The End of SGU (Will We Ever Know?)

[jelgate]

I don't like the term quality and medicority. They are subjective terms based on a person's own personal opinion. Quality is what you like and enjoyable. Its unmeasurable unlike ratings which is why a comparasion between the two. I also don't like medicority because it suggests a form of arrogance. Yes TV is produced for the mass appeal. Entertainment has always been like that. But calling what medicority just to me suggests a form of belief what I like is superior to what the masses like.

[python490]

I think there is still room for novels and comics but on the small screen? I don't think we will ever know. If there is a reboot of the series in 10 years+ or so. I think they would just reuse the universe or reboot it entirely. Sad but true. If SGU hit tv in the late 90's or early 2000;s it would have had a couple of more seasons. It just came about at the wrong time after SG-1 and SGA had success and the studios were looking to cut costs and Sci-Fi sets are expensive. It wasn't pulling the ratings to keep it on the air. I mean Star Trek has had a movie reboot and even with the success no one wants to make it on the small screen also. For the studios its less about the fans and more about the bottom line. They don't just want profit but big profit. Remember same thinking of those who taught Star Wars was a bad idea.

[psl1]

In order to produce something for 'the masses' to watch and TV Adds to sell; one must reduce the elements to the lowest common denominator in order to reach as many viewers as possible. Which means you lose....quality & quantity, by definition. Call it 'mediocrity' or 'middle of the road' or whatever you want, it’s all the same thing.

As a rule this can be analysed on a sliding scale, with high cost = high quality at one end and low cost = low quality on the other end. From business POV you choose your market, but the buyer chooses his or her level of quality they want. This is true for TV as well, since it is a business.


Got to get back to work....

[jelgate]

No you don't. Your produce a show that the majority like. To say the majority like the lowest is cynical and arrogant.

[psl1]

Well it’s just good business sense.

Go to a dealership and pick a car. The amount of money you pay is pretty much related to the quality of car you get. Pay less and you get a lower quality car or house or whatever it is you are buying. TV is run like a business and follows nearly the same rules. They specifically spend as little money as the can get away on any show, in order to turn a profit. Thats why we have reality TV since its cheaper to make.

While audience styles and tastes change over time, it’s the same basic business model. If you want more quality TV, you get HBO or some other specialty channels or pay per view etc etc. The viewer picks the level he’s willing to pay in order to get the entertainment they desire.

In the end you pretty much get what you pay for.


As far as "cynical and arrogant" go, it’s more likely to be a more refined pallet based on decades more experience.

[Brother Freyr]

To say the majority like the lowest is cynical and arrogant.

Umm, here comes honey boo boo and all those other quality shows that dominate television. Just sayin

[jelgate]

Umm, here comes honey boo boo and all those other quality shows that dominate television. Just sayin

Granted you and I are going to say such shows are garbage, but what makes our opinion of quality more valid?

[Gatefan1976]

*slaps Jel for making sense.

Get thee to a cantina!!

[jeri]

To say the majority like the lowest is cynical and arrogant.

This brings up an interesting point. The majority is young these days, very young. Which we should expect by circumstance, rather inexperienced in life. Hence to quote psl1: As far as "cynical and arrogant" go, it’s more likely to be a more refined pallet based on decades more experience. (drat! can't get the multiquote to work!)

The problem with reality TV is that it is not in truth reality. By it's very nature, having cameras recording moments in ones day renders the experience false. Only hidden cameras would grant a "true" rendition of what really goes on in the kitchen or Honey Boo's house. There is no one in a conscious state of mind who would not adjust their behavior in the presence of cameras and strangers looking at their life. So even though some say it's all true to life, it's basically acting, actually everyone acts to a certain extent in our day to day lives. And it's usually only interesting for those who have not experienced that particular lifestyle. I have watched some of this reality stuff once or twice and frankly it's boring. Nothing really happens in these shows. Somebody buys a rental property, some girl gets to be in a beauty pageant, some guy wrestles a gator, etc., etc., etc. Sleeping tonic material.

I would not even put the reality shows, cooking, DIY, antique appraisals, ghost hunting, whatever, in the same media as scripted programming. There outta be a law!

[Quizziard]

In general terms, network managers want the cheapest TV possible. Hence, as already posted, the surge in reality TV. Even worse, bought-in reality TV from around the world. [PS. never seen this Honey Boo creature] However, there ARE still plenty of high quality, high production shows being made by studios and networks everywhere. Not to say that they're still not made as cost-efficiently as possible and, the big drawback, required to make a sufficient audience share as to capture the advertising revenue determined by an accountant needed to justify their future. But there IS still good new stuff coming out.

[initial]

I am probably going to be shouted down here and told that I am totally wrong however...

I feel like to much emphasis is put solely on viewing figures, I am sure it must be more involved than that.

Think of it this way, If you considered that generally Sci-fi fans were more educated than fans of things like the Kardashians (I realise that I am generalising to a point here) then the more educated Sci-fi audience would in general have jobs with a higher salary meaning that in turn the chances are that they have more disposable income.

In any marketing campaign you would want to target the right audience so for example advertising a teen mag during the Kardashians makes more sense than during Stargate.

I guess what im trying to say is that it shouldnt just come down to the volume of viewers and that their value to advertisers should be taken into account.

After all a bank advertising a great deal on a new high interest savers account would rather pay more for one advert in the financial times than for 5 adverts during an episode of a soap opera.

[Energizer_Vs_ZPM]

initial did you have to mention the kardashians? This used to be such a nice forum until you dragged that awful name in here lol

[initial]

Im very sorry Energizer and I do feel ashamed of myself but please rest assured that I have never watched it and in fact had to google the name for a reality show.

Actually thats a good point I really better delete my browser history, I wouldnt want someone thinking I like that kind of mind numbing rubish.

[jeri]

In general terms, network managers want the cheapest TV possible. Hence, as already posted, the surge in reality TV. Even worse, bought-in reality TV from around the world. [PS. never seen this Honey Boo creature] However, there ARE still plenty of high quality, high production shows being made by studios and networks everywhere. Not to say that they're still not made as cost-efficiently as possible and, the big drawback, required to make a sufficient audience share as to capture the advertising revenue determined by an accountant needed to justify their future. But there IS still good new stuff coming out.

I have recently rescued my TV from the clutches of a 13 yr old. This is how I know what a Honey Boo creature is, you are lucky not to know!

Yes, that's the thing, these shows are incredibly cheap to produce compared to any scripted show. And yes there are still a few fine programs out there. But when you check your channel guide on any given night, you will see a dismal selection, I'm afraid. Now I don't mean any disrespect to those who enjoy the singing and dancing, but how many of those do we need? I know, I know, as many as the market will bear!

It's such a frustrating situation, knowing what is possible, but no one will make what I want to see.

[psl1]

I guess in a way I come from another universe far far away. In Britain all we had back then for decades was public broadcasting and even when I encountered commercial TV in Canada there was still plenty of quality shows being made on PBS etc that they influenced the mainstream TV.


When you grow up with the likes of....."Monty Python", BBC war docs from the 1960s plus Syfi like "Dr Who" & "A for Andromeda" [Fred Hoyle] then to Star trek etc, well we were spoilt with excellent TV.


The TV was also much more directed back then and with only a dozen channels to watch there was always some high quality Brit-Coms to watch or PBS Mystery Theatre; “60 minutes” etc and the likes of "Cosmos" [Sagan] ; "The body in Question" [Miller] & "Connections" [James Burk] etc etc. It lead to very educational & challenging TV.

There were few Network battles for view ship except for the odd prime time TV slots , but we still had our challenging TV to watch- so that didn't matter. By the 1980s and 90s the looming 100 channel then 500 channel universe made competition cutthroat and giving the TV public what they wanted became the norm and TV became mostly business.

Quality had nothing to do with TV anymore, just the most cost effective way to hook enough audience into pay through the TV ads
. While the stategies have evoled since then its still pretty much the same mess it was at the end of the last century.

500 channel universe with only a dozen channels worth the time.