PDA

View Full Version : So how much was left to tell ?



Republibot 3.0
October 13th, 2011, 08:48 AM
This is a speculative topic, so please forgive me if elements of it were discussed elsewhere on other threads. Something I've been wondering about is "How much of the story was left?"

We assume they wanted the standard six years/110 episodes Syfy optimum package that everyone shoots for, but no one seems to get. I think that's a reasonable assumption, frankly, *but* I remember when the first chatter about SGU started, Wright and Mallozi had said something about 'Needing at least three years.' The impression I got then was that it was maybe intended as a relatively short series.

In retrospect, they were probably just haggling for as big a commitment as they could get ahead of time: Ask for three seasons, get two. Given the glacial pace of the early episodes, it seems to me they *wanted* the long haul.

But, then, how much of the show was left? How long would it have taken to wrap it up? COULD they have resolved it in a third season, had there been one? Or was the story simply too intense to do compress without destroying it? How much of the (Presumed) 70 or so remaining episodes would have been filler, and how much was important stuff?

Quizziard
October 13th, 2011, 10:12 AM
Safe to say there's been bits of this in several other threads.

They may have said that because they had season-arc outlines for the first three seasons and had specific plans for each. But, like all the other threads, unless one of them speaks, we'll just be guessing.

Naonak
October 13th, 2011, 10:42 AM
Given the glacial pace of the early episodes
http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/smilies/stargate/beckett/beckett_newanime012.gif


But, then, how much of the show was left? How long would it have taken to wrap it up? COULD they have resolved it in a third season, had there been one? Or was the story simply too intense to do compress without destroying it? How much of the (Presumed) 70 or so remaining episodes would have been filler, and how much was important stuff?
Based on comments just before and around the time of the cancellation, they wanted five seasons to tell the story properly, but could have condensed it enough to wrap it up with season three if necessary.

Browncoat1984
October 13th, 2011, 11:39 AM
Sometime last fall they said that Stargate Universe was a five-year story (like Babylon 5) but that if they had to they could finish the story in one season. SyFy obviously didn't respect them or one of the franchises that put them on the map enough to give them that final season. I would have been perfectly happy with one finale season to wrap things up instead SyFy just pisses the fans off like they always do. Its obviously they have absolutely no respect for their series, even ones like Stargate, Farscape and Eureka that help put them on the map. I hope in 3 years after Warehouse 13 and Alphas go off and they've pissed off yet more people that when they file for bankruptcy, they look back on the past decade and say "man, we went about things wrongly."

What do we get instead? More reality crap like Total Blackout, a new reality series set *drumroll* in a completely black room.

Republibot 3.0
October 13th, 2011, 11:52 AM
Sometime last fall they said that Stargate Universe was a five-year story (like Babylon 5) but that if they had to they could finish the story in one season. SyFy obviously didn't respect them or one of the franchises that put them on the map enough to give them that final season. I would have been perfectly happy with one finale season to wrap things up instead SyFy just pisses the fans off like they always do. Its obviously they have absolutely no respect for their series, even ones like Stargate, Farscape and Eureka that help put them on the map. I hope in 3 years after Warehouse 13 and Alphas go off and they've pissed off yet more people that when they file for bankruptcy, they look back on the past decade and say "man, we went about things wrongly."

What do we get instead? More reality crap like Total Blackout, a new reality series set *drumroll* in a completely black room.

Yeah, they're dopes.

I like to point out that The Science Fiction Channel, who's mission was to run Science Fiction, actually ran less Science Fiction than ABC, who's mission was *NOT* to run Science Fiction. Ditto BBC America.

Republibot 3.0
October 13th, 2011, 11:53 AM
http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/smilies/stargate/beckett/beckett_newanime012.gif


Based on comments just before and around the time of the cancellation, they wanted five seasons to tell the story properly, but could have condensed it enough to wrap it up with season three if necessary.

Gah, that's frustrating. I hadn't heard that, but it re-opens the wound.

Republibot 3.0
October 13th, 2011, 11:55 AM
I wonder if MGM hadn't been in bankruptcy at the time, and if Syfy hadn't just flushed $60 million down the toilet on Caprica, might they have been willing to give SGU a third season?

They did that with Galactica. Its ratings were boiling away quick as the morning dew, RDM kept begging for 40 more episodes. They gave him 20 and told him to get cracking. (They shoulda' only given him 10).

anaberration
October 13th, 2011, 07:35 PM
Yeah and Caprica sucked donkey balls...Shame they blew that money on Caprica, sure coulda used it for SGU. They saw the bankruptcy coming, maybe they thought they could back something else to make more money ?

Snowman37
October 13th, 2011, 09:03 PM
SyFy committed to five seasons of SG-1 and Atlantis, so I think Brad Wright and friends just assumed SGU would get a five-year run so long as the ratings were strong. What killed the show was low ratings, a high budget, MGM's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and SyFy being cancel-happy. The show never had a chance unless it was going to be more successful than SG-1 in it's first season.

KEK
October 14th, 2011, 04:06 AM
They had a five year arc loosely planned out, and the final episode planned out from very early on. Joe said they could have finished the story in a year however, if they had really needed to. I'm guessing that would have meant losing a lot of character arcs and reducing the show to pure plot for the most part though.

Lythisrose
October 14th, 2011, 07:16 AM
Yeah, they're dopes.

I like to point out that The Science Fiction Channel, who's mission was to run Science Fiction, actually ran less Science Fiction than ABC, who's mission was *NOT* to run Science Fiction. Ditto BBC America.

And very unfortunately, they are going to continue doing what they are doing. Evidently this past summer was "#Syfy's most-watched in its 19-year history" according to Mark Stern's tweet from this morning. :(

(Mark Stern is "President, Original Content at Syfy")

g.o.d
October 14th, 2011, 07:23 AM
bye bye scifi shows on syfy

Briangate78
October 14th, 2011, 07:34 AM
SyFy committed to five seasons of SG-1 and Atlantis, so I think Brad Wright and friends just assumed SGU would get a five-year run so long as the ratings were strong. What killed the show was low ratings, a high budget, MGM's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and SyFy being cancel-happy. The show never had a chance unless it was going to be more successful than SG-1 in it's first season.

Syfy being cancel-happy? That does not make sense to me. It is not in their best interest to be cancel-happy. If shows don't perform in ratings to their allocated budget, then they get canceled, simple as that.

It's not like they have a dart board on the wall containing a list of all the shows, and determine cancellation by throwing a dart while wearing a blind-fold. lol.

Just wanted to add, we live in a world of relaity TV like Jersey Shore and Amercian Idol. People who want to see imagination, adventure, science fiction, and action on their TV screen just don't make up the numbers as they used to.

g.o.d
October 14th, 2011, 08:00 AM
Syfy being cancel-happy? That does not make sense to me. It is not in their best interest to be cancel-happy. If shows don't perform in ratings to their allocated budget, then they get canceled, simple as that.

It's not like they have a dart board on the wall containing a list of all the shows, and determine cancellation by throwing a dart while wearing a blind-fold. lol.

Just wanted to add, we live in a world of relaity TV like Jersey Shore and Amercian Idol. People who want to see imagination, adventure, science fiction, and action on their TV screen just don't make up the numbers as they used to.

or they don't want to see it on syfy

Quizziard
October 14th, 2011, 10:31 AM
or they don't want to see it on syfyAt the times that SyFy were showing it? Does the US ratings system, which is used for judging audiences sizes (and thus advert revenues) include DVR rewatches?

KEK
October 14th, 2011, 12:16 PM
Syfy being cancel-happy? That does not make sense to me. It is not in their best interest to be cancel-happy.

It is if they replace those shows with cheaper, trashier ones that perform just as well.

Gatefan1976
October 14th, 2011, 12:28 PM
At the times that SyFy were showing it? Does the US ratings system, which is used for judging audiences sizes (and thus advert revenues) include DVR rewatches?

Short answer, yes.

Republibot 3.0
October 14th, 2011, 01:20 PM
Yeah and Caprica sucked donkey balls...Shame they blew that money on Caprica, sure coulda used it for SGU. They saw the bankruptcy coming, maybe they thought they could back something else to make more money ?

Caprica and SGU both had about the same budget: $3million/ep. So that's $180 million, not counting promotions and stuff, over the course of two years. They took it on the teeth on those two shows.

Republibot 3.0
October 14th, 2011, 01:22 PM
SyFy committed to five seasons of SG-1 and Atlantis, so I think Brad Wright and friends just assumed SGU would get a five-year run so long as the ratings were strong. What killed the show was low ratings, a high budget, MGM's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and SyFy being cancel-happy. The show never had a chance unless it was going to be more successful than SG-1 in it's first season.

I'm not sure about that. I *believe* (But could be wrong) that SG1 was signed on for 3 seasons, then expanded to 5. SGA had a 6-season deal that was cut short. From what I read, part of the deal for getting SGU up and running involved ending SGA prematurely to free up resources.

Republibot 3.0
October 14th, 2011, 01:24 PM
And very unfortunately, they are going to continue doing what they are doing. Evidently this past summer was "#Syfy's most-watched in its 19-year history" according to Mark Stern's tweet from this morning. :(

(Mark Stern is "President, Original Content at Syfy")

Sux, but that's the way it is in niche networks. They use their target demographic to get a foothold in, but then the demographic begins to limit their growth, so they change their formula to appeal to more people and drop the original audience. It's the MTV syndrome.

I find it personally annoying, but they *ARE* in business to make money, and as SGU proved, they can't really make money off of us fans. Dangit.

Republibot 3.0
October 14th, 2011, 01:28 PM
Syfy being cancel-happy? That does not make sense to me. It is not in their best interest to be cancel-happy. If shows don't perform in ratings to their allocated budget, then they get canceled, simple as that.

It's not like they have a dart board on the wall containing a list of all the shows, and determine cancellation by throwing a dart while wearing a blind-fold. lol.

Just wanted to add, we live in a world of relaity TV like Jersey Shore and Amercian Idol. People who want to see imagination, adventure, science fiction, and action on their TV screen just don't make up the numbers as they used to.

I am by no means a fan of The Science Fiction Channel, or The Sci-Fi Channel, or SyFy, or whatever they want to call themselves this week, nor have I ever been. They *NEVER* did their job very well, and they never seemed to have a solid grasp on what it was their job was even supposed to be.

That said: they plunked $120 million into a show that frequently had less than a million viewers when it would have been easier to pull the plug or find some way to weasel out of their contract. So: While I don't like 'em, they took a massive kick in the face, and gave me 40 hours of a show I really like.

There's a lot to be upset about here, but realistically they *could* have just killed it after season 1. Heck, they *could* have killed it 10 episodes in.

Republibot 3.0
October 14th, 2011, 01:30 PM
It is if they replace those shows with cheaper, trashier ones that perform just as well.

That's how you make money, man. ABC became the #1 network in the 70s by putting out cheap crap like Happy Days while everyone else was doing expensive dramas. Made them more profitable. Then they did expensive crap like the original Galactica, which killed them. When Reality shows started in the late 80s, it was in response to a writer's strike, but they've stayed on TV because they're cheaper than scripted shows and provide as-good ratings.

The only other option, really, is to do it like the Brits do, and that's just not viable here.

KEK
October 15th, 2011, 04:39 AM
That's how you make money, man.

I'm not criticising them for doing it as such, I'm just telling it how it is. I've nothing against them per se, but if they're not going to stay loyal to the genre, then why should sci-fi fans stay loyal to them?

Republibot 3.0
October 15th, 2011, 01:11 PM
I'm not criticising them for doing it as such, I'm just telling it how it is. I've nothing against them per se, but if they're not going to stay loyal to the genre, then why should sci-fi fans stay loyal to them?

I've never been particularly loyal to them. I never saw that there was really anything to be loyal *to,* apart from a poorly-conceive brand name. If I want to watch SF, I'll have a much better shot at it on BBC-A or ABC. SyFy was never very good at their job.

Gatefan1976
October 15th, 2011, 11:09 PM
I've never been particularly loyal to them.

A common thought, so why should scifi/SyFy be particularly loyal to you??
Do you watch them live??
Do you give thier new shows a chance??
If not, why on earth should Scifi be "loyal" to you??



I never saw that there was really anything to be loyal *to,* apart from a poorly-conceive brand name. If I want to watch SF, I'll have a much better shot at it on BBC-A or ABC. SyFy was never very good at their job.
That, again, is a 2 way street.

garhkal
October 16th, 2011, 01:35 PM
At the times that SyFy were showing it? Does the US ratings system, which is used for judging audiences sizes (and thus advert revenues) include DVR rewatches?

Nope. Just Neilson box ratings.

Quizziard
October 16th, 2011, 09:16 PM
Nope. Just Neilson box ratings.
Interesting - the previous answer was "yes"...

EdenSG
October 17th, 2011, 01:15 PM
Interesting - the previous answer was "yes"...

The correct answer is yes.
Neilson does include DVR numbers. In fact the real ratings are the C3 ratings - they are how many people are watching the show along with its commercials both live and with 3 days of DVR playback - these numbers are rarely if ever made public.
The C3 ratings are the ones that determine how much a network can charge for the commercials which determines how much a show makes thereby helping to determine whether a show is cancelled or renewed.

Gatefan1976
October 17th, 2011, 01:34 PM
The correct answer is yes.
Neilson does include DVR numbers. In fact the real ratings are the C3 ratings - they are how many people are watching the show along with its commercials both live and with 3 days of DVR playback - these numbers are rarely if ever made public.
The C3 ratings are the ones that determine how much a network can charge for the commercials which determines how much a show makes thereby helping to determine whether a show is cancelled or renewed.

This is correct.

Quizziard
October 17th, 2011, 09:36 PM
The correct answer is yes.
Neilson does include DVR numbers. In fact the real ratings are the C3 ratings - they are how many people are watching the show along with its commercials both live and with 3 days of DVR playback - these numbers are rarely if ever made public.
The C3 ratings are the ones that determine how much a network can charge for the commercials which determines how much a show makes thereby helping to determine whether a show is cancelled or renewed.
Makes sense. Based on various UK-related threads, I *think* the UK uses a similar but 7-day system.

Republibot 3.0
October 18th, 2011, 02:33 PM
A common thought, so why should scifi/SyFy be particularly loyal to you??
Do you watch them live??
Do you give thier new shows a chance??
If not, why on earth should Scifi be "loyal" to you??

I think you missed my point by coming in the middle there. Someone was saying they don't deserve our loyalty. I said they never had mine. There's no reason I feel I should have theirs.

Gatefan1976
October 18th, 2011, 08:11 PM
I think you missed my point by coming in the middle there. Someone was saying they don't deserve our loyalty. I said they never had mine. There's no reason I feel I should have theirs.

The "you" was generic dude, my bad. :)

Syfy is often and repeatedly sledged for cancelling shows, and one common "starting points" for such rants is "I didn't watch it live BUT" or "I watched it on Hulu/Netflix BUT" Now, Syfy are no angels, they are a corperate entity, but really, STARTING a rant with the position of "I am not a customer of yours" doesn't tend to win the "hearts and minds" of people now does it?? :D

Republibot 3.0
October 21st, 2011, 04:10 AM
The "you" was generic dude, my bad. :)

Syfy is often and repeatedly sledged for cancelling shows, and one common "starting points" for such rants is "I didn't watch it live BUT" or "I watched it on Hulu/Netflix BUT" Now, Syfy are no angels, they are a corperate entity, but really, STARTING a rant with the position of "I am not a customer of yours" doesn't tend to win the "hearts and minds" of people now does it?? :D

Oh.

Yeah, I agree with that. Bottom line: it's a niche network at best, and they've maxed out the viewership of that niche, so it's time to move on to a larger group. Thus, yeah, no real loyalty to us not-terribly-lucrative geeks.

cmulligan
October 23rd, 2011, 05:55 PM
I don't think that the series would have lasted six years although I would have loved to see that happen. How long could they have dragged out being on a ship and keeping those people away from Earth for that long?

If I had to venture a guess at what the ending would have been, it would be that they never fulfilled Destiny's mission. They would not have found the "intelligence" behind the Big Bang. What would they have done with that information? How would it affect the necessity of a Stargate program? Would the Stargate program then go public?

My guess is that they would have found a way to get back to Earth and the crew opted to go home instead of carry out the mission.

Quizziard
October 23rd, 2011, 08:24 PM
It's an interesting question for the crew really - go home or investigate the meaning of life, the universe and everything. The issue is, the crew are human, mostly having families and lives on Earth. So of course they want to go home. Mostly.

KEK
October 24th, 2011, 05:44 AM
My guess is that they would have found a way to get back to Earth and the crew opted to go home instead of carry out the mission.

I think that would be highly, highly unlikely. They had a big ending planned from the get-go, I don't think it would have been about something as underwhelming as them getting home. They spent most of season two getting the characters to a point where home was no longer really the mission, I don't know why they'd set it up if it wasn't going anywhere. They never found out that there was an intelligence behind the big bang by the way, they found signs of an intelligence in the background radiation, something that didn't form until about 400,000 years after the big bang, a time when according to out understanding oft he universe life couldn't have existed. A race could however have gone back in time and put it there....

the fifth man
October 24th, 2011, 07:55 PM
IMO, there was a whole lot of story left to tell on SGU. Even if the crew didn't complete Destiny's mission, they could still learn so much in their journey.

Quizziard
October 24th, 2011, 08:29 PM
I think that would be highly, highly unlikely. They had a big ending planned from the get-go, I don't think it would have been about something as underwhelming as them getting home. They spent most of season two getting the characters to a point where home was no longer really the mission, I don't know why they'd set it up if it wasn't going anywhere.
They set it up to explain that this was the ship's mission (all along), and to persuade Rush and some of the others to perhaps join him. But it was a long way off being everyone. Most wanted to go home...

KEK
October 25th, 2011, 06:22 AM
The direction they were heading was clear though. When the show started nobody wanted to stay but Rush, and as the series progressed people ties to Earth faded while their ties to Destiny grew stronger. Even if no one else changed their mind, the ones that wanted to stay made up the vast majority of named characters. I think Park and Brody were the only characters of note to want to still leave.

Quizziard
October 25th, 2011, 12:29 PM
Even if no one else changed their mind, the ones that wanted to stay made up the vast majority of named characters. I think Park and Brody were the only characters of note to want to still leave.
Not sure I'd go as far as "vast majority" of the named characters. If there was a realistic chance of getting home, I'd bet - when it came to it - at least half would go home.

KEK
October 25th, 2011, 12:42 PM
Not sure I'd go as far as "vast majority" of the named characters. If there was a realistic chance of getting home, I'd bet - when it came to it - at least half would go home.

Based on what? We've already seen them in such a situation, and that wasn't the case.

Gatefan1976
October 25th, 2011, 01:23 PM
I am with KEK on this one. A great deal of time went into the transformation of the crew from a disperate group wanting to get home to a organized unit wanting to "see whats out there" (it never quite got there IMO, but that was the definate tone). Wrays speech at the end of Epilogue gives (to me at least) a very clear indication about where they were heading with the series, and back home was not it.

Tanith0709
October 25th, 2011, 03:03 PM
Agreed, to be honest the series could possibly have even concluded (if it had continued to finish it's run) without the crew getting home imo.

Unlike Star Trek Voyager getting home was never the main mission.

Quizziard
October 25th, 2011, 08:47 PM
Unlike Star Trek Voyager getting home was never the main mission.
Yes it was. They were only on Destiny to avoid dying on Icarus, so for at least the first 1.5 seasons, that was Col. Young's frequently-repeated main mission: "Getting these people home".

Yes, they got their volunteers to stay on the ship, and it was barely a dozen. But how many of them were doing it to be with one of the others (Scott/Armstrong, Greer/Young) rather than because they inherently wanted to do the "finding the meaning of life" thing?

[PS. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with you guys on this one ;) ]

Gatefan1976
October 26th, 2011, 03:20 AM
Yes it was. They were only on Destiny to avoid dying on Icarus, so for at least the first 1.5 seasons, that was Col. Young's frequently-repeated main mission: "Getting these people home".

Yes, they got their volunteers to stay on the ship, and it was barely a dozen. But how many of them were doing it to be with one of the others (Scott/Armstrong, Greer/Young) rather than because they inherently wanted to do the "finding the meaning of life" thing?

[PS. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with you guys on this one ;) ]

Well
I guess it depends on what you mean here.
From a *story* perspective, it makes no sense to have the crew get to the point to where it was going and NOT want to "embrace Destiny", none whatsoever.
From a "real human perspective" YES, they did not want to be there and would quite happily "go home", but that is hardly a viable basis for a "grand story" now is it??

Tanith0709
October 27th, 2011, 03:18 PM
Yes it was. They were only on Destiny to avoid dying on Icarus, so for at least the first 1.5 seasons, that was Col. Young's frequently-repeated main mission: "Getting these people home".
Depends how you look at it. In the beginning for most of the characters survival was the main priority and then getting home but the way the story unfolded it was easily to figure out that getting home was never the main mission the writers had planned.

Would bet that had SGU continued they would have came together more and focused on completing the mission of the Destiny regarding the message in the background radiation.

Think Rush in the series said it best "It was never about going home. It's about getting us to where we're going. That... is... the mission."

What they would have found when the Destiny reached it's final location is probably the only thing left that I would really want the writers to divulge.

Quizziard
October 27th, 2011, 08:54 PM
I don't disagree - for anyone on Destiny their day-to-day existence would gradually change from survival to acceptance of their situation and later joining in whatever the mission is. But that doesn't stop them wanting to get home at the first safe opportunity. It's a short/medium-term focus, whilst getting home is still the long-term goal. Under a quarter were prepared to stay ["Twin Destinies"] when they had a realistic chance of dialing Earth (and, as above, I think some of those were because of personal loyalties rather than "the mission").

Republibot 3.0
October 28th, 2011, 09:58 AM
I am with KEK on this one. A great deal of time went into the transformation of the crew from a disperate group wanting to get home to a organized unit wanting to "see whats out there" (it never quite got there IMO, but that was the definate tone). Wrays speech at the end of Epilogue gives (to me at least) a very clear indication about where they were heading with the series, and back home was not it.

Agreed.

Republibot 3.0
October 28th, 2011, 10:00 AM
Yes it was. They were only on Destiny to avoid dying on Icarus, so for at least the first 1.5 seasons, that was Col. Young's frequently-repeated main mission: "Getting these people home".

Yes, they got their volunteers to stay on the ship, and it was barely a dozen. But how many of them were doing it to be with one of the others (Scott/Armstrong, Greer/Young) rather than because they inherently wanted to do the "finding the meaning of life" thing?

[PS. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with you guys on this one ;) ]

"These are the wrong people on the wrong mission."

Just because Young *thought* that was the mission, doesn't mean it was the right one. It's like on Lost, where they spent the first three years trying to get off the island, which turned out to be the wrong thing to do, and spent the next season trying to get back.

Quizziard
October 28th, 2011, 11:19 PM
There is (probably) a very valuable mission to follow-up on Destiny's purpose. Which could still be a million years from completion. But the crew from Icarus were press-ganged by fate and not by volunteering. Getting home was their mission.

Gatefan1976
October 29th, 2011, 12:40 AM
There is (probably) a very valuable mission to follow-up on Destiny's purpose. Which could still be a million years from completion. But the crew from Icarus were press-ganged by fate and not by volunteering. Getting home was their mission.

Or Destiny??

Sure their initial purpose was to get home, but there are only so many times you need to hear "there is no freaking way" before you just have to adapt or go nuts, or form a book club :D

zaplayer
November 1st, 2011, 11:21 AM
First of all i want to "thank" SyFy for making my days boring....(hope the us viewers are canceling contract with syfy).

i wanted to add something like this...what if the destiny crew were actually the ancients?that would explain why the ascended ancients won`t interfere...not to change the past in order to maintain the course of the future...and in destiny we have seen people that are religious type...

what if the Destiny was actualy a ship that is actually a science ship managed to teach them about the ancient technologies...in the planet that was near to a erupting volcano there language wasn`t english...it was ancient...and all the techs it was ancient not human...

its just an oppinion...feel free to debate it.Thnks for any replys

Republibot 3.0
November 1st, 2011, 02:41 PM
Agreed, to be honest the series could possibly have even concluded (if it had continued to finish it's run) without the crew getting home imo.

Unlike Star Trek Voyager getting home was never the main mission.

Which is ultimately the problem with Voyager: their mission was to boldly scamper back where everyone had scampered before. At some point in the run of the show, they should have said "This is a fool's errand, let's just make a life for ourselves here."

nathanddrews
November 8th, 2011, 06:46 AM
What good is exploration if you never make it back to tell anyone? Worst case scenario, no return serves as a warning and a challenge to others. Best case scenario, you return with new wealth, technology, knowledge, and experience.

IMO, Destiny and Voyager handled their situation to the best of their ability. Undermanned (or improperly manned), outgunned, and completely cut off. Exploration on the part of Destiny was almost entirely out of necessity, to find food to survive or equipment to repair the ship or make it home, limping from one episode to the next. Voyager definitely went off the beaten path more often just for the heck of it, even if they were perfectly comfortable. To boldy go...

KEK
November 8th, 2011, 03:45 PM
What good is exploration if you never make it back to tell anyone? Worst case scenario, no return serves as a warning and a challenge to others. Best case scenario, you return with new wealth, technology, knowledge, and experience.

But it's a TV show, the pay off is for the audience, not a fictional Earth.

nathanddrews
November 9th, 2011, 10:11 AM
But it's a TV show, the pay off is for the audience, not a fictional Earth.
I thought the discussion was about the show and the characters and universe within. Seems to me that the motivation of every Stargate series has been "explore in order to bring back technology and allies". SGU wasn't any different in this regard. The original mission was to successfully dial the 9th chevron in order to fulfill the same goals as SG-1 and SGA.

Like with the other two series, the most important thing is getting home.

KEK
November 9th, 2011, 02:06 PM
I thought the discussion was about the show and the characters and universe within. Seems to me that the motivation of every Stargate series has been "explore in order to bring back technology and allies". SGU wasn't any different in this regard. The original mission was to successfully dial the 9th chevron in order to fulfill the same goals as SG-1 and SGA.

Like with the other two series, the most important thing is getting home.

I'm really not sure what that assertion is based on. We've already seen in Twin Destinies that much of the crew, and practically all of the named characters would rather stay on the ship and complete the mission than get home. At no point in the show has the crew ever been trying to bring technology or allies back to Earth, they originally wanted to get themselves home, and as the series progressed and the mission become more clear, their ties to Destiny grew and their ties to Earth were gradually cut, to the point that many (if not most) of them wanted to stay. Besides, they have the stones, they don't ever need to get home to share what they learn with Earth.