RTD snarks about Stargate

[Reefgirl]

Robert Carlyle

Anyone else?

[Caladria]

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]

<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 )

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]

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]

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]

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 )

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]

Ok, who do you consider to be major British film and TV stars?

The Stig!!!!!

[jenks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?