Dig at Sci-Fi (E18 - Family Ties) - Spoilers

[Ouroboros]

Obviously. And by then, the series was in its six season (at the time believed to be the final one). Which just goes to prove my point, advertising can make all the difference and bring in new viewers, even late in a series run.

As has already been pointed out, that's got nothing to do with advertising. The network they moved to was just more accessible to a larger audience.

TPTB did plan to end the show at the end of season 8, but SciFi renewed the show.

Again, someone else already beat me to saying it, but that didn't mean they had to. The fact they kept agreeing to renew it over and over again is actually the point I was making in a way. It seems as if they were basically going to keep making more of it until someone else stepped in and told them it was time to stop. Now that that's happened, they're complaining about it, as if it was so unexpected and cruel.

If they weren't ever going to commit to ending it on their own, how did they think it was going to end?

[Metonic]

ending the series would be ok by me... PROVIDED they would of gave the writers a season to finish it properly before pulling the plug. Season 11 could of been the end and I would have no problem with Scifi. But they pulled out early. Not to mention how upset i was when i discovered direct to dvd movies were being made... SG1 needs big screen. straight to DVD movies are knowe to suck and therefore people who dont kno stargate wonbt but stargate.

[Night Spring]

To tell ya the truth, I don't think TPTB has that much power when coupled with the Execs at SciFi; it felt they had no choice but to continue the show.

It's not like TPTB are slaves, LOL. They can say no. Of course, if MGM and SciFi *really* wanted the series to continue, they could hire new writers, I suppose. But usually, when the production/writing team decides to wrap up a series, the networks and distributors go along with it.

[mrattelle41]

This was such a bad/boring episode I had to watch it in pieces. WOW probably the worst episode ever...

[Sicktem]

When RDA started talking about how he wanted to leave the show soon that's when they should have started talking about their series finale.

In my mind they did end it then. Season 9 is like a whole new series with a number of characters crossing over and that was how they wanted to sell it. However, instead of letting them change the name to Stargate Command, Sci Fi wanted to stick with the winning name and decided to market it as the 9th season instead of the 1st season in a whole new storyline, so they ended up alienating fans who saw it as trying to replace Richard. To me, though, the show has been cancelled after 2 seasons when the storyline was finally picking up and could've gone on another 3-4 years (the writers themselves said they had about that many seasons in them with the rebirth that they put into place).

[ussrelativity]

It would surprise me if the Sci-Fi channel has it one person checking various forums for information like this. TPTB had better be careful with their little digs at the network, we could loose SGA because of it. Or am I being a little bit suspicious/cynical/paranoid?

Well said. I believe that more pressure needs to be brought against NBC/Universal, but in a more careful way.

[Ugly Pig]

As has already been pointed out, that's got nothing to do with advertising. The network they moved to was just more accessible to a larger audience.

Again, that is obvious. But my point is - you said that SG-1 wouldn't get more viewers late in the series. But it did, when it moved to a more accessible network - and the ratings continued to climb long after that. So there are obviously people out there willing to give an old show a chance. So why wouldn't advertising be able to get new butts in the chairs now?

[Hubble]

Again, that is obvious. But my point is - you said that SG-1 wouldn't get more viewers late in the series. But it did, when it moved to a more accessible network - and the ratings continued to climb long after that. So there are obviously people out there willing to give an old show a chance. So why wouldn't advertising be able to get new butts in the chairs now?

Perhaps massive advertising would cause some new viewers to tune into the show, but if I was one of those new viewers who was watching "Family Ties" or "Bounty" for the first time, I surely wouldn't sit my butt down again next week to watch the show. Perhaps some new viewers would, but others wouldn't. I think there is a finite number of butts for those chairs and a finite number of viewers who enjoy science fiction (even light sci-fi)

Advertising alone doesn't ensure a long life for a product; you also have to have a product in which consumers have an interest. And I'd say the opinion is very mixed as to whether Stargate (in S9 and 10) was generally interesting enought to the viewers to make them want to continue to watch.

[Night Spring]

Advertising alone doesn't ensure a long life for a product; you also have to have a product in which consumers have an interest.

Right. Advertising helps, but isn't the be all and end all.

Case in point, part of what convinced me to start watching SG-1 was subway ads -- SciFi had filled up the entire train with ads for SG-1 and Firefly. Now, since there were equal numbers of ads for SG-1 and Firefly in that train, I should have become equally interested in both. But while a lot of my friends had already been watching SG-1 and telling me about it, nobody I knew was watching Firefly. So after seeing the ads, I came home and looked for SG-1, but never bothered looking for Firefly. So while the ads did influence my decision to watch SG-1, the word-of-mouth from my friends were equally, if not more, important.

[Mitchell82]

Perhaps massive advertising would cause some new viewers to tune into the show, but if I was one of those new viewers who was watching "Family Ties" or "Bounty" for the first time, I surely wouldn't sit my butt down again next week to watch the show. Perhaps some new viewers would, but others wouldn't. I think there is a finite number of butts for those chairs and a finite number of viewers who enjoy science fiction (even light sci-fi)

Advertising alone doesn't ensure a long life for a product; you also have to have a product in which consumers have an interest. And I'd say the opinion is very mixed as to whether Stargate (in S9 and 10) was generally interesting enought to the viewers to make them want to continue to watch.

Agree. It's all a matter of opinion and word of mouth that brings in viewers. Advertising helps but word of mouth is the main venue.

[Ouroboros]

Again, that is obvious. But my point is - you said that SG-1 wouldn't get more viewers late in the series. But it did, when it moved to a more accessible network - and the ratings continued to climb long after that. So there are obviously people out there willing to give an old show a chance. So why wouldn't advertising be able to get new butts in the chairs now?

I said advertising wouldn't draw people to a ten year old show. That's a different point entirely.

When it was on showtime there was likely a lot of people who were curious about it and wanted to watch it but not curious enough to pay for showtime just for one show. When they moved to sci-fi that problem went away. This combined with the fact that a bunch of people already watching a station that focussed on sci-fi (as opposed to heavy artsy drama type stuff) likely happened upon it by accident and started watching it, both which caused the upswing in viewership, that and the fact sci-fi's audience is simply larger.

None of it had anything to do with advertising though, beyond what was needed to inform viewers of the new show of course.

Advertising it to the extent needed to see any results now would likely only make it even more expensive, which was the last thing Sci-fi wanted. It simply wasn't worth it to spend all that money pushing a ten year old show to an audience (sci-fi's audience) who'd have to have been living under a rock on Mars not to have heard about SG-1 by now.

By now most people who watch the sci-fi network have probably already seen one or several episodes of Stargate already, and then decided it wasn't for them. I have a hard time believing that any regular sci-fi viewer who would see these ads you say sci-fi should have run wouldn't already know about Sg-1 by now.

[Ugly Pig]

I said advertising wouldn't draw people to a ten year old show. That's a different point entirely.

So people can be convinced to check out a show that's six years old, but not one that's ten?

[Sci-Fi]

In my mind they did end it then. Season 9 is like a whole new series with a number of characters crossing over and that was how they wanted to sell it. However, instead of letting them change the name to Stargate Command, Sci Fi wanted to stick with the winning name and decided to market it as the 9th season instead of the 1st season in a whole new storyline, so they ended up alienating fans who saw it as trying to replace Richard. To me, though, the show has been cancelled after 2 seasons when the storyline was finally picking up and could've gone on another 3-4 years (the writers themselves said they had about that many seasons in them with the rebirth that they put into place).

I was under the impression that SONY made that call and felt the SG-1 name was already well known so they could save the cash instead of promoting a "new series" or "branding". Could be wrong, but I remember reading an article about it somewhere back then.

The cost of SG1 was high just because it was long running. The producers admitted it. Just re-read their comments. They said production values were already at it's minimum level. It's a code word for the actor's salaries being a prohibitively high percentage of the budget and MGM just resigned the principle SG1 actors to new contracts..so it appears MGM tied it own hands. The producers had a chance in season 9 to start a whole new SG1 team, with maybe one of the regulars on board and the rest as recurring guest stars. That should have been enough cost reduction to keep the series attractive for a pickup, assuming the same or better ratings as previous seasons.

Think people forget that each SG1 season on the SFC was written as if it were the last one. People were scared when SGA debuted, but SG1 was renewed. When the time finally came, everybody got upset. Sure there could have been a better way to do it, but what happened can't be changed.

The days of 20+ primetime seasons of Gunsmoke (633 episodes) are over. MASH ended after 11 seasons with a TV movie, All in the Family after 9 seasons, and they both replaced actors that either wanted too much money or couldn't afford to resign them to new contracts and/or reduced the ensemble cast to just a few main characters. Cost management is a fact of life and keeping high production values is more important in the future syndication market.

We don't know what MGM was asking the SFC to pay for a possible season 11 when compared to previous seasons, but we do know the SFC said they would renew the show at a lower cost. It's all politics and PR between the studio and network. The fans unfortunately got caught up in the middle of it and chose sides, with the SFC getting the blunt of the anger...because they were the ones that cancelled the show.

AFAIK, SG-1 ended after Season 8 and they had a nice sendoff for the original cast, esp RDA. A spinoff show and/or a new SG1 crew should have been developed instead.

As a side note, WWE Raw (500 episodes) and Power Rangers (550 episodes) are currently the longest running shows, episode wise.

[Mitchell82]

I was under the impression that SONY made that call and felt the SG-1 name was already well known so they could save the cash instead of promoting a "new series" or "branding". Could be wrong, but I remember reading an article about it somewhere back then.

The cost of SG1 was high just because it was long running. The producers admitted it. Just re-read their comments. They said production values were already at it's minimum level. It's a code word for the actor's salaries being a prohibitively high percentage of the budget and MGM just resigned the principle SG1 actors to new contracts..so it appears MGM tied it own hands. The producers had a chance in season 9 to start a whole new SG1 team, with maybe one of the regulars on board and the rest as recurring guest stars. That should have been enough cost reduction to keep the series attractive for a pickup, assuming the same or better ratings as previous seasons.

Think people forget that each SG1 season on the SFC was written as if it were the last one. People were scared when SGA debuted, but SG1 was renewed. When the time finally came, everybody got upset. Sure there could have been a better way to do it, but what happened can't be changed.

The days of 20+ primetime seasons of Gunsmoke (633 episodes) are over. MASH ended after 11 seasons with a TV movie, All in the Family after 9 seasons, and they both replaced actors that either wanted too much money or couldn't afford to resign them to new contracts and/or reduced the ensemble cast to just a few main characters. Cost management is a fact of life and keeping high production values is more important in the future syndication market.

We don't know what MGM was asking the SFC to pay for a possible season 11 when compared to previous seasons, but we do know the SFC said they would renew the show at a lower cost. It's all politics and PR between the studio and network. The fans unfortunately got caught up in the middle of it and chose sides, with the SFC getting the blunt of the anger...because they were the ones that cancelled the show.

AFAIK, SG-1 ended after Season 8 and they had a nice sendoff for the original cast, esp RDA. A spinoff show and/or a new SG1 crew should have been developed instead.

As a side note, WWE Raw (500 episodes) and Power Rangers (550 episodes) are currently the longest running shows, episode wise.

First the first time it was in danger was season 5(showtime). Season 6 was 100% done before renewal, seasons 7,8,9 they knew they were renewed before seasons end. Also you really can't count wrestling since it's technically a sport. Power Rangers doesnt count either since every 3 or 4 years it's a new spinoff. but I see your point on Gunsmoke those days are long gone. Sg-1 had a great run and IMO season 8 was a great season and easily could have been the finale but seasons 9 and 10 have been equally as good imo. MGM believed what they asked was reasonable but scfi thought otherwise. It was scifi that wanted it to stay Sg-1. I see your point though I still love that little dig at scifi mainly b/c of how poorly they handled the situation.

[Ouroboros]

So people can be convinced to check out a show that's six years old, but not one that's ten?

Didn't I just answer this same question with a post yesterday?

No one had to be convinced of anything when the show moved to sci-fi. The audience grew larger simply because the sci-fi network had a larger overall audience, and a larger number of people likely to be watching it at any given time who would be interested in stargate.