S10: Critique & Contemplation

[JessM]

And so they are hiring him .... why.
And how is it that he has not said the same thing about S9/S10 of stargate...he doesnt want to bite the hand that feeds him (though he is doing it to the movie TPTB), his wife and his ex girlfriend. Or maybe since his character is brand new and more to his likeing he actually likes S9/S10. Whatever.

As much as I am a fan of MS, this does seem quite likely, IMO.

[Crow T. Robot]

As much as I am a fan of MS, this does seem quite likely, IMO.

Yeah I can see it too.

MS is (my opinion only) ambitious, and wants off of cable TV. He’s willing to do the bit parts like on CSI and the B movies to pay the bills and pay the dues to get there. In his last interview he’s even talking about moving his family “South”. Some times a part is all about the connections you make being in the production than it is about the part it’s self.

[JessM]

Yeah, that's what I've gathered from the various recent interviews I've read. He's definitely looking to spread his wings and I think he's talked about moving to California for the past year or so.

[smurf]

Ambition is one thing, but it seems a bit rude to dismiss the work of people who are keeping your ambition alive. Couldn't he have just said "I needed to do it for the work visa" and left everyone to draw their own conclusions without attempting to impact on other peoples careers?

[smurf]

About Unending

Spoiler:

Another time-travel/time-bending episode?!

Again I ask TPTB; where are these stories still to be told?
Seriously, are all your stories yet to be told about

Spoiler:

time travel?

Is this your default mode for ending a series now?
Considering the second DVD, it smells like another waste of an episode (along with Family Ties).

[Skydiver]

guys, let's keep the speculation about MS motives out of here please.

he took the job. end of story

the speculation as to why has no place here and is treading dangerously close to invading his privacy

and every actor has to 'pay thier dues' with crud roles. part and parcel of the job

[MediaSavant]

I realize people have thier own opinions--but it blows my mind that people think the first 8 years of the show were crap and only now it's better. If the first 8 years of the show was crap--it would not have made it to 10 seasons in the first place. At the same time they also know every episode title and can quote the show--that tells me they have watched every episode repeatedly or they have a notebook sitting by the computer. It's almost like some of the people who post--just go out of thier way to defend a 2 bad seasons by ripping down the rest of the seasons.

I propose that there is a third position on SG-1. This position is that it has always been an "okay" TV show--not great, but not awful either. Watchable, but not worth putting on a "top ten" list. And certainly not "crap".

They feel that about the first eight seasons AND the last two.

I think that's probably the opinion of the casual viewer. Problem is that forums about TV shows don't usually attract people who have "middling" opinions. They tend to attract the extremes--people for whom something is either a "10" or a "1" and there's nothing in between.

[Jackie]

He did it to renew his working visa to be able to work in the USA next year. Plus, if you go and read some Burbank Stargate con reports MS said that he did it only because it was American production, he read the script on the plane, it was total crap in his opinion and he said everybody not to watch it.

I would love to see your source on that statement. (nothing against MS) It's just strinkes me as funny that he would take a B-rated movie that he didn't even read the script for till on the plane just to renew a work visa.

If I was in acting--I would think twice about those types of movies if I was trying to get out of the sci-fi typecast.

[Jackie]

I propose that there is a third position on SG-1. This position is that it has always been an "okay" TV show--not great, but not awful either. Watchable, but not worth putting on a "top ten" list. And certainly not "crap".

They feel that about the first eight seasons AND the last two.

I think that's probably the opinion of the casual viewer. Problem is that forums about TV shows don't usually attract people who have "middling" opinions. They tend to attract the extremes--people for whom something is either a "10" or a "1" and there's nothing in between.

I never said the last two seasons were crap--(though the tought crossed my mind). My problem is when I try to actually talk about what went wrong and what issues the writers should have focused on--I get told the first 8 seasons were crap and that I must have imagined all the issues I spotted. I write sci-fi type books. (original works) I pointed out where they tripped. Instead of getting a real down to earth discussion I get replied that just rip my post apart and tell me I have no clue what i'm talking about.

[MediaSavant]

To go a little OT, I find it funny/odd, that SciFi, a station that is supposed to appeal to the scifi fans, seems to miss the mark every time they make movies.

There have been articles written about why SciFi makes these movies. To summarize them, it came down to a shortage of movies coming out of the theaters. They realized that if they made some low budget movies themselves, they could (1) solve the supply problem, and (2) re-sell them overseas for a profit. They put them on Saturday nights and bill them as just what they are--low budget, B movies reminiscent of the bad movies shown at drive-ins once upon a time. They make no pretense to quality.

However, on the accounting sheet they are very, very profitable. Perhaps, it's not hardcore science fiction fans who watch them, but *somebody* does because they get decent ratings.

They do also keep a lot of underemployed former science fiction actors and production people employed both in front of and behind the cameras.

Where SciFi really makes an effort to make higher quality stuff is in the annual mini-series (Taken, Battlestar Galactica, last year's Triangle). This year's is called The Lost Room and airs next week.

[MediaSavant]

I never said the last two seasons were crap--(though the tought crossed my mind).

I never said you did. I just said that the most vocal people on the internet tend to speak in extremes. In truth, there's a lot of less vocal people who don't think that way.

[Zoser]

There have been articles written about why SciFi makes these movies. To summarize them, it came down to a shortage of movies coming out of the theaters. They realized that if they made some low budget movies themselves, they could (1) solve the supply problem, and (2) re-sell them overseas for a profit. They put them on Saturday nights and bill them as just what they are--low budget, B movies reminiscent of the bad movies shown at drive-ins once upon a time. They make no pretense to quality.

However, on the accounting sheet they are very, very profitable. Perhaps, it's not hardcore science fiction fans who watch them, but *somebody* does because they get decent ratings.

They do also keep a lot of underemployed former science fiction actors and production people employed both in front of and behind the cameras.

Where SciFi really makes an effort to make higher quality stuff is in the annual mini-series (Taken, Battlestar Galactica, last year's Triangle). This year's is called The Lost Room and airs next week.

The movie that has stayed with me is one I saw in a drive in in the 50's (yes, I'm old). It was 'It came from Beneath the Sea' and every time I drive across a bridge I expect the giant tentacles to pull it down. B movies came be great and provide grist for the MST crowd. Now that would be a project for SciFi - produce more MST.

[MediaSavant]

BTW--still OT on the Saturday movies, I found the article I was referring to:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AE0894DD404482

A choice quote:

The critics' disfavor doesn't seem to bother the folks behind the films, who have no pretensions to high art. Bonnie Hammer, the Sci Fi Channel president, likes to refer to the pictures as ''popcorn movies for those who love the genre,'' adding, ''Viewers come for the ride; it's a guilty pleasure.'' <snip>

And viewers are seeing a lot of them. The channel produced one original movie in 2002. This year there will be 23. Next year, 28. That's more than some major studios produce, and at a bargain basement price of $21 million -- total.

So, they got 56 hours of programming (2 hours/movie) for the same price as a full 20-episode/20 hour season of Stargate. And the ratings aren't that much worse than Stargate's

[ReganX]

BTW--still OT on the Saturday movies, I found the article I was referring to:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AE0894DD404482

A choice quote:



So, they got 56 hours of programming (2 hours/movie) for the same price as a full 20-episode/20 hour season of Stargate. And the ratings aren't that much worse than Stargate's

And if they released the movies on DVD, or sold the rights abroad, they'd be able to earn more from them.

[Jackie]

BTW--still OT on the Saturday movies, I found the article I was referring to:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AE0894DD404482

A choice quote:



So, they got 56 hours of programming (2 hours/movie) for the same price as a full 20-episode/20 hour season of Stargate. And the ratings aren't that much worse than Stargate's

I think they got a better deal with Stargate compared to how much they shell out for "popcorn movies" (You know--popcorn taste really good with milk duds in a real theater.)