Ratings II

[Tropicana]

Are you including the British version of L&A also? The one with Jamie Bamber and Freeman "Martha" from Dr. Who. It's actually the same format as the American versions, same soundtrack and everything.

I didn't include L&O:UK.

I hadn't seen L&O:UK so wouldn't know entirely if it follows the exact format, however, on youtube it appears there are 2 opening titles - I presume one for the UK market and the other for the US market.

UK version for L&O:UK - cheesy over the top music IMO
US version for L&O:UK - your standard Law & Order opening, classic.

 

[Mr. A]

Stargate is:

1. About the device called the Stargate which creates wormholes connecting it with other stargates all over the universe.
2. A TEAM from earth which travels through those gates. (by being a team, they are inherently heroes)
3. Likeable, humorous yet professional individuals hand-chosen as being the best of the best by high ranking Stargate Command brass.
4. Enemies, both human and alien who threaten earth or our heroes in some fashion.
5. Engaging stories centering around the elements described in 1-4 of this list.

Its the formula which works, and significant deviation from that formula is a FAIL.

Perhaps. However, one has to be careful also not to define Stargate too narrowly, or one will run into the same fallacy as people who claim DS9 wasn't "Star Trek" because it didn't center around a crew flying around in a starship "seeking new life and new civilizations..."

To me, for a show to be Stargate it has to - besides obviously being centered around Stargate travel and its consequences - fit in the adventure sci-fi genre. That is a broad enough definition, and SGU fails even that one for the most part.

That is EXACTLY the logic of the showrunners, and that is EXACTLY why Stargate Universe failed. They couldnt see the whole picture of what Stargate is and they thought that just having a stargate on the ship and using it a few times would make it Stargate. They were wrong.

They were. However, SGU didn't fail because it wasn't Stargate (although I agree it wasn't), but because it wasn't appealing to viewers. If the show had been any good, either SG fans would have turned a blind eye or the show would have picked up new viewers. It didn't do either - read my siggie!

IMO, not every true Stargate show is necessarily a success and not every pseudo Stargate show necessarily a failure. In your CIS and NCIS example, the writers can substitute whatever in the show and have it succeed nonetheless. But whatever they bring in instead of the old stuff better be damn good! I agree with most of your arguments, but I think you're being too much of a Stargate purist in this particular point, OM1.

 

[Overmind One]

Really?

Ok long reply time.

I'm not saying Stargate needed to change or even that Atlantis needed to end. I just don't think these restrictive rules should be the only thing Stargate can be in the future. If someone comes along with a cool idea regarding the Stargate, and it doesnt have a "team" in it, then why say no?

Um, didnt they just try that with Stargate Universe? You already have your answer. But put succintly, if you do that then the show ceases being Stargate.

That means those things to you, not to whoever wants to make a new Stargate show. Think for a second about a show that centers on one man traveling through the Stargate. There's no team there but that could be one amazing show if done right.

I agree! It was called Quantum Leap Thing is, WHY would a piece of technology like the stargate be used by only one man? To accomplish your scenario, the military would have to be removed from the picture. The military does not send individuals on missions, but the FBI or CIA does.

I'm conernced a new showrunner will reboot Stargate and have a different world to the one i've been watching for the last decade or so. As Atlantis and Universe fans will attest - theres so much more story yet to be told.

I agree. Too bad the showrunners dont feel the same way. Brad has been shown CLEARLY that the fans are not much interested in the story or characters of Stargate Universe, but are still very much interested in Stargate Atlantis and SG-1, years after they were cancelled.

As for Breaking Bad - its really really good. I won't spoil anything but it proves you can have entertaining drama without having a "good" character.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing the same thing if it works for the show, i just don't think there should be restrictions stopping producers from telling cool stories.

It's also a damn good show.

I will give it a look...havent seen it

Well, there HAS to be restrictions or you get "drift". Its like thread derailments, or a Toyota salesman hired by Toyota to sell Toyotas, but tries to sell Fords instead. Neither the Toyota employers nor the Toyota buyers are going to be happy with or accept that.

 

[Overmind One]

I was open to an edgier, grittier Stargate.

Perhaps. However, one has to be careful also not to define Stargate too narrowly, or one will run into the same fallacy as people who claim DS9 wasn't "Star Trek" because it didn't center around a crew flying around in a starship "seeking new life and new civilizations..."

Perhaps, but Star Trek isnt about a ship or specific characters. Its a whole WORLD full of ships and planets and technology and theory. Its a vision of the future that doesnt require a rigid definition. If the discovery of the stargate in Egypt from the original movie had been made public, it might have made for a very Stargatey earth where the technology might be copied, people trying to commercially exploit travel arrangements, the entire fabric of humankind on earth would have been affected. But because its supposed to be a secret, restricted to only "need to know" people, it is inherently forcing itself into a pigeonhole (not necessarily bad).

To me, for a show to be Stargate it has to - besides obviously being centered around Stargate travel and its consequences - fit in the adventure sci-fi genre. That is a broad enough definition, and SGU fails even that one for the most part.

TRUE! Its not in the science fiction genre, its in the drama/soap genre. Even the showrunners acknowledge this, but SGU fans try to insist that it is indeed science fiction.

They were. However, SGU didn't fail because it wasn't Stargate (although I agree it wasn't), but because it wasn't appealing to viewers. If the show had been any good, either SG fans would have turned a blind eye or the show would have picked up new viewers. It didn't do either - read my siggie!

Thats fair. However if it had appealed to Stargate fans, that 1 million viewers added to the original Stargate fanbase would have made it a huge success. So, in that sense it failed because it wasnt enough Stargate to retain the Stargate fanbase.

IMO, not every true Stargate show is necessarily a success and not every pseudo Stargate show necessarily a failure. In your CIS and NCIS example, the writers can substitute whatever in the show and have it succeed nonetheless. But whatever they bring in instead of the old stuff better be damn good! I agree with most of your arguments, but I think you're being too much of a Stargate purist in this particular point, OM1.

Well, fans are demanding! Star Trek and its showrunners/movie writers are essentially agents of the fandom. They do not get to change too much or redefine too much. If they do, they are severely punished at the box office or on the small screen. Im all for re-interpreting the basic Stargate scenario, and Atlantis did that exactly. I can see a British stargate show, where they have the only working stargate and its based somewhere in England. The team they choose could be like secret agents (a la 007), the places they go could be ALL humans who had colonized the worlds that the gate took them to. I could envision lots of scenarios, but the list of things Stargate would still have to be in place for it to be Stargate.

1. About the device called the Stargate which creates wormholes connecting it with other stargates all over the universe.
2. A TEAM from earth which travels through those gates. (by being a team, they are inherently heroes)
3. Likeable, humorous yet professional individuals hand-chosen as being the best of the best by high ranking Stargate Command brass.
4. Enemies, both human and alien who threaten earth or our heroes in some fashion.
5. Engaging stories centering around the elements described in 1-4 of this list.

#3 is optional.

 

[YoshiKart64]

I agree! It was called Quantum Leap Thing is, WHY would a piece of technology like the stargate be used by only one man? To accomplish your scenario, the military would have to be removed from the picture. The military does not send individuals on missions, but the FBI or CIA does.

True the military doesn't have to be involved. But would you honestly turn down a quantum leap style Stargate show? One man on his own mission through the Stargate - possibly going somewhat rouge from the military on their own mission, maybe someone trapped on the edge of the pegasus galaxy. It could even be a traveler from another planet doing something completely separate from earth affairs.
While these ideas don't fit in with the Stargate "rules" I think they'd be quite cool ways of telling a story using the stargate.

And I think the Star Trek example is a good one. Sometimes adding those different stories enriches the universe. Sometime they are rejected but is that a reason for producers not to try and be creative?

 

[Overmind One]

I like that!

True the military doesn't have to be involved. But would you honestly turn down a quantum leap style Stargate show? One man on his own mission through the Stargate - possibly going somewhat rouge from the military on their own mission, maybe someone trapped on the edge of the pegasus galaxy. It could even be a traveler from another planet doing something completely separate from earth affairs.
While these ideas don't fit in with the Stargate "rules" I think they'd be quite cool ways of telling a story using the stargate.

THAT would be cool! Have the show center around a wayward stargate traveler from another planet/galaxy who doesnt know which address is his own. He could recruit earth people to help him get home. The episodes could be using addresses they discover, but alas they are not the right address. They would have the earth address, so each episode could get them back to earth. But each week would be trying a new address to help our friend find his home...AWESOME!

And I think the Star Trek example is a good one. Sometimes adding those different stories enriches the universe. Sometime they are rejected but is that a reason for producers not to try and be creative?

Sure, Im open to many permutations of Stargate. They just need to make the main focus still be the stargate.

 

[Mr. A]

1. About the device called the Stargate which creates wormholes connecting it with other stargates all over the universe.
2. A TEAM from earth which travels through those gates. (by being a team, they are inherently heroes)
3. Likeable, humorous yet professional individuals hand-chosen as being the best of the best by high ranking Stargate Command brass.
4. Enemies, both human and alien who threaten earth or our heroes in some fashion.
5. Engaging stories centering around the elements described in 1-4 of this list.

#3 is optional.

#3 is candy for me personally, but not essential IMO for a Stargate show.

This is a list we can agree a lot more on! :beckettu:

 

[Briangate78]

Season 1.0 of SGU, was my least favorite Stargate overall. Eps like Earth and Life were just not my cup of tea. I stress about the episode "Life" because it was totally different than Stargate, and like I said above was ready to drop the series if that was the direction the show was heading.

My opinion is, Season 1.0 turned off viewers, they never came back. It is interesting that the show never upticked since "Life".

 

[Overmind One]

Season 1.0 of SGU, was my least favorite Stargate overall. Eps like Earth and Life were just not my cup of tea. I stress about the episode "Life" because it was totally different than Stargate, and like I said above was ready to drop the series if that was the direction the show was heading.

My opinion is, Season 1.0 turned off viewers, they never came back. It is interesting that the show never upticked since "Life".

Yep. For me, the dealbreaker was Earth. Seeing Eli and Chloe clubbing, then Chloe gettting into a catfight with that hot blonde over an old boyfriend was just...

I actually cancelled my cable service because of it. I only had it so I could get Syfy and Discovery, so with Stargate now sitting in a bubble bath, I was outta there.

 

[Mr. A]

Yep. For me, the dealbreaker was Earth. Seeing Eli and Chloe clubbing, then Chloe getting into a catfight with that hot blonde over an old boyfriend was just...

I actually cancelled my cable service because of it. I only had it so I could get Syfy and Discovery, so with Stargate now sitting in a bubble bath, I was outta there.

Same here. Life was horrible, but Earth before that was where I "gave up on the show" (even though I continued watching) because it was the definite confirmation that the moments I didn't like in the previous episodes weren't just the writers and the show trying to get their footing. That WAS where the show was going and not by accident. So when Life came on I had no expectations and no illusions anymore and just kinda laughed at it.

What I don't get is why the ratings bounced up for the episode Life. You can look at the numbers and there is a definite bump there. I mean, people switching channels and turning the TV off DO affect the overall ratings of a running episode. Was it the train wreck effect?

 

[YoshiKart64]

I think people enjoyed Time and just tuned into the next episode because of that.

Kind of odd really, Time and Life are pretty much two different shows.

 

[Briangate78]

I think people enjoyed Time and just tuned into the next episode because of that.

Kind of odd really, Time and Life are pretty much two different shows.

Time was a good episode, it could of been people giving the show another chance. Then after "Life" people just seemed to give up on it.

 

[Overmind One]

I think people enjoyed Time and just tuned into the next episode because of that.

Kind of odd really, Time and Life are pretty much two different shows.

I actually liked Time a lot. I caught flak over liking it openly at SGUS, but I stood my ground. I still like Time. I also liked Space, Awakenings and The Greater Good. I actually gave Awakenings a positive review because I liked it. I have seen EVERY SINGLE EPISODE of Stargate Universe, so whan I say I didnt like the show overall, I am speaking with absolute conviction having seen EVERY episode. I liked 4 episodes out of 33 aired so far. Thats not good.

 

[johnsheppard]

YoshiKart,

Don't drag out that SG-1 and SGA were the same and a change needed to be made. Atlantis was rebounding in viewers, and averaged 600,000 more viewers than SGU in it's final season.

I truly hate when people say "A change was needed"......... **** that! Look at SGU's numbers, Look at what SGA did..... Case F'ING CLOSED! SGA was on the path of changing, and I personally think it was working, until the last half of S5, when the producers likely got SGU on the mind.Sorry for my assertiveness but I am in a pissy mood, in a lot of pain, and need to vent.

And I agree with your statement.
I would only add if they wanted SGA had to evolve or change they could hire new writers to bring fresh ideas keeping SGA characters that had built strong relations with the audience.It was the recipe to keep the success IMO.
I agree SGA despite the fact viewers knew that was cancelled keep getting strong rates in its last season when sgu keep loosing audience in the same situation.

 

[Hyndara]

Well, fans are demanding! Star Trek and its showrunners/movie writers are essentially agents of the fandom. They do not get to change too much or redefine too much. If they do, they are severely punished at the box office on on the small screen. Im all for re-interpreting the basic Stargate scenario, and Atlantis did that exactly. I can see a British stargate show, where they have the only working stargate and its based somewhere in England. The team they choose could be like secret agents (a la 007), the places they go could be ALL humans who had colonized the worlds that the gate took them to. I could envision lots of scenarios, but the list of things Stargate would still have to be in place for it to be Stargate.

Uhm, what about "Primeval"? Okay, there are "anomalies" and no "stargate", but at the end of season 3 they had a device to close (and open) anomalies for themselves (and forget completely about the second opinion in season 4 *sigh*). True, they are traveling through time and not through the space but for me there's always a little bit Stargate-feeling when I watch the show - and being sad that the show is cancelled ... *sniff*.
Besides, the Primeval-TPTB had said in one of the first seasons that they were inspired by Stargate to do their show. Maybe that's why I always have this feeling, don't know.

About "Breaking Bad" - not my cup of tea and if you don't like unlikeable characters in a show you would probably waste your time. I was interested in that show but lost this interest within only one episode. Way too much drama and a lack on humor.

 

[Mr. A]

Uhm, what about "Primeval"? Okay, there are "anomalies" and no "stargate", but at the end of season 3 they had a device to close (and open) anomalies for themselves (and forget completely about the second opinion in season 4 *sigh*). True, they are traveling through time and not through the space but for me there's always a little bit Stargate-feeling when I watch the show - and being sad that the show is cancelled ... *sniff*.
Besides, the Primeval-TPTB had said in one of the first seasons that they were inspired by Stargate to do their show. Maybe that's why I always have this feeling, don't know.

About "Breaking Bad" - not my cup of tea and if you don't like unlikeable characters in a show you would probably waste your time. I was interested in that show but lost this interest within only one episode. Way too much drama and a lack on humor.

I enjoyed Primeval seasons 1-3 thoroughly and I'm not surprised about the SG inspiration of the series you mentioned. It started more or less as a one trick show and quickly became full-fledged science fiction. I'm really looking forward to seasons 4 and 5!

 

[Overmind One]

If you recall...

Same here. Life was horrible, but Earth before that was where I "gave up on the show" (even though I continued watching) because it was the definite confirmation that the moments I didn't like in the previous episodes weren't just the writers and the show trying to get their footing. That WAS where the show was going and not by accident. So when Life came on I had no expectations and no illusions anymore and just kinda laughed at it.

What I don't get is why the ratings bounced up for the episode Life. You can look at the numbers and there is a definite bump there. I mean, people switching channels and turning the TV off DO affect the overall ratings of a running episode. Was it the train wreck effect?

Wanna know what I think? If you remember Time, then you know that it was almost an implied two-parter. I really believe that many people tuned into Life thinking that it was going to be the "continuance" of Time. To really get what Im saying, watch the episode again. I liked it a lot, but its ending was vague.

I think people enjoyed Time and just tuned into the next episode because of that.

Kind of odd really, Time and Life are pretty much two different shows.

Yes, and I didnt stick around for Life. I didnt bother to watch it until the hiatus, and then I had to keep pausing it to do other stuff to keep me awake. The cuddling scene with Wray and her girl was boooooring because it was all stones, and all I could imagine was this chick cuddling with a complete stranger (visually), yet acting like she was Wray. That whole "use the actual actor as the swap character" was sloppy and lame IMO.

Ill tell ya, I was totally SHOCKED when they announced Season 2. Now, I know they were promised the two seasons right from the start.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Most of the big ratings drops seem to occur when you have a "likable" episode followed by a "dramafest", so any traction the show may have gained is immediately lost as a result. Whomever structured the eps to air in the order that they did seriously needs thier head read. To an extent, I think it would have been possible to air every ep of SGU in a different order with only minimal changes, and the ratings would not have been as bad as they were.

 

[Tropicana]

Wanna know what I think? If you remember Time, then you know that it was almost an implied two-parter. I really believe that many people tuned into Life thinking that it was going to be the "continuance" of Time. To really get what Im saying, watch the episode again. I liked it a lot, but its ending was vague.

Emm... SGU is that - it's vague.

The writers wanted to give the show some sort of mystery and with so many questions building up; the writers decided to postpone answering them, instead, waste many opportunities with fillers. It's not even good filler.

It's no -



That's for sure.

 

[alien0]

the episode "earth" was stressing me equally as to go shopping with a dramaqueen girlfriend.
it really was. i had the same feeling inside of me, that i just want to immediately escape to a good old fashioned bar and grab a beer ...or 10... .

after that bummer, i just wanted to burn down sgu's sets ^^.