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

[Lt. Colonel Ryu Gaia]

PG, I agree, but he's the guy who runs the show. Whenever they think of an episode, they associate it with him. As much as I enjoy what he writes, I still think that he's not in the right position to do that.

[sgeureka]

Well, to be fair there's a bit of deliberate ignorance happening on both sides of the fence. How else do you explain all the scorn and ridicule being dumped on some fans by other fans who insist on condemning them for thinking TPTB should kowtow to every demand when I don't think I've seen a single person say any such thing and when some people have gone to great lengths to explain what they DO mean regarding the whole PTB/fan relationship?

That was a very long sentence with many them's and they's. Throw in a couple of English expressions that I've never heard in my life, and by the time I've looked them up, I forgot the beginning of the sentence.

Did you mean any possible ignorance between me and minigeek towards each other, towards what JM actually said, general ignorance between fan camps, or ignorance between JM and the fans? I can't tell whether you were replying to me or the condition I was describing.

Anyway, when I see someone misquoting someone else (whoever) and then countless people point that out, but the misquoter continues to sit on his original claim, then I interpret that as (deliberate?) ignorance on his part, not on mine. I get why some fans are unhappy, I get that JM is not perfect and should not be treated as a God (although a little respect or common politeness wouldn't be out of order either, even if you're biased like most fans; I'm no exception).

But when someone(gen) stops stating their unhappiness and starts constructing false evidence to prove their point, I don't see why I should feel bad to question their intent. (Which BTW I didn't do except to illustrate why JM might have questioned minigeek's intent in the first place.)

And all if this doesn't mean that there aren't prime examples of posts/fans highlighting ignorance on both sides. Sometimes though, people just don't care to go into a discussion and go over/into week-old biases once again, so ignorance is necessary to get the topic moving beyond moot opinions.



ETA:

PG, I agree, but he's the guy who runs the show. Whenever they think of an episode, they associate it with him. As much as I enjoy what he writes, I still think that he's not in the right position to do that.

Since the other original producers (or the network) elevate people to be the new producers, someone high up in the chain of command must have thought that JM would be in the right position. But of course you are free to disagree.

[prion]

Since Joe's blog and the Chicago Tribune interview are sorta intertwined, you oughta check out the latest comments posted by fans...

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune...._tapping_.html

[ShadowMaat]

That was a very long sentence with many them's and they's.

Meh, I was tired. Point is, people keep coming into the "zero impact" thread and pissing all over fans, condemning them for being stupid enough and arrogant enough to assume that TPTB should cater to our every whim in regards to the show. However, as far as I can tell, no one has ever said that TPTB should kowtow to us. I have seen a few people explaining what level of "listening" TPTB should have in regards to fan suggestions. But of course it's much easier to ridicule and dismiss those people than to actually read what they have to say and weigh the merit of their words and react to that. Nope, better to group them all as a bunch of hysterical extremists who'll settle for nothing less than total submission from TPTB.

Are people preaching Joe's righteousness being ignored? Perhaps, but there's ignorance on both sides.

[Lt. Colonel Ryu Gaia]

ETAince the other original producers (or the network) elevate people to be the new producers, someone high up in the chain of command must have thought that JM would be in the right position. But of course you are free to disagree.

Eh? All I said was that I think that given his position (exec producer), he shouldn't be talking down to the fans, because that will in turn cause them to think less of the show.

[Nightspore]

Eh? All I said was that I think that given his position (exec producer), he shouldn't be talking down to the fans, because that will in turn cause them to think less of the show.

I don't think Joe's talking down to the fans necessarily would cause them to think less of the show. Joe isn't *the* show; he's one person and whatever he says or doesn't say doesn't cause me to change my opinion of Stargate SG-1 or SGA. What has caused me to change my opinion of the show pretty much has been the writing. I think it's generally declined; S7-10 can't begin to compare to S1-6, IMO.

And again, only us on-line fans who read such things even know what Joe says.

[PG15]

PG, I agree, but he's the guy who runs the show. Whenever they think of an episode, they associate it with him. As much as I enjoy what he writes, I still think that he's not in the right position to do that.

Well, I still disagree. It's the nature of fandom to blame TPTB for whatever ills them. But finally, FINALLY we have someone we can strike back, and kick-assedly too. It feels like he knows the score, and it just makes my day when he pwns some idiot who doesn't know anything about what's happening behind the scenes.

It's like watching a whiny kid that's throwing a tantrum finally gettting what's coming to them.

[the dancer of spaz]

Since Joe's blog and the Chicago Tribune interview are sorta intertwined, you oughta check out the latest comments posted by fans...

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune...._tapping_.html

I'm having disturbing flashbacks from when there was an unmoderated blog on GW over a year ago.

Some people's idiocy never fails to astound me. It's like, "How can I get my point across the most effectively? I know! I'll attack someone I don't even know, and make baseless assumptions about her! That'll show 'em. That'll show 'em all!"

Morons.

Luckily it's another "few" posters who're taking it too far, but I think it's hilarious how everyone uses their real name over there. No one has the cajones to post their screen name.

[sgeureka]

Meh, I was tired. Point is, people keep coming into the "zero impact" thread and pissing all over fans, condemning them for being stupid enough and arrogant enough to assume that TPTB should cater to our every whim in regards to the show. However, as far as I can tell, no one has ever said that TPTB should kowtow to us. I have seen a few people explaining what level of "listening" TPTB should have in regards to fan suggestions. But of course it's much easier to ridicule and dismiss those people than to actually read what they have to say and weigh the merit of their words and react to that. Nope, better to group them all as a bunch of hysterical extremists who'll settle for nothing less than total submission from TPTB.

Are people preaching Joe's righteousness being ignored? Perhaps, but there's ignorance on both sides.

I think I get what you're saying. The only thing where I don't agree is that you seem to think it's unfair of pro-Joe** people to come into that thread and try to "shut up" the anti-Joe** people, but what I got from (some) anti-Joe people in that thread was that those wanted to shut up Joe in the first place by stating "he should not have said this, especially if he really means it." (I won't claim my interpretation of this here is right.)

I also did not interpret the pro-Joe people's demand of how much JM should listen to fans as "he should never pay attention to fans" but rather as "well, if he had to listen to the fans and act on this by merging the fan suggestions into creative decisions as you seem to wish here, the show would be in more trouble than what it is now because everything would be chaos. If you want the show to be worse off, then we'll call you crazy."

Correct me when my interpretations are out of the blue though, please.

**I'll mark them as such as that's easier to keep track of who-is-who, even though it's not correct

Eh? All I said was that I think that given his position (exec producer), he shouldn't be talking down to the fans, because that will in turn cause them to think less of the show.

Sorry. I misread your sentence "I still think that he's not in the right position to do that" as "I still think that he was not put in the right position therefore he has no right to do that."

I also use the excuse of being tired.

[Lt. Colonel Ryu Gaia]

Well, I still disagree. It's the nature of fandom to blame TPTB for whatever ills them. But finally, FINALLY we have someone we can strike back, and kick-assedly too. It feels like he knows the score, and it just makes my day when he pwns some idiot who doesn't know anything about what's happening behind the scenes.

It's like watching a whiny kid that's throwing a tantrum finally gettting what's coming to them.

I agree with you to an extent. Yes, most of the fans that he owns do have what's coming to them. But I'm watching the backlash that's coming from it and the divisions among fandom that are being made, and I think that it's really not helping us in any capacity.

It is true, though, that we are a minority of the viewers of the show.

[sgeureka]

[As usual, I skipped non-SG- answers, questions that were asked and answered in jest, and answers that didn't really answer anything. I also skipped the portions that might only be interestesting to fans of the "Fans vs. Mallozzi" battle; most of that has already been posted here anyway.]

February 23, 2007

Today was wall-to-wall meetings as we prepped the opening two-parter Adrift and Lifeline.
[...]
Thanks to everyone who has written in and I’ve reached the point where I’m receiving more questions than I can keep up with. I’ll try my best to get around to as many as I can.
[...]
Jessica writes: “You might want to ask David Hewlett about the boos he got when he mentioned that Amanda was going to be in 14 episodes at a recent con in the UK. That's right. People booed.”

Answer: Well, David Hewlett may have been surprised when a certain group of fans booed an actress for doing nothing more than accepting a job to help support her family, but me - not so much. What can I say? Congratulations to all those who embarrassed themselves and the performers who made the long trek to spend time with you all. Classy.

Jessica also writes: “Where is the logic in getting rid of two Atlantis fan favourites and risking losing their fans, just in the hope of getting a few people from SG1 to watch.”

Answer: Allow me to clear up a assumption on your part, specifically the fait accompli belief that any creative decision made with regard to Weir was a result of Carter joining the show. In fact, the opposite is true. After a decision was made with regard to Weir, we entertained a number of possibilities - three in particular come to mind. In the end, we decided on Carter because - a) it’s something we’ve wanted to do for a while, and b) her strengths and backgrounds make her well-suited to the Atlantis environment. Holding the Samantha Carter responsible for any upcoming changes would be akin to holding the Cameron Mitchell character responsible for O’Neill’s departure or blaming the General Landry character for Hammond’s exit.

Pattirose4: “What if anything can the fans do let TPTB know that we would like a bloopers included on a season set?”

Answer: Nothing more. You told me and I had a conversation with Ivon Bartok (our Special Features Producer) regarding this very topic. I can only speak for Atlantis and, if everyone signs off, we may see bloopers in a future DVD release.
[...]
Peter writes: “Will the midway station be featured in Season 4? Also, will Caldwell be returning? And while I'm at it, a lot of fans point to the fact that the cast was fairly, uh, "stagnant" during the first 5 years of SG1, and that this was one of the reasons why the show went on for so long. Do you believe this to be true?”

Answer: The midway station will be featured in season 4. Hopefully, we will see Caldwell. And while the fans may point to the first five years as proof that a “stagnant” cast was the reason for the show’s success, I’d point to the next five years in which the show was “less stagnant” and proved even more successful.

Anonymous #2 writes: “…the fact that Amanda's in the opening credits with 14 episodes while you still can't come up with a number for Torri basically confirms it.”

Answer: Actually, all it confirms is that we don’t have a set number of episodes to confirm. Basically, it’s a lose-lose proposition for me. If I specify a set number of episodes or reveal my intention to bring a certain character back and, for whatever reason, plans fall through, I’m on the receiving end of brainless comments [snip]
[...]
Prior_of_the-Ori writes: “There was that mention of a 'new race' in Atlantis, anything else you can say about them or is it a 'wait and see' type thing? And is there any mythology (Egyptian, Norse etc) that you wish to explore on the show? Oh and of all the 'bad guys' (Adria, Kolya, 'Steve', 'Micheal', Anubis, Apophis) which one did you like the most?”

Answer: Can’t reveal much about the new race at this point. I don’t know if we’ll have the opportunity to explore Earth mythologies on Atlantis. And as for my favorite villain - Baal naturally.
[...]
UNSRM writes: “1. Do you wish that the proposed rebranding of SG1 went ahead after season 8? Do you think it would have made a difference to the life of series? [...]

Answer: 1. It’s hard to say. Considering SG-1 was still doing a very respectable 1.7 average despite a slow start to season 10, it’s hard to guess whether another spin-off would have proved as equally popular. [...]

Vaberella writes: “Are we going to see a mix up in the team, like Lorne/Teyla/Zelenka or Lorne/Ronon/McKay on off world missions?”

Answer: No plans to do anything like this as of yet.

Vaberella also writes: “Is there a possibility of seeing Ronon use his "specialist" skills?”

Answer: We’ll see a glimpse of his specialist skills in an episode called Reunion.
[...]
UberAmandaFan writes: “SciFi won't start SGA up until FALL??? […] Do you know why they're doing this?”

Answer: I believe it has something to do with the network’s decision to give their fans year-round original programming.
[...]
Blaine Nielsen writes: “I know that your really not involved in the movies that are coming out, but you said that you have read the script/story for them. What does the lengh look like? Is it going to be like a 2 parter episode or something like Avalon and Origin? And second I was watching Threads the other day. […] When Jacob Carter is about to die and Jack and Sam are talking about her father. Sam says something like she thought she lost her father 4 years ago. But wasn't Jacob Carter blended in season 2 (almost six years earlier). Was this a goof or is time different between seasons?”

Answer: Hey, Blaine, thanks for the kind words. Regarding the script for The Ark of Truth - it won’t be a two-parter but will be twice as long as a regular episode. As for the Threads question. You’ll have to ask Rob but it looks like an oversight.

February 24, 2007

[Nothing.]

February 25, 2007

My, my, my, you’ve all been much chattier than usual. Let me see what I can do about fielding some questions. Before I begin, however, to those of you who have written to complain about the fact that I haven’t posted your comments - I do post most comments unless the poster is: a) rude, b) clearly crazy, or c) goes on and on like the director’s cut of a theatrical feature. Occasionally, I may even weed out the odd obnoxious posts because it would detract from my own grandiose belligerence.
[...]
Peter writes: “Will the season 4 opening credits have a brand new effect to it, or is it just going to be the same as the last 2 seasons but with different actors being displayed?”

Answer: I quite like the existing opening title sequence. It may change a little, but probably not all that much.

Copernicus writes: “Do you have any plans to incorporate more shades of grey into the story-telling?”

Answer: I’ve always been a big fan of unpredictable wildcards - characters and races that walk the line between good and evil. Yes, there will definitely be a few of these in upcoming episodes of Atlantis.
[...]
RecycledFunk writes: “Do you guys plan on ever having McKay react to his allergens?”

Answer: It would make for a terrific off-world complication. It’s possible.

Anonymous #1 writes: “Do you think Atlantis would benefit from a reduction in episodes per season?”

Answer: Honestly, there is no benefit to a reduced season.

C.C. writes: “ Is there anything we can do to help get Beckett back, or is it truly and completely out of our hands?”

Answer: First of all, I don’t mind getting letters and do try to read most of the ones addressed to me. Secondly, I’m well aware that Beckett is a much-loved character. I don’t need more letters to convince me of the fact - but, again, I won’t discourage those who want to write in support of Paul. The campaign is great in that it especially lets him know how many people out there care about his Beckett. Also, it never hurts to let the network know that the fans support a particular character.

Pitry writes: “Aren't you guys (a little bit) afraid for SGA's, once it will be up against the major networks?”

Answer: Oh, a concerned thought or two has crossed our minds.
[...]
Anonymous #2 writes: “Have you already decided the episode Chris Judge would be in of SGA? And will Tealc actually be in Atlantis, or will it be a situation like Pegasus Project?”

Answer: It will be a cameo in an episode called Reunion.

Pega writes: “From '02 to '04 M25-54 outperformed W25-54 in viewership by almost 3:1 (in syndication), and Atlantis was projected to have similar numbers. Does that ratio still hold true?”

Answer: I haven’t checked lately but I remember being surprised by the fact that Atlantis actually skewed more male than SG-1.
[...]
Anonymous #3 writes: “How do you feel about the ever-growing sentiment that Landry is a pushover General and that he has no consistent character or ties to the team?”

Answer: To be honest, it’s the first time I’ve heard of it.
[...]
Rob Heintz writes: “Given that Scifi doesn't plan to air the first episodes of season four until the fall, on what information will a potential fifth season of Atlantis be based?”

Answer: Another great question. I would assume both the back half of season three and whatever season four episodes air before crunch-time.

Anonymous #4 writes: “Mitchell seems to be unequivocally in command in Season 10. Does this mean the whole co-command thing with Carter was dropped?”

Answer: Well, I guess it’s a matter of perception. I believe I’ve already mentioned that when this whole SG-1 command issue first came up back in season 9, there was much animated discussion in the writers’ room. Eventually, it was decided that Sam and Cam would co-command the team - and Mitchell suggests as much in Uninvited.

Anonymous #5 writes: “Do you feel like you're being set up to fail by Sci-Fi? Aren't they stacking the deck against a turn around in Stargate's poor ratings?”

Answer: No, I think it’s in all of our best interests to see the series succeed. We’ve had some great conversations with SciFi regarding both the back half of season three and season four and everyone is looking forward to the April re-launch.
[...]
Anonymous #6 writes: “I was watching Common Ground again today. There were several comments that Sheppard and the Wraith made about what would happen if their paths ever cross again and all bets being off. Will we will ever get to see an episode where they run into each other again?”

Magic 8 Ball says: Signs point to yes.

[ShadowMaat]

I think I get what you're saying. The only thing where I don't agree is that you seem to think it's unfair of pro-Joe** people to come into that thread and try to "shut up" the anti-Joe** people...

Not exactly. I'm just saying that if people are going to complain about how the "pro Joe" viewpoint is being ignored by the "anti Joe" people, they should at least be willing to admit that the "anti Joe" viewpoint is being ignored by the "pro Joe" people. And it should also be pointed out that not ALL of the antis are ignoring ALL of the pros any more than ALL of the pros are ignoring ALL of the antis.

EDIT: And to clarify a bit more, I resent the implication that the antis are the only ones in the wrong and that the antis are the only ones who aren't listening to what's being said... and that people are exaggerating things and taking them out of context in order to make themselves look righteous. That's happening on both sides.

[nonniemous]

but I think it's hilarious how everyone uses their real name over there. No one has the cajones to post their screen name.

I'll own mine; it's the one that begins with "the Stargate franchise is sinking..." I'm also the author of the "Musical Casting Sinks Atlantis" letter that Skiffy published (though I 'fessed up to that one right away, if on another thread.) Then again, what I've said in my comments to JM's Tribune interview isn't anything different than I said here or here or here or here...

[sgeureka]

Not exactly. I'm just saying that if people are going to complain about how the "pro Joe" viewpoint is being ignored by the "anti Joe" people, they should at least be willing to admit that the "anti Joe" viewpoint is being ignored by the "pro Joe" people. And it should also be pointed out that not ALL of the antis are ignoring ALL of the pros any more than ALL of the pros are ignoring ALL of the antis.

EDIT: And to clarify a bit more, I resent the implication that the antis are the only ones in the wrong and that the antis are the only ones who aren't listening to what's being said... and that people are exaggerating things and taking them out of context in order to make themselves look righteous. That's happening on both sides.

I could agree with that. I guess ignorance can come from both sides without either side perceiving their behavior as ignorance when

• a rationality-and-facts person can't see the rationality and facts from another person who is stating his emotions on a matter, therefore dismissing (ignoring) that person's argumentation for "factual inaccuracy"
• a person states his (positive or negative) emotions on a matter but dismisses (ignores) facts/differing interpretations when he hears them as those do not change his (to him very real and factual) emotions.

But that's the way it has always been, even before JM made that comment.

[prion]

Anonymous #6 writes: “I was watching Common Ground again today. There were several comments that Sheppard and the Wraith made about what would happen if their paths ever cross again and all bets being off. Will we will ever get to see an episode where they run into each other again?”

Magic 8 Ball says: Signs point to yes.

Should the writers address the "Common Ground" wraith and his relationship with Sheppard, PLEASE let it be Carl Binder writes the scriptl I don't want to see the wraith end up like

Spoiler:

Kolya did in "Irresponsible," which was a sucky way for a villain who had so much history with Shep, to be dispatched. Blech.

I think I get what you're saying. The only thing where I don't agree is that you seem to think it's unfair of pro-Joe** people to come into that thread and try to "shut up" the anti-Joe** people, but what I got from (some) anti-Joe people in that thread was that those wanted to shut up Joe in the first place by stating "he should not have said this, especially if he really means it." (I won't claim my interpretation of this here is right.)

I also did not interpret the pro-Joe people's demand of how much JM should listen to fans as "he should never pay attention to fans" but rather as "well, if he had to listen to the fans and act on this by merging the fan suggestions into creative decisions as you seem to wish here, the show would be in more trouble than what it is now because everything would be chaos. If you want the show to be worse off, then we'll call you crazy."

Well, to have someone come into any thread and go 'shut up, you don't know what you're talking about' without backing up the assertion with fact, is rude. In fact, telling someone to shut up is rude in itself

I'm having disturbing flashbacks from when there was an unmoderated blog on GW over a year ago.

Some people's idiocy never fails to astound me. It's like, "How can I get my point across the most effectively? I know! I'll attack someone I don't even know, and make baseless assumptions about her! That'll show 'em. That'll show 'em all!"

Morons.

Luckily it's another "few" posters who're taking it too far, but I think it's hilarious how everyone uses their real name over there. No one has the cajones to post their screen name.

Why would anybody go to the Chicago Tribune and post their GW screen name? Would you use your GW screen name to writer a letter to the editor of magazine? However, the letters cover all sentiments of the situation (and are similar to CSI fans who are upset over certain plot developments in that show). So fans are fans, no matter what the show is.

Well, I still disagree. It's the nature of fandom to blame TPTB for whatever ills them. But finally, FINALLY we have someone we can strike back, and kick-assedly too. It feels like he knows the score, and it just makes my day when he pwns some idiot who doesn't know anything about what's happening behind the scenes.

It's like watching a whiny kid that's throwing a tantrum finally gettting what's coming to them.

You mean I can blame TPTB for the dent in my car? Whoo-hoo! What it boils down to is that JM likes playing on the internet, likes dropping spoilers and baiting fans with vague remarks (i.e.' the eight balls says maybe'). He's been doing it for near a decade, and is a fan himself (of comics) and has behaved the same way himself upon occasion (ah, you can't bury anything posted on the web ).

I don't think Joe's talking down to the fans necessarily would cause them to think less of the show. Joe isn't *the* show; he's one person and whatever he says or doesn't say doesn't cause me to change my opinion of Stargate SG-1 or SGA. What has caused me to change my opinion of the show pretty much has been the writing. I think it's generally declined; S7-10 can't begin to compare to S1-6, IMO.

And again, only us on-line fans who read such things even know what Joe says.

If I decided to watch any show based on the personality of a producer/director/writer, I might not watch much on TV considering what a few are like No, I watch for the characters, and storylines, plain and simple. I agree that seasons 7-10 aren't as good as seasons 1-6, becuase those are all recent episodes and none stand out in my mind, while the Showtime years and a little beyond DO standout.