The Cam and Vala discussion thread

[Skydiver]

Also see: Atlantis, season 2.

see a good chunk of SG1 since season 9. it did start in s7 honestly, but became totally unavoidable and unignorable in s9 on

if we started a list of every time a character behaved out of character or stupidly to make the plot happen we'd have a very long list...and pretty much every one of the last 25 episodes would be on it

[Skydiver]

Give Vala her own show so she wont have any need in SG-1


Stargate: Lost In Pegasus

Vala cut off from Earth & she is on the other side of the Pegasus Galaxy the Atlantis Team has never been to yet & through Vala we expore the other part with her finding her way back to the SGC or Atlantis. Which ever comes first

She can run into Ba'al in hiding (with Ba'al having no idea the SGC has a Team in that Galaxy)
Run into some Wraith
Maybe even have Vala be the one to meet the REAL Furlings
Piss Off The Geni

that sounds good.

ship her and cliff off

[Shipperahoy]

You made me take a look at the end of the 200 and Atlantis 6th episode (having them on the computer is great, 'cause it's taking a second to find the right place). In both episodes RDA's credit was SPECIAL APPEARANCE. Now this is something totally different than SPECIAL GUEST STAR.

As Sky said, there have been plenty of special guest stars over SG-1's history and not a one of them took over the show like Vala's character did. If you're going to use your multiple episode arguement then I have to say what about Louis Gossett Jr.? He had a multiple episode arc as a special guest star and yet the episodes weren't all about him.

[Major Clanger]

well,he may be competent in some things, but his leadership abilities (and everyone should note that I watched S9 as it aired on Sky and haven't watched since, I haven't seen S10) leave a lot to be desired.

A lot of it is his attitude - although I have to admit that his full-on, in your face, self-belief wore off a little. Thank goodness.

[ShardsofGlass]

The thing is about "Special Guest Star" versus "Guest Star" versus "Special Appearance" or any other credit like this, none of know what we're talking about. Is there anyone here that knows how these credits generally work in showbiz? Raise your hand, please.

So I propose we drop the whole argument because it's two sides arguing about something neither knows anything about, and it's rather pointless.

[Farscapefan]

Now my brain hurts... :sob:

I guess the word "STAR" is the key here.

[majorsal]

Precisely. And a lot of people seem to not to remember or prefer not to remember that Vala is an alien. Also the one who was a host to Goa'uld we don't know for how long, and who was RAPED by the Ori. Everybody wants Vala to fit into military Earth standards. That's stupid.

i think for me, the all-time low for vala *and this show* was in season 9's 'ties that bind', when vala was not only allowed to go with sg1/landry to the senate committe, she was allowed to speak at it (dressed in a rather alluring outfit too). it's scenes like this that just highlight how much the show had changed from realistic military mindedness, to changing the laws of the show, so to speak, so they could write vala the funny and sexy character.

in the stargate sg1 that i'd known for years, vala would NOT have been allowed to speak to that committe. i understand why she had to go (because of hers and daniel's 'connection'), but she should have been left in another room, tied up to a chair and gagged if need be. would that have been as funny as vala taking over the committe meeting and being risque? no, but that's the point. stargate sg1 never lowered themselves to this kind of humor before.

the show started dying in season 9, and season 10's ratings are its results.

just my opinion, which means nothing to anyone but me. (so please don't take offense, farscapefan, i'm not talking about claudia black)






sally

[Farscapefan]

As Sky said, there have been plenty of special guest stars over SG-1's history and not a one of them took over the show like Vala's character did. If you're going to use your multiple episode arguement then I have to say what about Louis Gossett Jr.? He had a multiple episode arc as a special guest star and yet the episodes weren't all about him.

But the first episode Lou Gossett Jr. appeared in was episode 3 and the next one was episode 6. And he wasn't in consecutive episodes, one after another. Vala was in all 6 episodes and this is making a difference.

[OberonSky]

Well this discussion is getting heated =)

However, my earlier post was misunderstood. My answer to the question: "Did Vala/Cam kill stargate??" is a definite NO, they did not kill Stargate. And this is NOT an opinion, it is a fact. Ratings went down for season 10 from an average of 1.8-2.0 in season 9 to average of 1.4-1.5 or so in seaon 10, give or take. That means a drop of %25-%30 of viewers.

If we attribute some (for the sake of argument, %5, and that is being generous to those who claim Vala/Cam killed SG-1) of this drop to the limited advertising and the bad time-slot vs. Monk/Psych, then that leaves us of about 20% drop of viewers due to the "new direction" of the show, namely Vala/Cam writing etc.

Now, to those 20% who stopped watching the show because of Vala/Cam the answer is yes, they killed it FOR THEM. However, the question again was not "Did vala/Cam kill the show FOR YOU?" .. it is "Did Vala/Cam kill the show PERIOD/IN GENERAL?"

Since the majority still watch the show, it is natural to state that the majority of viewers still tuned in, sure some may have not enjoyed the show as much as before but they still watched it, HENCE the majority were ok with the show, hence it was NOT killed.

We (as in America and perhaps our society nowadays) seem to be promoting a very flawed concept. That is "I have an opinion , you have an opinion, we are both right it is ok to disagree". Sure that works in a FEW situations but not every one.

You cannot tell me that the sun sets in the East and say this is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Sorry, no you are not entitled to a falshood masquerading under the so-called "my opinion."

Again, if the question was: Did Vala/Cam kill stargate for YOU?? sure I would accept the whole "my opinion / your opinion" talk that people have been advocating.

But no folks, the show was still alive and kicking despite the 20% or so drop in veiwers. Vala/Cam did not kill the show. End of story.

Now if you stopped watching because of Vala/Cam sure the show is dead TO YOU. But I remind you this is not the topic of the thread. The topic is asking a general question, whether Vala/Cam were the only or main reason for the show to be cancelled.

Think about what I said and try to distinguish between a question directed to you or a question directed at the whole of fans/viewers.

Now that we established that Vala/Cam did NOT kill the show (period). We can go on and add whether they killed the show FOR EACH ONE OF US.


I like Vala/Cam, they did not kill the show for ME. I have my reservations regarding the way Vala is given freehand in running around and acting goofy, I believe the writers need to make her go through an SG-bootcamp and change her attitude to fit within a military team.

[Uber]

and... let's not forget Daniel screwing up Majorly and constantly in S1 & S2 if not beyond.

Screwing up is not a character flaw, in fact it is pretty brave of writers to give their main characters very human capabilities.

Ramming their perfection down our throats while at the same time making them screw up is just... sloppy.

Are we using that word a little too much in this thread? Perhaps we should ban it.

You're making a really great point here. May I add my two pence?

I love it when our group screws up. Why? Because it's only occasionally and as you point out, show that they aren't models of perfection and they do make errors in judgment.

The difference for me is that I KNOW Teal'c, Sam and Daniel. I know there characters and personalities. I know their strengths and weaknesses.

And I KNOW that when they screw up, it's the exception, not the rule.

For Mitchell...well, although he was presented as a by the book Air Force Lt. Colonel ace pilot, he was never firmly established as such and in fact would bounce back and forth to the point that I was never sure who we'd see that week.

Spoiler:

Would we get the somber, solid Colonel who fought his way from the brink of death or would we get Lt. Colonel "I thought it was a light switch"?

There was never a solid characterization for the character and so it was impossible to determine whether an action was out of character.

As a result, I as a viewer was left frustrated by something as so trivial as the team dynamics because I didn't understand who he was, why he was there and why the others returned to the team with him.

Spoiler:

I don't know why Sam didn't pop him in the mouth when he called her Mary Poppins in Off the Grid or when he rushed ahead in Stronghold, forcing Daniel and Sam to abandon their position prematurely to provide backup.

My point here is that because the writers didn't seem to know how to characterize him consistently, it seems that this also affected the other established characters who also didn't know how to respond to him.

No real conflict or irritation...it's just not natural and it negatively affected the team dynamic.

[suse]

None of the characters had anything to do with it. It was ratings, and the drop in ratings was caused by SciFi's overly advertising Eureka over Stargate SG-1. So it's SciFi's fault. You can't say its the characters, cuz look at the ratings of 200. SciFi is the problem.

I could have sworn someone said it wasn't the ratings that killed Stargate. (Wasn't me.)

One decent rating out of the season so far does not a renewable season make. Not that I think Skiffy would have renewed it after getting the record anyway.

To explain this seeming condradiction: I think Skiffy wanted the record. Fine. Business decision - and not a bad one. However for me (the writing of) Cam and Vala killed the show. It could (IMO) have gone out on top (with numbers like S8) the way it was supposed to if not for the pointless shoe-horning and sledge-hammering of characters not suited to the series into it. If they had been woven into the series in a logical way that respected 8 years of storytelling I think the ratings would be higher. Please note that I never said they shouldn't have used these particular actors. Though actually using both stars from another show in the same genre doesn't seen...wise

For me killing the show does not equal low ratings. There are a lot of very popular shows out there that are dead to me because I think they are bottom-feeders. LIke ECW. And Desperate Housewives. And the list goes on. But when things are written on a show that I like and respect (I "liked" Walker, Texas Ranger, I didn't "respect" it though) to make me no longer like it, well, the show has been lkilled. Oh look! It's S9!

I frankly don't mind the low ratings for SG-1 because I think they are exceedingly warranted.

Suse

[Shipperahoy]

Well this discussion is getting heated =)

However, my earlier post was misunderstood. My answer to the question: "Did Vala/Cam kill stargate??" is a definite NO, they did not kill Stargate. And this is NOT an opinion, it is a fact. Ratings went down for season 10 from an average of 1.8-2.0 in season 9 to average of 1.4-1.5 or so in seaon 10, give or take. That means a drop of %25-%30 of viewers.

If we attribute some (for the sake of argument, %5, and that is being generous to those who claim Vala/Cam killed SG-1) of this drop to the limited advertising and the bad time-slot vs. Monk/Psych, then that leaves us of about 20% drop of viewers due to the "new direction" of the show, namely Vala/Cam writing etc.

Now, to those 20% who stopped watching the show because of Vala/Cam the answer is yes, they killed it FOR THEM. However, the question again was not "Did vala/Cam kill the show FOR YOU?" .. it is "Did Vala/Cam kill the show PERIOD/IN GENERAL?"

We (as in America and perhaps our society nowadays) seem to be promoting a very flawed concept. That is "I have an opinion , you have an opinion, we are both right it is ok to disagree". Sure that works in a FEW situations but not every one.

You cannot tell me that the sun sets in the East and say this is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Sorry, no you are not entitled to a falshood masquerading under the so-called "my opinion."

Again, if the question was: Did Vala/Cam kill stargate for YOU?? sure I would accept the whole "my opinion / your opinion" talk that people have been advocating.

But no folks, the show was still alive and kicking despite the 20% or so drop in veiwers. Vala/Cam did not kill the show. End of story.

Now if you stopped watching because of Vala/Cam sure the show is dead TO YOU. But I remind you this is not the topic of the thread. The topic is asking a general question, whether Vala/Cam were the only or main reason for the show to be cancelled.

Think about what I said and try to distinguish between a question directed to you or a question directed at the whole of fans/viewers.

Now that we established that Vala/Cam did NOT kill the show (period). We can go on and add whether they killed the show FOR EACH ONE OF US.


I like Vala/Cam, they did not kill the show for ME. I have my reservations regarding the way Vala is given freehand in running around and acting goofy, I believe the writers need to make her go through an SG-bootcamp and change her attitude to fit within a military team.

You're arguement is flawed in a number of ways. First of all comparing something like whether or not 2 characters killed a show to something that is scientific fact like the sun setting is a bit ridiculous. So to say that it's established beyond a shadow of a doubt that adding those two characters didn't kill the show is an opinion not a fact. Do I think that the characters are solely responsible for the demise of the show? No. I simply believe that they played a part.

[Zelda]

Well I can say that the characters may have contributed to the cancellation because I personally know of quite a few people who were on this forum alone who stopped watching after season 9 because it didn't feel like Stargate anymore, in part because of those 2 characters. Once you start losing long time fans it starts going downhill.

I've read remarks by several posters on this forum who claim that this series was going "downhill" well before Season 9.

The key here is after Season 9.

I can say personally that people I know from several other boards came to watch the "new and improved" Stargate -- but were disappointed to discover that Stargate wasn't new or improved -- it just recycled the villains -- only changed which "god" now had to be worshiped -- and added a handful of new characters. The writing remains the same old for all the characters and story development. Those viewers never became fans either.

It appears that the 3 remaining original characters either never had the fan base they needed to sustain the ratings, or their fans never were loyal to the degree one would imagine after nine years on air.

Or, maybe, RDA fans outnumbered everyone else.

So, did Cam/Vala sink the SG1 ship? No. It's fairly plain that both Scifi and MGM were looking for the record -- mission accomplished! Everyone's happy. Except for a few people here.

I'm wondering if just like Farscape fans who came to watch because of Ben & Claudia, Firefly fans will take a look tonight because of Marina Baccarin.

[Farscapefan]

Do I think that the characters are solely responsible for the demise of the show? No. I simply believe that they played a part.

And this is something I strongly disagree with. Very strongly. They've just started being fully developed. Both of them are not finished. Yeah, it's easy to put responsibility for show's demise for something "in work". Very easy.
Give me a break.

[OberonSky]

You're arguement is flawed in a number of ways. First of all comparing something like whether or not 2 characters killed a show to something that is scientific fact like the sun setting is a bit ridiculous. So to say that it's established beyond a shadow of a doubt that adding those two characters didn't kill the show is an opinion not a fact. Do I think that the characters are solely responsible for the demise of the show? No. I simply believe that they played a part.

Err excuse me, I presented numbers regarding ratings which translate into a drop of viewership that is not the majority nor drastic to conclude they caused the death of the show.


Add to that the statements made by Sci-Fi, whether you believe them or not, they did not cancel due to ratings, they cancelled because it was expensive to make coupled with the fact that NBC pressured Sci-Fi / USA Network to give preference to original programming rather than out-of-network shows, add to that the fact that they reached the 200 epsidoe with all the "publicity" they needed and no longer want to continue.

Stern specifically said he would be interested in SG-1 if it was "less" cost.

So if you want to blame something, it is the balooning production costs coupled with Sci-Fi's bad management to advertise and keep the successful Firday lineup. Honestly at this point, I believe Sci-Fi did not do those things on purpose and wanted to phase out non-network programs to make way for "original" programming.