S10: Critique & Contemplation

[ChevronSeven]

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.

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.

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

Amen to what all ya'll said. With 2 executive producers gone (RDA & Michael Greenburg), the others went wild and decided to try and sneak a new concept/show onto the air, with some of our old friends sticking around. Yeah, we're a lot smarter than they think. We know bad stuff when we see it. Are we staying around? Sure, because some like the original 3, some want to see if they'd make any Jack references (still waiting....). The question is, are we watching it live? Ratings say not really.

[petemoretti]

Amen to what all ya'll said. With 2 executive producers gone (RDA & Michael Greenburg), the others went wild and decided to try and sneak a new concept/show onto the air, with some of our old friends sticking around. Yeah, we're a lot smarter than they think. We know bad stuff when we see it. Are we staying around? Sure, because some like the original 3, some want to see if they'd make any Jack references (still waiting....). The question is, are we watching it live? Ratings say not really.

And you're not talking about buying the DVDs...
Some are still expecting S/J resolution too...

[Mandysg1]

Amen to what all ya'll said. With 2 executive producers gone (RDA & Michael Greenburg), the others went wild and decided to try and sneak a new concept/show onto the air, with some of our old friends sticking around. Yeah, we're a lot smarter than they think. We know bad stuff when we see it. Are we staying around? Sure, because some like the original 3, some want to see if they'd make any Jack references (still waiting....). The question is, are we watching it live? Ratings say not really.

You mean like they begged fans to do at a convention...looks like it didn't work

[Jackie]

Sure, because some like the original 3, some want to see if they'd make any Jack references (still waiting....). The question is, are we watching it live? Ratings say not really.

Yeah--it sucked that they hardly ever talk about Jack. It's like taboo--they can't refer to him in episodes where Jack's opinion on the subject would have mattered. A few lame Landry attempts at pretending Jack was on the phone and that was really it.

No dealing with Jack's departure. Nothing like Sam telling Cam that he is no Jack O'Neill. It would have been great to have Sam tell Mitchell that he wasn't Jack.

Or Daniel blurt to Vala that if Jack was there she never would have gotten away with so much crap. They missed a major scene that could have been between the big 3 about Jack's departure. Daniel, Teal'c and Sam never sat down and talked about Jack leaving them.

Not addressing Jack was a major mistake and big turn off fao many fans.

A 30 percent drop in ratings indicates that people are not watching the show. I don't see how DVD sales even remotly could be connected with ratings at all.

[ParadoxRealities]

Nothing like Sam telling Cam that he is no Jack O'Neill. It would have been great to have Sam tell Mitchell that he wasn't Jack.

now THAT i would pay money to see. there are too many taboo topics nowadays. Jack, Sam's command, Jonas, Jacob, Janet, Hammond. i know they're not around, and to an extent (especially the dead ones) wouldn't be mentioned much anyway. but i'd rather them make the effort and be slightly less realistic than completely ignore the first seasons. "200" should have been called "26".

[Jackie]

now THAT i would pay money to see. there are too many taboo topics nowadays. Jack, Sam's command, Jonas, Jacob, Janet, Hammond. i know they're not around, and to an extent (especially the dead ones) wouldn't be mentioned much anyway. but i'd rather them make the effort and be slightly less realistic than completely ignore the first seasons. "200" should have been called "26".

Yeah, all that needed to be addressed instead of just ignoring it. When Janet died they never addressed the issue very much. Nothing more than what was mentioned in heros part 2.

The death of Janet Fraiser should have been addressed in a number of different eps. They never mention her at all eaither. Jonas was not even spoken of when Carter metioned his home planet fell to the ori.

General Hammond's rank and current postion is unknown. I have no idea if he retired or not.

Shame, shame...to treat former characters and actors like a ghost.

[ParadoxRealities]

Jonas was not even spoken of when Carter metioned his home planet fell to the ori.

and no mention of jack in RE. it's like they actively don't want the new fans to know about those characters. (sadly, it's working, i know a few "JackWho?" fans)

General Hammond's rank and current postion is unknown. I have no idea if he retired or not.

i think the speech he gave way-back-when (early s9, i think) was supposed to signify that he retired, but still has some washington job. i don't remember the details very well.

[jckfan55]

Yeah, all that needed to be addressed instead of just ignoring it. When Janet died they never addressed the issue very much. Nothing more than what was mentioned in heros part 2.

The death of Janet Fraiser should have been addressed in a number of different eps. They never mention her at all eaither. Jonas was not even spoken of when Carter metioned his home planet fell to the ori.

General Hammond's rank and current postion is unknown. I have no idea if he retired or not.

Shame, shame...to treat former characters and actors like a ghost.

Oh, indeed. If they want to talk about "real consequences" then the death of someone dear to you and important to the program--she was the foremost expert on Earth on the Goa'uld and alien life forms--is bound to have long range consequences personally and professionally.

[binkpmmc]

Yeah--it sucked that they hardly ever talk about Jack. It's like taboo--they can't refer to him in episodes where Jack's opinion on the subject would have mattered. A few lame Landry attempts at pretending Jack was on the phone and that was really it.

No dealing with Jack's departure. Nothing like Sam telling Cam that he is no Jack O'Neill. It would have been great to have Sam tell Mitchell that he wasn't Jack.

Or Daniel blurt to Vala that if Jack was there she never would have gotten away with so much crap. They missed a major scene that could have been between the big 3 about Jack's departure. Daniel, Teal'c and Sam never sat down and talked about Jack leaving them.

Not addressing Jack was a major mistake and big turn off fao many fans.

A 30 percent drop in ratings indicates that people are not watching the show. I don't see how DVD sales even remotly could be connected with ratings at all.

Staying with the theme of this post, as well as several other recent posts here, I am posting a copy of what I just put in the Mallozzi says fans have no impact thread (in spoilers for length so read at your own peril) as it seems to be on topic:

Spoiler:

In light of the fact it appears SGA is going down the same exact road as SG-1 traveled I submit the following:

Joe, Joe, Joe, - come on. You (read as the Bridge you not you yourself) did not need more promotion, Joe, you needed to be faithful to the premise, the history, the canon, the characters and the fans of a show that had been a hit (by cable standards) for eight (8) years with little to no promotion. A show that for those eight (8) years had a steadily growing fan base that saw you (the Bridge you) get the best ratings ever in Season 8 at 2.3s and 2.4s (with 15 of 20 episodes at 2.0 or better). You needed to listen to the fans when they told you in very large numbers that Mitchell and Vala were mistakes as written and introduced (mind you not mistakes as "creative decisions" but mistakes as introduced and handled). You needed to respect what made the show a hit (with little to no promotion for 8 years) – its star characters (that would be Sam, Daniel and Teal’c), its premise and its growing fan base – you did not do that Joe. Instead you chose to trudge on with illogical, unbelievable, dare I say silly, new characters with totally contrived reasons for being part of SG-1 that defy logic in terms of the history and canon of the show and in the process you took a show that had survived on its own and grown to its largest ratings in eight (8) years and get it cancelled after less than 25 episodes of the so-called “new and improved” SG-1.

You basically took the three main stars (Sam, Daniel and Teal’c) and the premise of the show and tried to wrap it around the new characters and that was a mistake. The three main stars wrapped around the premise of SG-1 were your show, they, along with RDA as Jack, helped make the show a success for eight (8) years and you basically threw that out the window with Season 9 in favor of the new vision cooper had, the new vision that was meant for a whole new show called Stargate Command, and that new vision, WMAH and WFTSC schizophrenic, did not work as SG-1 because it was not faithful to the history of SG-1 and to what made SG-1 a success.

You totally compromised Sam, Daniel and Teal’c and the canon of the show in order to make the new characters look like they belonged when it was painfully obvious to so many that they did not (obviously the show had its fans in the new version however a 30% loss of ratings is very telling). These characters may have belonged in the new vision cooper had for his new show, Stargate Command, but they were too contrived, too illogical, too poorly written to be part of SG-1 – it made no sense and even worse it made for bad TV – for some reason 30% of the audience it took eight (8) years to build abandoned the show in Seasons 9-10 after just 20-25 episodes - it begs the question about the changes, and the way they were handled and implemented, being responsible as opposed to lack of promotion.

Even after RDA left the early part of Season 9 still had decent ratings (you never again reached the peaks of Season 8 but they were not bad at 2.0s and 2.1s for the first few episodes) indicating that the fan base you had was willing to give this “new and improved vision of SG-1” a try, unfortunately all through Season 9 the ratings continued to fall and then in Season 10 you reached your stellar cellar at 1.4 for, of all things, the Season PREMIERE!!! How did this happen? From 15 of 20 episodes at 2.0 or better with 6 at 2.2 or better, to 1.4 for a season premiere just 20 short episodes later???? Your fans, your audience, the one that had been built steadily over eight (8) years with little benefit of promotion, had stopped coming back. The question has to be asked – why? Well if you listened to your fans you would likely have known that it might very well have been because of how the changes were handled and how the changes compromised canon and Sam, Daniel and Teal’c. The audience tuned in to see SG-1 and when they realized what they were really getting in its stead, some contrived, illogical, silly sci-fi show, with three unrecognizable characters named Sam, Daniel and Teal’c, they tuned out to the tune of 30%.

Seasons 9 and 10 were two of the most promoted seasons I can recall in Stargate history (in the early seasons I would eagerly wait to see if TV Guide, or any other mainstream magazine, even mentioned Stargate SG-1 - alas they never did). Season 10 in particular was quite heavily promoted because of the 200th episode so I highly doubt that promotion was the problem especially since for eight (8) years “the little show that could” managed to build its audience to 2.3s and 2.4s without the benefit of promotion only to see that wasted in Seasons 9 and 10 – lack of promotion is pretty much a cop-out for an excuse.

Again though, this begs the question why, after eight (8) years of steady growth, basically without promotion, does a show lose 30% of it’s audience after two of its most heavily promoted seasons and get unceremoniously cancelled after only 25 episodes of the “new and improved” version of the show? Even you (that would be the YOU you Joe) have to admit that it is hard to deny that a drop of 30% in ratings and cancellation after only 25 episodes of coopers new vision of SG-1 with its shiny new characters seems to indicate a major problem beyond the lack of promotion (you can argue all the way home that the 1.7 avg was "strong" however the question remains what happened?).

But hey as long as it is a show that you (back to the Bridge you) like and enjoy and find interesting (oh and its fun, fun, fun for you) more power to you – hope you have a Nielsen box though – oops too late for that for SG-1 but maybe it will come in handy for SGA.

[Jackie]

very good points in the artical. Well written and yet very personable. The cannon of the show did change--drastically in order to accomidate the new characters. I would give you a rating but I can't figure out how that works. I'm computer challanged.

[Rogue]

Yeah, all that needed to be addressed instead of just ignoring it. When Janet died they never addressed the issue very much. Nothing more than what was mentioned in heros part 2.

The death of Janet Fraiser should have been addressed in a number of different eps. They never mention her at all eaither. Jonas was not even spoken of when Carter metioned his home planet fell to the ori.

General Hammond's rank and current postion is unknown. I have no idea if he retired or not.

Shame, shame...to treat former characters and actors like a ghost.

Not only have they ignored 8 yrs of history, in some cases history was re-written.

[SG1Guy]

Staying with the theme of this post, as well as several other recent posts here, I am posting a copy of what I just put in the Mallozzi says fans have no impact thread (in spoilers for length so read at your own peril) as it seems to be on topic:

I've read your post and think you've got some very good points. I'm a Stargate fan from day 1 and Season Ten (and to a certain extent Season 9) just seems to me to be something that has just plain lost it's way. Maybe the creative juices have all dried up but I know I sure don't enjoy the show much anymore, I watch out of habit and a wish to see it to the end.

[scifithinker]

you know...you're starting to sound more and more right as i read. but i'll give it one more stab anyway. anyone, please feel free to slap me upside the head if i've lost my mind. *eyes wet noodle*
higher ratings doesn't directly translate to more people. Nielsen families without access to a given channel (not part of that "universe") are not calculated in the viewership of said channel.
Nielsen Formula:
Rating% (Average Audience)=Audience/Universal Estimate
made up numbers:
in season 2, 20 people had showtime and 5 people watched stargate (on a given day/time). that's a 5/20 or 25%.
in season 10, 100 people have showtime and 20 people watch stargate (on a given day/time). that 20/100 or 20%
but more people watched in season 10. would they have watched in season 2 if they could? if SG-1 was still on showtime, what would the percent be?

please note, this in no way signifies that i like season 10. i'm just anal. don't even think about it. so about that sign up list...

I thought the available viewing audience is based on the number of viewers watching all television channels available, not just the one channel in question. The number is also expressed as total viewers of a show, or is that figure extrapolated by a source other than the Nielsen's? In any case, it is published in places like the newspaper and TVGuide as well.

As far as watching the show live, I don't see how my doing that would make any difference whatsoever since I am not part of a Nielsen household. Or has the method of sampling the population changed?

Regardless of how the ratings are obtained, the message SG-1 ratings have been sending to Bridge and SciFi is pretty clear.

[ParadoxRealities]

I thought the available viewing audience is based on the number of viewers watching all television channels available, not just the one channel in question. The number is also expressed as total viewers of a show, or is that figure extrapolated by a source other than the Nielsen's? In any case, it is published in places like the newspaper and TVGuide as well.

exactly what i'm trying to figure out. there was a talk back in the horror of the 1.4s about how nielsen ratings were based only on those who had access to the channel. just wanted to know. perhaps curiosity killed the cat.

As far as watching the show live, I don't see how my doing that would make any difference whatsoever since I am not part of a Nielsen household. Or has the method of sampling the population changed?

nielsen hasn't, but i think some other services have. skiffy doesn't use 'em though, to the best of my knowledge.

[/making a fool out of myself yeah, go ahead, i asked for it]

Regardless of how the ratings are obtained, the message SG-1 ratings have been sending to Bridge and SciFi is pretty clear.

the question is...do they have ears?

[ChevronSeven]

Are the syndication numbers for S9 worse than the syndicated numbers for S1-8? I never really pay attention to those.