolutely isn't going to watch SGU, then that is 2 lost fans.

True, but then aiming toward a more female demo would also lose you male fans. Ultimately they aimed for the more lucrative demo but the numbers didn't skew as high or as young as they'd hoped. It's easy to slam in hindsight because it didn't work, but the reasoning was still sound.


Continuing to say (over and over) there were no soap elements doesn't make it true.

I know, it's true because there really weren't any. A soap is a serialized drama like any other, but what sets different types of dramas apart is their subject matter. A soap is defined by the contemporary storylines the characters follow and the mundane, domestic 'everyday' setting of the show. So practically everything that defines a soap as a soap is absent from SGU. About the closest the show got to 'soap' territory was various characters dealing with relationship issues on Earth, and that's only if you completely ignore the fact that they only had that opportunity due to the body-swapping alien technology they were using from their ancient space ship! Honestly, he idea that that is soap is absurd, frankly.

Brian
June 9th, 2011, 02:27 AM
I have a very strong opinion towards the pacing and order of episodes being perfect for the show, I therefore cannot see myself being as interested in the show if they were all action oriented like previous SG fans seemed to want. Not after 15 season of that same thing.

SGU was more than an action in space show, it was a show where you really indulged in the characters emotions and felt for them. THAT is what makes good television, the ability to engage like that...but apparently people aren't interested in anything else but "WOW MICHAEL BAY EXPLOSIONS ROBOTS YA!" these days. It's quite frustrating because it hurts quality in more ways than one.

A good example to flat out say no that wouldn't have saved it is Firefly. The wacked out order of episode airing versus the way the story was told did not fit (as far as I know, I never saw the show live in 2002). That said, FOX didn't want to air the 2 hour pilot because they only had a limited time to hook viewers and a bunch of story wasn't enough to do that. They wanted to jump right in the middle of the action and find out why everything was happening and who people were later on. After hearing Joss Whedon's comments about it on the extra features part of the discs, it's a good example I think.

I disagree entirely with airing shows like that (jumbled up so you jump right in). Get the story there first so we know what's happening, do what SGU did, make it right and make people connect with the characters. SGU had enough action in the first episode to show you what was going to come...then they laid out the bits of the story that were necessary, and I stress necessary to setup the rest of the character interaction and plot of the show. That was important and I think it was beautifully done.

Look, SGU was not a show that casual TV surfers were going to get into. Sure some of them might have, but that's not it's core viewer base and anyone who expected it to be is insane. It had way too much history with 3 movies and 15 seasons of television to the name before it. Granted sure you could jump into SGU without seeing anything else Stargate and be alright, but there is a LOT of understanding you would miss out on. I personally can't do that, I can't jump in the middle of something I have to see it through from the beginning to understand everything. Also, it was on a network aimed at a very specific demographic (mind you that's a laughable statement nowadays), that being Sci-fi fans. Now chances are these are people that already know of Stargate's existence and thus the only people SGU could really draw in were previous SG fans....and we all know how much half of them liked the show *eyeroll*. Basically, SGU was at a disadvantage the moment the first SG-1 or SGA fan said "I don't like this show".

SGU was my favorite installment of the franchise, and one of the best in every way shows I've ever seen. Can't tell you how upset I am that it's done.


One post I want to address:

The development of season 1 was all but set aside and they magically transformed into sane rational human beings for season 2. You didn't notice the radical change between seasons? The wasn't the result of "character development".

I have a very big problem with that statement. If you did not notice character development throughout season 1, well then there is no hope for you. Furthermore, they did not "magically transform" between seasons. They were well on their way towards what you saw in season 2. The big thing you don't understand is the difference between DEVELOPMENT and ADAPTATION. If you're thrown in a situation like the crew of Destiny, you're not going to take 2 years to slowly but surely change your lifestyle, no, not at all. You're going to adapt, and adapt fiercely and quickly to survive. Otherwise you'd be long gone.

That's something that SGU struck a chord with me, the sense of realism it had for a science fiction show with people flying around in spaceships meeting aliens. Firefly and SGU both do a good job of grounding the sci-fi element to the extent needed to provide the viewer with the ability to connect to the characters, see how they feel and see that yeah it's pretty realistic what's happening in the show.

TuKwick_1
June 12th, 2011, 01:47 PM
Those were my thoughts exactly. I was going to post a similar topic, but never got around to it. I think if they had spread out the heavy drama, and some of the so-called 'slow parts', it would have retained the audience viewership. Just my 2¢.

Good thread topic. :)

Agreed

Keeper
June 21st, 2011, 03:58 PM
If they had simply re-ordered the episodes, pushing more of the action of season 2 into season 1 and spread the slower paced drama from season 1 into season 2, 3, 4 and 5... Would we be excited about an upcoming Season 3 right now instead of mourning the death of the SGU series?

Thoughts?maybe, maybe not. i lean with not, for my personal thoughts:

S1 had me, by midpoint, wondering if i would bother with the second season at all. after midpoint, it picked up just enough for me to give it a go.

S2, by mid-point, had me wondering if i would be bothered finishing out the season and had me finalise my decision not to bother with S3, had it materialised.

as it is, i watched the remainder of the season anyway, simply for completeness. while i didn't regret the second half of S2, nothing in it would have been able to reverse my decision not to watch S3 had it happened.

i'm one viewer, and can't speak for all. but the decline of the numbers implies the show wasn't strong enough in what audiences* wanted to watch to retain people, and although the later episodes evened out they didn't show any real rise in numbers for the most part. they certainly weren't drawing in large numbers of new people, so even if they might have stabalised the numbers earlier, it may have been at a number that would have been on the borderline for moving forward anyway.

this is of course my own view and speculation. i've also not bothered reading the thread.



*this is true, regardless of what various people feel about the show's quality or how factors outside the show's content affected it - those factors started kicking in after a couple of sharp drops of viewers in S1 first half. those drops indicate pretty clearly that people weren't interested. pacing may have been the problem, topics covered, whatever - but it was the show itself. i firmly believe that whatever the exact issues were - and i have my own opinion, covered elsewhere - would need to be dealt with in full, for the show to have held on for a third season, to say nothing of further seasons.

additionally, i won't say factors from other sources are irrelevant - but when the show itself has issues, anything else just compounds the problem and makes it harder to survive.

morrismike
June 21st, 2011, 04:15 PM
There are very few here that qualify as an average viewer. In truth very few here may not even watch live when it was airing.

fwupow
June 21st, 2011, 10:25 PM
Could #SGU have been saved?

I've smoked more brain cells on this issue than I care to admit.
Folks give every reason in the book because they can't really figure it out either.

SGU was just doomed by so many factors that it's hard to explain.

1. Deep resentment by many fans who were sore about losing SG1 & SGA.
2. Dark, depressing environment of Destiny.
3. Continuous haggard and depressed condition of most show characters (Aliana is not that ugly!)
4. Too much Sci-Fi for the ladies and too much Soap Opera for the gents. (double loss instead of double win).
5. The episode 'Life' sent a large number of Stargate fans, who were willing to give it chance, running for the exits and they never came back. (I cancelled my Cable Service).

As I repeatedly watch the series on DVD I find myself fast-fowarding/skipping over all the 'Days of Our Lives' crap.
Wray bawling with her lesbian lover--SKIP!
TJ bawling with various has-beens on planet Eden-SKIP!
People bawling on Kinos-SKIP!
People having special moments with other people in various compartments or memory modules within Destiny-SKIP!

That said, I don't feel as though the writing is as much to blame as some have suggested. I think there was just a general miscalculation on the part of the show runners about how appealing reality Sci-Fi would be.

Yes, in real life people suffer in poorly lit quarters and walk about haggard and depressed due to malnutrition and hardship. Unfortunately, few people want to watch this on TV and prefer the surreal adventures of uncommonly confident and photogenic superstars.

Skiznot
June 23rd, 2011, 04:11 PM
Plenty of material chased more people away than brought in. There was a lot missing early on that would have held viewers. The loss of women viewers is unacceptable for a third series of an established franchise. There certainly was enough filler in every episode to bring in some meaningful elements of the franchise. It was so bad early on that Syfy had to fabricate trailers to avoid giving the whole episode away by showing just 30 seconds.

I found a tshirt for you diehard season 1.0 fans.
http://www.zazzle.com/never_give_up_frog_choking_heron_tshirt-235615380989862570

Um no it was never bad. Maybe you only found 30 seconds of story but then you were missing A LOT of story. Season one went 16 episodes before it had ANY filler. The first 6 episodes of season 1 were full of action and better than anything the franchise had produced up to that point. I like the t-shirt. I often feel like the small frog in the minority that like good literary story telling as one by one the big corporate bird swallow up the good shows and leave only fluff.

Gatefan1976
June 23rd, 2011, 04:47 PM
I know, it's true because there really weren't any. A soap is a serialized drama like any other, but what sets different types of dramas apart is their subject matter. A soap is defined by the contemporary storylines the characters follow and the mundane, domestic 'everyday' setting of the show. So practically everything that defines a soap as a soap is absent from SGU. About the closest the show got to 'soap' territory was various characters dealing with relationship issues on Earth, and that's only if you completely ignore the fact that they only had that opportunity due to the body-swapping alien technology they were using from their ancient space ship! Honestly, the idea that that is soap is absurd, frankly.

It's not absurd KEK, it's a perception held by many people and, as it is *thier* perception, it is right for them. Many people hold that that perception is wrong, and it is right for them because it is *thier* perception. I see SGU as soapy because the format was serialised, and it mainly dealt with the mundane issues of the people in the setting they were in. Just because that setting happens to be in an ancient spaceship on the far side of the universe means nothing to me at all, it was thier mundane setting. Having access to the comm stones was *mundane* for them and they were mostly used to fuel *mundane* storylines. (not all of course)

I am loathe to bring up SGA, but to prove my point I will. S1 SGA had Atlantis cut off from Earth entirely, many saw this as a good thing, when however regular contact with Earth resumed, SGA lost that story point and travel to Earth became *mundane*

KEK
June 24th, 2011, 09:22 AM
We don't call their perception faulty because we necessarily disagree with what is in the show, we call their perception faulty because the definition of the terms they're using are. People are using distinctions that are not even exclusive to soaps, in fact more of that are in fact common to pretty much all character drama. The main reason the word soap is being used is either out of ignorance of the genre, or due to the fact that it's seen as derogatory.

The only reason you're latching onto the word mundane is because you can take it's broad definition and then claim anything you personally view as dull as a soap element, which is of course absurd. You can contrive an argument to make the show (or any show) fit 'mundane' and 'domestic' simply because they live somewhere, and you can call whatever you like dull, but you know that's not what the definition of a soap is getting at. You're just playing a game of semantics.

zainea13
June 27th, 2011, 02:27 PM
The main problem with SGU is that the character development took place outside of the main storyline, and in a serialized show, you really wanna follow the main story, not 5 subplots and mostly ignoring the main plot. The subplots weren't connected closely enough to the main plot.

In BSG, the viper pilots would go through hell (I'm tyring to think of the curly haired short one, who ended up being a theif in the end), and this girl I just talked about started taking drugs to compensate for being tired. Her struggles revealed struggles within the other characters as well, thus developing multiple characters and subplots all tightly related to the episodes main plot, this girl taking drugs to stay awake. Then the episodes main plot was tied very closely to the story arc, "Fight the cylons and escape their conquest."

actuallyliam
June 28th, 2011, 11:49 PM
I swear we just had a re-order thread like 2 months ago... Yeah, I think that was mine. It was a list of episodes I thought would make the season flow better. Asked for opinions and others ideas on a re-order

Gatefan1976
July 1st, 2011, 05:20 AM
We don't call their perception faulty because we necessarily disagree with what is in the show, we call their perception faulty because the definition of the terms they're using are. People are using distinctions that are not even exclusive to soaps, in fact more of that are in fact common to pretty much all character drama. The main reason the word soap is being used is either out of ignorance of the genre, or due to the fact that it's seen as derogatory.

No, it is the Viewers choice to see something as soapy, and it is only thier perception that truly counts. I won't argue what I may see as soapy is different to what you see as soapy, because we ARE working off different definitions. Basicly, You see X and I see Y.

Quite simply, it is not up to the viewer to define what the writers mean when "this is X and Y". It is the responsibility of the writer to make sure thier intent is clear, anything else is a failure of writing. You want to put peoples definition of "soap" in a "straight-jacket", because YOU find the term offensive. Tough Luck.



The only reason you're latching onto the word mundane is because you can take it's broad definition and then claim anything you personally view as dull as a soap element, which is of course absurd. You can contrive an argument to make the show (or any show) fit 'mundane' and 'domestic' simply because they live somewhere, and you can call whatever you like dull, but you know that's not what the definition of a soap is getting at. You're just playing a game of semantics.

What a load.
When you focus on the mundane, it IS mundane and it doesn't matter what the setting is. SGU catered to more "interpersonal relationships" and weather that setting is a starship or a hospital or a police squad room, it does not matter. Do I think SGU was "bad" for exploring these issues? NO. I think it was bad *for me* because it handled those issues badly. Others got alot from them, and quite honestly, good on them, they saw something I did not. That does NOT however invalidate either my point of view, or the point of view of others who share my views.

KEK
July 1st, 2011, 10:33 AM
No, it is the Viewers choice to see something as soapy, and it is only thier perception that truly counts. I won't argue what I may see as soapy is different to what you see as soapy, because we ARE working off different definitions. Basicly, You see X and I see Y.

"Soapy" is not some abstract concept that differs from person to person, it means having the qualities of a soap, a genre that is fairly clearly defined.


Quite simply, it is not up to the viewer to define what the writers mean when "this is X and Y". It is the responsibility of the writer to make sure thier intent is clear, anything else is a failure of writing.

I have no idea what that means.


You want to put peoples definition of "soap" in a "straight-jacket", because YOU find the term offensive. Tough Luck.

I'm not defining anything or putting anything in a straight jacket, I'm using the widely accepted definition for the term.


What a load.
When you focus on the mundane, it IS mundane and it doesn't matter what the setting is. SGU catered to more "interpersonal relationships" and weather that setting is a starship or a hospital or a police squad room, it does not matter.

It does matter, in fact in the context of defining the shows genre it's pretty much all that matters. In sci-fi especially, the aspects of the show that drives this drama are absent from any other genre, it enables the sort of exploration into the human condition that other dramas can't. Otherwise, setting it on a ship would be completely pointless. Also, I'm not sure if you're acting dim on purpose, but the word 'mundane' wouldn't be used to define a genre based on it's broad meaning that could be applied to any show or anything anyone could possibly consider dull, it's clearly an attempt to articulate further of the everyday, domestic setting that defines the genre.

maxbo
July 4th, 2011, 05:55 AM
The main problem with SGU is that the character development took place outside of the main storyline, and in a serialized show, you really wanna follow the main story, not 5 subplots and mostly ignoring the main plot. The subplots weren't connected closely enough to the main plot.

I agree. If SGU had better incorporated the character development into the overall storyline, the show would have flowed better for me. As it was, there was too much time spent on various subplots that poorly defined the characters for me. The writers didn't seem to realize that they only had a limited amount of time to develop their characters. Instead of wasting time on scenes that they (the writers) thought were cool and edgy, they should have spent more time on writing scenes that made sense and added to character development within the context of the overall storyline.


No, it is the Viewers choice to see something as soapy, and it is only thier perception that truly counts. I won't argue what I may see as soapy is different to what you see as soapy, because we ARE working off different definitions. Basicly, You see X and I see Y.

Quite simply, it is not up to the viewer to define what the writers mean when "this is X and Y". It is the responsibility of the writer to make sure thier intent is clear, anything else is a failure of writing. You want to put peoples definition of "soap" in a "straight-jacket", because YOU find the term offensive. Tough Luck.

Indeed. If the viewers see a show as soapy, then that show is soapy to them and no amount of denials otherwise will change that. And, I agree that the onus is on the writer to dispel the soapy perception and not the viewer. If writers write a show that unintentionally comes across as soapy, then those writers need to go back to the drawing board because they didn't know what they were doing.

In the case of SGU, the writers made it clear, at least in the beginning, that they were going for drama (or soapy), so the argument by some that this wasn't the case doesn't apply in this case.


What a load.
When you focus on the mundane, it IS mundane and it doesn't matter what the setting is. SGU catered to more "interpersonal relationships" and weather that setting is a starship or a hospital or a police squad room, it does not matter. Do I think SGU was "bad" for exploring these issues? NO. I think it was bad *for me* because it handled those issues badly. Others got alot from them, and quite honestly, good on them, they saw something I did not. That does NOT however invalidate either my point of view, or the point of view of others who share my views.

Bingo. As you said "when you focus on the mundane, it is mundane" no matter the setting. Like another recent failed show, Defying Gravity, SGU focused on the mundane too much for my taste. At least the ads for Defying Gravity were honest enough to market DG as Grey's Anatomy in space, so at least viewers (the few that there were) knew they were getting a soapy show set in space.

Unlike some, I don't have a problem with soapy shows, but if you're going to write a soap, then you damned well better write it well and, IMO, SGU didn't.

actuallyliam
July 4th, 2011, 07:24 AM
After re-watching the entire first season as I just got the DVD the other day. I've come to realize I actually love this series so much. I tried watching SGA and it just didn't have the same quality that SGU has.

I don't think a re-order would have saved this series at all. I think the problem wasn't the stories. But the fact that 90% of the main characters development was with the characters that only appear in one episode or so. It wasn't character development with the people on the ship. Apart from a few sex scenes, a few favourite movies, "a lot of work". There were just too many characters taking up small amounts of screen time each. But combined it filled the entire show with guest stars. It was like a series of mini movies told from a spaceship.

somme
July 12th, 2011, 09:40 AM
I preferred season one. But both were excellent. :)

Aewon
July 18th, 2011, 04:46 AM
I think the show could have needed a stronger pilot, and perhaps moved the story about the life-support not working properly into the second episode. "Water" should have been scrapped, in my opinion. It's not important for them to show how they resupply water, as far as I'm concerned. Just that we know it's happening is enough for me. "Darkness"/"Light" is important, but not necessary at the start of the series. What I'm getting at is that I would have preferred a better balance between intrigue, character development and emergencies.

Actually, I would have liked the power-issue to be a part of the mid-season two-parter, like maybe the Nakai chooses the moment when the Destiny drops out of FTL to ambush the ship and the crew has to fight them off until the ship reaches the star. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. How could they use shields and weapons when there are no power? Well, if they had written the show that way they could have easily come up with an explanation, like maybe there are some emergency power for the shields and weapons in the event the ship is attacked at that time.

As for Season 1.5, I'd like some of the stories in Season 2.0 to be there, like Rush discovering the mission of the ship. That could have fitted nicely in "Human". And, I think "Faith" should have been done more like "The Torment of Tantalus". As for "The Greater Good", by using my example I think it should have been to "Human" what "The Fifth Race" was to "The Torment of Tantalus".