S10: Critique & Contemplation

[LaCroix]

What's happening here is what happen in the Angel fandom. Various nets were named (including Skiffy). In the end DB moved on to Bones and the other actors are doing whatever strikes their fancy.

I equate a television show to one's persons lifespan- it doesn't last forever.

[esoap524]

When you think about it (logically) 10 years is a good, long time for a television show, especially in this genre. From what I understand, season 8 was so-so and seasons 9 and 10 were a way to try to keep the show around.

I wouldn't blame pros, antis/Browder/Black... I suspect that losing RDA was probably the turning point because he was THE MAN for so long. Intereting, though, that SGA's ratings aren't all the different than SG1's, yet it stays. It's all about the $$$. of course.

So, I think it's great it got 10 long years. I think it's great I got to see Browder and Black, post Farscape, in something new. I think it's great that season 9 kindled enough interest in the show for me to go back and watch it from the beginning. It's not gonna replace my favorites (that'd be, yeah, Farscape and The Xfiles) but it's certainly worth a look for a Saturday afternoon/evening of DVDS.

I hope Ben and Claudia move on from this franchise, that's for certain. I hope Amanda, Chris and Michael get to do something new and exciting. I certainly don't want to see them end up on Atlantis and get the same bad mouthing Browder and Black have gotten.

With luck, tptb will wrap up the storyline without a Farscape like ending; since they received more notice (albeit, very badly timed notice), that should give them the room to do it up right.

Of course, "right" is a purely subjective term, isn't it.

[ecotopian]

Ok so people are blaming the anti's! So now my question is who of you guys did actually stopped watching it???

I still was watching it even if I did not like what they were doing with the eps. I still had hope that the ep would improve.

I just stumbled onto this thread. I was sorta shocked there were other folks out there like myself who were having a hard time with the evolution of Stargate.

I stopped watching after about the first episode of S9. I was really getting annoyed with S8. Reckoning is right up there with my least favorite episodes. I don't like deus ex machina ending. You know the ones, where the writers have so painted themselves into a corner, they need a miracle (or alien technology) to get themselves out of it. It came to me as I sat and watched S9 that the Jack, Sam, and Teal'c that were on the show, weren't the right ones. The ones I was watching were from that other timeline. I knew this fact would never be dealt with, so I stopped watching.

I can hear it now, "But they fixed everything!" No, they didn't. I grew up reading Science Fiction when the genre really had something to do with science and wasn't just melodramas in space. It is generally agreed that whatever happens to the travelers is permenant. The changes they cause might be mitigated, but what befalls them cannot be. The writers of the old Doctor Who knew this (I haven't watched the new one) and they seemed really careful about it. So when our beloved team members went off to see if the Book of the Dead was true, they really died. No messing with time can bring them back.

Before y'all hit the reply button, I want you to think about this. This is not a minor problem of forgetting about canon. This is a group of people from somewhere else. People who don't belong at the SGC.

[Titania V V]

<mod snip>

Just a random thought, and certainly NOT to be construed as support for the above comment......

But given the debacle of how "Farscape" was cancelled, and then how SciFi pressured Bridge to make the Farscape connection to SG-1, bringing in Browder and Black, believing that built-in fanbase would keep SG's ratings strong......are the suits/twits at SciFi so incapable of understanding irony as not to realize they have completely and totally lost that fanbase for good, most like, by scr*w*ng over a second series featuring their beloved actors?

I know. Rhetorical question again. T'were I a Farscaper, I'd wash my hands forever of the SciFi Channel; as it stands, with how the Idiots in Charge (at SciFi) have so callously dealt in their timing (foaming at the mouth much, were they, to have it done? ) in cancelling SG, I know I'm done with that channel.

[Titania V V]

I lost hope at the end of last year and stopped watching SG-1. I also stopped encouraging anyone to watch as I had years in the past and infact suggested people not watch... apparently several million of them listened to me. I am sorry, I take full responsibility. I killed the undead creature that was the corps of SG-1. But I had no choice, the voices in my head told me too.

I still watch Atlantis though.

Well shame on you! Didn't you know you're never to listen to those voices?

(ah, but at least your mea culpa in this matter gets the rest of us off the hook! )

[Mr Prophet]

I wouldn't blame pros, antis/Browder/Black... I suspect that losing RDA was probably the turning point because he was THE MAN for so long. Intereting, though, that SGA's ratings aren't all the different than SG1's, yet it stays. It's all about the $$$. of course.

I guess they decided that they could afford to keep supporting one of them, but not both, and figured that Atlantis had more mileage (or possibly more cleavage, if they're going by their usual criteria).

[AGateFan]

Just a random thought, and certainly NOT to be construed as support for the above comment......

But given the debacle of how "Farscape" was cancelled, and then how SciFi pressured Bridge to make the Farscape connection to SG-1, bringing in Browder and Black, believing that built-in fanbase would keep SG's ratings strong......are the suits/twits at SciFi so incapable of understanding irony as not to realize they have completely and totally lost that fanbase for good, most like, by scr*w*ng over a second series featuring their beloved actors?

I know. Rhetorical question again. T'were I a Farscaper, I'd wash my hands forever of the SciFi Channel; as it stands, with how the Idiots in Charge (at SciFi) have so callously dealt in their timing (foaming at the mouth much, were they, to have it done? ) in cancelling SG, I know I'm done with that channel.

In one of the other threads someone decrying the evilness of Sci-fi channel (a point I am not arguing with BTW) asked the question "did Sci-Fi learn nothing from their Cancellation of Farscape?". My answer is "yes they did". They learned that no matter how badly concieved and timed the cancellation is that as soon as you throw the fans a bone (ie miniseries or putting their favorite actors on another show) the will once again flock back to the station in droves without any thought of the previously demanded "boycott".

Will Sci-fi be hurt by the cancellation of SG-1? Where they hurt by the cancellation of Farscape? I say the answer to both is no. As soon as they put out SG miniseries or the new farscape or add BB\CB to Eureka everything will once again be well.......until that gets cancelled then it will start all over again. Each "boycott" is free advertisement. I think Sci-fi channel (as annoying as they are) become more legitimized every time they do something like this. After all the only bad publicity is no publicity at all.... or something like that.

[kazzyk]

In one of the other threads someone decrying the evilness of Sci-fi channel (a point I am not arguing with BTW) asked the question "did Sci-Fi learn nothing from their Cancellation of Farscape?". My answer is "yes they did". They learned that no matter how badly concieved and timed the cancellation is that as soon as you throw the fans a bone (ie miniseries or putting their favorite actors on another show) the will once again flock back to the station in droves without any thought of the previously demanded "boycott".

Will Sci-fi be hurt by the cancellation of SG-1? Where they hurt by the cancellation of Farscape? I say the answer to both is no. As soon as they put out SG miniseries or the new farscape or add BB\CB to Eureka everything will once again be well.......until that gets cancelled then it will start all over again. Each "boycott" is free advertisement. I think Sci-fi channel (as annoying as they are) become more legitimized every time they do something like this. After all the only bad publicity is no publicity at all.... or something like that.

Well said!

[Skydiver]

skiffy also learned that they can play us. manipulate us and use us.

like someone pointed out, statgate wasn't as much cancelled as it was not renewed. It's 'cancelled' once the other networks say 'nope, don't want it'

but 'cancelled' is a hot button word and it's done jsut what skiffy wanted, got folks all riled up so that skiffy - when/if mgm can't find a new home for it - will step up and benevolently give the show a mini-series or movie of teh week that all the stargate fans will flock to and watch and earn skiffy more in advertising money than they spent making it.

They manipulate and play us. and if they learned anything from farscape is, yes, give them crumbs and they'll come crawling back.

i know that many scapers and scapies boycotted scifi when farscape got canned. how many of them watched teh mini series??? and how many do you think were loyal scifi watchers once ben and claudia were put on the show??

tehy were played, just like the daniel fans were played with vala. vala was paired with daniel to get all those passionate daniel fans defending her, that's what happened and that's what got teh character the 'fan favorite' title. she might only be the favorite of a few, but those few are all skiffy needs to brag

[pittsburghgirl]

that is the name of the game Sky.

You know how it is-you have a child that misbehaves to get attention because any attention-even negative attention is better than no attention.

Scifi home of the terrible movies of the week, wrestling and "will this play to the hormonal age group" and yes folks I am talking about the adolescent males that haven't quite grown into their hormones.

As Politically Incorrect as it is to say so-the truth of the matter is they have a specific demographic they are programming for-otherwise, what in the bloody he-double hockey sticks-is wrestling doing on scific??? As I have told my son it is the male version of a soap opera and as he cheerfully cheered on the players and oggled the half-naked female wrestlers-he agreed with me.

For 10 years Bridge played on all of us-the shippers, the slashers, the Daniel fans, Jack fans, Sam fans, etc etc. and they will continue as long as there are those that will pay any price necessary to get what they want-even if they don't know they want it or it is something that really isn't what they want.

Hey Scifi brought back Dark Shadows for syndication because people wrote and begged and pleaded-and they made hay while the sun shined and sold all kinds of memorabilia-who knows-they may do the same with Stargate.

[Vyse]

Yeah, Skiffy did screw the fans in a way, but I don't think it's the same thing as Farscape. SG-1 was on for 10 years, and the ratings are declining. Not like Farscape, the show was only on for what 4 seasons, and the ratings were still strong I believe. In fact, perhaps the reason the announcement ws made so early was so that the writers can end it more properly.

As said before Spike TV and G4TV will not buy it. It is too expensive for Spike, and when are they going to air it? Like it or not S11 would get lower ratings than the CSI (#1 watched show in the fall in the Nielsens) repeats. Too expensive for them also. G4TV, that is the most stupid idea I have heard. Not only would that be way too much money for them to make, look at what that channel does. They have half naked pretty girls on these shows who pretend they actually play videogames. As a hardcore gamer myself, I find that offensive. Channels like TBS and TNT will not be interested at all, and syndication will never work, since they already air the previous season in syndication. Also, I think it is a dreadful idea to somehow get SG-1 on one channel, and have Atlantis on another. Talk about stupid. As far as I see it SG-1 is dead now, be very very socked if it gets picked up somehow.

[Zoser]

I just stumbled onto this thread. I was sorta shocked there were other folks out there like myself who were having a hard time with the evolution of Stargate.

I stopped watching after about the first episode of S9. I was really getting annoyed with S8. Reckoning is right up there with my least favorite episodes. I don't like deus ex machina ending. You know the ones, where the writers have so painted themselves into a corner, they need a miracle (or alien technology) to get themselves out of it. It came to me as I sat and watched S9 that the Jack, Sam, and Teal'c that were on the show, weren't the right ones. The ones I was watching were from that other timeline. I knew this fact would never be dealt with, so I stopped watching.

I can hear it now, "But they fixed everything!" No, they didn't. I grew up reading Science Fiction when the genre really had something to do with science and wasn't just melodramas in space. It is generally agreed that whatever happens to the travelers is permenant. The changes they cause might be mitigated, but what befalls them cannot be. The writers of the old Doctor Who knew this (I haven't watched the new one) and they seemed really careful about it. So when our beloved team members went off to see if the Book of the Dead was true, they really died. No messing with time can bring them back.

Before y'all hit the reply button, I want you to think about this. This is not a minor problem of forgetting about canon. This is a group of people from somewhere else. People who don't belong at the SGC.

I felt foolish because I cried when Daniel said they died. I didn't know then that I was crying for the demise of Stargate.

[Zoser]

Is it not ironic that the main plot (I use tthat term loosely) of 200 is cancellation.

[RepliCartertje]

Is it not ironic that the main plot (I use tthat term loosely) of 200 is cancellation.

Well ironic is not the exact word I would use but I think they felt it comming. I mean somehow they must have felt it after the ratings of season 9. I mean they really dropped low. I think they at least thought they would have a season 11 but I do think they felt it comming and if they did not felt it comming than they are IMO a little bit stupid cause most of us did see it comming, I think even the pro's saw that the rating where bad.

And I know it is not because of the ratings that they cancelled the show but IMO that also got something to do with it.

[MediaSavant]

Not all TV viewers--whether Farscape fans or Stargate fans or fans of other shows--react emotionally to networks cancelling TV shows. We don't all declare the executives "idiots" or vow to boycott the network doing the cancellation.

Even though I was a hardcore Scaper, after the shock set in, I still accepted the cancellation as a business decision. I accept the cancellation of SG-1 as a business decision. Decisions to renew shows are business decisions and everyone applauds them.

I'm a businesswoman myself and I know that the decisions I've made may have hurt the feelings of people, but if I accounted for "feelings" in the decision I wouldn't be doing my job. I don't see network executives as idiots. On the contrary. I've been lucky to meet a few and, to a person, they are all intelligent people.

Yeah, some Farscape fans swore "boycott" when Farscape was canceled, but it had zero effect. In fact, the post-Farscape era for SciFi was when Stargate thrived, Taken broke records and won Emmies, and Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica were developed into series. And, yes, you can cite failures, but name one TV network that hasn't had failures mixed in with success.

I see a lot of hurt feelings in the decision to not continue SG-1, but I haven't seen any rational business reasons for continuing it. Even the producers acknowledge it's expensive. Revenues--as hinted by ratings--are down for originals, reruns, broadcast syndication and "200" is currently being outsold by "Who Wants to Be a Superhero" on iTunes. You only need to read Mediaweek to find out that this has been a lousy upfront ad sales season for both cable and syndication. So, next year is not bright on the revenue front.

There's no sign creatively that the show is poised for a creative renaissance that will suddenly get the ratings up again to levels that justify the expense. I'm sure most of the regulars here would agree with me on that.

I think SciFi is kinda in the position I am with my fantasy football team. I have a RB on my team called Priest Holmes. A few years ago, he was one of the most productive RB's in fantasy football, but last year he got injured. He's getting older and I have to question--do I invest in Priest Holmes one more year, knowing he will be getting older and fading and possibly be replaced on his own team as the highest yard producer, or invest in a rookie who might not produce at all or immediately, but will do well for me in the future? (my fantasy league allows us to carry a certain # of players from season to season)