The Cam and Vala discussion thread

[Zoser]

Yup, if SciFi didn't plan to destroy it from the start of season 10 with the crappy and ****ty line up on Friday's night.

I don't quite get this line up thing.
For example on Fox the only thing I watch is House (and the Simpsons) but don't think twice about changing the channel (or turning it off) when it's over, even if the remote is hiding.

[KatG]

I don't quite get this line up thing.
For example on Fox the only thing I watch is House (and the Simpsons) but don't think twice about changing the channel (or turning it off) when it's over, even if the remote is hiding.

See. I don't get it either. Why do I need a lead in to watch a show, if the show is good? The first five years of SG-1, when it was on Showtime, it came on at 10:00pm with nothing leading into it that I watched. And it did just fine. And in S7 and S8 it led the Friday night line-up and did just fine. So I don't see why having nothing on before it should be a factor.

[Pitry]

Stargate has always been on Friday nights.
RCC changed SG-1 and did it badly, instead of building on the existing fanbase he resorted to chasing a demographic that wasn't there and pissed off a large portion of the fans. Ratings went down. Show got cancelled.


Hey I heard a good one the other day - It was magnets!!

Err... the arguement against RCC would have been a good one - if it wasn't for one fact. Stargate has continued to gain viewers during years 7 & 8, when he was being show runner. As for left overs from BW, mind you that season 7 is the year he was completely uninvovled, and season 8 had him involved but to a minimal degree, as he was focused much more on Atlantis. Now, you might say that the gain in viewers in season 7 would have been because of season 6... only that would mean that season 8 gained viewers because of season 7. (For the record, I agree that season 7 is, IMHO, the worst season of SG1, only for me it's together with 6. Oh, and I still think it's better than the best season of most other television shows I know )

As for whether it really is about quality - can't say. I'd only note that Eureka dived much, much faster than both BSG and Atlantis - and if it continues that way, soon its ratings will be identical to SG1's, and that I'll wait and see what BSG's ratings would be before jumping to conclusions about the quality factor. Then again, I don't think BSG is quality.... but I've come to realise that's prolly mainly me My point is, it seems to me - especially with the ratings coming for this week - it's the SciFi channel losing its casual viewers - again, can;t comment on what the reason is - rather than any individual show.

And now, done with the ratings discussion from me, I'll comment that for one I do believe the SciFi channelw hen they say it wasn't ratings based, as the ratings for Atlantis are identical, and, as I said, it's all taking a huge dive down.
(let the "SG1's lack of quality made a lot of people stop watching all the programmes ofthe channel as a whole" discussion re-start )

[Uber]

Err... the arguement against RCC would have been a good one - if it wasn't for one fact. Stargate has continued to gain viewers during years 7 & 8, when he was being show runner. As for left overs from BW, mind you that season 7 is the year he was completely uninvovled, and season 8 had him involved but to a minimal degree, as he was focused much more on Atlantis. Now, you might say that the gain in viewers in season 7 would have been because of season 6... only that would mean that season 8 gained viewers because of season 7. (For the record, I agree that season 7 is, IMHO, the worst season of SG1, only for me it's together with 6. Oh, and I still think it's better than the best season of most other television shows I know )

As for whether it really is about quality - can't say. I'd only note that Eureka dived much, much faster than both BSG and Atlantis - and if it continues that way, soon its ratings will be identical to SG1's, and that I'll wait and see what BSG's ratings would be before jumping to conclusions about the quality factor. Then again, I don't think BSG is quality.... but I've come to realise that's prolly mainly me My point is, it seems to me - especially with the ratings coming for this week - it's the SciFi channel losing its casual viewers - again, can;t comment on what the reason is - rather than any individual show.

And now, done with the ratings discussion from me, I'll comment that for one I do believe the SciFi channelw hen they say it wasn't ratings based, as the ratings for Atlantis are identical, and, as I said, it's all taking a huge dive down.
(let the "SG1's lack of quality made a lot of people stop watching all the programmes ofthe channel as a whole" discussion re-start )

Yes but...what presence was there in Seasons 7 and 8 when the ratings were the highest for the show EVER and was decidedly missing starting in Season 9?

I think I underestimated the level of quality control Gekko levvied on the show to keep it in order...but the contrast is stark indeed.

[Skydiver]

skiffy's search for ratings is like a fad diet. short burst of flash in the pan. tiny burst of immediate results...then it peters off to nothing and you may even GAIN weight on a fad diet

while the best and longest way to lose weight is slowly, thorugh diet and exercise and shed a pound or two a week until you gain your goal

skiffy keeps goingfor the flash in the pan. the get rich quick scheme of ratings. fast and furious saves the day

the problem with that is, it's gimicky. and people get bored with gimicks and turn off the channel and settle into something that may not be as flashy but is a lot more dependable.

[Pitry]

Yes but...what presence was there in Seasons 7 and 8 when the ratings were the highest for the show EVER and was decidedly missing starting in Season 9?

I think I underestimated the level of quality control Gekko levvied on the show to keep it in order...but the contrast is stark indeed.

Sigh. I guess I've given up arguing about quality and shall agree to disagree.

But! Lo and behold. See Skydiver, I actually can agree with you on something. Your description of Scifi's ratings schemes is spot on

[AGateFan]

Of course the lineup is important. Do a little research around GW forum and find the one post by Garris (as far as I remember) - analyzing this season's situation from CASUAL VIEWER's POV. You (and me actually) are looking at the show from fan's POV, not just casual viewers. They need something more to keep them at home and in front of TV and not to skip to another channel. The lack of BSG and the crappy Night Stalker proved it.

There really is more then one casual viewer on the planet and I have heard from many who dont share Garris opinion. His reasons for not watching are not the same as every other casual viewers. Really, thats true, people are different and Garris is only one person, really. Not that there arent people that do agree with Garris, I am sure there are but are there really enough to make a 30% drop all by themselves. Considering other causal viewers I know give different reasons, and others probably have even different reasons from them, then no I doubt it.

[Skydiver]

Sigh. I guess I've given up arguing about quality and shall agree to disagree.

But! Lo and behold. See Skydiver, I actually can agree with you on something. Your description of Scifi's ratings schemes is spot on

thanks

I mean, why do you think Law and ORder has survived so long? it's not dependance on characters, cause they trade out all the time. and it's certanly not sfx or sex appeal (unless sam waterson has one heck of a secret fan club )

it's because the STORIES are good. Maybe not all of them, but enough that it's got a consistency that's carried it for years. and, theoretically, for years more. as long as dick wolf can keep coming up with good stories, the show will go on.

scifi doens't want to 'waste' time getting folks to make good stories. they have them slap dash stuff together, emphasizing the sfx, stunt casting and 'appeal' and keep trying to attract people with 'ooohh shiiinnnyyy' and can't/wont' realize that people are smart. they catch on that that nice 'diamond' ring is really cut glass and they stop watching

scifi, in its incessant obsession with the 'quick and dirty' ratings boost have put such an emphasis on the gimick that they spend no time on the stories/show...thus scifi is synomous with 'cheap garbage'

If they have a 'scifi original' movie 52 weeks a year, it's a sure bet that 48 of them will be crap

[Shipperahoy]

Therein lies the problem with bringing in two new characters who are so different in attitude, attire, experience from the rest of the cast. In their effort to try to take the show in a newer/hipper direction they departed so far from what drew fans in in the first place that it was like a bucket of water to the face. Now that the characters have been mellowed a bit they are starting to really gel with the team IMO but it may be too little too late.

[majorsal]

Actually a lot of people loved Season 6. It was after Brad Wright left and Season 7 began that they felt the show started down its descent and I agree in some ways.

me too. the real writing probs -to me- started in season 7.




sally

[Skydiver]

Therein lies the problem with bringing in two new characters who are so different in attitude, attire, experience from the rest of the cast. In their effort to try to take the show in a newer/hipper direction they departed so far from what drew fans in in the first place that it was like a bucket of water to the face. Now that the characters have been mellowed a bit they are starting to really gel with the team IMO but it may be too little too late.

they tried, to me, to warp the show to fit their new characters, instead of making the characters fit into the show.

the formula the show had worked. 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'

so while i do acknowledge that the show did need some new characters and the like, surely there was a 'better' way to integrate the characters into the show, letting htem be themselves while not totally warping the show to fit the new characters

I feel, had cam and vala been fit into the show - not the show twisted to accept them - then reception to these two characters would have been far, far different

[majorsal]

Incidentally, I still haven't voted in the poll. Too bad I can't pick 2 and 3.
The writing has been poor for me for a while, but it was the badly written characters which finally did the dirty deed - they just couldn't hide the bad writing.

especially when the new badly written characters were literally given the show.

(my opinion)






sally

[majorsal]

(snip)

And now, done with the ratings discussion from me, I'll comment that for one I do believe the SciFi channelw hen they say it wasn't ratings based, as the ratings for Atlantis are identical, and, as I said, it's all taking a huge dive down.
(let the "SG1's lack of quality made a lot of people stop watching all the programmes ofthe channel as a whole" discussion re-start )

you make some very keen insights, pitry, but i think that when scifi saw not only season 9's ratings not improving upon season 8 (every season has gotten better ratings than the previous) but decreasing, they were looking at season 10 very closely to see if they should do a season 11. my guess is that is 'part' of the reason scifi cancelled the show now.





sally

[ReganX]

you make some very keen insights, pitry, but i think that when scifi saw not only season 9's ratings not improving upon season 8 (every season has gotten better ratings than the previous) but decreasing, they were looking at season 10 very closely to see if they should do a season 11. my guess is that is 'part' of the reason scifi cancelled the show now.

That makes sense. I imagine that TPTB and the execs from the Sci-Fi channel anticipated losing some viewers when RDA left, but that they hoped that bringing in BB and CB would bring in enough viewers to match and preferably exceed the number of viewers they lost.

Since Season Nine started out quite strongly, even with RDA gone, I imagine that most of those who watched Season Eight were willing to give Season Nine a chance, but as the season progressed, viewer numbers started to dwindle - the first quarter of Season Nine averaged a 2.04 ratings score, the second quarter average 1.88, the third quarter averaged 1.74 and the last quarter averaged 1.72 - and TPTB and the Sci-Fi execs may have started to worry. Would it be worth their while to keep up the show if the ratings were going to settle at the 1.7 mark?

It's possible that the show was on probation for the early episodes of Season Ten before Sci-Fi decided to cancel. If it did well, it could have been renewed, but it would not be if it didn't perform well enough ratings-wise. The first quarter of the season averaged ratings of only 1.44, a big drop even from the last quarter of Season Nine, let alone from Season Nine's first quarter or Season Eight's average. I don't know if the ratings from "200" were taken into account or not when the decision was made, but even "200", Season Ten was averaging ratings of just 1.517 when cancellation was announced.

[Agent_Dark]

Hmm, I don't think the ratings themselves are the reason why it got cancelled (whether you think they were poor or good, it doesn't matter). I'd bet it has more to do with the financial aspect, which the ratings play a part in. It's a simple fact that the longer a television show runs, the more it costs. It's not so much that it's getting lower ratings, but its that the ratings aren't justifying the cost. That's why Sci Fi have said 'we might still do it if MGM come back to us for less'.

I'd be interested to see an estimate on what ratings SciFi would be earning the dollars for with SG1.