Did conservatives kill SGU?

[Republibot 3.0]

No reason to apologize to me, you didnt troll me. I just dont get it. Where does politics enter into the final failure of the SG franchise ? Heck even the actors are saying there was not enough viewers ( using the current system to record the amount of viewers, which sucks ).
Are you asking if politics affected the franchise is some way ? If so, no it did not.
I see left/right wing being brought up in threads dealing with water wells upto and including pizza dough threads, so I am not surprised to see it here.
Good luck with that.

Well, ok, let's swap out the political aspect and substitute something else just to get across the idea without the distracting cultural baggage.

Let's say you've got a show called "The Heterosexual Fundamentalist Pancake Hour" and it's popular with foodies, fundies (Of whatever religion you choose), and straights. Really popular. They do a spinoff that maybe drops the pancakes, and maybe adds, I dunno, goths. Well, you lose the foodies, but you pick up folks who like watching Abbie from NCIS. So you do another spinoff, and this one not only lacks pancakes, but it's also dropped the fundamentalist aspect, and is now in favor of secular humanism, evolution, and birth control. Oh my! They have, however, added Ally McBeal like montages of people walking along looking moody to adult contemporary songs.

Thus the Fundamentalists and the Foodies are gone because the stuff that attracted them to the show in the first place is gone, and the stuff that replaced it (Goths and boring music) isn't enough of a replacement to hold their attention.

Now, swap out "Political Conservatives" for any one of the three items above you like. There you go. That's my point: it's not that conservatives *KILLED* SGU, it's simply that Gate's popularity was built atop an unexpected interest from a group that generally doesn't like SF all that much, and when *That* group lost interest, the franchise couldn't survive.

So, thinking it through for a few days now, I don't think we *killed* it, we simply lost it and allowed it to die. Because there weren't enough pancakes, and way too much Celine Dion.

Does that make sense?

[Gatefan1976]

Well, ok, let's swap out the political aspect and substitute something else just to get across the idea without the distracting cultural baggage.

Ok

Let's say you've got a show called "The Heterosexual Fundamentalist Pancake Hour" and it's popular with foodies, fundies (Of whatever religion you choose), and straights. Really popular. They do a spinoff that maybe drops the pancakes, and maybe adds, I dunno, goths. Well, you lose the foodies, but you pick up folks who like watching Abbie from NCIS. So you do another spinoff, and this one not only lacks pancakes, but it's also dropped the fundamentalist aspect, and is now in favor of secular humanism, evolution, and birth control. Oh my! They have, however, added Ally McBeal like montages of people walking along looking moody to adult contemporary songs.

And THIS is getting rid of the baggage??
Why not just say what it was instead. SG-1 was an action/adventure "problem of the week" episodic show, SGA was an Action adventure "problem of the week" episodic show which was slightly less "clean" than SG1 (initially, and IMHO of course). SGU was a serialised character driven show.

Thus the Fundamentalists and the Foodies are gone because the stuff that attracted them to the show in the first place is gone, and the stuff that replaced it (Goths and boring music) isn't enough of a replacement to hold their attention.

That works.

Now, swap out "Political Conservatives" for any one of the three items above you like. There you go. That's my point: it's not that conservatives *KILLED* SGU, it's simply that Gate's popularity was built atop an unexpected interest from a group that generally doesn't like SF all that much, and when *That* group lost interest, the franchise couldn't survive.

Say WHAT??
Built atop the interest of political conservatives???
Contributed to the success of SG1 I might buy, but built on top of?? Thats not drawing a long bow, that's two peices of wood with a string.

So, thinking it through for a few days now, I don't think we *killed* it, we simply lost it and allowed it to die. Because there weren't enough pancakes, and way too much Celine Dion.

Does that make sense?

That bit does, as long as the "we" you are talking about is the general viewing audience.

[Calluna]

Now, swap out "Political Conservatives" for any one of the three items above you like. There you go. That's my point: it's not that conservatives *KILLED* SGU, it's simply that Gate's popularity was built atop an unexpected interest from a group that generally doesn't like SF all that much, and when *That* group lost interest, the franchise couldn't survive.

So, thinking it through for a few days now, I don't think we *killed* it, we simply lost it and allowed it to die. Because there weren't enough pancakes, and way too much Celine Dion.

Does that make sense?

Not really.

You are really, really reaching here to make this anything to do with conservatives as a whole as part of the problem with SGU.

I'm not convinced the other shows were built atop of a massive conservative base, from the limited microcosm I've seen online there was a pretty broad mix of people from all walks of life that enjoyed SG1 and SGA and people from all walks of life who watched SGU to the end and many people from all walks of life are are Sci-fi fans of some dscription. Or that socially conservative people don't enjoy watching sexy or violent storylines on TV or the movies, if that was the case I can think of several shows that would never have gotten the ratings they did. I just don't see any political or social "block vote" for this show from which ever end of the spectrum, don't give yourself too much credit.

Well, you lose the foodies, but you pick up folks who like watching Abbie from NCIS.

Well since NCIS is basically the biggest scripted show on TV and Pauley Perrette suprisingly came top in some "most popular character on TV" study recently I'd say there are a lot of conservatives who like the character.

[morrismike]

I'm still struggling with the premise that a show with a primary audience of 40-45 white male (many of which are ex military) would fail because not enough of them watched it???? Blaming women leaving in droves is a more convincing argument. When the only people left at the end are the stereotypic "social conservatives" it would seem the better is argument would be "the social conservatives tried their best to save SGU". I think a lot of us tend to forget this forum is not an accurate reflection of the actual people watching the show. SGU did horribly with the "social liberal" demographic (women and young males). Why aren't we debating why the social liberals killed SGU?

How many in this thread are mid 40s white males? I am and I doubt I have much company.

[Republibot 3.0]

And THIS is getting rid of the baggage??

I was trying to be funny. Missed the target, obviously. <G>

Say WHAT??
Built atop the interest of political conservatives???
Contributed to the success of SG1 I might buy, but built on top of?? Thats not drawing a long bow, that's two peices of wood with a string.

I dunno, man, I've been running a pretty well-regarded Conservative Science Fiction site for four years now, and based on my experiences, Conservatives *generally* tend to think of SF as something that belongs more-or-less to the other side, and ignore it, unless it involves giant mighty-fighty robots and clumsy World War II allegories set in space. In fact, we created my site initially to sort of get across the idea that SF is not inherently liberal or un-Christian or anti-American, or a tool of mushy-headed one-worlders or whatever particular monster people might choose to see hidden under the bed.

SG1 was in very large part successful because it didn't require an enormous amount of obvious suspension of disbelief: It was righ there, right now, black ops stuff, just waaaaaaaaay cooler than normal ones. It was unexpectedly popular among my tribe because of these qualities, and once those qualities became less obvious/relevant, the normal 'I don't like all that thar sci-fi stuff' bias reasserted itself.

That's my assessment from in the trenches.


That bit does, as long as the "we" you are talking about is the general viewing audience.[/QUOTE]

[Republibot 3.0]

Not really.

You are really, really reaching here to make this anything to do with conservatives as a whole as part of the problem with SGU.

I'm not convinced the other shows were built atop of a massive conservative base, from the limited microcosm I've seen online there was a pretty broad mix of people from all walks of life that enjoyed SG1 and SGA and people from all walks of life who watched SGU to the end and many people from all walks of life are are Sci-fi fans of some dscription. Or that socially conservative people don't enjoy watching sexy or violent storylines on TV or the movies, if that was the case I can think of several shows that would never have gotten the ratings they did. I just don't see any political or social "block vote" for this show from which ever end of the spectrum, don't give yourself too much credit.



Well since NCIS is basically the biggest scripted show on TV and Pauley Perrette suprisingly came top in some "most popular character on TV" study recently I'd say there are a lot of conservatives who like the character.

Mental note: Don't do crazy over-the-top humorous comparisons anymore.

Ok: bottom line: a show is based on the popularity of an audience. Audience is composed of at least one, but preferably several demographics. Each demographic can, itself, overlap with others, or be composed of sub-demographics. SG1 was popular with a demographic that traditional isn't much interested in SF, but were brought in because they like the USAF and the military and combat n'stuff. When the premise changed so that the USAF became less real-world and more indistinguishable from any other mythical space force - Galactica, Trek, whatever - the Air Force fans started drifting away.

Does that make more sense?

[Republibot 3.0]

I'm still struggling with the premise that a show with a primary audience of 40-45 white male (many of which are ex military) would fail because not enough of them watched it???? Blaming women leaving in droves is a more convincing argument. When the only people left at the end are the stereotypic "social conservatives" it would seem the better is argument would be "the social conservatives tried their best to save SGU". I think a lot of us tend to forget this forum is not an accurate reflection of the actual people watching the show. SGU did horribly with the "social liberal" demographic (women and young males). Why aren't we debating why the social liberals killed SGU?

How many in this thread are mid 40s white males? I am and I doubt I have much company.

I am.

Solid point. Fans are a small group. There's not enough of us to keep SGU on the air, and there's not enough of us to keep Destination Truth off. Successful shows are really based around what appeals to the 'Danes. Gate lost its appeal, and there weren't enough of us to save it. Simple as that, I guess.

[TheRandomOne]

TPTB killed SGU. They told the people that did not like it to stop watching it & so they did. TPTB for this show was bad at PR

[jelgate]

TPTB killed SGU. They told the people that did not like it to stop watching it & so they did. TPTB for this show was bad at PR

That statement has been taken way out of context

[morrismike]

That statement has been taken way out of context

It has?

[jelgate]

It has?

Yes. It unrealastic to try to please every group who dislike a show

[Republibot 3.0]

There's only a few reasons to kill a show, or put one on the air, really, and they're all about money.

If a show brings in more advertising money than it costs to make, then they keep it on the air.
If a show makes less advertising money than it costs to make, then it goes off the air.

Not a lot of wiggle-room in all that, though a network might be willing to take a hit on a show that they think will be profitable once it finds an audience. Cheers got like two seasons before it caught on, but Cheers was a pretty cheap show to make. Likewise, if a show is prestigious enough, but not particularly profitable, the network might be willing to let it run for a while as a loss-leader for a time. The Recent "V" was an example of this.

Networks generally won't allow themselves to take too big of a hit, though, and not for very long because it's simply not good business sense to throw good money after bad.

In the case of SGU, the network took a $120 million dollar hit, which is probably a third of their operating budget for a year. If they'd *kept* SGU on the air for three more years, they'd have bled so much money they'd have gone out of business.

I'm not a fan of the network, but, c'mon, reality check!

[Gatefan1976]

I was trying to be funny. Missed the target, obviously. <G>

Not so much missed it dude as stepped into the realm of the rabid scifi fans where this has been a hotly contested point of debate with a very short sense of what is "fun"

I dunno, man, I've been running a pretty well-regarded Conservative Science Fiction site for four years now, and based on my experiences, Conservatives *generally* tend to think of SF as something that belongs more-or-less to the other side, and ignore it, unless it involves giant mighty-fighty robots and clumsy World War II allegories set in space. In fact, we created my site initially to sort of get across the idea that SF is not inherently liberal or un-Christian or anti-American, or a tool of mushy-headed one-worlders or whatever particular monster people might choose to see hidden under the bed.

Here's the thing though dude. IF scifi *In general* is considered the domain of "the other side", WHY would any one in their right mind design a show based on the *possibility* of getting "your side"? It is far, FAR more likely that TPTB made a Scifi show, and some elements of that show appealed to "your side" as a side effect. Conservatives would not be the target demo, it would be one that MAY have helped the considered "core" demo/mindset.

SG1 was in very large part successful because it didn't require an enormous amount of obvious suspension of disbelief: It was righ there, right now, black ops stuff, just waaaaaaaaay cooler than normal ones. It was unexpectedly popular among my tribe because of these qualities, and once those qualities became less obvious/relevant, the normal 'I don't like all that thar sci-fi stuff' bias reasserted itself.

Oh yes, SG-1 WAS helped I think by being more "real" than "classic scifi", but again, the conservative base was an *addition* to the core fanbase, not the *core* in of itself.

[TheRandomOne]

Yes. It unrealastic to try to please every group who dislike a show

But they did say it & unfortunately more people stopped watching then watched it

[morrismike]

Yes. It unrealistic to try to please every group who dislike a show

It is unrealistic to think that a successful franchise can add "in your face" elements that annoy your core veiwers without there being consequences. For god sakes, women left the franchise in droves (SGU was second to last in women viewer percentage) because of the objectification of women and really bad drama. Was chasing the women off really necessary? Did the things that chased the women off add one single viewer from another group? SGU drove fans aways of every variety and didn't make gains of any type among any group. TPTW didn't please any demographic.