SGU, by far the most underrated series.

[psl1]

Zombie from the sea....

You need to think about melodramas and soap operas more , because your communiction above is confused at best.

I think it's first season couldn't exactly find a balance between sci-fi, action and character and that's what doomed the show; in a character drama I want to get to know the characters the best that I can and I want to see what the characters do on the ship itself, (which is what "Life" did perfectly.) without knowing the characters and without me getting involved with them, I find myself being detracted by the episodes where there are action, situations on the ship or even tensions between various factors. I don't want to find myself thinking about the flaws or knowing that they'll be back or even wondering if they'll even keep the changes posed in the episode (aside from cosmetic damages, there was barely anything that had an ever impacting change on the crew.), I want to be immersed in the action and so far SGU has failed to do that; it has shown it's flaws more then it has welcomed me with open arms.

I haven't a clue what your trying to say here -really, other than the fact you are frustrated because the show doesn't work for you? You want action but don't want to have to deal with the fact that it involves people who are essentially flawed as most people are?

Do you realise that you will only get out of a TV show , what you invest into that TV show? If so- then the simple explanation from your quote is that you just DON'T LIKE THE SHOW and so you are no willing to waste the time investing in it. Thats OK and perfectly fine. I feel the same way about SG-1 & SGA. Which is also why I don't go on those sites and blab on and on about why I don't like that show.

I just ignor them and focus on the things that interesting to me and are important to me.

[jeri]

Do you realise that you will only get out of a TV show , what you invest into that TV show? If so- then the simple explanation from your quote is that you just DON'T LIKE THE SHOW and so you are no willing to waste the time investing in it. Thats OK and perfectly fine. I feel the same way about SG-1 & SGA. Which is also why I don't go on those sites and blab on and on about why I don't like that show.

I have said this a few times myself, psl1. Although I like SG-1 and SGA was okay.

Sure, there are a few things I would have done differently with SGU, but I enjoyed it the most of all three shows. And that's saying a lot, because I really, really like Stargate. But all the mud slinging that has gone on about this show has soured my enjoyment of all of Stargate.

I just don't get what people want out of bringing fans down. If I don't care for a show, I don't bother with it.

[ZRFTS]

Zombie from the sea....

You need to think about melodramas and soap operas more , because your communiction above is confused at best.

I did; and it reminded me several times of soap operas when I was watching it; the plots, the line delivery, the situations...

I haven't a clue what your trying to say here -really

I think it's pretty clear.

In a show like this, one element cannot stand out; all elements have to form a balance in order for a show like this to work, the action has to contribute to the characters, the characters have to contribute to the action and the sci-fi has to contribute to both.

If SGU shows action that barely shows the characters personality or gets me invested in the characters then I'm just watching action and nothing else. That may be good for those who love action but in a character drama like this, the action needs to be substantial, it needs to truly play a part in the characters. SGU did not make me feel like the action truly played a part in the characters because to me it felt like people doing action stuff while minorly referencing their personality.

As for the sci-fi, it does build the world but it doesn't go deeper; it doesn't effect a majority of the characters (only Rush and Chloe who's alien encounters are the only sci-fi bits the characters have.) and it doesn't correspond to the flawed characters at all; it's just there to build the world and expand stuff relating to Destiny; there are times where it does effect the characters but those moments are far and few in-between.

other than the fact you are frustrated because the show doesn't work for you?

That's not it at all, there are some parts where the show does work but from what I've seen, it doesn't work.

You want action but don't want to have to deal with the fact that it involves people who are essentially flawed as most people are?

I didn't say I wanted mindless action and I love to deal with flawed people in action sequences; it's just I wanted substantial action. The action in "Space" was somewhat exciting but as time passed it began to felt boring due to the lack of substantialness in it.

Do you realise that you will only get out of a TV show , what you invest into that TV show?

I watched the first season (almost about to watch the second) and I invested a reasonable amount of time into the show. There are elements that show some promise but it's not as brilliant as people make it out to be; throughout the show (and my reviews) I have noted flaws such as bad acting. (I honestly couldn't see mostly everybody as realistic or human.), an overreliance on edge (Sex and flashy death sequences are one of the most common things on the show) to set the show apart from previous SG's, the overreliance on conflicts that went nowhere (Young and Rush for one.) the reliance on certain conflicts that almost seemed contrived (The "devidiance" on the ship never seemed to work out as far as the show is concerned.) and the unwillingness to make major changes involving the characters. (Rush, Eli, Scott, Chloe and Greer all managed to return within a few episodes and even the stuff shown in "Justice", "Divided" and "Faith" never seems to effect the show much in it's timeline (the characters do mention it but to me it doesn't feel like those events truly effected the show.) and the show putting characters in dangerous situations ("Water") just to grow them rather then letting them walk around doing their business as usual (there is a lot you could learn by just watching him do only that.) and those flaws always seem to be prominent in the show almost always dragging the episodes down, including the really good ones like "Human" and "Life".

Point is; I want to focus on the good parts rather then the bad ones but the bad ones get in the way to much to ignore.

If so- then the simple explanation from your quote is that you just DON'T LIKE THE SHOW and so you are no willing to waste the time investing in it.

I'm not blind, I list stuff in my reasoning that describes why I dislike the show rather then just saying "SGU sucks, it's a soap opera in space and it doesn't feel like Stargate." And there is stuff that I like in the show, just because I dislike the show does not mean that I think of the show to be terrible, just really disappointing and amateurish.

Thats OK and perfectly fine. I feel the same way about SG-1 & SGA. Which is also why I don't go on those sites and blab on and on about why I don't like that show.

There is a difference between calmly pointing out what's wrong with the show and just going onto every thread and listing your reasons whether or not you fully watched the show or not. I'm not trying to be like a fan who likes SG1 and SGA more then SGU; I'm trying to be like someone who analyzed the show from a mostly non-SG/character drama perspective. And even them, I'm not one of those people who posts in every thread about why it sucks; only to provide my perspective on certain things such as cancellation, whether or not it was forced and the underratedness of the series.

I just ignor them and focus on the things that interesting to me and are important to me.

If you ignore something then how will you improve anything? Not everything perfect can't have a flaw and not everything terrible can't have something that you'd like; it's just the way the world works... Reviews exist so that people can know what they loved about it, what they hated about it, what worked and what didn't and so that people can improve on their work by working towards addressing those concerns.

As for the comment about trading all of SG1 and SGA for SGU; you do know that the film Stargate (1994) started the whole thing right? If you take SG1 and SGA away then you might as well call it "Universe" since there'd be no other connection to the series other then the Stargate movie which if both series were gone, would be questionable. You may dislike SG1 and SGA but if it weren't for those two series, SGU wouldn't even exist since a lot of the stuff Universe has can be tied back to both SG1 and SGA.

[psl1]

I had to suffer through decades of my wife’s soaps when we only had a 13 channel universe. I know what soaps are and SGU was never a soap. Essentially I had no problem with character development in SGU ,in fact I was surprised at how many 'extras' seem to get small parts..... but then I'm not expecting Oscar performances out of a weekly TV serial Syfi shows. I just wanted weekly sufficiently valuable escape fiction. Besides I’m more interested in the story behind the whole series. I can accept or ignore characters if there is a decent concept behind the show.

We are all looking for different things in these shows and that’s 'all good'. There will always be good parts and bad parts to any show. You can either except the shows flaws or ignore it and search elsewhere. You can take exception to how it has ruined your franchise that is of no interest to me. But no show has to be "all things to everyone". I suspect that the very worst thing a show like that could do is to listen to the critics and prostitute the concept to the public’s whims. As an artist I can tell you that’s a dead end. You end up with a committee and we all know that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".

I think some people expect way too much in some areas. I get why people thought the first season was boring , but its emphasis on sheer survival was what brought me into the show in the first place. I boarder on loathing violent shows and have a rule that if someone is killed within the first part of a movie or episode in a show, I groan and "spin on" as Lister - in red dwarf- would put it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dwarf




In terms of real science & space travel ; we are probably centuries away from being able to sustain human life in space travel for even the years it would take at light speed to reach anything of significance. If that doesn't change you can kiss good bye to Syfi since the only space travel will be done by tiny PS3 [000s] etc

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ZRFTS,

I liked SGU because it didn't feel like SG-1 or SGA. I only watched those shows sporadically (well recently I have watched all of SGA on DVD. I still like SGU quite a bit more.)

[fatty.mcninja]

As for the comment about trading all of SG1 and SGA for SGU; you do know that the film Stargate (1994) started the whole thing right? If you take SG1 and SGA away then you might as well call it "Universe" since there'd be no other connection to the series other then the Stargate movie which if both series were gone, would be questionable. You may dislike SG1 and SGA but if it weren't for those two series, SGU wouldn't even exist since a lot of the stuff Universe has can be tied back to both SG1 and SGA.

No one here actually thinks we could trade SG-1 or SGA for more SGU. Its just a way of saying it is our favorite and that if the Stargate we have now is all we'll ever get... it would have been nice if the SGU format was a larger piece of the pie. Its not a put-down on the other shows.... Its a compliment to how much we liked SGU.

Sorry that you didn't like SGU.

[garhkal]

While i do feel it was underrated as a SG show, i feel the entire SG franchise (other than those canadian awards) were overlooked by the Emmies and other awards shows...

[Gatefan1976]

While i do feel it was underrated as a SG show, i feel the entire SG franchise (other than those canadian awards) were overlooked by the Emmies and other awards shows...

*points to SGA's PCA..........
Cough Cough.

Scifi generally gets NO recognition, unless it can be seen as an "Action flick with robots" or something similar. Unfortunately, the movie going public simply seems to not be able to accept that it loves scifi. Hell, even the record shattering Avengers is Scifi in a way, (unless we have flying aircraft carriers that I may have admitedly missed), yet it is sold as a action flick dispite, or perhaps BECAUSE of the scifi elements.

Sucks the bone really, but there it is

[garhkal]

Avengers is more fantasy than sci fi...

And what is the PCA that SGA got??

[Gatefan1976]

Peoples Choice Award
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2008/0..._peoples.shtml

[KEK]

A PCA isn't your typical television award though, the winners are chosen via online voting. I think garhkal was talking more about the awards shows where things like Stargate are ignored by the voting 'peers' that choose the winners. It was one of the things the Game of Thrones production team warned HBO about, even though it didn't turn out to be the case.

[Gatefan1976]

A PCA isn't your typical television award though, the winners are chosen via online voting. I think garhkal was talking more about the awards shows where things like Stargate are ignored by the voting 'peers' that choose the winners. It was one of the things the Game of Thrones production team warned HBO about, even though it didn't turn out to be the case.

Thats fair enough KEK, but considering that Emmy's, GG's and such don't even have a catorgory for Scifi (just Comedy and Drama) it's hardly suprising is it? Hell, even the scream awards don't even have one

Edit to add.
The PCA first ran a "scifi award" in 2008, and SGA *won* against NuBSG and Dr Who.

[Deevil]

SGU wasn't limited because of being a Stargate series, it was limited by poor scripting, characters and their development, contrived storylines and a hype that the writers and producers just couldn't live up too.

They promised more mature and all they delivered was Deus Ex Machina, sex, pointless violence and potential story archs with real moral quandries that went no where.

Do I wish it was better? Yes. Do I think the writers they had on staff had the ability to write this more 'mature' show they promised? Not a chance.

With a lot of distance I discovered that I loved the potential more than I loved the show. I loved the premise more than the show. If I want mature Sci-Fi I'm going to watch Babylon 5, New BSG... hell even The 4400! It wont be SGU I'll turn too.

[KEK]

SGU wasn't limited because of being a Stargate series, [...]

Of course it was, and being a Syfy series too. You can only work within the rules set by lore, and the job of differentiating the series is hard enough without the marketing machine constantly portraying the show as something it isn't. The network it was on doesn't help either. Caprica was dark, heavy and well-written too, but it bombed harder than SGU did. Why? Because Syfy is a network who's audience feeds of reality TV, monster-movies and at a stretch bubblegum sci-fi. BSG is the only notable exception, yet that was heavily dependant on it's SG-1 and Atlantis lead-in, relatively fast-paced, a chock full of action too. I dare say both SGU and Caprica would have done much better on a network like TNT or AMC.

[Colonel Rebel]

I do feel SGU is very underrated. I think by Season 2 it had developed into a really good show.

That said, I still prefer SG1 and SGA. SGA is my favorite of the franchise.