Who's responsible for the end of Stargate?

[Overmind One]

Agreed.

Without a doubt, those responsible are the leaders of the creative team, the PTB.

To put it simply, if they would have made a product that the market wanted, then all of the surrounding peripheral problems would have gone away. Or at the very least those problems would have been somewhat mitigated so as not to be so completely overwhelming.

Well put. They changed TOO MUCH from the core premise for it to be a smooth transition. SG-1 to Atlantis was relatively painless IMO.

Then, add to the mostly negative public reception of the product the number of statements issued/written by the producers that were essentially qualitative generalizations; generalizations which painted anyone that didn’t like said new product as dysfunctional or in some way deficient (afraid of change, wanted only SG1/SGA clone, wanted only pew-pew, “basement dwellers” that were not intelligent enough to understand the concept, etc.); and a bad situation is turned into an impossibly unsalvageable one. If they would have been professionally open to criticism and had even softly addressed some of the major issues without sarcasm, malice, blackmail and blame, then some of the fans would have been much more willing to stay on board. Then subsequently, the level of intolerance for the program and for the producers would have been nowhere near as extreme as it ended up being (it wouldn’t have disappeared – but goodwill can go a long way). Would they have kept enough people to make it work, we’ll never know. It’s a shame that they didn’t at least attempt to cultivate the potential audience.

Completely agree. The idea that Eli was supposed to be the "avatar for the audience" automatically alienates female viewers, physically fit geeks, disabled geeks, etc. And the treatment of women aboard Destiny in season 1 was where they wanted to go with things. THAT was the show they wanted us to see, not the modified version of season 2. Chloe goes from coiffed and manicured and useless to being the resident math genius who routinely checks Eli's math...

Although, I firmly believe that the blame rests upon their shoulders, some thoughts of franchise fatigue and disgruntled SGA fans undoubtedly come to play at the very front of the equation as well. However, a product perceived as being ‘good’ by the viewing audience would have somewhat mitigated these things, just like it would have everything else. As would some real ownership and answers for the cancellation of SGA, which is, once again, on the shoulders of the producers.

Franchise fatigue...isnt that an affliction of SHOWRUNNERS and not the story vehicle itself? I think so. There are so many ways to do Stargate...as many as there are planets in the universe. I even see variations of this premise in shows that precedes Stargate like The Time Tunnel, the ST TOS episode "The City on the Edge of Forever", and the current British show "Primeval". But Stargate made it somehow more "tangible". The story vehicle is sound and has a lot of life left in it.

@ Yoshi Hey, I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, but could you expound on why you feel the blame rests on the shoulders of the viewers. I want to understand your perspective, but I don’t see anything that logically points to the viewers. It’s like a setup of dominoes, and the producers are always at front of the row toppling everything else.

That was my point as well.

 

[UxmalTrekker]

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.

If Brad would have stepped forward and simply admitted that he chose to use “the wrong words in the wrong place” then I could lend the possibility that stoneless brings up more credence. However, when that statement is put into the context of the whole, like stclare points out, and is surrounded by a score of other statements that could be easily construed (or even misconstrued) as insulting and/or judgmental, and there is never any attempt on Brad’s or Joe’s part to clarify, then it is difficult to see that particular statement (as well as all of the others) as anything but insulting.

Maybe he didn’t set out in the beginning to be judgmental and insulting, but innately has such a lack of PR savvy that he can’t help but insert his foot in his mouth, no matter in what medium he is sharing his thoughts. If that is actually the case then it points to some marriage of arrogance and anger when it comes to his thoughts on the audience at large as his words always go towards the judgmental.

Regardless of what the case may be, nobody is ever going to take “You guys are actually pretty predictable” as a compliment – neither giving it nor receiving it. It’s not a statement that indicates a level of intense study of audience reactions and subsequent appreciation on his part, but rather one that indicates he believes that we are dull, and inclined to react with a group think which can be easily manipulated.

There are a million ways that he could have complimented long time fans. This wasn’t one of them. However, if he would have had the confidence to man up and admit that what he said wasn’t what he meant and that he realized that it could very easily be construed as insulting, it would not currently be an issue for most people. Again, a little goodwill could have gone a long way.

 

[Tripler]

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.

For me personally it failed with the very first episode . I remember getting up and pacing the floor trying to figure out what the heck I was watching . So for me it was a failure from the get go . It could be just me with this sentiment but I am sure there are others with the same thought .
Regardless Stone's , you do make an interesting point that what someone say's can have two or more different meanings . Just watch people argue about religion and all the wars that have happened because of it .

 

[Lilith]

We have a special thread, just for you.
http://www.gatefans.net/forums/showthread.php/1979-You-know-you-are-mature...?highlight=mature

Thanks, do I need a secret decoder ring or just the password. Don't say it's Grecian Formula okay!

 

[Mr. A]

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.

Interesting, isn't it?
I'd like to see someone try to put together a coherent argument for Nielsen hurting Stargate or SGU specifically...

 

[YoshiKart64]

Interesting, isn't it?
I'd like to see someone try to put together a coherent argument for Nielsen hurting Stargate or SGU specifically...

Nielson isn't a great system but theres no way to tell what it is and isn't hurting.

By saying the viewers were responsible, I wasn't saying we should blame them. I was just saying that in the most literal sense, viewers of television not watching caused the franchise to end.

 

[Mr. A]

Nielson isn't a great system but theres no way to tell what it is and isn't hurting.

By saying the viewers were responsible, I wasn't saying we should blame them. I was just saying that in the most literal sense, viewers of television not watching caused the franchise to end.

I agree with you!
People seem to be struggling with the definition of "blame" and "responsibility" and where to draw the line between those and "causing factor".
Sure, the vast majority of people who could have watched, but didn't, simply didn't care enough for the show. Are they to blame?... well, no... but their choice was responsible for the franchise not getting enough ratings. On the other hand, I can't help but shake my head to people who'd rather watch American Idol, DWTS, Jersey Shore and whatever reality shows competed with SG series along its run.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

I think wrestling should be added to the poll.
Not that I'd vote for it but I think there might be people who would.

 

[Terran77]

I think wrestling should be added to the poll.
Not that I'd vote for it but I think there might be people who would.

I'd rather watch wrestling than reruns of SGU.

 

[Lilith]

Hey, I like DWTS. I didn't even know football players were such good dancers. I have a new appreciation for Kenny Mane and Jerry Rice. They make me laugh. It's like a guy's poker night except for girls. We all meet at a wonderful restuarant for a meal and a few beverages then we watch DWTS. It's like our sport's bar.

 

[Mr. A]

Hey, I like DWTS. I didn't even know football players were such good dancers. I have a new appreciation for Kenny Mane and Jerry Rice. They make me laugh. It's like a guy's poker night except for girls. We all meet at a wonderful restuarant for a meal and a few beverages then we watch DWTS. It's like our sport's bar.

So you're part of the problem

 

[Overmind One]

Nielson isn't a great system but theres no way to tell what it is and isn't hurting.

By saying the viewers were responsible, I wasn't saying we should blame them. I was just saying that in the most literal sense, viewers of television not watching caused the franchise to end.

That is semantics sorta. If the showrunners had made a show that viewers wanted to watch, they would have...and did. But they werent watching SGU, they were watching other scifi shows they LIKED. So, yes it was the viewers (or lack therof) who caused the show and the franchise to be cancelled. But the showrunners are the ones who are supposed to create shows worth watching.

 

[Mr. A]

That is semantics sorta. If the showrunners had made a show that viewers wanted to watch, they would have...and did. But they werent watching SGU, they were watching other scifi shows they LIKED. So, yes it was the viewers (or lack therof) who caused the show and the franchise to be cancelled. But the showrunners are the ones who are supposed to create shows worth watching.

True only to a certain point, because let's face it: SGA was getting good but not 'stellar' ratings. It even almost stumbled during season 4. So I realize you are using that argument only from the point of view of SGU which did indeed get dismal ratings.
Unfortunately, not all the shows that are getting huge ratings right now on American TV are worth watching in the opinion of the majority of us in this forum - sci-fi fans. To me the producers have to find a healthy balance between a show that is pleasing to the general populace while at the same time having the highest quality possible in term of sci-fi, intelligence and entertainment. Not just create popular shows.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

True only to a certain point, because let's face it: SGA was getting good but not 'stellar' ratings. It even almost stumbled during season 4. So I realize you are using that argument only from the point of view of SGU which did indeed get dismal ratings.
Unfortunately, not all the shows that are getting huge ratings right now on American TV are worth watching in the opinion of the majority of us in this forum - sci-fi fans. To me the producers have to find a healthy balance between a show that is pleasing to the general populace while at the same time having the highest quality possible in term of sci-fi, intelligence and entertainment. Not just create popular shows.

I'm sooo sick of 'popular shows'. There's hardly ever one I feel like watching. Except at the moment X Factor.
After living without a TV for a couple of years I decided it was time for me to rejoin the general population in watching TV.
I spent €1300 on an awesome flatscreen. Now when I feel like watching it I find myself flicking through channels thinking "boring, boring, boring, boring, crap, boring, crap".
Usually I end up having Discovery Channel or National Geographic on the background while I'm busy with my laptop.
It's a good thing I have a nice DVD collection so all that money I spent on the TV didn't go to waste.
When will they stop making crap TV shows?! I friggin' hate soaps and reality TV.

 

[YoshiKart64]

True only to a certain point, because let's face it: SGA was getting good but not 'stellar' ratings. It even almost stumbled during season 4. So I realize you are using that argument only from the point of view of SGU which did indeed get dismal ratings.
Unfortunately, not all the shows that are getting huge ratings right now on American TV are worth watching in the opinion of the majority of us in this forum - sci-fi fans. To me the producers have to find a healthy balance between a show that is pleasing to the general populace while at the same time having the highest quality possible in term of sci-fi, intelligence and entertainment. Not just create popular shows.

And this is where the issue really lies. Where does the connection between popular and quality stop? It's all very well to say that SGU didn't get enough viewers and that is down to the producers making a mistep. However when we look at things like Firefly and V the issue becomes cloudy - surely those shows should be certain renewals since the producers did their job well and made the shows great.
[Note this is all theoretical as obviously I enjoyed SGU]
If the producers creative success is judged by the viewers willingness to tune in, then Sci-Fi doesn't have a place on television. SGU, Caprica, Fringe, V, Sanctuary - they all represent low or at best middling ratings. TV networks would be far better off ordering genres that are more likely to deliver.

But my point is that if we use the argument "Give the people what they want" then we shouldn't be surprised when American Idol, The X Factor, The Voice, Dancing with the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, America's Got Talent etc are the shows we get. So actually in a roundabout way it comes back to the viewers, or more specifically viewing habits.

 

[Mr. A]

And this is where the issue really lies. Where does the connection between popular and quality stop? It's all very well to say that SGU didn't get enough viewers and that is down to the producers making a mistep. However when we look at things like Firefly and V the issue becomes cloudy - surely those shows should be certain renewals since the producers did their job well and made the shows great.
[Note this is all theoretical as obviously I enjoyed SGU]
If the producers creative success is judged by the viewers willingness to tune in, then Sci-Fi doesn't have a place on television. SGU, Caprica, Fringe, V, Sanctuary - they all represent low or at best middling ratings. TV networks would be far better off ordering genres that are more likely to deliver.

But my point is that if we use the argument "Give the people what they want" then we shouldn't be surprised when American Idol, The X Factor, The Voice, Dancing with the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, America's Got Talent etc are the shows we get. So actually in a roundabout way it comes back to the viewers, or more specifically viewing habits.

Yes, but "popularity" and "quality" aren't diametrically opposed, there is an optimum for both with lots of room to either side to allow for creativity. If it weren't so, "Flash Gordon" and "Mary Knows Best" would have been the best shows to date on the Syfy channel.
So Sci-Fi does have a place, but as you imply, it will never be able to compete with American Idol etc. And I do disagree with this argument you make in that I don't believe SGU and Caprica were shows of the sci-fi genre - or at least, the reason they failed wasn't their sci-fi element. Even Sanctuary and to a lesser degree Fringe rely more heavily on fantasy and supernatural IMO.

 

[shavedape]

I blame Carl Sagan

 

[Mr. A]

View attachment 4184

Then you have to mark "Other" in the poll...

 

[YoshiKart64]

Yes, but "popularity" and "quality" aren't diametrically opposed, there is an optimum for both with lots of room to either side to allow for creativity. If it weren't so, "Flash Gordon" and "Mary Knows Best" would have been the best shows to date on the Syfy channel.
So Sci-Fi does have a place, but as you imply, it will never be able to compete with American Idol etc. And I do disagree with this argument you make in that I don't believe SGU and Caprica were shows of the sci-fi genre - or at least, the reason they failed wasn't their sci-fi element. Even Sanctuary and to a lesser degree Fringe rely more heavily on fantasy and supernatural IMO.

But where is its place? If other genres are safer bets then why would a network go for a show that will likely only 'get by' at best, why not go for something that could be a hit.

As for allowing for creativity - I'm not really sure that's true. The two hits on Syfy are Warehouse 13 and Eureka which are very casual sci-fi shows (not bad btw); if a creator wants to make a serious Sci-fi show the numbers indicate that isn't something people will watch. The fact is that making TV is far more like making a product that in should; suddenly your not seeing visions people have brought to life but rather formula's and set-ups people are familiar with.

 

[Gatefan1976]

But where is its place? If other genres are safer bets then why would a network go for a show that will likely only 'get by' at best, why not go for something that could be a hit.

As for allowing for creativity - I'm not really sure that's true. The two hits on Syfy are Warehouse 13 and Eureka which are very casual sci-fi shows (not bad btw); if a creator wants to make a serious Sci-fi show the numbers indicate that isn't something people will watch. The fact is that making TV is far more like making a product that in should; suddenly your not seeing visions people have brought to life but rather formula's and set-ups people are familiar with.

There are only 2 possible reasons Yoshi.
1: To "own" the particular market.
2: To support the particular market.

For all the "damn you" syfy posts floating around, Syfy still supports well, Scifi. It can't however continue to support a failing show, no matter what the show is. If Eureka gets canned at the end of the next season because this season fails to perform, I'll be upset, but I won't go "balistic" at Syfy, simply because the show no longer performs well enough to survive.