Joseph Mallozzi's Blog! (SPOILERS For All SG Shows and Dark Matter)

[smurf]

Yep, that was the gist of the answer. I can't remember the exact wording (I think it may have been in regards to the Sam/Cam issue), but I remember thinking that it seemed a bit... stupid.

Getting free reign to change previously established canon (without explaination), just because it suits the current story, means there is no point in me getting too involved with anything that is going on. If there is no set logic to how the characters act, or the story progresses (because acting out of character is apparently still in character), then how am I suppose to make a connection.
No wonder season 9 felt like being cast completely adrift.

[Skydiver]

Your take is much more positive than mine because without an idea of who these character are, it became easier for the writers to change them to suit the plot, which damaged the characters and led to lousy storylines.

IMO, having a character bible doesn't limit a character, instead it offers more opportunities for growth for that character. Take Ford, for instance. If there had been a character bible in place for Ford, then the writers probably wouldn't have run out of storyline ideas for him before the end of the first season. If there had been a character bible for Ford, then when the writers became stuck about what to do with him, they could have referred to it to follow-up on some of their original ideas for the character.

Without character bibles in place, it became easier for the writers to become distracted by the characters they found easiest to write for and then wall-paper (or get rid of) the rest.

If I had my wish, TPTB would have created character bibles for each character. In addition, they would have created a general outline of where they wanted to take the series.

i too think this explains much of the crit about mitch.

for much of s9, mitchell's characterization changed to fit whatever they needed him to be in an episodse.

great soldier one week, impatient child the next.

I'm all for leaving room to alter and grow the character, but, imho, i think that a general outline would do wonders. this is who he is, this is why he does what he does and this is how he came to be who he is now

how can a person write a character 'in character' if they have no idea what that character is?

[Skydiver]

i have the show bible for Crusade - cool to be in the fan club - its 26 pages total, 17 of those cover the characters and settings, the last bit is the style guide...basically what stuff is mentioned in what episode.

it starts out with a 5 paragraph/half page set up of the show
then a 2.5 page of 'this is the story, this is how it happened' about the babylon 5 universe it's spun off from.

matthew gideon has a 1 page bio describing him and his atitudes, galen about half a page, durena a page, dr chambers about a page, max a page, lockhey 4 paragraphs, lt matheson half a page.

then a page of the ship and apocalypse box.
then a page of the supporing characters, 2 pages of the major storylines

and a good chunk of the style guide is simply an alphabetized glossary of terms and how to spell them

it's what, i'm to understand, was given to the writes/prospective writers of the show so that they'd know what they were writing.

simple little thing in a binder...yet i would imagine that it'd spell out enough of hte basics about a character without limiting them

[Redhooks]

i have the show bible for Crusade - cool to be in the fan club - its 26 pages total, 17 of those cover the characters and settings, the last bit is the style guide...basically what stuff is mentioned in what episode.

it starts out with a 5 paragraph/half page set up of the show
then a 2.5 page of 'this is the story, this is how it happened' about the babylon 5 universe it's spun off from ...

Which B5/Crusade fan club was that? Even though SGA is the best Sci-Fi out right now, NO ONE wrote SciFi as consistently well as JMS did on B5, IMO. Crusade was getting there, but never had time to find its place.

It was probably easier to write for Crusade because you had one showrunner who had mapped out a 5 season arc. There was always room for adjustment, but at least you had direction.

[Skydiver]

it was the original B5 fan club when the show was on the air

and you're right,to me at least, B5 is the pinnacle of a scifi show. and yes, it certainly benefitted from one man calling the shots and controlling it all

[Pitry]

Jaffa Orange?!

One day. One day I'll upload a huge picture featuring the street sign for Jaffa St., downtown Jerusalem

Because they write it all and so it is all canon.

Erm, sorry, yes? This is one place where I honestly can't see where he was wrong. They write the show, they decide what canon is. Hell, you know what, look at Doctor who. With all the spiraling canon arguements there (and the fact the original contradicted itself about five times a year, every year), if there's one thing everone accepts as canon (except I guess the biggest haters of the new show) is that what's on television is canon, period.
Stargate is much more straight forward. It does have contradictions - and I'm sorry, Babylon 5 with all the carefully set planned and show bibles and the fact the bulk of the show was written by one man alone had contradictions as well - but they're not that big, defintiely not as big as some plotholes we've all come to know and love The epople who work on the show are the ones who set what's official for the universe.

As for Crusade show bibles, well, that's hardly an example is it? The show lasted 13 episodes. I'd still like to see how show bibles hold their ground in season 5.

[Willow'sCat]

Doctor who.

Well Doctor Who has over 40 years of canon *if you count the audio/books* I think we can forgive some lax in keeping up with canon AND it is about time travel, so of course you will get a headache just trying to keep up with what really happened and what didn't or was avoided... Actually the main characters (which is what I am more concerned about) stayed within character, I don't think any were that badly out of character to make me think WTF are they doing that for... with SGA I am constantly asking why are they doing that.... well OK I am usually asking why are they being so fraking stupid again... huh what do you they do stick to canon in some things.

[Pitry]

Well Doctor Who has over 40 years of canon *if you count the audio/books* I think we can forgive some lax in keeping up with canon AND it is about time travel, so of course you will get a headache just trying to keep up with what really happened and what didn't or was avoided... Actually the main characters (which is what I am more concerned about) stayed within character, I don't think any were that badly out of character to make me think WTF are they doing that for... with SGA I am constantly asking why are they doing that.... well OK I am usually asking why are they being so fraking stupid again... huh what do you they do stick to canon in some things.

Well... actually when I was writing the example above I was thinking of the three times Atlantis was destropyed within the original show...
But I gacve the example because of the ongoing audio/New Adventures books/ Dimensions in Time/ whatever. There you ahev a fair claim in asking what's cannon and what isn't, as at some point the show stopped having one major canon-centred place (i.e the show) and has spun off to a lot of things, most of them can be seen in one way ro the other as "fan fiction" - especially if you don't like the outcome. Stargate is different. We have 10 straight years of the show being produced, with the same two people (mainly) in charge. We can easily know what's canon and what isn't - what Brad Wright says is canon is (i.e the shows and everythign in them), what Brad Wright ignores as canon isn't (Stargate Infinity, the books, etc.) It's all clear cut and simple - hell, we all even accept that when the show contradicts the movie, the show is right in our own little world.

Characters that are written unevenly aren't unique for Stargate, Atlantis or otehrwise. Hell, have you watched Heroes? Speaking of uneven characters. Even House, as brilliant as I find it character-wise, is very uneven on several of their characters (*cough* Chase *cough*). Yet, no one ever questions the canonicity of the show as a show. Whether it's because SG has lasted 10/13 years (depends on your count ) or because peopel find themselves unhappy with what's going on now and unwilling to accept it in order not to "tarnisht heir memory" of Stargate, that's anyone's guess. But uneven characterisation is never used to question the canonicity of something.

[ShadowMaat]

Characters that are written unevenly aren't unique for Stargate, Atlantis or otehrwise. Hell, have you watched Heroes? Speaking of uneven characters. Even House, as brilliant as I find it character-wise, is very uneven on several of their characters (*cough* Chase *cough*). Yet, no one ever questions the canonicity of the show as a show.

Are you in those fandoms enough to say definitively that no one ever complains about the inconsistencies? I'm sure I've seen some mutterings about Heroes and there'll probably be more as time goes on.

Here's a thought, though: maybe people who are happy with a show are more inclined to ignore continuity hiccups than people who are already displeased about stuff. I know that's how I tend to be, anyway. If I absolutely love something, I'm willing to gloss over any "mistakes," but if I hated something, every little thing takes on added significance.

[Pitry]

Are you in those fandoms enough to say definitively that no one ever complains about the inconsistencies? I'm sure I've seen some mutterings about Heroes and there'll probably be more as time goes on.

Here's a thought, though: maybe people who are happy with a show are more inclined to ignore continuity hiccups than people who are already displeased about stuff. I know that's how I tend to be, anyway. If I absolutely love something, I'm willing to gloss over any "mistakes," but if I hated something, every little thing takes on added significance.

When did I say people don't complain? I'm a fan. I'm complaining. There.
As a matter of fact, what I said that complaining is fine and should happen - and I do complain, oh, all the time. And I nitpick. God knows, I nitpick.

There's a differnece between that and scractching it, saying "this isn't canon".

For the record: saying "I'm trying my best to ignore this ever existed" (for example, me about the Doctor Who television movie, or SG1's Bounty) is not the same as saying "this isn't canon".

[ShadowMaat]

I shouldn't post before I've had my morning coffee. Sorry Pitry.

[prion]

Are you in those fandoms enough to say definitively that no one ever complains about the inconsistencies? I'm sure I've seen some mutterings about Heroes and there'll probably be more as time goes on.

there's not a single fandom that doesn't gripe about problems with a show. WHen a show first comes on and its shiny and bright and new, people love it, but it really doesn't take long for anyone to notice flaws, and they become more noticeable as time goes on.

Really, Joe Mallozzi ought read the TV viewers bill of rights. It's soooo true, although I could think of a few things to add:


http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....iewers_bi.html

[warmbeachbrat]

there's not a single fandom that doesn't gripe about problems with a show. WHen a show first comes on and its shiny and bright and new, people love it, but it really doesn't take long for anyone to notice flaws, and they become more noticeable as time goes on.

Really, Joe Mallozzi ought read the TV viewers bill of rights. It's soooo true, although I could think of a few things to add:


http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....iewers_bi.html

I don't get it. What do any of those things in the article have to do with Joe Mallozzi? It sounds like those are Sci-Fi Channel's responsibilities.

[Pitry]

I shouldn't post before I've had my morning coffee. Sorry Pitry.

*pats*

[Ruffles]

http://josephmallozzi.blogspot.com/2...ne-9-2007.html

June 9

Ruffles writes: “Do you write a bio when you create a character or do you decide on general characteristics and flesh out the rest as opportunity permits?”

Answer: We don’t write anything down. We have a general idea of who or what we want the character to be and then find and develop them in the writing.

Wow. So much discussion. And all I really wanted to know was if Sheppard already had a backstory....