Announcement

**ReganX** · 13 July 2006, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by WhatFateAlmondRoca

I'm really afraid that you are absolutely correct. I've thought that since Avalon 1. So what do the numbers say - that's one thing I don't follow much. Have ratings dropped? Have the demos changed at all or have they bothered to quantify that? I just really fail to see how these things are good for the franchise and thus good for TPTB.

<---still shaking head, but this time its 100% agreement 100% still dumbfounded

If the Gateworld figures are accurate, an average of nearly three hundred thousand people fewer watched Season Nine compared with Season Eight.

The rating for the Season Eight finale was 2.4, the Season Nine finale rated 1.9 - a difference of about 670,000 viewers.

**minigeek** · 13 July 2006, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by WhatFateAlmondRoca

I'm really afraid that you are absolutely correct. I've thought that since Avalon 1. So what do the numbers say - that's one thing I don't follow much. Have ratings dropped? Have the demos changed at all or have they bothered to quantify that? I just really fail to see how these things are good for the franchise and thus good for TPTB.

<---still shaking head, but this time its 100% agreement 100% still dumbfounded

I have no idea what the numbers are saying because I don't really follow them, but the gist I've read about here on GW is that they're doing all right. Apparently. Does anyone know the specifics? In the Pro Season Nine thread I believe I read a few times that the ratings were actually up from earlier seasons during season nine, but I don't know if that's true or just someone's hopeful interpretation. It would seem rather odd if that were indeed the case, if you ask me. But someone else who follows the numbers closely could probably elucidate far better than I.

-

**minigeek** · 13 July 2006, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by ReganX

If the Gateworld figures are accurate, an average of nearly three hundred thousand people fewer watched Season Nine compared with Season Eight.

The rating for the Season Eight finale was 2.4, the Season Nine finale rated 1.9 - a difference of about 670,000 viewers.

Huh. See, that makes more sense. I did wonder about that when I read the remark(s) in the PSN thread. So those numbers (above) are the accurate ones, then?

-

**ReganX** · 13 July 2006, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by minigeek

Huh. See, that makes more sense. I did wonder about that when I read the remark(s) in the PSN thread. So those numbers (above) are the accurate ones, then?

-

I calculated a drop of 0.22 ratings points between Season Eight's average of 2.065 and Season Nine's average of 1.845 - it mightn't sound like a lot but it translates to a loss of 294,000 viewers.

I'd need to know how many viewers started watching in Season Nine, because of Ben Browder and Claudia Black or for other reasons, to know the exact figure but if, hypothetically speaking, 100,000 people started watching in Season Nine, it means that 394,000 stopped watching.

A very basic chart.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...nX/ratings.jpg

**stargate barbie** · 13 July 2006, 06:30 AM

team leadership issue;

i could try to express it in words, but it'd just end up being blanked out.

personally i don't think that they know how sexist they are acting. it doesn't make sense, and it isn't remotely fair, so the only explaination i can come up with boils down to sexism.

someone made the point that RDA missed a lot of time in more recent years and was never penalised for it. michael shanks missed an entire year, and this season

Spoiler:

and for that matter when shanks left and was replaced, did they give the replacement all the screen time because he was the new guy? nope. they blended him into the show. did they place his name in the postion where MS's name was? nope, they bumped up the other actors and put his name after them (except for DSD). of course we had a different show runner at that time. although i do have to wonder how much input BW had in season 9 and how much he will have in season 10. is it damage control, or is it reinforcing his buddys decisions?

now they've introduced

Spoiler:

also, personally i have found AT and CJ to be the most fun and easygoing of the cast members, who recently have been looking to be more involved in the behind the scenes of the show in both directing and writing. just an observation. doesn't mean anything.

i don't understand what they're thinking at sci fi/bridge. if it really is sexism, and a lot of it looks like it is, then i don't think they'll ever change. sexist people, like racist people or any other prejudiced/biased/discrimatory people most often don't realise that what they are doing or thinking is wrong.

perhaps if enough people point out to them in a reasonable and logical way that what they have done is wrong, then they might listen and apologise and make amends for what they have done. it all depends on if they are the sort to apologise for past mistakes. on the other hand,

Spoiler:

i must stop this now. my brain is in danger of exploding from the shear frustration and knowlege that this will not be fixed.

anyway, moving on, AT on ship;

i don't she has a problem with the concept of the relationship between the two characters existing, i think her problem is with how it is blown so much out of proportion. yes it is an important aspect of the show, but it is not the most important one. and if written wrong, it could weaken the character, as some believe it already has done. a poorly written 'ship on a show can ruin a good character. this is the problem. s/j ship is no more important than any other relationship/friendship on the show. some people don't see it that way, and AT is possibly afraid that everybody will see it as being the only thing about her character because she is the only girl.

to me, (a shipper) i find it equally as important to know if there will be any friendship developments and moments on screen between sam and jack (ok, more than platonic there sometimes), sam and teal'c and sam and daniel. and now sam and vala because it'll be interesting to see them develop their friendship. i'm not really that interested in sam and cams friendship as much, because i don't trust them to write cam as being believeable as a human being, so i try not to think about it.

(mostly kidding there)

i don't think that she is against the s/j ship anymore than she would be against any of the relationships between the main cast. i sympathise and empathise with her in how far some people take it (as though its the only important thing about her character), and how TPTB dragged it out instead of just resolving it. there are certain questions that seem to get asked at every con or in every interview. the answer might not be the same (probably won't be) everytime its asked, but you've got to appreciate that the actors will get sick of hearing the same questions. you have to wonder what they would like to hear asked instead of what usually does get asked.

(ps, do the guys get asked who's the best kisser?)

ok, now i'm done.

**KatG** · 13 July 2006, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by ReganX

6. None of the characters were allowed to object or even to comment on this.

TPTB's decision was doubly sexist. Not only did they demote a female character who had rightfully earned command of SG-1 in favour of a character who got command through a combination of pulling strings and dumb luck, but by not showing that it was wrong for Sam to have lost command, they showed that gender discrimination is acceptable.

I can't help but think back to Shades of Grey in S3. Here Sam is a major, only commanded once in Spirits, and yet when Makepeace is put in charge of SG-1, Daniel vocally disagrees and Teal'c clearly shows his approval by his facial expressions and both of them apparently gave Makepeace the impression that they didn't like him in command.

Now in S9, Sam is a Lt. Colonel, with a year's experience leading, and Mitchell come in, takes over and it's just all hunky dory. Doesn't make sense.

**ShimmeringStar** · 13 July 2006, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by astrogeologist

I went to rewind a videotape to see what was on it (bad labelling system), and when I flipped the TV on, there was an interview of Jodie Foster that caught my eye before I switched over to VCR control. Why bring it up here? Because of what she said about her new role in an upcoming movie... she said something along the lines of 'it's a wonderful character, that could be either a man or a woman' - it doesn't appear to have been written gender-specific. Now, that was just one facet of the role that she liked, she also said that it was 'meaty', she apparently plays a high-level 'fix-the-problem' person.

At any rate, what was prominent to me was that Jody Foster apparently identifies with, and looks for, roles that are not stereotyical in terms of their gender-role-characteristics. I believe that folks have commented on such with her role in that thriller movie with Anthony Hopkins (with moths?).

And it all made me think of how AT asked them to write Sam Carter in the early years - without specific reference to her gender. And to simply let her play the role, and since she was a woman, that would all that would be needed in terms of establishing or playing to the gender issue!

Lots of good thoughts in here about leadership and gender equality. I'll use your post to ramble a few thoughts off of if you don’t mind Astro. I know I approached the SL con more to enjoy the ambiance and to just enjoy hearing these people who I’ve watched on the small screen for 3 years ‘live and in person.’ So I wasn’t going to comment much because I wasn’t trying to commit everything to memory, especially on ‘hot button’ topics like leadership and ship and didn't want to misquote/misrepresent her. But I might as well my thoughts in on this, at least in relation to SL.

RE: the earlier posts on S/J ship - I still get the feeling (MOHO, mind you!

) that she is agreeable to that ship, but that she, like many of us in the SL/GW row(s) and here on this thread, just wanted it resolved. No, I can’t remember exact words, but it was a matter of desiring a clear, unambiguous resolution to it & then moving on. That didn't mean forgetting about it nor never ever mentioning it on the show again, but is more about not making it 100% of who Sam is on the show. As Amanda said, Sam is so much more. (Just like we are the sum of all, not just one part.) (And as someone who likes the S/J ship, I can understand that. While I’d *lurve* a full hour of the Grace kiss… LOL! I still want to see all aspects of Sam and not have her become defined now or in the future as Vala has been defined by many from the start – bimbo, T&A, etc. etc.) But the bottom line is that Amanda wants resolution too. Resolve it, deal with it, and move on. Don't stunt Sam's growth in all areas because TPTB want to tease viewers in just one area....

RE: leadership – if my memory serves me correctly, she may have explained her thoughts about how command would have been a natural progression for Sam. My own feeling – again, just my opinion – was that there was an honest surprise on her behalf that they hadn't written Sam in command. But again, it wasn’t so much words that were said at the con, it was more gestures and looks which I personally interpreted as a touch of disbelief, surprise, and resignation... and being the class act she is, she didn't dwell on it, addressing it and moving on to the next question with grace and tact.

One thing to remember is that if you’re here at GW or the Sam thread and reading the interviews and links that are put up on here, then really, to be honest, then you’ve heard a good deal of what she said; she is very consistent with her opinions. Anyone who’s had the chance to see Amanda during a panel can vouch that she’s very animated, nearly always laughing and making faces to keep the audience laughing and entertained, trying to lighten all but the most serious of questions with wit and humor.

And on a final note before I sneak back off here and do the work I’m being paid to do – my feeling is that people will gravitate toward good leadership, no matter if they have the title or not. You know when someone has it. IMOHO Amanda has it as an actress and has infused it into Sam’s character.

**KatG** · 13 July 2006, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by WhatFateAlmondRoca

I would love to see AT exec produce, write, direct. I'd like to see a show into which she has invested her talents, skills and experience. Whatever project she chooses would be high quality, intelligent, etc. Something we would all support. At Shore Leave:

Spoiler:

Go AT!!!

Oooh. Sounds interesting.

**ReganX** · 13 July 2006, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by KatG

I can't help but think back to Shades of Grey in S3. Here Sam is a major, only commanded once in Spirits, and yet when Makepeace is put in charge of SG-1, Daniel vocally disagrees and Teal'c clearly shows his approval by his facial expressions and both of them apparently gave Makepeace the impression that they didn't like him in command.

Now in S9, Sam is a Lt. Colonel, with a year's experience leading, and Mitchell come in, takes over and it's just all hunky dory. Doesn't make sense.

That really bugs me. I could see Sam not wanting to object, since Landry might take offence at her questioning his decision and Mitchell might be both offended and hurt by the suggestion that he should not be in command, but I don't see Daniel and Teal'c keeping quiet.

Season Three

Sam = Recently promoted to major. Very little experience of command.
Makepeace = Colonel, almost three years experience in command of an SG team.

Daniel makes it clear that he considers Sam more deserving of command, while Makepeace, soon to be in command of his team, is present. Makepeace later complains that Daniel and Teal'c haven't accepted his leadership.

Season Nine

Sam = Lieutentant Colonel. Eight years of offworld field experience on the flagship team, including one year in command. Also the world's foremost expert on the stargate.
Mitchell = Lieutenant Colonel. A member of SG-1 based on his own request rather than because he has been chosen for the position. No experience on an SG team. No field experience that we know of.

Sam, Daniel and Teal'c never refer to Sam having previously been in command and do not complain or even point out that she is the more logical choice.

**scarimor** · 13 July 2006, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by KatG

I can't help but think back to Shades of Grey in S3. Here Sam is a major, only commanded once in Spirits, and yet when Makepeace is put in charge of SG-1, Daniel vocally disagrees and Teal'c clearly shows his approval by his facial expressions and both of them apparently gave Makepeace the impression that they didn't like him in command.

Now in S9, Sam is a Lt. Colonel, with a year's experience leading, and Mitchell come in, takes over and it's just all hunky dory. Doesn't make sense.

And Makepeace was a full colonel, like O'Neill was at the time.
And Makepeace had been through the stargate and off-world, many times.
And Makepeace had been the CO of another SG team.

In a later season, Jack O'Neill refused to let a pilot on an SG team (note: on a team, not even lead a team) because he had "zero off-world experience" and he wasn't prepared to risk people's lives like that. Because he should train first, right, like everyone else has to?

HA!

*snort*

season 9 = CRAPPPPPPP WRIIIIITINGGGGGGG!

**KatG** · 13 July 2006, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by scarimor

And Makepeace was a full colonel, like O'Neill was at the time.
And Makepeace had been through the stargate and off-world, many times.
And Makepeace had been the CO of another SG team.

In a later season, Jack O'Neill refused to let a pilot on an SG team (note: on a team, not even lead a team) because he had "zero off-world experience" and he wasn't prepared to risk people's lives like that. Because he should train first, right, like everyone else has to?

HA!

*snort*

season 9 = CRAPPPPPPP WRIIIIITINGGGGGGG!

Oh yeah. I'd completely forgotten about that. It's as if the first 8 season don't exist.

**ReganX** · 13 July 2006, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by scarimor

And Makepeace was a full colonel, like O'Neill was at the time.
And Makepeace had been through the stargate and off-world, many times.
And Makepeace had been the CO of another SG team.

In a later season, Jack O'Neill refused to let a pilot on an SG team (note: on a team, not even lead a team) because he had "zero off-world experience" and he wasn't prepared to risk people's lives like that. Because he should train first, right, like everyone else has to?

HA!

*snort*

season 9 = CRAPPPPPPP WRIIIIITINGGGGGGG!

Lending support to my theory that Jack neither expected Mitchell to ask to be on SG-1, agreed to put him there or wanted him in charge.

I doubt that Jack has the authority to make an almost unconditional offer of any post Mitchell wanted. The last time a similar offer was made, it was made by the President. My guess would be that somebody higher up the chain of command authorized the offer and Jack was just the messenger. It stands to reason that the person who authorized the offer would have some say in whether or not Mitchell's request to join SG-1 was granted.

Given Mitchell's previous career, Jack could be forgiven for assuming that he would ask to work with the F-302s or join the crew of the Prometheus or similar. If he had wanted Mitchell on SG-1, he would have invited him to join the team. If the higher-up who authorized the offer of any post Mitchell wanted okayed him being on SG-1, there wouldn't be much Jack could do.

Given that it is highly unlikely that Mitchell progressed from lying in bed in hospital to being fully fit for active duty in less than a week, the offer was definitely made and Mitchell's place on SG-1 almost certainly agreed to while Sam was in command of SG-1.

There is no way that Jack would have downgraded an officer he knew and trusted in favour of an inexperienced and unknown quantity, therefore he cannot have intended for Mitchell to be in command of SG-1.

When Mitchell arrived, Landry chose to give him a chance at command of SG-1 based on his supposedly impeccable record. This would have been Landry's call, and I don't see Jack interfering unless he had reason to doubt Mitchell's capabilities.

**L.A. Doyle** · 13 July 2006, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by ReganX

I calculated a drop of 0.22 ratings points between Season Eight's average of 2.065 and Season Nine's average of 1.845 - it mightn't sound like a lot but it translates to a loss of 294,000 viewers.

I'd need to know how many viewers started watching in Season Nine, because of Ben Browder and Claudia Black or for other reasons, to know the exact figure but if, hypothetically speaking, 100,000 people started watching in Season Nine, it means that 394,000 stopped watching.

A very basic chart.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...nX/ratings.jpg

Nice chart Regan. That's proof enough for me.

Today, my best friend and I are watching S9. Not willfully, mind you.... I want to get her caught up before tomorrow's premiere, no matter how painful. I mean I've hardly rewatched any of it...and that's sad considering how many times I've watched other seasons.

I do agree with all everyone's been saying. I was a bit optimistic about S10, but now I don't know.... If AT said

Spoiler:

I just can't understand TPTB. They are obviously ignoring the fans. Right here on GW they can access what thousands of us think; see which way the wind is blowing. Apparently they are forgetting we exist or can't read.

**scarimor** · 13 July 2006, 07:34 AM

It is hard for writers to admit that they have written badly. It is hard for people to admit that they have acted based on prejudice (whether sexism or any other kind).

For past seasons of SG-1, there have been some episodes which I didn't like: "late-in-the-day" scenes or the odd plot flop, or a clip-show... you expect them from this type of TV drama: they don't have unlimited time, unlimited funds, unlimited resources. And whole seasons have felt different to previous ones - season six hardly had Daniel; season 8 had no Hammond and no Janet (sob... Janet). But they were still producing good television. It wasn't that things didn't change - things changed a lot.

But the sudden collapse of overall quality and the ineptitude of Mitchell's introduction which characterise season 9 is something else entirely. It didn't happen because AT went on maternity leave any more than it didn't happen when Michael Shanks left or Don Davis got ill or they killed off Teryl Rother's character. It happened because for season 9 they blundered big time.

CRRRRAAAAAPPPP.

**Tok'Ra Hostess** · 13 July 2006, 07:36 AM

About that leadership talk Landry and Mitchell are gonna have:

You know how the PTB are always acknowledging the opinions of the fans with cute little references here and there in the show?

Well.

Anyone here remember the very first line of dialogue spoken by our new fearless leader(Landry)?

Anyone? Anyone?

It was "Cocky sons of a *****es! Marines. I've never liked them."

Right away that put me off Landry. This is the man entrusted with the lives of servicemen?

Anyways.

What if The PTB use the canon intolerance of Landry to give a nod to... well, maybe not a nod, per se, more like, give the finger to the fans by having him admit to Mitchell that women are all right, and that Carter is exceptional at what she does, but that he'd never put a woman in command -just not natural, blah blah, use the ***** word, etc.

I mean, if that's how the PTB really feel about women....

Announcement

Sam Carter/Amanda Tapping Discussion/Appreciation

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment