S10: Critique & Contemplation

[Zoser]

i think, for the 3rd series to have a chance in hades, they need to start totally fresh. New writers, new show runners, new actors, the works

if they keep depending on the crutch of 'special guest star' they'll never last. they need to shed the baggage of 10+ years of history and start over completely fresh.

if we keep the same attitudes behind the wheel, both in the front office and the writers' room, it'll just be the same stories over and over and over, just liek we have now with many atlantis eps being direct rewrites of stargate eps

Re Stargate Command: I've wondered if going back to the late forties,fifties and sixties and instead of mothballing the gate there were secret experiments and that's where some of our modern advancements (velcro, lasars, etc.) or diseases have come from other worlds - Might be some interesting stand alone episodes with a different crew and no dependance on SG1

[jckfan55]

Sure it's right here:

New Members of Origin

Save the human race from Vaniel

1. Jackie and family + one cat

jckfan55 & pet emu (SAGC folks will get that)

[golfbooy]

as to the third series...IMHO when or if there's a 3rd series it depends solely on atlantis kicking tushie this season. And i mean major tushie. if atlantis can't get really high and consistent ratings, the third series won't happen

I don't know about that. I tend to think that most of the interested parties have already written off Atlantis. The fact that Wright and Cooper, the two bonafide custodians of the Stargate franchise, seem to have so completely abandoned Atlantis leads me to believe that neither those two producers nor MGM is really interested in finding ways to make Atlantis really work.

Originally, I think that Atlantis was considered the future of the franchise, but that hasn't been the case for a long time now. Since SG-1 has continued to run for so long concurrently with Atlantis, the spin off has significantly failed to identify its own identity or fanbase. When someone says "Stargate" most people still automatically think SG-1. The instability in Atlantis' overall story, the lack of defined purpose for the expedition's existence, almost no development for the majority of characters, and now the ever rotating cast all demonstrate a lack of consistent purpose or plan for Atlantis. There's just not much thought going into the show besides the need to fill 20 episode seasons.

At this point, I think that everyone involved--Scifi, MGM, Bridge--is just looking to take the show into syndication territory. The business venture becomes much more lucrative once Atlantis has a viable syndie package. I suspect that Sci-Fi didn't really care which Stargate property it cancelled this past summer. TPTB however, namely MGM, Cooper, and Wright, all stand to profit much, much, much more by producing another season of Atlantis than they could ever hope to by producing another season of SG-1. As much as my dissatisfaction for parts of New Stargate would like to make me think that some sort of creative criteria were used in the decision, they weren't. It was purely about money, and it was a remarkably easy call to make.

And, frankly, I think the sole intent of these cast changes is to be more of a band-aid than a fix-all. Season four is a must have; season five would be great, but may be unlikely at this point. Ultimately, this is one of the reasons why I'm so pissed that Amanda Tapping is being held to her contract. She is now in what I perceive to be a no win situation. Atlantis, as a show is on its way out, barring the kind of ratings upswing of myth. Major multiple cast changes over such a short period are almost always an attempt at life support, not creative exploration. There is very little the addition of Amanda Tapping to the cast can do to ressurect ratings, especially now that Atlantis will be without both SG-1 and BSG. Honestly, given the virtually identical ratings for SG-1 and Atlantis since the show's inception, how many SG-1 viewers does anyone think exist that have not already sampled Atlantis and either watch already or give it a pass?

Also, in Cooper's and Wright's latest interviews both producers seemed to me to betray much, much more enthusiasm at the prospect of future SG-1 movies. I think both of them came across as more excited about the upcoming movies than they have been about Atlantis since season one. Also, they are obviously working on putting together a new series, one that won't be cobbled together under the constraints of a ridiculously short time table, as Atlantis was. And I think that Stargate as a whole has been successful enough that someone, probably Scifi, will be willing enough to take a risk and give it a go. They'll certainly be willing so long as they keep producing lower rated series than Stargate, such as The Dresden Files. Ultimately, I think Atlantis has become little more than a placeholder, something to keep Stargate alive enough in people's minds until better, more vital concepts come to fruition, while hopefully making it to that ever lucrative syndication deal.

[Jackie]

Re Stargate Command: I've wondered if going back to the late forties,fifties and sixties and instead of mothballing the gate there were secret experiments and that's where some of our modern advancements (velcro, lasars, etc.) or diseases have come from other worlds - Might be some interesting stand alone episodes with a different crew and no dependance on SG1

That would be ever so cool.

I don't know about that. I tend to think that most of the interested parties have already written off Atlantis. The fact that Wright and Cooper, the two bonafide custodians of the Stargate franchise, seem to have so completely abandoned Atlantis leads me to believe that neither those two producers nor MGM is really interested in finding ways to make Atlantis really work.

Originally, I think that Atlantis was considered the future of the franchise, but that hasn't been the case for a long time now. Since SG-1 has continued to run for so long concurrently with Atlantis, the spin off has significantly failed to identify its own identity or fanbase. When someone says "Stargate" most people still automatically think SG-1. The instability in Atlantis' overall story, the lack of defined purpose for the expedition's existence, almost no development for the majority of characters, and now the ever rotating cast all demonstrate a lack of consistent purpose or plan for Atlantis. There's just not much thought going into the show besides the need to fill 20 episode seasons.

At this point, I think that everyone involved--Scifi, MGM, Bridge--is just looking to take the show into syndication territory. The business venture becomes much more lucrative once Atlantis has a viable syndie package. I suspect that Sci-Fi didn't really care which Stargate property it cancelled this past summer. TPTB however, namely MGM, Cooper, and Wright, all stand to profit much, much, much more by producing another season of Atlantis than they could ever hope to by producing another season of SG-1. As much as my dissatisfaction for parts of New Stargate would like to make me think that some sort of creative criteria were used in the decision, they weren't. It was purely about money, and it was a remarkably easy call to make.

And, frankly, I think the sole intent of these cast changes is to be more of a band-aid than a fix-all. Season four is a must have; season five would be great, but may be unlikely at this point. Ultimately, this is one of the reasons why I'm so pissed that Amanda Tapping is being held to her contract. She is now in what I perceive to be a no win situation. Atlantis, as a show is on its way out, barring the kind of ratings upswing of myth. Major multiple cast changes over such a short period are almost always an attempt at life support, not creative exploration. There is very little the addition of Amanda Tapping to the cast can do to ressurect ratings, especially now that Atlantis will be without both SG-1 and BSG. Honestly, given the virtually identical ratings for SG-1 and Atlantis since the show's inception, how many SG-1 viewers does anyone think exist that have not already sampled Atlantis and either watch already or give it a pass?

Also, in Cooper's and Wright's latest interviews both producers seemed to me to betray much, much more enthusiasm at the prospect of future SG-1 movies. I think both of them came across as more excited about the upcoming movies than they have been about Atlantis since season one. Also, they are obviously working on putting together a new series, one that won't be cobbled together under the constraints of a ridiculously short time table, as Atlantis was. And I think that Stargate as a whole has been successful enough that someone, probably Scifi, will be willing enough to take a risk and give it a go. They'll certainly be willing so long as they keep producing lower rated series than Stargate, such as The Dresden Files. Ultimately, I think Atlantis has become little more than a placeholder, something to keep Stargate alive enough in people's minds until better, more vital concepts come to fruition, while hopefully making it to that ever lucrative syndication deal.

took the words right out of my mouth....

[ParadoxRealities]

That's why ratings is a double edge sword. The ratings could be false high or false low. It doesn't really matter because the rating number is used to determine how much to charge all the commercials you see. The higher the rating the higher the airing fee. Ratings=money.

:headdesk: i know (though i wouldn't use the word "false", it's actually more accurate for us, not less). but you seem to be contradicting yourself. whatever.

All in all...I personally believe that skiffy renewed the show for season 9 and 10 for the purpose of a record. They canceled it so soon after the 200th episode that I can't believe that wasn't planned. I don't think skiffy really cared how well season 9 and 10 went. they knew it would tank when RDA left. They wanted the record.

i agree, though i do think they would have renewed the show if the ratings were high enough to still turn a profit (probably 2ish range). but they wouldn't have canceled before the record. if BAB somehow had rebranded, they would have been canceled in s9.

[Rogue]

yes, they wanted to rebrand the show with s9 - hence walter's big 'welcome to stargate command' but skiffy denied teh request. even Brad W says that the show likely could have lasted longer had it been rebranded. IMHO, skiffy wnated nothing more than 'longest running us scifi show' record.

I do think they would kept it for s11, but only if it was consistently pullin 2.0 or higher in the ratings.

they gambled and they lost because - rebrand or not - teh show was too changed for fans to tolerate it. tptb may love thier new goofier incarnation, but fans didn't care for the bait and switch and they turned the set off

Now had the show been allowed to be renamed, it could have worked. TPTB could have replied to the crit with 'hey folks, it's a whole new show' and found its own place.

but skiffy's greed for a title was one very big nail in the coffin

as to the third series...IMHO when or if there's a 3rd series it depends solely on atlantis kicking tushie this season. And i mean major tushie. if atlantis can't get really high and consistent ratings, the third series won't happen

Even if they had renamed it to Stargate Command, it would have been tough for me to think of it as a new show with Sam, Tealc, and Daniel still part of the team.

[Skydiver]

yep, it would. and they wouldn't have ahd the crutch/mill stone of 'it's not stargate'

[Mandysg1]

Even if they had renamed it to Stargate Command, it would have been tough for me to think of it as a new show with Sam, Tealc, and Daniel still part of the team.

If they had made the new show and not included anyone from
SG1, I would have found it a heck of a lot easier to stop watching the farce after 1 or 2 episodes.

The SG1 characters are what kept and still keeps me watching...even it has been very, very painful to watch

[Rogue]

If they had made the new show and not included anyone from
SG1, I would have found it a heck of a lot easier to stop watching the farce after 1 or 2 episodes.

The SG1 characters are what kept and still keeps me watching...even it has been very, very painful to watch

Me too. I find it funny that Brad thought the series had a better chance if renamed. Renaming the show wasn't going to fix the problems. Crap is still crap no matter what you call it. But I wished they had renamed it so that SG-1 ends with S8. That is where my collection ends.

[Skydiver]

well, but if they had rebranded it, then all this 'it's not sg1' crit woudl be empty cause, yeah, it's not SG1, it's stargate command,says so right in the credits silly

[Jackie]

:headdesk: i know (though i wouldn't use the word "false", it's actually more accurate for us, not less). but you seem to be contradicting yourself. whatever.

i agree, though i do think they would have renewed the show if the ratings were high enough to still turn a profit (probably 2ish range). but they wouldn't have canceled before the record. if BAB somehow had rebranded, they would have been canceled in s9.

Does your head hurt? Here's an asprin.

A double edge sword is a contradiction in the first place. How do you know how accurate the ratings are? Especially in the information age with so much FALSE information out there! Neilson is the rating system that is used but recently the accuracy has been called into question by many members of this board. I have gone to the Neilson web site and you know what--you have to be a paying station to get immediate results in ratings. Another words...they charge those stations who use those rating numbers for setting advertising fees. Money, money, money!!!!!

[ReganX]

Even if they had renamed it to Stargate Command, it would have been tough for me to think of it as a new show with Sam, Tealc, and Daniel still part of the team.

They should have either made a new show called "Stargate Command" or continued to make "Stargate: SG-1". Treating a long-running show like a new show was a bad idea. It's established characters and history should have been respected.

[Jackie]

If they had made the new show and not included anyone from
SG1, I would have found it a heck of a lot easier to stop watching the farce after 1 or 2 episodes.

The SG1 characters are what kept and still keeps me watching...even it has been very, very painful to watch

But if they didn't have Daniel...we wouldn't have Vaniel. Oh, wait...that would have been far less painful.

[Zoser]

Does your head hurt? Here's an asprin.

A double edge sword is a contradiction in the first place. How do you know how accurate the ratings are? Especially in the information age with so much FALSE information out there! Neilson is the rating system that is used but recently the accuracy has been called into question by many members of this board. I have gone to the Neilson web site and you know what--you have to be a paying station to get immediate results in ratings. Another words...they charge those stations who use those rating numbers for setting advertising fees. Money, money, money!!!!!

My daughter tells me these days they are sucking the rating information right off of the cable boxes in her city.

[smurf]

A double edge sword is a contradiction in the first place. How do you know how accurate the ratings are? Especially in the information age with so much FALSE information out there! Neilson is the rating system that is used but recently the accuracy has been called into question by many members of this board. I have gone to the Neilson web site and you know what--you have to be a paying station to get immediate results in ratings. Another words...they charge those stations who use those rating numbers for setting advertising fees. Money, money, money!!!!!

The advertising agencies also have access to the Neilsen ratings. So with two opposing requirements - one wanting to earn to most possible, one wanting to pay the correct value (in their opinion) for the adspace - it is absolutely in Neilsen's interest for it to be as accurate as possible. It can not be 100% accurate, but it must be accurate enough for both sides to agree to use it.

That it has been called into question by members of this board is meaningless. They do not have access to the viewing habits of the audience, nor the numbers involved, nor (in some cases) the understanding of using statistical mathematics.

Yes, it does cost money. Who do you expect to pay for this information?
The TV companies with thier high rating bias, or the advertising companies with their cheap-as-possible bias? There is at least some independance if everyone pays.