The Cam and Vala discussion thread

[Mandysg1]

This one's better...

Oooh I like that one

[pittsburghgirl]

[QUOTE=Pitry;6012083]
Atlantis second half spoiler

Spoiler:

Why's no one coming right out and denying they're killing Beckett? Probably the exact same thing.

Is that rumor true?

[Madeleine]

Not sure what you are referring to Pitry. A pattern is something that happens more than once, it's a repeating thing.

It can be. Or it can not be. It's one of those words that has different meanings in different contexts, and given that english is spoken in all these different countries...

In the UK the ratings going up from 1st ep to 2nd ep happens almost every year. It has only happened once in the US in S10.

What does that say to you? To me it says perpetual lack of promotion in the UK.

It also suggests lack of promotion for s10 in the US. I know I'll get mocked for saying so, but hey. Can anyone give another reason why people would ignore the big cliffhanger-ending season opener and tune in for ep2? Yeah, you probably can, but it's not going to be a cast iron conclusive one that proves me delusional . I have no idea what promotion is done in the US, I'd always assumed it was good, but an unprecedented (in the US) rise from ep1 to ep2 does make me wonder....

What is the same, though, between the US and UK is that the ratings built to a peak in S8 and then declined. Which just happens to coincide with them changing SG-1 and not in a good way in some people's opinions.

True enough. A show nine years old has to change, will inevitably alienate some with the changes, and cannot expect to pick up new viewers in the same way as a younger show .

P.S. Anyone got a pink elephant smilie??

What does that mean? Is it another form of mockery?

[AGateFan]

[QUOTE=pittsburghgirl;6013629]

Atlantis second half spoiler

Spoiler:

Why's no one coming right out and denying they're killing Beckett? Probably the exact same thing.

Is that rumor true?

Just means I wont watch that show anymore either and can now cut my ties completely with the worthless TPTB.

[esoap524]

What does that mean? Is it another form of mockery?

What they're talking about is that no one is referring to the elephant in the room. Instead, there is dancing around the topic of what/who killed SG1--promotion, writing, etc--when the obvious choice is the introduction of the two new characters mentioned in the thread, the obvious choice, the pink elephant, the thing you can't look past because it's taking up all the space in the room so you couldn't possibly ignore it.

Which is my way of saying, no, I don't think the mockery is aimed at you but, yes, it is mockery of those who, according to the belief of some, are not looking at the obvious choice.

[GeekingOnward]

What they're talking about is that no one is referring to the elephant in the room. Instead, there is dancing around the topic of what/who killed SG1--promotion, writing, etc--when the obvious choice is the introduction of the two new characters mentioned in the thread, the obvious choice, the pink elephant, the thing you can't look past because it's taking up all the space in the room so you couldn't possibly ignore it.

Which is my way of saying, no, I don't think the mockery is aimed at you but, yes, it is mockery of those who, according to the belief of some, are not looking at the obvious choice.

I thought the pink elephant dancing in the middle of the room was all the changes in the show - from the 10 second titles (and back) to the end of the Stargate as a dominating presence in the show, with ugly Gate CGI, flat, derivative stories, cliched, cr*ppy writing, institutional/show history amnesia, lousy characterization, poor direction, a major lack of both insight and foresight in terms of making and running the show, worship of spaceship objects (make up your own puns about porcelain gods and the shape of the Ori ships), a cavalier attitude - at best - toward the viewers' intelligence, arrogance toward characters, actors, fans and any negative commentary, boring villains, disrepect toward the standards, traditions, and rules of the US Air Force, etc., in between. The new characters are only a part of that - might be the straw that broke some viewers' camels' backs, but, still not the whole load atop the dromedary or the bactrian.

[esoap524]

I thought the pink elephant dancing in the middle of the room was all the changes in the show - from the 10 second titles (and back) to the end of the Stargate as a dominating presence in the show, with ugly Gate CGI, flat, derivative stories, cliched, cr*ppy writing, institutional/show history amnesia, lousy characterization, poor direction, a major lack of both insight and foresight in terms of making and running the show, worship of spaceship objects (make up your own puns about porcelain gods and the shape of the Ori ships), a cavalier attitude - at best - toward the viewers' intelligence, arrogance toward characters, actors, fans and any negative commentary, boring villains, disrepect toward the standards, traditions, and rules of the US Air Force, etc., in between. The new characters are only a part of that - might be the straw that broke some viewers' camels' backs, but, still not the whole load atop the dromedary or the bactrian.

Well, it seems that that would hardly be a pink elephant since that encompasses everything. Whatever it is or isn't, here's a very cool bunch of definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_elephant

This, IMO, is the best one:

Seeing "pink elephants" is a euphemism for drunken hallucination caused by delirium tremens.

So pretend it's all a drunken hallucination. Whatever. I knew I shouldn't have ventured back into this thread.

Again, all my way of assuring MW that she herself was not being mocked (at least, I hope not).

Adios.

[Nolamom]

Again, all my way of assuring MW that she herself was not being mocked (at least, I hope not).

I should think not. To my way of thinking it is the

I. Writing
A. characterizations
1. introduction of new characters
2. handling of extant characters
B. plotlines
1. tired, re-hashed
2. far too many "homages"
3. holes past counting
4. where's the Gate? It is still "Stargate"
C. lack of continuity
1. forgetting Air Force regs for convenience' sake
2. forgetting past accomplishments/abilities of characters or awarding these to other characters

[RealmOfX]

It can be. Or it can not be. It's one of those words that has different meanings in different contexts, and given that english is spoken in all these different countries...

Yes - pattern is a word that has many meanings however we were using it in the context of analysing ratings where one looks for repeating occurrences to show a pattern.

What does that mean? Is it another form of mockery?

Nope - it meant exactly what it said, it was a request. I wanted to know if anyone had one so that next time I used the elephant saying I could highlight it.

Rather than repeat what I have said in previous posts I'll just refer back to them
here, here and here

[RealmOfX]

What they're talking about is that no one is referring to the elephant in the room. Instead, there is dancing around the topic of what/who killed SG1--promotion, writing, etc--when the obvious choice is the introduction of the two new characters mentioned in the thread, the obvious choice, the pink elephant, the thing you can't look past because it's taking up all the space in the room so you couldn't possibly ignore it.

Which is my way of saying, no, I don't think the mockery is aimed at you but, yes, it is mockery of those who, according to the belief of some, are not looking at the obvious choice.

Yep, you got the concept right however I'd use a wider scope when describing the elephant - they changed the show badly (badly in my opinion) and not just by introducing two new characters (which by the way I was looking forward to). IHMO they failed in many basic areas BUT all of that can be tracked back to a central responsibility of the showrunner which is where the "blame" should reside.

My choice of using the elephant saying is meant to simply bring the subject to the foreground and highlight it so that it can be dealt with. A saying that came into being because people can and do avoid the obvious.

Many people are familiar with the expression "the elephant standing in the middle of the room" but it appears that some are not aware of the variation of the pink one. The variation came about because making the elephant pink made it all the more obvious.

[Pitry]

Not sure what you are referring to Pitry. A pattern is something that happens more than once, it's a repeating thing. In the UK the ratings going up from 1st ep to 2nd ep happens almost every year, therefore a pattern. It has only happened once in the US in S10, therefore not a pattern.

What is the same, though, between the US and UK is that the ratings built to a peak in S8 and then declined. Which just happens to coincide with them changing SG-1 and not in a good way in some people's opinions.

P.S. Anyone got a pink elephant smilie??

Sorry, my bad - from the discussion ( must have read uncarefully) I thought SG1 ratings are similar in the US and in the UK - the first episode of the season gets the highest ratings, and from there onwards the ratigns are declining. In that case, if this didn't happen twice would make a pattern. OF course, if this is the regular way for the ratings to go in the UK, then it's not strange (just disappointing).

As for the pink elephgant... well, you asked so nicely, how can I go on ignoring it.
No one's denying there's a decline in ratings between seasons 8 and 9. And that that decline coincides with the show taking a new direction. I'm not even denying that some of the said decline is probably because people don't like the new direction on terms of writing and/ or characters.
I just don't think this is the only - or even major - reason for it. That's all. I could recite again all the possible explanations, but it is getting tiresome.

[Pitry]

Atlantis second half spoiler

Spoiler:

Why's no one coming right out and denying they're killing Beckett? Probably the exact same thing.

Is that rumor true?

Spoiler:

According to Solutions, N John Smith confirmed.
I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt that this is SciFi meddling. It sounds suspiciously like a "make Stargate Atlantis darker, more liek BSG!" order from SciFi than something TPTB would do on their own accord.

(Okay, I'm stopping now, this has nothign to do with SG1.)

[Arctic Goddess]

This may have been said before and may even be an old argument that has been dealt with. If so, I appologize. But, I blame RDA leaving the series for it's downfall. With him around, we not only got cool acting and a strong lead character who kept the team together as a solid unit, but I'm sure his strength behind the scenes kept the writers and producers in line. Lets face it. The writing began to deteriorate to the minute he started backing away from the series. He lost interest, and the producers made bad decisions as a result. So, RDA, as much as I love him, is to blame for the show's demise, Sci-Fi not withstanding. Yes, I understand that his daughter is paramount and she deserves a daddy who is around alot. But the man has money. Could he not have had her spend some time on the set with him with a highly qualified nanny?

[Farscapefan]

This may have been said before and may even be an old argument that has been dealt with. If so, I appologize. But, I blame RDA leaving the series for it's downfall. With him around, we not only got cool acting and a strong lead character who kept the team together as a solid unit, but I'm sure his strength behind the scenes kept the writers and producers in line. Lets face it. The writing began to deteriorate to the minute he started backing away from the series. He lost interest, and the producers made bad decisions as a result. So, RDA, as much as I love him, is to blame for the show's demise, Sci-Fi not withstanding. Yes, I understand that his daughter is paramount and she deserves a daddy who is around alot. But the man has money. Could he not have had her spend some time on the set with him with a highly qualified nanny?

Uhm... I don't agree. Completely. The show is much better and finally ENTERTAINING without RDA. What downfall? I really don't know what you're talking about, do we really watch the same show?

[GeekingOnward]

This may have been said before and may even be an old argument that has been dealt with. If so, I appologize. But, I blame RDA leaving the series for it's downfall. With him around, we not only got cool acting and a strong lead character who kept the team together as a solid unit, but I'm sure his strength behind the scenes kept the writers and producers in line. Lets face it. The writing began to deteriorate to the minute he started backing away from the series. He lost interest, and the producers made bad decisions as a result. So, RDA, as much as I love him, is to blame for the show's demise, Sci-Fi not withstanding. Yes, I understand that his daughter is paramount and she deserves a daddy who is around alot. But the man has money. Could he not have had her spend some time on the set with him with a highly qualified nanny?

\me confused by that

To me, that's like putting a retired policeman on trial for an auto theft on his former patch / beat / area: i.e., it's not the guy(s) who stole the car's fault(s), it's the retired cop's fault, because he was no longer there to prevent the misdeed. I just don't see car theft or Stargate's demise that way. But, obviously, mileage varies.

I think we ought to blame the people who did the misdeeds and made the bad decisions in the writing, producing, showrunning, directing, continuity, etc., areas, just like we'd blame the guy(s) that actually made off with the car.