Who's responsible for the end of Stargate?

[Tripler]

He is??
I didn't know that.
But still, whenever I've seen him on screen giving interviews I noticed something about him which I would attribute to being nervous.
Maybe that was because of the whole outcry about SGU.

He was nervouse alright . Trying to think up lies on how to blame someone else for the failure of his show !

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Quite possibly stoneless my old mate, but don't you think that if that was the case he would have been even more careful about his choice of words?

Indeed I do. And that is exactly why I think he didn't mean it the way we originally interpreted it.

Look people. If I can find more than one way to read into the specific comment I mentioned then surely y'all must be able to do the same.
I wasn't looking to get into a heated debate about Brad. I simply saw someone make a quote, read it a certain way and felt I had to put an opinion on it out there.
So. Who's willing to concede that the specific comment can be interpreted in more than one way?

 

[Inara]

Due to the insults, I have concluded that I have the patience of JOB and I'm willing to wait until hell freezes over for a new stargate without the past TPTB involved.

I'll bring the ice skates!

 

[Stonelesscutter]

He was nervouse alright . Trying to think up lies on how to blame someone else for the failure of his show !

If I recall correctly, this comment was waaaay back when the show was only a few episodes old.
You couldn't really say it was a failure then. Well, you could say it, but then it might have turned out eventually to be a success.
Now we know it's a failure, so you can say it now.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Interesting score so far.
Nobody blamed the Nielsen system. (yet)
Out of 22 voters, only 2 did not place any blame with the producers.
Also slightly more people seem to blame MGM then SyFy.

 

[Mr. A]

Who's resposible for it?

Lets take each point one at a time:

1: Syfy
Hmm, the only thing I can blame Syfy for is not structuring a better deal with MGM at the time SGA was ended. IF the movies were part of the package (drop SGA, pick up SGU and movies) then I don't think I would be blaming Syfy for anything at all. At the end of the day, Syfy is merely a "shopfront" in order for studio's to sell thier products. Did they advertise it poorly? I don't think so. In fact the largest complaints about poor advertising come from people seem to only watch Syfy for SGU and, shockingly enough, you generally don't do too much advertising for a show while it is airing......
Moving the night it was shown on, nope. I firmly beleive that it was done to give SGU a better shot at new viewers. Tuesday may not have been the best night, but I don't feel it was sent there to die. So, perhaps a little blame there as well for not thinking it through better.

2:MGM
MGM's greatest failure imo is what I give Syfy a total pass on, advertising. It is up to the Studio to hype it's product in locations other than Syfy, no one else. I've heard that there was significant advertising for it before it aired, but unless you continue the campaign, joe public is just going to forget any product, So, blame on them for that aspect.

3: TPTB
Unsuprisingly, this is where the bulk of the blame should lie. TPTB produced the product, and if the product does not appeal to the public, the product gets dropped. This is simple business practice and TPTB are not "nebies", but old hands. They know the way the game is played. I won't even go into the whole attitude of TPTB as it's not nessesary

4:Neilson System
Umm, it's a system designed for advertisers and networks to arrange a "fair price" for advertising costs and revenue, It's not a popularity meter. Blaming the nielson sytem is only done because people cannot understand why it exists. No blame at all.

5: Downloads
Legal or otherwise, this is a level playing feild for the makers of any product that can exist in digital format, be it movies, tv or music. The current systems in place for tracking usage of these things may be a problem, but, like I said, it's everyones problem.

6: The viewers
I honestly don't know how you can blame the viewers at all except to make a case for them not understanding the impact of online viewing. Viewers are the end user and the only decison they truly have is weather they find a product interesting or not and where to obtain it.

7/8 Online forums & "angry SGA/SG1 fans
I'll combine these two as they are IMO directly linked. While the online community may be small, for every person who takes the time to post and discuss a show, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands that share a similar viewpoint. To me, forums are what the people blaming the neilson system are really looking for, a way to guage popularity of a product. GW as the largest SG site around firmly jumped on the SGU bandwagon and as such created the dominant online culture of the coming of SGU being a positive thing. In response, well, you had Counterculture (SGUS) The mere existance of a site for people to go and vent about the problems of a show should have raised red flags, Instead it was dismissed by the GW culture as the rantings of "fringe lunatics". As the site (SGUS) grew however DESPITE GW's efforts to not advertise it, it should have not only raised red flags, but been a bonfire to TPTB and MGM. Can forums really "change stuff"? Probably not, but in this day in age, I would consider it foolish of anyone making a product to ignore what amounts to free market reaserch in you target audience.

Well thought out and structured analysis as usual from you, GF'76.
But there are a couple of things you left out.

Just for starters Syfy:
1. Giving a show a guaranteed 2 year run is asking for sloppiness and laziness by writers who usually have to hook their viewers within a few episodes or the show is toast.
2. Responsible for not putting immense pressure right after the ratings plummeted following the episode "Life".
3. Not making Season 2 contingent upon the producers making good on their promise of SGA and SG1 movies.

 

[shavedape]

Seriously?

Perhaps he did but at that point nobody was listening anymore.
Maybe he thought it was better not to say anything for a while because at that point the outcry over SGU was so huge that people would have taken whatever words he used and used them as fuel for the fire.

Me thinks we should stop while we're ahead. To assume that the creator of the Stargate TV show concept wouldn't have anyone listen when he clarified a poor choice of words is preposterous. Of course someone would listen and it would have been plastered all over the Internet. Hell, we've dissected every cough and sneeze from the man so I'm sure if he made a statement clarifying or retracting his words we'd know about it.

And as for worrying that by saying anything more he would have added fuel to the fire also doesn't make sense. You're creating things out of thin air now, I don't know why. A simple mea culpa for the statement or even just a clarification to say "I didn't mean that how it sounded" would have done wonders for quelling the now-insulted rank and file.

No green for you today! :mad:

 

[shavedape]

Indeed I do. And that is exactly why I think he didn't mean it the way we originally interpreted it.

Look people. If I can find more than one way to read into the specific comment I mentioned then surely y'all must be able to do the same.
I wasn't looking to get into a heated debate about Brad. I simply saw someone make a quote, read it a certain way and felt I had to put an opinion on it out there.
So. Who's willing to concede that the specific comment can be interpreted in more than one way?

The problem with your position is that, in this case, you have to work at interpreting what BW meant to get it to read as you want. Like I said, it was universally taken as an insult so if he didn't mean it that way he would have clarified it. What good would it do to piss off a huge portion of the Stargate fanbase and then not correct the mistake??? So, he can't have meant it the way you think he meant it because he made no attempt to fix the "erroneous" interpretation of that quote when it was clear that tons of Stargate fans were insulted by it.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

No green for you today! :mad:

Hehehehehehehheheh.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Indeed I do. And that is exactly why I think he didn't mean it the way we originally interpreted it.

Look people. If I can find more than one way to read into the specific comment I mentioned then surely y'all must be able to do the same.
I wasn't looking to get into a heated debate about Brad. I simply saw someone make a quote, read it a certain way and felt I had to put an opinion on it out there.
So. Who's willing to concede that the specific comment can be interpreted in more than one way?

Of course it can be interpeted multiple ways dude, and I won't rag on you for seeing it that way (hence my comment about the english language)
Let me re-write the comment to be the way you see it now:

Quoting BW here:
"You guys, (the fans) are actually pretty predictable" *this is indicative of the online/hardcore fans being willing to give any show within the stargate canon a shot, no matter the presentation/format. In most regards, he is correct, we were willing to give SGU a chance even if we railed agaisnt the death of SGA
"Unfortunately , you represent a very small portion of the actual viewing audience we need for financial success.

Here is where interpretation comes in.

Is he actually being snarky towards the fans of SGA/SG1?
In some ways, I agree with you stoneless, he just said "guys, I love you and all your support, but for SGU to work we need more" Unfortunately, instead of just speaking plainly, he (intentionally or not) left his comment open to interpretation and for a writer or actor, that is just plain stupid. That statement is often used as a sorta "rallying cry" amongst the pissed off, because it can be interpreted so many ways. Unfortunately, instead of publicly backstepping and saying "err, guys, I meant it THIS way" he went on the attack, lending even more creadance to the idea that it was intended as a dig. At the end of the day, all anyone can really conclude is that Brad is a PR nightmare, and, as a experienced "player" in the feild, he should damn well know better.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Well thought out and structured analysis as usual from you, GF'76.
But there are a couple of things you left out.

Just for starters Syfy:
1. Giving a show a guaranteed 2 year run is asking for sloppiness and laziness by writers who usually have to hook their viewers within a few episodes or the show is toast.
2. Responsible for not putting immense pressure right after the ratings plummeted following the episode "Life".
3. Not making Season 2 contingent upon the producers making good on their promise of SGA and SG1 movies.

Ahh, I once again find myself defending a company I really don't want to.......

Point 1: From what I can determine, SGU's S2 was in fact dependant on the ratings for S1.0, yet the terms of the agreement must of been so loose as to be laughable. SGU S1.0 average, despite the obvious and glaring loss is still above the 1.5 mark, which at the time was average for Syfy. Strictly speaking, it did what it had to do to get it's S2 pickup.

Point 2: well this is really tied to point 1. It made the terms of whatever agreement TBTB/Syfy came to *as an entity* to survive. I doubt Syfy will ever be so damn lazy with its contracts ever again.

Point 3: Actually my bro, that was my second sentance, Syfy did indeed screw up there and I think they are knobs for allowing it to happen

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Of course it can be interpeted multiple ways dude, and I won't rag on you for seeing it that way (hence my comment about the english language)
Let me re-write the comment to be the way you see it now:

Quoting BW here:
"You guys, (the fans) are actually pretty predictable" *this is indicative of the online/hardcore fans being willing to give any show within the stargate canon a shot, no matter the presentation/format. In most regards, he is correct, we were willing to give SGU a chance even if we railed agaisnt the death of SGA
"Unfortunately , you represent a very small portion of the actual viewing audience we need for financial success.

Here is where interpretation comes in.

Is he actually being snarky towards the fans of SGA/SG1?
In some ways, I agree with you stoneless, he just said "guys, I love you and all your support, but for SGU to work we need more" Unfortunately, instead of just speaking plainly, he (intentionally or not) left his comment open to interpretation and for a writer or actor, that is just plain stupid. That statement is often used as a sorta "rallying cry" amongst the pissed off, because it can be interpreted so many ways. Unfortunately, instead of publicly backstepping and saying "err, guys, I meant it THIS way" he went on the attack, lending even more creadance to the idea that it was intended as a dig. At the end of the day, all anyone can really conclude is that Brad is a PR nightmare, and, as a experienced "player" in the feild, he should damn well know better.

Yes! Thank you, that was precisely what I was trying to say.
Indeed he didn't play the PR ball very well.
We can speculate all we want about it but that's a sure thing.
It leads me to wonder if there weren't any dramatic circumstances taking place in his life besides the outcry over SGU.

 

[heisenberg]

I think it IS the fault of TPTW. Stargate universe could have been the most badass science fiction show to date, had it not been so rushed and the concept was thoroughly thought out.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Yes! Thank you, that was precisely what I was trying to say.
Indeed he didn't play the PR ball very well.
We can speculate all we want about it but that's a sure thing.
It leads me to wonder if there weren't any dramatic circumstances taking place in his life besides the outcry over SGU.

Here's the rub though dude, Brad should have damn well known better than to say stupid things like that. Like I said before, this is not his first rodeo and NEVER that I have seen or read did he bother to take the time to correct that mistake. Why did he not?. Here is where OM1/Apeman etc, are bang on the target, He COULD have corrected the perception, he DECIDED not to, and for that he DESERVES the flack he has copped for it. Is it right, perhaps not, is it fair, yes it is.

 

[Joelist]

We have the quotes buried here somewhere (Overmind might know which thread) but it was established with evidence that SGU was given a precommittment to a 2 year run.

 

[Overmind One]

We have the quotes buried here somewhere (Overmind might know which thread) but it was established with evidence that SGU was given a precommittment to a 2 year run.

The whole thread is here: http://www.gatefans.net/forums/show...P-and-Syfy-Tweeter-Guy?highlight=craig+engler

The exact post is here: http://www.gatefans.net/forums/show...ler-VP-and-Syfy-Tweeter-Guy?p=37161#post37161

 

[heisenberg]

I also wished that the 9th chevron address wasn't based on a ship! At first I thought, 9th chevron? Sounds kickass.Then from that point onwards everything I heard about universe went all downhill, unfortunately.

 

[stclare]

He is??
I didn't know that.
But still, whenever I've seen him on screen giving interviews I noticed something about him which I would attribute to being nervous.
Maybe that was because of the whole outcry about SGU.

No, sorry, BW interview was not realy an interview. He was given by Malozzi a list of fan questions, went away and wrote his reponse. I think it was at least a week before his answers to those questions were posted by JM on his blog. So he had plenty of time to write and re-write his answers. You also have to look at the whole of his answers and put what he said in context. His attitude throughout that whole q&a session was horrible and was the initial starting point of many disgrunbtled fans with his attitude. If it was one blip in an otherwise good q&a then i doubt anyone would have battered an eyelid but it wasnt.

 

[Overmind One]

Here's the rub though dude, Brad should have damn well known better than to say stupid things like that. Like I said before, this is not his first rodeo and NEVER that I have seen or read did he bother to take the time to correct that mistake. Why did he not?. Here is where OM1/Apeman etc, are bang on the target, He COULD have corrected the perception, he DECIDED not to, and for that he DESERVES the flack he has copped for it. Is it right, perhaps not, is it fair, yes it is.

This is the same man who said these this: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ack-to-critics-talks-smack-about-abcs-v/32966

"fortunately there are enough viewers and reviewers who think SGU is neither boring, poorly plotted, or sexist to keep us on the air long after “V” is just a letter in the alphabet again.”

He also blamed the fans for the failure of Univerese instead of himself:

http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/b...ht-sg-1-atlantis-fans-hurt-stargate-universe/

“I don’t think if we for any reason go away, it is an issue necessarily of the quality of the product that we’ve been making,” said executive producer and co-creator Brad Wright. “I think getting moved on the schedule has hurt us. And the fact that some of the fans that liked SG-1 and Atlantis were so angry that they have deliberately hurt us, which is unfortunate.”

NO, Brad! You went away, and the reason is because Stargate Universe was just not that great of a show. People didnt watch it because they didnt like it. Moving the schedule had nothing to do with the drop of half its audience by the end of season 1 BEFORE the move. How did the fans deliberately hurt you except to speak out about how you hurt US with that dreck you came out with? You needed to be sent packing, bud!

 

[Mr. A]

Well thought out and structured analysis as usual from you, GF'76.
But there are a couple of things you left out.

Just for starters Syfy:
1. Giving a show a guaranteed 2 year run is asking for sloppiness and laziness by writers who usually have to hook their viewers within a few episodes or the show is toast.
2. Responsible for not putting immense pressure right after the ratings plummeted following the episode "Life".
3. Not making Season 2 contingent upon the producers making good on their promise of SGA and SG1 movies.

Ahh, I once again find myself defending a company I really don't want to.......

Point 1: From what I can determine, SGU's S2 was in fact dependant on the ratings for S1.0, yet the terms of the agreement must of been so loose as to be laughable. SGU S1.0 average, despite the obvious and glaring loss is still above the 1.5 mark, which at the time was average for Syfy. Strictly speaking, it did what it had to do to get it's S2 pickup.

Point 2: well this is really tied to point 1. It made the terms of whatever agreement TBTB/Syfy came to *as an entity* to survive. I doubt Syfy will ever be so damn lazy with its contracts ever again.

Point 3: Actually my bro, that was my second sentance, Syfy did indeed screw up there and I think they are knobs for allowing it to happen

See the links below. I think it's very well established now that SGU had a second season guaranteed (save, perhaps for a complete disaster in the ratings as a protection clause in the contract).
I agree that the series would've gotten renewed anyway on those ratings, but just barely and with a scolding from Syfy in a normal setting. My point however is that by giving the show runners this sense of safety, the network released them from the burden of having to excel in the first episodes and let them pursue their "artistic endeavors" at the cost of what the fans really wanted to see. There's no other way to explain the lack of focus group screening for the pilot, the writing of the whole season before airing a single episode, a 3-part pilot (!), the sluggish pace and breaking up of the episodes Light/Darkness and the total disregard for fan criticism.
In other words: Syfy's trust allowed the producers to screw up.

We have the quotes buried here somewhere (Overmind might know which thread) but it was established with evidence that SGU was given a precommittment to a 2 year run.

The whole thread is here: http://www.gatefans.net/forums/show...P-and-Syfy-Tweeter-Guy?highlight=craig+engler

The exact post is here: http://www.gatefans.net/forums/show...ler-VP-and-Syfy-Tweeter-Guy?p=37161#post37161

Exactly.