where did season 10 go wrong?

[ShardsofGlass]

The problem with S10 in terms of why SG-1 was cancelled is the same problem plaguing SGA. SGA's it's ratings are about a half a point higher than SG-1's. I think tastes are changing. Afterall, it's been 10 years since the SG-1first started up, and people are getting tired of the concept. Which is the same problem Star Trek has.

[ReganX]

The problem with S10 in terms of why SG-1 was cancelled is the same problem plaguing SGA. SGA's it's ratings are about a half a point higher than SG-1's. I think tastes are changing. Afterall, it's been 10 years since the SG-1first started up, and people are getting tired of the concept. Which is the same problem Star Trek has.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have been perfectly happy to keep watching the show as it was in the first eight seasons.

[saberhagen83]

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have been perfectly happy to keep watching the show as it was in the first eight seasons.

I would have too. The changes didn't have to happen, but if they needed to add to the cast they could have done it in a better way. I think you said it well with a Major Mitchell and Vala as she was in PU. That might have worked better, and wouldn't have put of as many fans as these last two season have.

[tsukasa14]

The problem with S10 in terms of why SG-1 was cancelled is the same problem plaguing SGA. SGA's it's ratings are about a half a point higher than SG-1's. I think tastes are changing. Afterall, it's been 10 years since the SG-1first started up, and people are getting tired of the concept. Which is the same problem Star Trek has.

Actually, I'd say the show changed while the taste stayed the same. Fans grow old with the show and generally, when they do, they tend to be fond of their good old hubby rather than some youngers in the bar.

[Farscapefan]

Actually, I'd say the show changed while the taste stayed the same. Fans grow old with the show and generally, when they do, they tend to be fond of their good old hubby rather than some youngers in the bar.

And that's it, they've proved by this they're unable to accept the changes, even when better actors are joining the show and the new direction of the show is much more interesting, but at the same time more difficult to understand - the Ori and religious philosophy isn't an easy subject and it's probably too difficult for some. The Goa'uld were definitely much easier and less complicated.

[saberhagen83]

And that's it, they've proved by this they're unable to accept the changes, even when better actors are joining the show and the new direction of the show is much more interesting, but at the same time more difficult to understand - the Ori and religious philosophy isn't an easy subject and it's probably too difficult for some. The Goa'uld were definitely much easier and less complicated.

I think changes are very good for a show if it's for the better. Even though Jonas wasn't better then Daniel for me, I still liked him in S6, it didn't put me off just cause daniel was gone. But apparently most SG1 fans didn't feel the same as you do. You see the new seasons as more interesting then the old S1-8. For me the "old" SG1 was more interesting, both characters and stories. The Goa'uld started out good, but even though they weren't as interesting in later years, I still watched and enjoyed because the characters are my main reson to watch this show.

Since the changes, I was willing to give it a shot. I knew I would miss RDA, but was very open minded for some changes. But to my horror, Teal'c and Sam were shoved to the background, while Cam/vala/Daniel stole the show all the time. They don't even know how to write Vala these days, she has been 3 different characters for me. If they would have stayed with her character like she was in PU I might have enjoyed her much more. There has been times this season where they have really toned her down, like in "Counterstrike", and I enjoyed the ep, and could stand Vala. That doesn't happen too often these days.

[tsukasa14]

And that's it, they've proved by this they're unable to accept the changes, even when better actors are joining the show and the new direction of the show is much more interesting, but at the same time more difficult to understand - the Ori and religious philosophy isn't an easy subject and it's probably too difficult for some. The Goa'uld were definitely much easier and less complicated.

For one thing, you're doing a gross generalization by saying that CB and BB are better actors than RDA. For another, you're underestimating fans' intellectual level. To you, the new SG-1 may be more brilliant with interesting villains, team members, and character interactions than old SG-1 but it is the one that gets the boots because most people don't enjoy it.

I'd like to see SG-1 go on but one's opinion doesn't mean a thing.

[ReganX]

And that's it, they've proved by this they're unable to accept the changes, even when better actors are joining the show and the new direction of the show is much more interesting, but at the same time more difficult to understand - the Ori and religious philosophy isn't an easy subject and it's probably too difficult for some. The Goa'uld were definitely much easier and less complicated.

Whether BB, CB and Beau Bridges are "better actors" than the original cast, whether the new direction is "much more interesting" is merely your opinion.

I disagree.

It is not simply a matter of blindly accepting change, it is for each viewer to decide for themselves whether or not that change is for better or for worse. If they find the new direction, the new actors, the new characters or the new storyline lacking, they are completely entitled to stop watching and, if enough stop watching, the show is cancelled.

The viewer cannot be blamed if the new elements in the show failed to appeal to them.

[Dream-a-Little]

I would have too. The changes didn't have to happen, but if they needed to add to the cast they could have done it in a better way. I think you said it well with a Major Mitchell and Vala as she was in PU. That might have worked better, and wouldn't have put of as many fans as these last two season have.

Then Stargate's not a franchise. If it needs to stay the same, with the exact same characters and the exact same actors playing those characters it's a standard television show with a finite lifespan. It inevitably dies when its overhead costs (cast salaries) become too high to make it a profitable investment. Even franchises that are character dependent are not actor dependent - James Bond, Dr. Who.

For SG-1 to continue indefinitely it always needed to either phase out the characters of Sam Carter, Dr. Jackson, and Teal’c or recast the characters with different and less expensive actors irregardless of ratings.

[ReganX]

Then Stargate's not a franchise. If it needs to stay the same, with the exact same characters and the exact same actors playing those characters it's a standard television show with a finite lifespan. It inevitably dies when its overhead costs (cast salaries) become too high to make it a profitable investment. Even franchises that are character dependent are not actor dependent - James Bond, Dr. Who.

For SG-1 to continue indefinitely it always needed to either phase out the characters of Sam Carter, Dr. Jackson, and Teal’c or recast the characters with different and less expensive actors irregardless of ratings.

The ratings are going to be an issue on any channel that depends on advertising and even those that don't will want to know that enough people are watching a show to justify its cost.

Unless a show has investors that will continue to pump money into it even if they're making a dead loss and TV channels that will continue to air it even if nobody is watching, they need to consider the ratings.

[Farscapefan]

For one thing, you're doing a gross generalization by saying that CB and BB are better actors than RDA. For another, you're underestimating fans' intellectual level. To you, the new SG-1 may be more brilliant with interesting villains, team members, and character interactions than old SG-1 but it is the one that gets the boots because most people don't enjoy it.

I'd like to see SG-1 go on but one's opinion doesn't mean a thing.

There's also another BB, Beau Bridges, I was talking about him actually. And Claudia Black, whom I consider to be a better actor than Ben Browder.

[saberhagen83]

Then Stargate's not a franchise. If it needs to stay the same, with the exact same characters and the exact same actors playing those characters it's a standard television show with a finite lifespan. It inevitably dies when its overhead costs (cast salaries) become too high to make it a profitable investment. Even franchises that are character dependent are not actor dependent - James Bond, Dr. Who.

For SG-1 to continue indefinitely it always needed to either phase out the characters of Sam Carter, Dr. Jackson, and Teal’c or recast the characters with different and less expensive actors irregardless of ratings.

I mean if they wanted to bring in new actors, which doesn't mean a bad thing, they could have brought them into the show in a much better way then what they did with the characters now.

Stargate is a franchise in my mind. SG1 would never be able to keep going forever and ever, unless ratings was high enough for it to keep going. But the ratings has been declining past seasons. A show needs viewers to stay on the air. Stargate will still be around, if it's SG1, Atlantis or other new series and/or movies coming in the future.

[ReganX]

I mean if they wanted to bring in new actors, which doesn't mean a bad thing, they could have brought them into the show in a much better way then what they did with the characters now.

I think that bringing them in slowly would have been better - obviously they needed Landry once Jack was gone, so he would have been the only new regular I brought in for at least the first half of Season Nine, possibly even the whole season, with Vala playing a part, albeit a different one, in the first five or six episodes.

Too much change too fast can be off-putting, and it also places a burden on the writers to introduce and establish all of the new characters, which can end up being at the expense of the established characters.

Had it been my call, I would probably have waited until the end of Season Nine and seen how the show was doing with Sam, Teal'c, Daniel and Landry, with a bit of Vala before deciding whether to keep her as a regular for Season Nine or whether to bring in BB (or another actor, if I decided to make the character a captain or lieutenant) as Major Mitchell.

[Dream-a-Little]

The ratings are going to be an issue on any channel that depends on advertising and even those that don't will want to know that enough people are watching a show to justify its cost.

Unless a show has investors that will continue to pump money into it even if they're making a dead loss and TV channels that will continue to air it even if nobody is watching, they need to consider the ratings.

Even shows with strong ratings eventually end because their expanding costs diminish their rate of return on the investment.

[saberhagen83]

Yeah I think you are right. It was too much too fast I feel. All of a sudden we had more or less 3 or 4 new characters brought into the show (Landry, Vala, Cam & Dr Lam). As you say, changes should be made slowly over a longer period of time. That way the viewer will know the new character before they introduce us to another.