Nothing Ever Changes

[Ouroboros]

They found a formula that works, the audience loved it and wanted to see more. Maybe it would be harder to change the formula, maybe it wouldn't, but so what? Making something more difficult to produce doesn't necessarily make it better, doing something difficult for the sake of being difficult in this context is ridiculous, now if it makes it better and it's difficult then go for it, but who's to say it would? As for making a 10 year old show by not following a formula, could you? Really? How do you know that? There are reasons that people came back and watched SG-1 over and over again, and I'm sure the formula was one of them.

Just like with Power Rangers...

[jenks]

Is there a point in there somewhere?

[HyperspaceDaemon]

Hello people,

The post that opened this thread is a bit harsh, but I also feel sometimes
that the ending of the crisis are coming too quickly/magically/conveniently.

Stargate always had a problem with timing the episodes: the solutions typically
comes abruptly in the last 5 minutes. As if the story is envisioned to last 60
minutes and the producers suddenly discover that they have only 45 minutes.

SGA would be much more interesting if all the plots were spanned over 1.5 or 2
episodes . Unfortunately there are zero chance for such a move.

[CazzBlade]

Hello people,

The post that opened this thread is a bit harsh, but I also feel sometimes
that the ending of the crisis are coming too quickly/magically/conveniently.

Stargate always had a problem with timing the episodes: the solutions typically
comes abruptly in the last 5 minutes. As if the story is envisioned to last 60
minutes and the producers suddenly discover that they have only 45 minutes.

SGA would be much more interesting if all the plots were spanned over 1.5 or 2
episodes . Unfortunately there are zero chance for such a move.

Not critising you, just giving a possible explanation. One of my lecturers is a scriptwriter and he taught us that (as a general rule) the third act of the script, i.e. the conclusion, should be as short as possible

[JohnDuh]

And don't forget that the writers, while maybe short on episode plots, are quite good at throwing little clues into an episode. For example in this last episode, there's a scene in the dining room and it opens with Rodney walking in. He takes one look at the serving table which is loaded with food.

He gets a disgusted look on his face because most of the fruit has citrus, which he is "deathly alergic" to. It was all said and done in about a second and a half and had no dialog at all, but it's a subtle continuation of an existing storyline.

1. He probably addlibed that.
2. That's not a storyline (unless its a childrens program aimed at 3 year olds)

[JohnDuh]

"Yes, one of the cardinal rules of the cynical formula that is the US TV scriptwriting game is that you essentially re-tell the same episode every week..."
That's because theoretically every story in the world is a variation on eight possible stories (at least I think its eight, might be 11 but still, the same point being made)

No, that's because the real powers that be have concluded its the best way to make money.

[CazzBlade]

No, that's because the real powers that be have concluded its the best way to make money.

Is that supposed to be funny?

[Shan Bruce Lee]

No, that's because the real powers that be have concluded its the best way to make money.

What's wrong with making money?

[Ouroboros]

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Assembly lining off cookie cutter episodes for over a decade is a pretty good way to make a pretty good amount of money for a pretty moderate amount of effort but probably not worth quite the level of admiration you're ascribing it.

Some of the most successful shows going by your criteria also represent some of the most horrible drek on TV.

It was one of those two, I'm pretty sure.

[Kezia]

Assembly lining off cookie cutter episodes for over a decade is a pretty good way to make a pretty good amount of money for a pretty moderate amount of effort but probably not worth quite the level of admiration you're ascribing it.

Some of the most successful shows going by your criteria also represent some of the most horrible drek on TV.

It was one of those two, I'm pretty sure.

Precisely. I have absolutely nothing against making money; if anything, I commend TPTB for maximizing profit while minimizing effort but the fact remains that too much of anything, even a very good thing, inevitably gets old and predictable. Sure, certain groups of loyal fans will keep tuning in regardless, but SGA is gradually slipping off my must-watch list; and from what I can tell I'm not the only one.

For the record, I see SG-1 and Atlantis as two completely different shows. I consider the earlier seasons of SG-1 to be far superior to SGA in its current state - while SG-1 was indeed heavily episodic, the formula was mixed in with brilliant interwoven storylines, fresh plot ideas and the impeccable execution to bring it all together. The writing was never lazy, the writers always strove to push the boundaries and took risks which almost always paid off in the long run. This is the creative spark which I now feel is missing in SGA.

[ponycake]

It's not just stargate but televsion in general that follows a formula because people tune in as they enjoy the familiar (and you can switch your brain off) and because studios don't want to put up millions of dollars on a risky proposition. Just look how many spin offs, reality shows, or cop/police/lawyer/hospital genre programmes there are out there. It's pretty rare to come across original television.

[ussrelativity]

Just like with Power Rangers...

Don't get me started with..... with that.

[KindlyKeller]

I think that's the point. A decade into the franchise you begin wanting a little more.

It really took ten years for the "predictability" to wear on you? It's a fair criticism to say it's predictable, but why after a decade would you suddenly begin yearning for more?

[jenks]

Assembly lining off cookie cutter episodes for over a decade is a pretty good way to make a pretty good amount of money for a pretty moderate amount of effort but probably not worth quite the level of admiration you're ascribing it.

I'm not offering any particular praise for that format, all I'm saying is that as far as quality goes, whether it's formulaic or not has no bearing on quality. The idea that sticking to a formula is somehow inferior to mixing it up a bit more is ridiculous, it's entertainment first and foremost, and you can entertain people with or without a formula, though whether you succeed or not is another matter. You're trying to argue a connection between what you perceive as ease in making TV with a formula, and a lack of quality as a result, but there isn't one.

Some of the most successful shows going by your criteria also represent some of the most horrible drek on TV.

It was one of those two, I'm pretty sure.

And some of the best. On the other hand, some TV shows that do mix up the way they tell their stories do so and fail miserably, like I said, no connection.

[Amalthea]

I am just wondering what model would be better? I mean, something has to happen in these episodes and it has to be something somewhat adventurous or no one would watch. Without these plot devices we'd get an hour of Shep and Ronon sparring or something equally uneventful. Also, since it's not a soap opera, there has to be something resembling resolution at the end of every week. Now, that's not to say that I adore how every episode has done this. If TV was more free, I think many episodes over the last 2 years especially should have been 2 parters since resolution happened too quickly for me. However, what needs to be remembered is they have 42 minutes to make something happen that will hold people's interests that conforms to the constraints placed on them by networks. The format chosen by Stargate is an effective one and is a classic one and they are not alone in using it.

Without an effective alternative being suggested, I don't think it can be considered a problem. It's just the way things are.