S10: Critique & Contemplation

[DEM]

I just read the interview with BBrowder in Eclipse and my biggest question(and complaint) is why the heck won't anyone, not here at GW or apparently anywhere else, directly ask BB and CB and the guys in charge about the negative reactions to the new characters an the show in general - why does it seem to be taboo? That Eclispe chick just beat around the bush....

Dude! I am so glad someone mentioned that "article". I couldn't make sense out of most of it because it was all so vague and nebulous. Half the time I couldn't figure out what -- exactly -- BB was talking about. I kept wondering whether I had missed Part I or something. Perhaps she's just not a very good writer?

[ReganX]

I just read the interview with BBrowder in Eclipse and my biggest question(and complaint) is why the heck won't anyone, not here at GW or apparently anywhere else, directly ask BB and CB and the guys in charge about the negative reactions to the new characters an the show in general - why does it seem to be taboo?

I'd say that it probably is almost taboo. Interviews are a means of advertisement as well as of spreading information. Somebody reading Eclipse magazine, or any other sci-fi magazine for features about another show may read through the Browder interview, even if they’ve never watched Stargate. Show execs may feel that if the article is positive, there is a better chance of that person deciding to check out the show.

Interviews are almost always going to take a positive slant. If there are changes to a show, everybody involved will be delighted about them. The cast will always get on like a house on fire, everybody will be a joy to work with and they will all be really happy about how the show is progressing. Suggestions that a new character or story arc was not well received are unlikely to appear as long as the character or story arc is in use and likely to remain so.

Back in Season Six, before Michael Shanks agreed to come back, were there many references in the magazines (outside of letters to the editor) to Jonas not being welcomed by the fans? It is only now, after the character has left, with little to no chance of return, that they can acknowledge that Jonas’ introduction wasn’t entirely successful.

As well as that, I imagine that the interviewer will always try to keep the interview as pleasant as possible. Asking Browder whether he is aware of the negative reactions to his character, why he thinks that some fans dislike his character, if he thinks that his character could have something to do with the ratings decline or something along those lines really puts him on the spot and could both make the interview very awkward and jeopardize the magazine’s chances of future interviews with the Stargate cast and crew.

That Eclispe chick just beat around the bush and the viewer comments she used were all skewed to the positive with a teeny hint of negative. It is a huge issue with many, many fans and it has been stated by many that the Mitchell character has ruined their enjoyment of the show, has made them stop watching or they watch but skip the Mitchell parts by using fast forward buttons, etc. I think as viewers we deserve to also hear the actors talk about these aspects of the show and the problems especially when the show is raking in such rotten numbers like 1.3 and 1.4.

The fact they ignore a huge story such as the negative reactions to the new characters and the huge (25-30%) ratings drops does an injustice to the fans, especially the ones like me, who think the show now stinks partly because of the new characters and partly because of the Ori and the other boring aspects plus the convenient beam technology that now gets them out of trouble instead of having to use their heads.

I know it was about 200 and the success of the show but it seems contrived in light of the fact that Season 10 could very well be the last one if things keep going the way they are. It gives a false impression, and again ignores a huge portion of the fan base, to go merrily along as if there is nothing wrong.

Maybe after a few years after the show is cancelled, one or more of TBTB might suggest that the show might have lasted longer if certain things had been done differently but as long as the show is on the air, their references to characters and the changes are going to be almost entirely positive.

For one thing, they won’t want to draw attention to the issues – using the leadership issue as an example, if the fact that there are fans who feel that taking command away from Sam was a sexist decision on TPTB’s parts is brought up, it is possible that some of those reading it, who may not have thought too deeply about the issue beforehand will end up thinking “That’s not right! Sam should be in charge!” and the opposition to Mitchell as a leader could increase. To help prevent this, the leadership question will be ignored if possible and glossed over if not.

If we ever hear one of TPTB suggest that, with hindsight, taking command away from Sam was a mistake, it’ll be long after the show has ended.

[DEM]

Yes, but have you read the article? I'm aware that fan rags are going to be slanted toward the positive and all, but why even TRY to bring up 'delicate' iss-ewes if all you're going to end up writing is incomprehensible marshmallow-cloud cotton-ball weirdness? Why go with the "how are you adjusting" angle in the first place?
-

[smurf]

It depends on who you are talking to. Technically speaking, ad agency buyers cut their deals with the network based on "cost per thousand", which is based on the actual numbers behind the "rating". In addition, the deals are usually cut on a demographic target such as "Adults 25-54" or "Adults 18-49", not households.

Note that the website I posted doesn't even show the rating as a percentage but the absolute numbers for households, Adults 18-34, Adults 18-49, and Adults 25-54.

We're stuck with only looking at the coverage household rating because that's all that's published for us consistently. But, that doesn't mean it's what's important in the business transaction between network and ad buyer.

Still, as an indication of what's going on, a 1.3 is not good as an indicator of what is probably happening to the demographic numbers that really matter.

I'm fully aware of what's involved in advertising.

Actually, I'm quite surprised they use the concept of household numbers at all. The implication of the term suggests an antiquated view of viewers - one income household, single decision making process (either as husband and wife, or just the wage earner) - and is almost entirely useless for (semi) targeted advertising. I can see it being something the networks like to hang on to, after all if you say a household watched then people imagine a house full of people sitting down to watch. This is contrary to the statistics which tell us a household contains an average of 1.5 people.

My second surprised reaction stems from the concept that the detail provided to ad buyer is only limited to age demographic. It's obviously not as cynical in the US as it is in the UK where people are split into skills/earning/disposable income categories. Since it's a fat lot of good millions of people seeing your advert if they can't afford to buy the product.

Put it another way, 1.3 isn't bad if the entirety of the audience consists of those with a good job and plenty of spare cash.
Since it's not, 1.3 is pretty awful.

[Skydiver]

Guys, as fascinating as all this ratings stuff is, how about it be taken over to the general ratings discussion thread please.

I'm seeing less and less about season 10 and more and more general ratings stuff

[pittsburghgirl]

hi guys, grabbed this from morjanna's spoiler group on yahoo. it is a review about episode 200.


http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/SG1.../message/23313


contains mucho spoilers and comments-so be warned.

[dipsofjazz]

With this cr@ppy writing and no RDA I'm hanging on by a shred - if Sam leaves I'm sooo gone.

And I'll be leaving along with you.

[LaCroix]

And I'll be leaving along with you.

A third will carry the motion. Me too.

[ParadoxRealities]

i can see 200 being anywhere from 1.5 to 1.9. i'm afraid that if it gets too high the "people just can't stand that RDA left! TPTB didn't do it, he wanted to be with his daughter! it has NOTHING to do with mitchell the current quality of the show. people just can't accept change." will show up with even more force.
i agree that there's also a chance it'll be a STFU letter to the fans. possibly lots of 'get with the new program!', 'isn't mitchell/vala great?', etc. probably based on 'i know if i just explain how wonderful this is just a LITTLE bit better, you'll agree with me. because i'm right, and you just don't understand.'


EDIT: forthed.

[smurf]

I just read the interview with BBrowder in Eclipse and my biggest question(and complaint) is why the heck won't anyone, not here at GW or apparently anywhere else, directly ask BB and CB and the guys in charge about the negative reactions to the new characters an the show in general - why does it seem to be taboo? That Eclispe chick just beat around the bush and the viewer comments she used were all skewed to the positive with a teeny hint of negative.
<snip>

In a way I'd fully expect a magazine/puff piece to avoid any mention of the negative reactions to the character, but the writer brought up the fact she spoke to fans so to ignore the negative is really hiding the truth.
I wouldn't expect an actor to be asked about the rating numbers because most people don't think it has anything to do with them.

Did notice that, like CB, BB seems fully aware of the less than positive reception Mitchell is getting even if the writer avoided it. He needs to pass that on to TPTB.

Browder says that he firmly believes that breaking the expectations is actually a good thing for a character. “It may not be a comfortable thing, and may not necessarily be a popular thing, but I do think it’s a real thing. I think it’s important that characters are not completely predictable. Some of the most interesting people I’ve known in my life are people who like doing things you would never expect them to like doing…like jumping out of planes. That unexpectedness is part of Mitchell as well. There should be surprises and there should be things that don’t mesh and meld with the other members of the team. That forces growth for him and hopefully for the others around him.”

Surely there needs to be a set of expectations for the character before he can break them? There has to be a solid core to the character before he can be unpredictable, otherwise he'll just become an annoying idiot.

Guys, as fascinating as all this ratings stuff is, how about it be taken over to the general ratings discussion thread please.

I'm seeing less and less about season 10 and more and more general ratings stuff

Sorry Sky, feel free to move it.
I don't like the idea of quoting someone across threads (it's a bit rude isn't it?), so super mod power away.

[Sg Gato]

hi guys, grabbed this from morjanna's spoiler group on yahoo. it is a review about episode 200.


http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/SG1.../message/23313


contains mucho spoilers and comments-so be warned.

It appears that the article didn't leave much out. I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen more than one review for a stargate episode. I'd say the advertising department has been working mighty hard.

[JessM]

I'd say Daniel has the best chance of being kept around because, as you say, he has been roped into being half of Daniel&Vala, much to the detriment of his character - whether he will remain half of Daniel&Vala before it mutates into Cam&Vala with Daniel as wallpaper is another question.

Very good point. I guess part of it depends on how many fans there are of Daniel and Daniel&Vala and whether TPTB want to keep milking it.

Much as the thought pains me, Sam could probably be the first character on the chopping block; the leadership question will remain an issue as long as she's there, TPTB have been complaining that they don't know what to do with the character and, by the sounds of things, they want Vala to be the leading lady.

If Sam goes, I stop watching. It's as simple as that. If TPTB and/or the Sci-Fi execs realise that getting rid of Sam means losing viewers, they might decide against it.

Same here. I'm already at the point where I'm not so sure I'll watch next season - if they get rid of Sam my mind will definitely be made up, no questions asked.

By the way, is it true that there are certain requirements the show has to meet to get some kind of concessions or something in Canada? I remember somebody - can't for the life of me remember who or where - saying that both Amanda Tapping and Michael Shanks had to retain their positions in the credits to meet requirements for Canadian actors, something about either the lead spot in the credits or the next two spots - second and at the end with an "and" - had to be filled with Canadian actors.

I'm not really sure. That does sound vaguely familiar though, especially the part about the "and"...

[ParadoxRealities]

hi guys, grabbed this from morjanna's spoiler group on yahoo. it is a review about episode 200.


http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/SG1.../message/23313


contains mucho spoilers and comments-so be warned.

is that the interview everyone's...talking...about? if not, is it on the net?

[ReganX]

Very good point. I guess part of it depends on how many fans there are of Daniel and Daniel&Vala and whether TPTB want to keep milking it.

They may feel that Daniel has served his purpose if enough of his fans decided that more screentime for him was a good thing, even if he had to have Vala attached to his hip, in which case he may find himself shunted aside.

I'm not really sure. That does sound vaguely familiar though, especially the part about the "and"...

I know that at the end with an "and" is considered a desirable position in the credits, roughly equal to or even slightly above second spot. If a certain quota of Canadian actors, highly placed in the credits, is needed to qualify the show for concessions - I believe some countries offer tax incentives and the like - I wonder would they have to bring in a new Canadian actor to qualify if AT or MS left.

[JessM]

i'm not thinking that there'll be ANY b plot. they won't have room for that and spoof every tv show they can think of.

I want to be wrong, but i have the sinking feeling that this eps is far from a love letter and closer to a 'will you please STFU' thumbing of the nose towards fans.

they'll think it's funny no doubt. but the folks that pull the pranks always think it's funnier than teh victims of said pranks

You're probably right - though I wonder where the pictures of

Spoiler:

Daniel, Sam, and Teal'c in the Goa'uld facility come in.

I guess it could be part of another spoof or thumbing of the nose towards fans. Whatever it is, I'll just be happy to see three of the original SG-1 members together in some capacity.