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

[Briangate78]

Syfy executives live in New York, work in Manhattan, where Chloe and Scott's behavior would merit no more than a shrug.

Amen to that. I guess us New Yorkers always have our minds in the gutter!

Starbuck was actually my favorite character on BSG. But Chloe is no Starbuck. lol. I think I am enjoying TJ more because she comes across as a lot tougher and I like that.

[prion]

...Why would Syfy do that? They pay attention to the ratings. IMO, as long as their goal of achieving higher numbers against the younger demos are fulfilled, I don't think they have any reason to demand changes. This is the same network and same executives that were fine with BSG. Starbuck was a far more promiscuous female character than Chloe. The network loved Starbuck in case you didn't notice.

Syfy executives live in New York, work in Manhattan, where Chloe and Scott's behavior would merit no more than a shrug.

What matters MORE than anything else is the ratings. If the episode with talking green alien lemurs became a hit episode, MGM/SyFy would go 'hey, let's have more talking alien lemurs. Let's make them pink!" (thus starting up an avalanche of emails on whether purple is a good color, etc. - believe me, they have fits over stuff like this).

Do you mean Starbuck on the latest BSG, or the original? I didn't bother with the new one. Camerawork, etc. annoyed me.

[prion]

As per SGU, they wanted to try something different. Now I have always been a sucker for more dramatic shows. SGA showed more character focused drama in Season 4 and sorta in 5 and I loved it. I see SGU as an influenced Stargate show that is still Stargate but takes more time to focus on the characters. "Water" which aired last week, not to give any spoilers felt even more like Stargate. I enjoyed that ep as well. I said for months before this series aired I would give it a chance, while still upset about SGA's fate. I am happy I gave it a chance, and now I have another Stargate show to fufill my Stargate fix. All I know is I have had a different frame of mind with SGU. I respect people who do not care for this show, and wish them well. I think it is ok to be negative about a show and the characters. But when actors are attacked and sent hate mail it is over the top. I have seen posts on here and on other forums that are just totally inappropriate.

Want to live by an example? The Carson Beckett fans were the most passionate but most civil and polite folks to get back their favorite scottish doctor. Maybe if the fans expressed their opinions in a civil matter to Joe M and the other producers, they might listen.

It goes back to the old saying, you cannot please everyone.

There isn't anything organized on the 'we don't like SGU' front. People are just saying they dislike it, hate it, whatever. The vast majority do it without resorting to profanity or insulting the actors.

The thing is that this is not new. Good grief, people have been sending vitriol through the US postal system since they got hold of studio mailing addresses way way before the internet even sprung up. The internet just makes it more in your face and more instantaneous. I don't know if the actors have actually received 'hate mail' at the studio (letter form or otherwise). I haven't come across such in my googling; disdain for characters, yes, but not for actors.

This will all end. After all, the world was going to come to an end when Daniel died, when Jonas left, when SG1 was cancelled, etc.

[bluealien]

I went back to re-read his blog (twice actually) and nowhere does he state that people are attacking the actors??? but rather talks about the characters,

one quote:
"someone here referred to Chloe as a whore"
note they (the negative post) referred to Chloe NOT the actress.

another quote:
"And DON’T expect that to change. If you don’t like the character interactions, romance, and open-ended story elements introduced to date, you’re in for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong haul because that’s our show."

I guess production doesn't care for feedback, unless it's 100% positive?
A shame since unhappy fans who were big SG series fans will stop watching, why push fans away, why not try to listen and consider the comments (no, I don't mean the true lame comments).

another Mallozzi quote:
"nothing will change in this respect (regarding sex scenes) and that if you were offended by that broom closet scene in Air I, I guarantee you’ll be clawing your eyes out of your skull given what we have in store later this season"

WHAT! I can't believe he actually said that, almost daring fans on the fence to just leave now instead of hanging on and hoping for some change?

His whole blog talks about the characters, and his disagreement with the fans that don't like the Chloe/Scott characters so far. He wants us to like them and I can see why he's defending the characters, but a true professional (artist) listens to all comments, both the positive and the negative, and then he/she should weigh them, reflect on them and see if there isn't any truth to them.

In the end, it's their show, and if they don't give the SG loving viewers (who aren't happy with all of SGU) what they want, it will follow BSG right into NO 5th season. If 4 years is enough for them then I guess that's fine.

Let's hope though that it doesn't go by the way of Defying Gravity which is teetering very close to the "black hole" (cancellation)

Conclusion: I really want to like SGU, there is much I like about it, but to poopoo me off at the things I don't like is just plain (to use Mallozzi's term) "idiotic"

Well said...

I read through his blog as well and didnt see one reference to any attack on the actors.. all the examples were towards the characters. The tpb and Mallozzi have never taken to any kind of criticism of their work and as long as I've been around here tend to over react to anyone who voices any displeasure at their vision.. previous example was the Keller character. You'll always get passionate outspoken people in fandom and those who may take things a little too far, but so far most of the ranting about fans who don't like SGU has been over the top IMO... I've seen endless posts which are well thought out and make some very valid points and still get the usual repsonse.. go away if you don't like it.. SGU is great, or the litany of how much better it is than the crappy cheesy Atlantis.. I don't see anyone stepping in to stop the level of vitriol against SGA that often accompanies the praising of SGU..

Joe Mallozzi should take some of his own advise when it comes to expressing his feelings... he has on numerous occasions answered a perfectly well thought out critical post with snark, insults and an extremely condesending attitude.. yes sometimes the poster had been rude but many times their posts were polite and raised valid points...

SGU is a completley new direction for the franchise and so far away from the previous Stargate forumula that of course it will upset many fans who were quite happy with the previous direction of the show.. but the critique of SGU is not just that it is so different from the previous shows, but that it is not very orginal, there isn't really anthing new and fresh about it and it's not always executed very well... and the sex card has been overplayed.. again valid points but anyone who raises them is generally told to go away and not watch.. or keep watching until it gets better..

Shows have been critiqued for years and such is the way of entertainment.. would an actor get upset if he portrayed a murderer and fans voiced their opinion as to how much they hated the character... if an overly sexed character is considered not likeable it has nothing to do with the actor who portrayed that character, irrespective of what term was used. Calling a character a whore was probably ott for the character of Scott but you cannot curb peoples interpretations of a character... Sheppard was constantly called a whore and a man-ho on Atlantis for merely flirting with a handlful of women over a 5 year period, but I didnt see any uproar over that, or any of the production staff or GW staff worried that his wife or mother could be upset by that accusation..

SGU has received a lot of negativity and that has made the producers angry and upset...but it's not possible to force people to like your work and rather pointless to get upset with them if they don't....saying a show sucks or is garbage is probably a little strong but I've seen posters jumped on for saying a lot less... and instead of ignoring all the negativity maybe the producers should take notice of the many similiar points that are being raised as to why so many fans are not happy with the show.. but the general response is either to be told to go away and get over SGA and that SGU is so much better than the crappy cheesy previous incarnations, or that we don't really need you handful of haters anyway..

If the ptb are not bothered that many Stargate fans don't like their new show why don't they just scroll on past the negative or critical responses and just concentrate on the positive ones... celebrate the fact that they are appealing to a new fanbase... they have made it clear on many occasions that they want a new fanbase and that this Stargate is totally different from previous incarnations so why are they acting so surprised that so many of the existing fanbase don't like it...

[RealmOfX]

I went back to re-read his blog (twice actually) and nowhere does he state that people are attacking the actors??? but rather talks about the characters,
<snip>

I guess you missed this part :

"Also, after several months of connecting with fandom online, Brian is stepping away from his popular twitter account for much the same reason. Some of the very same fans who he was kind enough to open up a dialogue with in the run-up to the premiere started leaving him nasty comments as though he was responsible for the show’s creative direction."

[MediaSavant]

Do you mean Starbuck on the latest BSG, or the original? I didn't bother with the new one. Camerawork, etc. annoyed me.

Yes, I meant the female Starbuck played by Katee Sakhoff.

If the ptb are not bothered that many Stargate fans don't like their new show why don't they just scroll on past the negative or critical responses and just concentrate on the positive ones... celebrate the fact that they are appealing to a new fanbase...

Something tells me that had they done that, fandom would be screaming that they ignored the criticism. Based on what I've read, Joe started by answering the critical questions with the producers point of view and answering the criticisms straight out. But, answering the questions with rational explanations didn't seem to deter anyone. Not getting the answers they wanted to hear, the questions and comments got more and more intense, asking the same questions that had already been answered but in a more strident way. IMO, it escalated from there.

If they had ignored the negative fans, something tells me it would have been even worse.

[Skydiver]

That does not mean Syfy can not step up & put their foot down before agreeing to a Season: 2 with MGM if the hate goes full on like this. If the tone of the fan base does not change by seasons end I do think we will see a different show next season. No doubt the ones in charge are paying attention to fan reaction

no they're not.

what they care about are the ratings that the episodes are pulling

fans on a forum don't matter. As long as the numbers are there, that's what they care about

[Flyboy]

I just want to know why people think we have to automatically like the deeds of the main characters or for that something has to be morally right for a main character to do it.

I look down on Scott for having the quickie in the cupboard. I also however think it adds more to the story because frankly, he's an ass. And thus not perfect. Did I enjoy the sex scene? Well no... because it wasn't designed to be 'enjoyed'... does it make Scott's sleeping with Chloe look questionable? Yes. Hence, imo, it ws warrented.

[prion]

Well said...

I read through his blog as well and didnt see one reference to any attack on the actors.. all the examples were towards the characters. The tpb and Mallozzi have never taken to any kind of criticism of their work and as long as I've been around here tend to over react to anyone who voices any displeasure at their vision.. previous example was the Keller character. ...

I've done some googling and can't find attacks at the actors. Some very ill-worded comments on the *characters*, yes, but not on the actors. This mess is already spinning out of control with some 'articles' saying it was the actors being called 'whores', etc. Sigh, research people, a little Googling...

[RealmOfX]

I've done some googling and can't find attacks at the actors. Some very ill-worded comments on the *characters*, yes, but not on the actors. This mess is already spinning out of control with some 'articles' saying it was the actors being called 'whores', etc. Sigh, research people, a little Googling...

Whilst what you say is true in some respects and I agree on doing some research
<big sigh> internet = ephemera, here today gone tomorrow

Just because you didn't find any today doesn't mean there weren't any previously or aren't any now because search engines :

• don't pick everything up
• can take weeks for an entry to appear
• won't pick up stuff that requires approval before being published (I think) or private stuff
• your search parameters may be ineffective in locating the information

Plus you're definition of attack and someone else's may differ.

If you feel there is a situation developing because of inaccurate information maybe you should consider not adding to it with posts like this

[prion]

Whilst what you say is true in some respects and I agree on doing some research
<big sigh> internet = ephemera, here today gone tomorrow

Just because you didn't find any today doesn't mean there weren't any previously or aren't any now because search engines :

• don't pick everything up
• can take weeks for an entry to appear
• won't pick up stuff that requires approval before being published (I think) or private stuff
• your search parameters may be ineffective in locating the information

Plus you're definition of attack and someone else's may differ.

If you feel there is a situation developing because of inaccurate information maybe you should consider not adding to it with posts like this

To me, an attack on an actor is "(fill in name) sucks in this role" "(fill in name) is ugly" "(fill in name") can't act their way out of a paper bag" etc.

Of course I can't find every reference. I have a job, a life, etc. so can't spend 24/7 on the web searching. however, utilizing the terms Mallozzi used it seems there were two fan comments on his blog, which seem to be the ones that got the actor upset, which in turn got Mallozzi all ranty about it, despite the fact he approved them knowing that the actors read his blog.

but anyway, this is all a tempest in a teapot compared to the Stephen Fry twitter fiasco, in which one of his nearly 1 million followers said Fry's tweets were 'boring'. you can google it to get the details. it's all pretty inane...

[Major Tyler]

To me, an attack on an actor is "(fill in name) sucks in this role" "(fill in name) is ugly" "(fill in name") can't act their way out of a paper bag" etc.

What's interesting is that I see these comments on GateWorld all the time.

[Lauriel]

What's interesting is that I see these comments on GateWorld all the time.

Really? I've not got any objections to discussion the actor in regards to the role, but politely.

[Jumper_One]

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/...sorts-of-busy/

November 2, 2009

Video: Rock ‘em, sock ‘em robots: Brian J. Smith and Louis Ferreira


Rock ‘em, sock ‘em robots! Damn. I stopped recording just before the chewbacca yell. It was something else.

Technology conspires against me! Seriously and no, I’m not paranoid OR crazy. Hear me out. This morning…my alarm clock didn’t go off. Oh, I know what you’re thinking. It was some daylight saving time-related mishap. And that’s what I thought too. Until I turned on my blackberry and went to check my messages only to discover…the little wheelie thing wasn’t working. Every time I tried to scroll, it would start texting gibberish. Falling back on my tech training, I tried shaking the damn thing – to no avail. I took out the battery, put the battery back in, and turned it back on. The damn wheelie still wasn’t working. Clearly, this was a problem that required a more advanced approach, so I took out the battery, put the battery back in, turned it back on AND shook it. Still no go.

And here’s where it gets weird…or, dare I say, suspiciously insidious. When I got into the office this morning, I asked Brad how he had dealt with a similar problem. “Did you try taking the battery out and putting it back in?”he asked. Yes, I told him, wanting to add I’d even taken the extra step of shaking it.

“Let me have a look,”he offered. I pulled my blackberry out, unlocked it and, suddenly – miraculously – the damn thing was working. Quite the coincidence, no? After being totally unresponsive only an hour earlier, it was conveniently operational again – as it just so happened, right after I’d made a big deal about the fact that it WASN’T working.

The rest of the day was fairly uneventful, spent breaking Episode 1 of Stargate: Universe’s second season and, of course, approving a couple of hundred comments. Then, when I got home and finally sat down to write today’s entry, my laptop suddenly froze up on me. I rebooted, restarted my entry, and had it freeze up on me again. Three successive reboots and three successive freezes.

Now, come on. One incident is a trivial annoyance. Two incidents you can pass off as mere coincidence. But three? I wonder if those Ghost Hunters guys investigate stuff like this or do they just focus on arresting more traditional phantoms and your occasional revenant?

So I’ve switched over to my old laptop, just checked today’s blog stats and, ZOUNDS!, 10 000 hits today and counting. This the result of a perfect storm of visitors – those who came to check out my pug’s cool surgery scar, those who got here by accident following search engine results for “creepy alley” and “thefudgeshoppe.com in flemington NJ”, and, of course, those who clicked on the link provided by io9 in an editorial on my rant (nestled somewhere between a feature titled “Smackdown Finale: Witch vs. Vampire!” and an article on bully porn). Welcome, one and all, from the semi-regulars who dropped by to tell me how much they’re enjoying the show to that guy/gal(?) in South Korean who threatened to come over and punch me in the face. Enjoy your stay! But before proceeding to post any comments or questions, may I direct first-time visitors to the following highly informative past entries:

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/...y-for-old-men/

http://spambait.wordpress.com/catego...kle-ali-abbas/

http://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/...nuary-20-2007/

Done? Hope that helped. Okay, now go ahead and post those comments.

Finally, thanks to everyone who took the time to post opinions both positive and negative on the show, past entries, and my papier-mâché busts of every Hanna-Barbera character whose name sounds like a euphemism for something rude (including Zilly, Sperg, Niddler, Red Max, Fleegle, Foofur, and Boneless Chicken). Keep ‘em coming.

[ciannwn]

Did I enjoy the sex scene? Well no... because it wasn't designed to be 'enjoyed'... .

I didn't get to see it because Sky cut it out of the 8pm version and I couldn't be bothered to watch the later repeat. I did read the transcript, though, and I know how my husband and I would have reacted. We'd have been falling around laughing when Young said -

YOUNG (over radio): Scott, this is Colonel Young, come in please? Our guests have arrived a few minutes early, Lieutenant. What's your position?

Maybe that's because we're old age pensioners who enjoyed such comedy classics as the Carry On films, Are You Being Served, Up Pompeii and 'Allo 'Allo.