RTD snarks about Stargate

[MasySyma]

I don't get it. Why was this even a news article?

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

So?

He's entitled to his opinion.

[The Prophet]

I don't get it. Why was this even a news article?

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

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

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

[MasySyma]

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

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

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

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

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

[Amaunet]

They way it's been said, the comment comes across as a jealous statement, if this is true...it's merely a compliment to Stargate

[TameFarrar]

As with any News Story on any media outlet you are expected to make your own determination.

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

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

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

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

Lets get back to the topic at hand shall we.

Thank You
TameFarrar
GateWorld Moderator

[Kor]

As I see it, if he doesn't like stargate, that is his opinion and his business. Not everyone will like the same things, after all.

[Nuallain]

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

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

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


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

[jenks]

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

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

[Nuallain]

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

No idea what, though. Smallville probably.

[TJuk]

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

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

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

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

[jenks]

Anything you air prime time on BBC1 will get good ratings, especially when it's a cult classic that you advertise the living **** out of.

[Jedi_Master_Bra'tac]

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

[smurf]

<mod snip>

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

[TJuk]

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

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

But thats not the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jedi_Master_Bra'tac]

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

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