Popstar.com: What Makes a Great Show Go Bad?

[Madwelshboy]

Well, duh. He's dead.

no the self sacrifice, showed the depth of the character.

[RealmOfX]

TPTB are made of fail but this article is made of win.

Thank you so much for sharing this.

So why is this article made of win? Is it because it it is well written and insightful and delves deeply into the subject matter of the title in an investigative manner? Or is it because it expresses an opinion that you happen to share?

"Gilmore Girls, starring Lauren Graham, Alexis Bledel, and a whole town of enigmatic and quirky characters was by far one of the best shows ever to hit the television scene."

Yes, full of win indeed... seriously though, at least it's consistent in its idiocy.

Actually it isn't full of idiocy but it does have a healthly dollop of fanwank like these clankers

• "How can something so perfect, so prestine in every detail, suddenly collapse under its own weight, and could it have been prevented?"
• "By the third season, everything was absolutely perfect in the Stargate Universe."
• "The answer: most assuredly yes, it could have been prevented, if television producers had listened to the feedback of their fans."

Wait a minute, maybe you could class that last example as idiocy because just which fans exactly were the producers supposed to listen to? The author of that article and others of like mind? Or the other fans who held diametrically opposed opinions? Or how about the other fans who held opinions that ranged somewhere between the two polar opposites?

Now before anyone goes off in high dudgeon to bring down the wrath of the moderators on me for using the term idiocy please note that I am not calling the author an idiot what I am doing is classing one statement as idiocy; as in a foolish statement (id?i?o?cy –noun, plural -cies. 1. utterly senseless or foolish behavior; a stupid or foolish act, statement, etc.) and I think that any reasoning person would agree that the statement is utterly foolish because if you ask "the fans" what they think of any particular aspect of a show you will get a myriad of opinions, so which particular fan or opinion are the producers supposed to listen to?

With a great title like "What Makes a Great Show Go Bad?" I was hoping for a serious article that maybe took a deep look into the problems inherent in the TV Entertainment industry today, maybe a little about Network interference/formula adherence or specifically a look behind the scenes of a few shows and their problems. Unfortunately what we got was not so much an article that addressed it's title subject but rather something resembling a fan whinge more appropriate for a forum about the authors favourite characters getting the axe or being changed by new writers.

As I haven't ever watched an episode of Gilmore Girls I didn't pay much attention to that part of the article other than to try to get the gist of what the author perceived to be the problem with that show. However being a Stargate fan myself I did pay particular attention to the second part of the article that dealt with SGA. However by the time I got to the line "By the third season, everything was absolutely perfect in the Stargate Universe." I had totally stopped expecting the article to be a realistic journalistic attempt to answer the question "What Makes a Great Show Go Bad?" but I kept reading because I was curious to see to what depth of fan whinging the article would stoop.

Quite frankly SGA was in serious trouble as a show by Season 3 and changes needed to be made, it simply could not continue to have continually trending downwards ratings (from mid Season 1) and expect to survive. I don't happen to agree with a lot of the changes made but those changes did arrest the downward decline and turn them around a little (relatively Briangate, relatively ) so they could be classed as a success business wise and if you happen to have still enjoyed the series then creative wise as well. I thoroughly understand people not liking the changes as do I also understand that others did like the changes; it's different strokes for different folks.

Unfortunately the author of the article never got beyond a fan whinge about changing their favourite characters and certainly did not get around to establishing what variety of problems a show can encounter that would indeed Make A Show Go Bad nor offer any any advice on how to remedy said problems beyond the rather ludicrous "listen to your fans".

So, my opinion on the article itself? Made of fail.

[The Mastage Kidd]

The problem TPTB have at this point is that the Stargate fandom is so large, making any changes at all will piss a large group of fans off. Stargate has become the very definition of an unpleasable fan base. Kill Carson? Expect backlash from his fans. Bring him back? Get even more backlash from people who think that reviving him cheapened his original death? And this is just one example of the kind of problems they have. (Off topic, but what did they tell Carson's family when he was brought back? )

IMHO, I'm happier when they don't pander to what the fans want (even if it's a decision that pisses me off a little). What fun is Christmas morning if you already know what all your presents are? What is true in life is true here; being surprised is more often better than just getting what you want.

I like to see change happen in a series, and have always found return to status quo at the end of every episode of a series to be bad writing that halts character development. Luckily for me, TPTB on Stargate seem to agree with me here.

As to why they killed Carson. As Martin Gerro has said, in a series like this you have to kill a fairly important character every now and then, or there will never be any drama in the show. If you know the reset button will be hit at the end, you never really buy that any characters are in jeopardy. Carson's death in this way A) Let's a great character go out as a hero and B) Shows us that no person on Atlantis is ever safe. Even on their day off.

(in this next section, I'm going from what I've heard and have done only a little research on this so sorry if it's not 100% accurate)
From what I've heard and read, Weir leaving wasn't TPTB's fault. She refused to renegotiate her contract for season 5 so they had to find a way to write her out of the show. They tried to have her come back for a 5 or 6 episode arc to give closure to the character, but she would only do 2 episodes beyond what she was contractually obligated to do. They again wanted to do that ark in season 5 to give her closure, but she again refused to come back.

As for adding Amanda tapping to the cast, she had a contract that ran until the end of season 11 of SG1. Because that series was unexpectedly, and hastily canceled, TPTB had two choices. A) Pay Amanda Tapping for an entire season of doing nothing or B) Have her finish her contract on Atlantis instead. So due to having Tapping bound by a contract, and Higgonson's refusal to renegotiate hers, they killed two birds with one stone, wiping out Weir and adding Carter.

If that turned out to be a good or bad thing is arguable, but it wasn't the fault of any of the people usually blamed for it.
(End not so totally researched section)

TPTB have such a hard job, I'm surprised the suicide rate isn't 98%.
But in all fairness, I'm one of the seemingly few people who actually liked the ori ark on sg1 so take from my opinion what you will.

[Madeleine]

What makes a good show go bad?

Changing it! I didn't want it to change!
Not changing anything! It stagnated!
Doing what the fans told them! They listened to the WRONG ONES!
Not giving the fans what they wanted! Arrogant!

[Madwelshboy]

What makes a good show go bad?

Changing it! I didn't want it to change!
Not changing anything! It stagnated!
Doing what the fans told them! They listened to the WRONG ONES!
Not giving the fans what they wanted! Arrogant!

Tho i believe that TPTB of any show not just Stargate, should have the ball to do what they want to do with their show and not bow to a small vocal group of fans.

[Stormtrooper]

Thanks for all of the comments, everyone.

It's great to see such an active fan community on this site!

I especially liked some of the shipper banners - and the custom smilies are an incredibly nice touch. :-)

You're welcome! Maybe in your next article you should compare the wreckage of seasons 4 and 5 of SGA to the glory of Battlestar Galactica, an amazing show which has been able to keep its main cast intact and deliver awesomely creative and thought-provoking stories.

[Pitry]

(in this next section, I'm going from what I've heard and have done only a little research on this so sorry if it's not 100% accurate)

And so I hope you don't midn I nitpick?

From what I've heard and read, Weir leaving wasn't TPTB's fault. She refused to renegotiate her contract for season 5 so they had to find a way to write her out of the show. They tried to have her come back for a 5 or 6 episode arc to give closure to the character, but she would only do 2 episodes beyond what she was contractually obligated to do. They again wanted to do that ark in season 5 to give her closure, but she again refused to come back.

Torri Higginson was bound by contract, just like the other cast members, until the end of season 6. Killing off Weir was TPTB's decision, in a similar line to Beckett's death (Joe Mallozzi said about this in his blog, if I'm not mistaken, somethign to the spirit of "and then after we killed Carson, we wouldn't kill Weir, right?" as an example of the surprise factor of removing two main characters in the same season.). TH agreed to the deal offered to her for season 4, that is 4 episodes - out of which, in only in two did she have a real part, as the character's mainly unconscious in Adrift and only has 5 seconds of screen time in BAMSR. Then, when she was offered to come back for a guest spot for season 5 she asked to hear what it was about, didn't like the premise of the episode because it didn't provide closure for the character, and refused to do it.

As for adding Amanda tapping to the cast, she had a contract that ran until the end of season 11 of SG1. Because that series was unexpectedly, and hastily canceled, TPTB had two choices. A) Pay Amanda Tapping for an entire season of doing nothing or B) Have her finish her contract on Atlantis instead.

No. All cast members with the exception of Michael Shanks were bound by contract for a season 11. I'm assuming all these contracts had the possibility of not being renewed if the show gets cancelled as this seems to be a standard thing. For example, Joe Flanighan, Rachel Luttrel and David Hewlett are not being paid this year for a sixth season, I suspect. Amanda Tapping's contract had the option of her being moved to Atlantis - which is something TPTB thought of doing for season 10, as well - and they exercised it. But they didn't have to use it.

Why am I mentioning it? Because some of this is an example of how a great show (or, IMO, a nice show that was finally get its act together) goes bad, and yes, I am referring to network stuff as was mentioned in RoX's [post. Cos with all this conversation of contracts I can't help but remember the comments about Claudia Black and SG1 - TPTb were going to offer her the job for season 10 anyway, but SciFi insisted on bringing her back for the end of season 9, and so, to write around her pregnancy, we got Adria. Now, don';t get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Claudia Black and I think Vala was wonderful and she instantly became one of my favourite characters, I think Vala's addition to season 10 saved several episodes in this season, and furthermore I think Crusade was one of the best Stargate episodes not just in season 9 but ever. But a lot of what was wrong with season 10 - IMO of course - was the Adria storyline and we wouldn't've got that had Vala been allowed back in season 10 rather than in season 9.

How does that compliment Atlantis? Well, in that I suspect bringing AT to the show in season 4 - that might or might not have had something to do with the decision to give up Weir and TH, I don't know and don't much care to speculate - had something to do with SciFi - at least their enthusiastic blessing if not active participation and pushing towards the decision - and I don't think it did the character of Carter OR Stargate Atlantis any good to have her there for a year. For example.

[rswfire]

With a great title like "What Makes a Great Show Go Bad?" I was hoping for a serious article that maybe took a deep look into the problems inherent in the TV Entertainment industry today, maybe a little about Network interference/formula adherence or specifically a look behind the scenes of a few shows and their problems. Unfortunately what we got was not so much an article that addressed it's title subject but rather something resembling a fan whinge more appropriate for a forum about the authors favourite characters getting the axe or being changed by new writers.

(...)

However by the time I got to the line "By the third season, everything was absolutely perfect in the Stargate Universe." I had totally stopped expecting the article to be a realistic journalistic attempt to answer the question "What Makes a Great Show Go Bad?" but I kept reading because I was curious to see to what depth of fan whinging the article would stoop.

My article was never meant to be a "serious journalistic piece." It's exactly what you called it, an article about two shows of which I happen to be a fan and my personal opinion on why they did not succeed in the end.

I did not write the article with the intention of it being posted here. I didn't even have any knowledge of this website. I wrote the article on PopStar.com - a website in which I am the publisher and webmaster.

Further, I wrote the article in about ten minutes! If I had known the "die-hard Stargate fans" were going to critique it to death, perhaps I would have put more thought into it and written about several of the points you made in your piece, and it would have been strictly about Stargate Atlantis.

You're welcome! Maybe in your next article you should compare the wreckage of seasons 4 and 5 of SGA to the glory of Battlestar Galactica, an amazing show which has been able to keep its main cast intact and deliver awesomely creative and thought-provoking stories.

Battlestar Galactica is an excellent show! I'm completely addicted to it. To date, they've only made one episode I did not like - "A Disquiet Follows My Soul" - it was just too slow compared to every other episode they have ever aired, and I felt that given we had to wait six months to see the last half of the final season, it was unfair to make us sit through an hour of basically nothing substantive.

I do write about it on PopStar, but I won't dare post it here. The last thing I want or need is for others to critique my work. They are fluff pieces. They are not meant to be taken so seriously.

Cheers! :-)

[rswfire]

Nice joke about SGU, but given that my 50 year old mum can read text speak I do not really think it was valid joke.

It wasn't meant as a joke. It was a statement of fact. I'm actually very interested in the new series. I think it has potential, as I pointed out in my article about it.

http://news.popstar.com/Article/624

[rswfire]

no the self sacrifice, showed the depth of the character.

I think that's an excellent point. It really did show the depth of his character in the same way that it showed Dr. Fraiser's in SG1 when she was killed. Both moments were fraught with emotion and unexpected.

[majorsal]

How does that compliment Atlantis? Well, in that I suspect bringing AT to the show in season 4 - that might or might not have had something to do with the decision to give up Weir and TH, I don't know and don't much care to speculate - had something to do with SciFi - at least their enthusiastic blessing if not active participation and pushing towards the decision - and I don't think it did the character of Carter OR Stargate Atlantis any good to have her there for a year. For example.

it made an impact on 'me'. i wouldn't have watched atlantis if it wasn't for sam/amanda going over. and atlantis *finally* gave the character a chance to really lead, which was ho-humly handled in s8 when she was in command of sg1.

i watched about 5 episodes of s5, and only because i grew to like the other characters too. but not even close to how i love sam.

why am i saying this? because whatever where the reasons for bringing sam/amanda over, it worked. and i still missed seeing her in s5.

[The Mastage Kidd]

And so I hope you don't midn I nitpick?

Not at all. Thanks for the info. In either case I stand by my opinion that TPTB should be able to make these kinds of changes without getting the hate.

I thought the way Carson's death was handled was very good. I was never a huge fan of Weir, but I was upset when she was killed. But the fact I cared about the death of a character I didn't even really like just showed me how good they are at their jobs.

[Starrtom]

Whilist things were by no means perfect up to the end of season 3, IMO they were certainly more interesting and more enjoyable. Howerver saying that my issues with season 2 and 3 in particular, is that there were a lot of things I didn't like. For me they are:

1.0 the introduction of the retro virus
2.0 the introduction of Michael ( I know a lot out there like the Michael arc, but I didn't).
3.0 The Lucias distastors
4.0 the killing off of Koyla in such a pathetic way
5.0 the lack of accountability for their actions
6.0 the lack of delving deeper in the issues they created

However even with all these problems in my eyes, they were more on the right track then seasons 4 and 5 IMO.

The article whilist is simplistic in it's explanantion, and it does not have to be, we don't need a PHD to to get the jist of what it is trying to say. I can understand what the poaster is trying to tell us, and therefore they have communicated their ideas reasonably.

[Pitry]

it made an impact on 'me'. i wouldn't have watched atlantis if it wasn't for sam/amanda going over. and atlantis *finally* gave the character a chance to really lead, which was ho-humly handled in s8 when she was in command of sg1.

i watched about 5 episodes of s5, and only because i grew to like the other characters too. but not even close to how i love sam.

why am i saying this? because whatever where the reasons for bringing sam/amanda over, it worked. and i still missed seeing her in s5.

But I think - wonder whether? - you're making my ;point for me. I didn't think the addition of Sam was a good decision. You did think so - but it wasn't utilised to make you love Atlantis for what it is. It didn't make you go back and watch old episodes (or did it?) and, as you said, it didn't make you enjoy the show enough to keep on watching once Sam was gone. So, whilte whether ti contributed or not to Sam's character is in the eye of the beholder, I think we both agree it didn't serve Atlantis as a show. Especiaqlly as TPTB knew in advance there's a very good chance she won't continue past season 4.

Not at all. Thanks for the info. In either case I stand by my opinion that TPTB should be able to make these kinds of changes without getting the hate.

Oh, I perfectly agree with this comment! I jsut think, sometimes, as in the CB example, these decisions are not necessarily what they (=TPTB) would choose. I do agree though that whatever reason they have for choosing a course of action, they shouldn't do somethign because the fans want them too. Usually the bits I feel in the story are done for the fans or uot of the thought that "the fans are gonna love these" are my least favourite bits.