NYC newspapers cover Stargate season premieres

[MediaSavant]

I'm sad to hear that: where these snippets are written to appeal to fans on the basis of physical appearance.

I don't think that was the purpose at all. It wasn't written by a PR writer whose agenda is to attract viewers. It was written by a newspaper writer whose agenda was to be entertaining to their readers.

[MediaSavant]

Going slightly off track now. TV Guide has some of the rudest critics out there. I guess that kind of attitude 'sells' to the younger generation but puts off others. There's 'snark' and then there's downright being an idiot.

I hope you aren't talking about Matt Roush. I love him. He's one of the most "sci-fi" friendly critics in the U.S. and I agree with his reviews 90% of the time.

[ShardsofGlass]

Me too, I love Matt Roush! The Watercooler people, though, can be kind of snarky. And if you read the News page on TV Guide online, they get very snarky quite often, but it's pretty entertaining. Those guys aren't writing reviews, though, they're just reporting on entertainment news, and often mocking it at the same time.

[prion]

I hope you aren't talking about Matt Roush. I love him. He's one of the most "sci-fi" friendly critics in the U.S. and I agree with his reviews 90% of the time.

oh nonononon (as mcKay would say). No, he's good. Sorry about that! It's the Ask Ausiello(sp?) guy who can be downright, well.... geez....

Although it's sad to say I've seen some fans just savage Matt Rousch for his comments on Stargate (probably because he wasn't fulfilling whatever fantasy they had about the show .....

[DesertFox]

Anyone else peeved at this line?


I'm glad the show was mentioned in the paper at all, and I'm not too bothered that they're saying the team is lead by Mitchell.. what I don't like is the 'well-dressed space hunks' part!! Sure, they're pretty to look at (Daniel especially!) but that's not what the show's about and I'm afraid it's rather misleading to anyone who hasn't SEEN Stargate before.

Oh, please. Considering all the 'squee' posts after the guys appear in leather, all the posts referring to the 'cuteness' of the guys, I'd say that's a large part of the show for some people. If they had cast Steve Buscemi, John Malkovich Williem Defoe and John Goodman as these characters, I don't think it would have half the appeal it has.

[prion]

Oh, please. Considering all the 'squee' posts after the guys appear in leather, all the posts referring to the 'cuteness' of the guys, I'd say that's a large part of the show for some people. If they had cast Steve Buscemi, John Malkovich Williem Defoe and John Goodman as these characters, I don't think it would have half the appeal it has.

Heh, well, actually Steve Buscemi is great for comic relief (thinking back to Armageddon) but I'm afraid that John Goodman was so oversaturated for a while that I can wait several years to see him again.

Am hoping that the NYC papers continue following the SG shows once the seasons get into gear.

[Pitry]

I don't think that was the purpose at all. It wasn't written by a PR writer whose agenda is to attract viewers. It was written by a newspaper writer whose agenda was to be entertaining to their readers.

But doesn't that make the point even more clear? The reviewers are supposed to review the episode, not the way the actors look.

As for "snarky" critics... well, they can be evil, but I guess I usually can enjoy the evilness even when I disagree (and quite more so when I do agree!) so ... *small* I do enjoy them.

[MediaSavant]

But doesn't that make the point even more clear? The reviewers are supposed to review the episode, not the way the actors look.

Besides the fact that it wasn't technically "a review", a reviewer can observe anything they please. If the way the actors look is worthy of note, they can note it. There are no rules. I can't imagine someone reviewing a WB show without noting how good everyone on WB shows looks (soon to be the CW, of course)

[prion]

Besides the fact that it wasn't technically "a review", a reviewer can observe anything they please. If the way the actors look is worthy of note, they can note it. There are no rules. I can't imagine someone reviewing a WB show without noting how good everyone on WB shows looks (soon to be the CW, of course)

Or how young they are WB, er, CW, is the teen network, and that's where you find yesteryear's hunks playing parents (such as John Schneider, once a teen idol from Duke's of Hazzard, playing dad on Smallville).

[MediaSavant]

Or how young they are WB, er, CW, is the teen network, and that's where you find yesteryear's hunks playing parents (such as John Schneider, once a teen idol from Duke's of Hazzard, playing dad on Smallville).

...or even Stephen Collins on "7th Heaven". On the WB, even the parents have that "WB look".

[prion]

...or even Stephen Collins on "7th Heaven". On the WB, even the parents have that "WB look".

Yeah, very true.... I've watched some of the teen shows if a favorite actor shows up and they're virtually all sex/angst ridden plots.

Hey, remember when RDA was once a teen idol (yeah, he was in 16 magazine) I sometimes think actors who avoid that phase (because someone didn't think them worthy of the title) are lucky as they don't to deal with the "where are they now?" gunk you see on infotainment shows, and don't get quite as stereotyped.