Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Trouble at Stargate SG-1 267

Posted by CmdrTaco from the shows-people-dig dept.
jonerik writes "Salon has this article today about the troubles behind the scenes for Showtime's "Stargate SG-1." Since Michael Shanks left the show in October (a result of his unhappiness with the show's change in focus to "X-Files"-influenced government conspiracy plotlines), women have been abandoning the show in droves. The problems come at a bad time. MGM, which produces the show, is looking to be bought out by a sugar daddy. And the Sci-Fi Channel, which is taking the program over from Showtime for its sixth and final season, can't be happy at the prospect of ending up with a troubled show with plummeting ratings and a fanbase in revolt. " I have yet to see the more recent episodes, but several of the episodes I have seen have been quite excellent (and some others well... weren't) but I know a lot of people who consider SG1 among the best SciFi on TV. Personally I'll take Lexx & Farscape over it, but its not bad.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trouble at Stargate SG-1 More

Trouble at Stargate SG-1

Comments Filter:
  • The Sci-Fi Channel's original television programs rarely air for more than one season before being cancelled.

    There has to be a reason why Showtime is selling them ownership of the series, too; my guess is that they had anticipated this.

    I've watched it a few times late at night (reruns); it didn't seem to be "the best of Sci-Fi," but it's certainly watchable and occasionally exhibits signs of intelligence among the writers.


    • > I've watched it a few times late at night (reruns); it didn't seem to be "the best of Sci-Fi," but it's certainly watchable and occasionally exhibits signs of intelligence among the writers.

      \meetoo.

      I usually enjoy it, but no so much that I plan my schedule around it. I haven't noticed the purported xfileisms, but perhaps my rerun station hasn't gotten that far along yet.

      The biggest problem with the series from my POV is Richard Dean Anderson, who is either a really bad actor or else is doing a really good job on a really bad part. (I suspect the former.)

      • The
        biggest problem with the series from my POV is Richard Dean Anderson, who is either a really bad actor or else is doing a really good job on a really bad part. (I suspect the former.)

        I think it's the latter. The problem, IMHO, is that he's a pretty decent actor but is mediocre in at least some of the creative, behind-the-scenes stuff that he insists on doing. Because of his level of creative control on the show, he's one of few people who gets to write his own character. I think he's shooting for a realistic (in D&D terms) 10 INT 17 WIS character in his scriptwriting, but is too close to the character to spot the flaws in what he does.

    • They've already annouced that the sixth season - the Sci Fi channel one - will be the last one.

      What's suddenly up in the air is the future of the second Stargate movie and the spinoff series Stargate: Atlantis.
    • I saw a couple of episodes and I thought, "eh, this is OK."

      Then I saw the RIGHT 2 episodes and I got hooked. After that, it was allll good. Right now, Stargate has my vote as best SF on TV at the moment, and best SF on TV ever next to Bab 5 -- and it's a darn close second. (YMMV)

      Keep watching. You might get the "click" too.

      For the current fan: Stargate wallpaper [wrongcrowd.com] at my web site. Scroll down. (yes, I made Stargate wallpaper and I am 30. The show makes me carry on like a little kid again -- I like it that much. Crazy.)
    • Stargate SG1 is show that cannot be watched occasionally... the episodes are very connected and if you miss important episode you simply cannot follow the show. Some of such episodes are (the children of the gods, 5th race, Tok'Ra, The Enemy within,... and so on) If you didn't watch those episodes there is no sense in watching SG-1..
      And that is the only reason why people don't seem to like SG-1... I didn't like it at first either, but then I watched from beginning all episodes.. and it hooked me.
      • Stargate SG1 is show that cannot be watched occasionally... the episodes are very connected and if you miss important episode you simply cannot follow the show.

        Which is something quite likely to upset US based televsion networks.

  • Kill your television (Score:4, Funny)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday February 14, 2002 @11:36PM (#3011965) Homepage
    It's light entertainment, people. Get a grip.
    • Complaining about the politics of popular fiction? Tsk! Tsk!

      What are geeks doing watching television, anyway? Aren't they supposed to be too busy doing things that require the full attention of their mighty intellects, like whoring for karma and ranting about Microsoft?

      I mean, I have a passable A/V rig, and I get my cable for free, but my remote has a thick layer of dust over the "Power" button...

  • That sucks... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TechnoLust ( 528463 ) <kai.technolust@NOsPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday February 14, 2002 @11:40PM (#3011979) Homepage Journal
    Stargate SG1 was a great series. I can't understand why everytime they get a great thing going, they try to imitate something else and end up a failed ripoff of another show's concept. Seems like everytime I find a show I like, they change it or cancel it. Meanwhile usless garbage like Crossing Over with John Edward is STILL on. I didn't buy it the first season. Who is watching that con man?
    • Sidenote, an impartial university did a study with him to test his 'skills' and remarkably in a blind reading (where he was sitting back to back with someone who couldn't say a word to him) he got an extremly high percent of things right. Anyways, the researchers also had their brains wired up highly, and found that an unusual high amounts of matching brain activity was going on. Their conclusion was that hes not jsut making stuff up, but that most likly hes midly telepathic, and reading the stuff from the peoples brains.
    • It wasn't that great. The little of it that I saw seemed to be fairly generic sunday-afternoon syndicated science fiction, with nothing particularly new or original.

    • Re:That sucks... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 15, 2002 @12:29AM (#3012135) Homepage
      Head over to the Skeptics Society's web page [skeptic.com] if you want to read a good debunking of John Edwards.
    • Apart from the fantastic initial writing, I know that the fundamental story is of a limited length (I assume 24 episodes :), the plotline is probably reasonably thought out to a dramatic end, and if they are smart, they will have another seperate self contained story line next season. If not, however, at least I've gotten a complete and interesting story out of it.


    • Meanwhile usless garbage like Crossing Over with John Edward is STILL on. I didn't buy it the first season. Who is watching that con man?


      I have to agree. I prefer my science fiction to be portrayed as such - not masquarade as fact (War of the Worlds aside).


      I suppose John Edwards is simply the latest testimate to mankinds desperation to believe in something (be it the desire to witness the supernatural, or the need to deal with grief). Its the same desire that blinds the masses to the constant abuse of organized religion (be it cults or more established faiths).


      Of course - one might be able to argue that this same desire is the subject of the movie Trekkers. ;)

    • Re:That sucks... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mikeage ( 119105 )
      Re: Edwards...
      Didn't some guy sue him for his fraudulant presentation of the show? I.e., this guy was in the audience, and they'd splice clips of him saying something, Edwards responding, and the guy nodding approvingly. The viewer therefore thought he was agreeing: except that the "yesses" were to other statements. IIRC, he (the guy) also wrote about how they sat in the audience for about 2 hours before the show started, so the producers could eavesdrop on people and listen for what people wanted to hear...
    • I agree with you. I hated the x-files after the first 2 seasons, and to hear that Stargate is taking an X-Files approach, just sickens me! The government conspiracy plot got old really quick. I like the Star Gate plots that have them exploring different worlds and find new Alien cultures. I also like the interaction between the main characters. This is one of the fews shows I had to watch. The writing used to be great, but I have been noticing that the plots have been going down hill. I just haven't felt like watching. I used to watch 6 shows regularly (Angel, Stargate SG-1, First Wave, Andromeda, and Babylon 5 {both series and the movies}). Now, First Wave has finished, and the first B5 series is finished. The second B5 series was canceled. Now Star Gate SG-1 is going down the toilet? What a bumber!!!
      Hopefully Battlestar Galactica will come back soon. All the new shows just suck (incliuding the new Star Trek). Oh well, I might get some house work down! I got two shows left before I stop watching any series on a regular basis. Maybe they will introduce a new B5 show based of the latest movie around the "Hand of God" mentioned in it. It suck to be a sci-fi fan and watch tv these days because Lexx and Farscape just don't cut it. Lexx could have been great but the went for the teen male audience with all the sexual references.
  • "No copyright infringement intended." -- quote from http://www.savedanieljackson.com/ .

    I really like that. We should probably all be putting that on anything we do, so the next person to be sued over the DMCA can at least say "but, look at my site, y'r'honour -- it was clearly unintentional, and I'm real sorry about the whole deal."

    Hehe.
  • StarTrek has done it, Stargate should give it a go as well.

    I am sure that people will find there is a lot of money in this sort of thing. I am sure you could have Stargate-AOL or something else. The possibilities are endless - Stargate Credit Card, Bank. You could even have a special log on for your favourite online services eg amazon, ebay, google?

  • a true alpha geek. (Score:5, Funny)

    by re-Verse ( 121709 ) on Thursday February 14, 2002 @11:43PM (#3011996) Homepage Journal
    Taco proposes marriage on valentines day, 12 hours later, hes posting stories on slashdot, rather than out spening a romantic evening with his new fiancee.

    This, my frineds, is the alpha geek. Aspire to this, and learn from the master.

  • Evol (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward


    Hey Malda-

    I can't believe you're submitting. It's Valentine's Day. Go stuff the porkster.

  • I tried. I *really* tried to watch this show. It's creative, I'll give it that. Unfortunately, it's simply too bizarre and, quite frankly, too stupid for words.

    IMO, that show is simply yet more proof that all it takes to keep a show alive is a little T & A.

    Farscape is cool, but it grates on me at times. SG1 has been good, at least the little I saw. For now, I'll take Enterprise over all of them (excluding the theme song).
    • Lexx has a lot of subtle jokes... you may not catch them all if you just casually watch it, but they are all pretty hilarious.
    • Lexx doesn't make any sense until you know that it's a Canadian-German coproduction. That pretty much says it all.

      As for sci-fi on TV these days... thank god for Farscape and Enterprise. Otherwise, it's in a pretty sad state.

  • Thanks for spoiling the surprise, damn yanks! :) (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    :) :)
    Means that when we finally see the episodes in two years time down under, I'll be waiting for the episode where Daniel Jackson departs the scene.

    If only it was the doctor whose character got killed!
    • Well, I'm a Yank, and they spoiled the (disappointing) surprise for me too. Since I don't have Showtime (I pay enough for cable, thanks), I have to get my SG-1 fix via late night showings on our local Fox affiliate. Thank god for TiVo, they can't hide it from me, no matter how late they show it at night and how many times they change the schedule.

      Anyway -- I have to cast my vote for SG-1 being the best Science Fiction show. It's got great characters and they interact wonderfully. Pity Shanks is leaving over an attempt to make SG-1 more X-Files-y as X-Files is going down the tubes quality-wise.

      Alas.

  • No!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Thursday February 14, 2002 @11:48PM (#3012016) Journal
    No!!!

    CmdrTaco: I have yet to see the more recent episodes, but several of the episodes I have seen have been quite excellent...

    She's gotten to you already! And you just officially became non-single at, like, 9:45am this morning!

    First, it's "No, honey, instead of watching Stargate or X-Files or whatever TV show that is, let's go to the new arts & crafts show at the mall".

    Next, it'll be "Oh, Robby, could you be a doll and clean up the entire house? I'm not feeling too good this week. Don't forget the toilet and the shower."

    Then, she'll be saying "Hey sweetie, don't go with Hemos to that Linux show again. You go every single year and I grow so lonely when you're away. Abandon your friends and let's go rent another movie from Blockbuster!

    Finally, it may come to "Rob, quit it with that damn Slashdot crap already. And why haven't you changed your vulgar and perverted username yet?!"

    ;-)

    My Slashdot Research [erickrout.com]

  • In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensitive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Badam ( 222642 ) on Thursday February 14, 2002 @11:55PM (#3012047) Homepage
    I was amused that the Salon article makes such a big deal about women liking Michael Shanks's character (the archeologist) because of his intelligence and sensitivity.

    Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, and then tell the audience that the guy is unpopular/sensitive/etc. When Michelle Pfeiffer plays dowdy characters, they stick glasses on her too, and the audience is supposed to believe that no one in the movie notices how beautiful she is.

    So, Salon spends pages concocting a complicated explanation for why women find an attractive man attractive. Nice.
    • Read the article a little more closely. Women find him emotionally and intellectually attractive, not just physically attractive.

      He's not just good looking, he has personality traits that make him attractive, and last time I checked, looks != everything.

      --Dan
    • Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, and then tell the audience that the guy is unpopular/sensitive/etc. When Michelle Pfeiffer plays dowdy characters, they stick glasses on her too, and the audience is supposed to believe that no one in the movie notices how beautiful she is.

      It's true. For example, I wear glasses, but I'm really a hairy-bellied, testosterone-fuelled Neanderthal sadist.

      Anyway, back on topic. I use to love SG1, but I knew it was all going downhill the moment they brought in the actor who plays Q to play some Pentagon conspirator. It was a real Fonz-jumping-the-shark moment. I just hope they don't go all Babylonn-5, spend half a series building up to a huge climax, then it's over in a single episode, the two major forces in the galaxy make up and go off together and Sheridan becomes President of the Universe. That would have been a natural close to the story, where do you go after that? But they had to keep milking the franchise. It's getting worse than Police Academy.
  • Not a fan, could barely sit through it. I'm not surprised actors and actresses are abandoning it like a sinking ship. Michael Shanks shows uncommon sense and courage in saving his career before it's irreparably damaged by typecasting in shallow conspiracy theory shows. The theme is overdone and Hollywood's stable of young, unimaginative writers is as much to blame as the moronic producers who favor formula over substance. I bailed on X-Files when it turned into a conspiracy show, because, let's face it, real-life government is full of much more interesting genuine intrigue and scandal if that's what you want. It's there, and you don't even have to look very hard. Why watch TV that can't even get your heart going with suspense, let along a plot from lame writing.

    A thought just struck me (ouch), I grew up about the time TV was getting over the fascination of the new medium and starting to put together some decent shows. So I've been exposed to pretty much all of it, but it's still a young medium (compared to print and radio) and I get the feeling my indifference isn't so much in having seen 'it' all before or that the writing isn't so fresh, but that TV is really in a big decline. Profit margins, commoditizing, and some other things really have replaced the talented people that got TV started in the first place. As campy as some older shows are, they demonstrated some serious imagination and cooperative atmosphere to make them happen that seems missing in shows like SG-1, which seem utterly pointless.

    It would be very interesting to see a live show where actors are handed a script and actually try to do something, rather than shows loaded up with male and female models as vacuous and passionless as the writing.

  • Huh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by craw ( 6958 )
    Hello? Earth to CmdrTaco? You just proposed today. She said yes. WTF are you doing posting a story tonight?

    Woops, sorry I've to go. My g.f. wants to know WTF I'm doing on the computer right now. (Actually, she asked me this 20 minutes ago; just answering e-mail, dear).

    Oh shit, this is too weird. Now I really have to go. She just asked me again just before I could hit the submit button. Sheesh, they *do* have a sixth sense.

  • funny... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hadn't watched any of Stargate until a year ago. Then, as you may infer from the Salon article, I noticed during one episode* something common to those shows who want young boys to watch - boobs. Big boobs, many boobs; an alien chick with nice boobs propositioning MacGyver for sex. I've liked the majority of episodes I've seen but since seeing the boobalicious episode it's become harder to ignore the many bad aspects of the show. Hell, last week they had an episode devoted to recreating the not-so-classic film "Enemy Mine" though of course it wasn't credited as such. I hate to admit it but Mr.Shank did make the episode enjoyable despite its tremendous layer of greasy cheese on the script. I think the show could become a classic but for the marketing decisions of the owners. Somehow corporations never learn to back the fuck off (poor "Tick" could have been great, too).


    *It was where Daniel and some chick were locked up for fear of being embedded with some kind of assassination-inducing parasite.

    • That "big boobed chick" has a name - Vanessa Angel. She was the genie in the Weird Science series.

      Her character is human, but has a Goa'uld symbiot. Except they call themselves Tok'ra and are good guys. O'Neill was tempted, but he has strong reasons to distrust the Goa'uld and doesn't fully trust the Tok'ra.

      It's no crime to "knock off" Enemy Mine because that story predated that movie by a long time. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the story dates to the ancient Greeks.

      Finally, it was Col. O'Neill and Major Carter who were locked up. Daniel and Teal'c were 'clean.'
  • Catch all the episodes you've missed:
    http://www.sg1archive.com/ [sg1archive.com]

    (of course, now I've slashdotted the site, but I've already downloaded all the episodes...)
    • *sigh* they're all gone now (at least a pseudo-random sample that I tried). I'll have to look elsewhere I guess (anyone with a nice fast Internet2 connection want to offer them? :)

      But after reading through the episode descriptions, I've found that my local TV station is a season and a half behind... they were just showing episode 15 from season 4 last week (they show them on Saturdays). And somehow I missed episode 14 :( I had no idea that there were so many already made episodes that I was missing... of course, that means I have a whole new season with Daniel Jackson to look forward to :P
  • Michael Shanks was really the first star of StarGate. He played a major role in the movie and went for nearly 5 whole seasons in the TV spinoff SG1. So of course when he goes, he's going to be missed, and it's not just the women who will miss him either.

    Teal'c and O'Neall are gung-ho militant, Carter is an astrophysicist, and Daniel Jackson was the expert on cultures and various languages. Always peaceful and good natured. He helped blanace the feel of the show, and kept it in a star-trek explorer's perspective.

    I hope the show stays alive when Michael leaves, as long as his replacement does a decent job I don't think i'm going to stop watching anytime soon.

    But I have to agree, SG-1 IS one of the best Scifi shows ever to hit tv. It's innovative, inspiring, and it tells a very deep story. I noticed alot of shows build on one another, the best way to watch SG-1 (IMHO) is from the first season to the 5th stright through. It's like a long chaptered story and keeps you waiting for the next episode.

    I have the season 1 box set. I just hope that MGM still plans to release the rest of them, or i'm going to be
    P-I-S-S-E-D.

    • Re:Michael (Score:2, Informative)

      by osu-neko ( 2604 )
      Michael Shanks was really the first star of StarGate. He played a major role in the movie

      He did? What role did he play in the movie? I don't remember seeing him in it. Perhaps you're thinking of James Spader...

  • ...so an attractive guy quits the show, so you stop watching. I thought only men did that. It is a good show, but who has time to watch TV anymore anyway.

    • Re:Are women really that shallow?? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @01:31AM (#3012313)
      It's not just women who are pissed at the change in the series, and it's not just because a character was killed off.

      The conspiracy angle has seriously polluted most of the recent shows. As an exercise on another board we've been reframing some of the recent "non-conspiracy" stories without the adolescent confrontation that's become so common recently. Without exception, everyone agreed that these modified story lines were better drama and closer to the original feel of the episode.

      To be blunt, the series was interesting to adults. But now, dude, you diss'd my man and I gotta cut you! There's nothing wrong with shows directed at teenage males who want to see a righteous ass-kicking, but that's not what Stargate SG-1 has been. This change is as unwanted as if ER became a horror story with at least one vampire victim every week, or the Friends storyline suddenly focused on Monica beating the crap out of Chandler every week and all of his friends abandoned him because they couldn't deal with the spousal abuse.
      • ...if ER became a horror story with at least one vampire victim every week, or the Friends storyline suddenly focused on Monica beating the crap out of Chandler every week...

        What are you talking about!? I'd pay good money to see that happen.

  • Are they nuts? This was Stargate's MAIN CHARACTER! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by osu-neko ( 2604 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @12:29AM (#3012139)
    I just watched the original movie again recently (the DVD version with the extra 9 minutes), and it reminded me what a great idea for a story this was, and a great idea for a series, too. Unfortunately, execution hasn't always been up to the potential, but when it's been good, it's been real good.

    But, rewatching the original movie, I was reminded again as to who the real central character of this story used to be. And what it used to be about.

    It's very disappointing to see how far this series has strayed from the things that made it great. Dr. Daniel Jackson was the embodiment of everything that was great about Stargate. The rest of the characters were expendable. Granted, it wouldn't have been the same without them, especially Teal'c, but it could have stayed true to Stargate. Stargate without Daniel Jackson just isn't Stargate...

    I'm very sorry to see this series go...

  • The Salon piece focused mainly on how much female fans liked the Daniel Jackson character, but I've got to say he's one of my favorites as well. It's a tie between him and "Sam"; must be my identifying w/ geeks. I'm watching the syndicated broadcasts and am just now getting the switch to consiracy-theory type stories. They're ok every now and then, but definately not why I watch the show. This sucks.
  • 'cause I watch (and love) SG-1 on Fox (or is it CBS? I dunno, but god I love that my TiVo does) instead of Cinemax, and therefore am running a year or two behind the production episodes, I still have a year or two of good episodes left! Nyah, nyah!

    And since none of my friends have Cinemax either (at least not ones who are SG-1 fans) I don't have to hear spoilers two years in advance...
  • There is one woman on the board who tries to explain to the rest that it is not worth changing the plot just to pick up the disaffected X-files watchers looking for the next big conspiracy show.
  • 1. Main characters get into threatening situation
    2. Use StarGate to go to X world
    3. Battle inhabitants with aid of native rebels
    4. Return to base with solution to problem
    5. Repeat

    Maybe the show got better after I stopped watching it, but that's how every episode I watched played out.
    • Hey,that's not true. There are the ones where:

      1. Main characters use Stargate to go to strange world.
      2. Something bad comes back with them (person/device/unexpected change/etc.) that wreaks havoc in the base.
      3. Just before something bad becomes something worse (that destroys the world/takes over the base/makes MacGyver's eyes permanently glow/etc.) they come up witha solution.
      4. Something bad is destroyed or sent back through the gate.
    • It would help if you'd have watched more than one episode... mind you, I can't remember the 1st season very well. But the number of shows with a plot like that I could count on one hand. I can think of 1 so far this season (4th).
  • Go and read the epic of gilgamesh, since the article quoted:

    "We had Gilgamesh, Ulysses, Beowulf, Don Quixote, David Copperfield and now Daniel Jackson,"

    I liked the show, but if you want to experience fully developed characters that are complex, go read a book. Having read the books quoted, I don't consider the character "Danial Jackson" on the same level. How about read the Upanisad, baghavadghita, Ramayana, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the old testament, No exit, Faerie Queen, Cantebury tales, Don Juan, Hildebrant and Hadubrant (old german epic) or Frankenstein? I love TV, but people should read the "classics" and know where TV draws from.

  • Great show (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sunhou ( 238795 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @12:58AM (#3012236)
    I think Stargate is great, if usually somewhat light, entertainment. They hit many of the standard SF stories, but put good twists on them. E.g. in the typical episode where some of the characters are caught in a time loop, eventually they just get tired of living the same day over and over, and start having some fun -- hitting golf balls through the stargate, punching people, kissing people, etc. Or when about halfway through the episode they finally revealed that at the beginning of each time loop, Teal'c was getting hit in the face by a door, and was getting seriously sick of that. Ok, getting hit in the face by a door isn't the funniest thing in the world, but they stuck it into an episode that "should have" been very serious, but which started turning quite silly.

    That's also what I like about Farscape. Often when I'm watching it, I think I know where the episode is going (having seen it on Star Trek, or Outer Limits, etc.), but then they end up turning in a direction I didn't expect. Sometimes funny, sometimes not.
  • Macgyver will always be better in Macgyver.

  • What ?! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gord.ca ( 236984 ) <ghpollock@@@stud ... ..uwaterloo...ca> on Friday February 15, 2002 @01:11AM (#3012266)
    Some points on this article...

    There've been something like 10-20 conspiracy themed episodes out of the 109 they've shown. (I know, I have them ALL on DivX. Seriously, I'm an addict.) And conspiracy-heavy eps tend to have other themes mixed in with them, so its not just a complete X-Files rip-off. (Though I will admit the show became more 'political' than 'exploratory'.)

    The latex-clad babe (I think they're referring to Anise) showed up in all of three episodes back in the middle of the 4th season. In general I've been happy with their limited use of sex symbols. At least Anise had some realistic premise for being sexy, unlike, say, Seven of Nine.

    They killed off the Daniel Jackson character on the 2nd last ep of the 5th season. That's the season that just finished. So there's been all of one episode without Michael Shanks in it. Not quite a lot of time for anyone to abandon the show.

    The character they're planning on replacing him with (Jonas Quinn, played by Corin Nemic) is almost like Jackson. Not the 'hunk' that the Wired article suggests. He's intelligent, moral, with sense of wonder... They may have some trouble making him different from Daniel.

    Yes, Daniel has been under-used as of late. Though he has had episodes where he's focused, in the others he tends to be sidelined. And him leaving will be a hard hit. Jonas/Corin has big shoes to fill. But I think the article's exagerating the situation just a little.

    In conclusion... I think they're mostly banging on about nothing.

    • Re:What ?! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 )
      Now try that again counting how many conspiracy episodes occured in each season. I know that some of these characters first appeared in the first season, but what was once a rare appearance is now fairly common.

      A more subtle point, count the number of episodes that involved cooperation and finding "positive sum" solutions. Now count the number of episodes that involved conspiracy subplots where humans can't trust their allies. The former were common in the first few years, but now the latter are common. During the first half of the fifth season you have the lying Tollan (Between Two Fires), the lying Russians (The Tomb), the lying Achen (2001), etc. Hell, even Jake had to dress down Jack for his attitude in the season opener.

      When you put it all together, it's hard to find a recent episode that doesn't seem like it there was an angry teenager on the writing staff.
      • Yup, next thing ya know they'll be getting Seth Green to replace Michael Shanks character. I can see it now...After a few episodes the team will discover that Seth is a were-wolf and that Carter is the new Slayer.....
        • Yup, next thing ya know they'll be getting Seth Green to replace Michael Shanks character. I can see it now...After a few episodes the team will discover that Seth is a were-wolf

          Or even one almight big conspiracy theory involving his dad, played by Mike Myers.

          and that Carter is the new Slayer.....

          Even though NORAD is a great place for vampire to hang out she's far too old.
      • So, let get this straight, some people are upset because the "conspiracy" plots are becoming more prevalent. Well, if you watch the show for its entertainmet value, who cares, as long as it's entertaining? On the otherhand, if you watch the show because you are really *into* it, then this is just like real life I'm afraid (that thing you might keep hearing that you should get one of) - conspiracies breed further conspiracies once they start to leak, so it's only natural that there should be more such episodes.
    • If they can replace him with a believable character all well and good. However, ratings have been dropping steadily. It is possible to replace a character, but it makes it that much harder to bring back the viewers that left. So that puts all the more pressure on. A miracle is what they need.

      That said, execs aren't idiots (well not total idiots). Even they should be able to figure out their meddling is hurting the show. So its entirely possible Daniel will be reincarnated using some mysterious alien artifact at the beginning of the season. Of course thats assuming the suits want it saved...
  • I am dissappointed with the direction SG-1 apparently has taken. I see mostly the syndicated version on the local UPN, which apparently was the first several seasons. I liked many of the planetary expedition episodes. They had a slight star-trek feel without always the crappy technical solution.

    I could never get into the X-Files. Frankly, the constant plot of a government conspiracy became tiresome. Occasionally (maybe once per season), it works ok, but I'm not surprised they too it too far.

    Yes, Daniel Jackson was the best character on the show. Definately not for the "sensistive" reasons given, but that he was the most intelligenct and logical character. Anyone who liked the Spock/Data/Tuvok character sees that Jackson is the Stargate equivalent. And, of course, being a geek I can relate to how the character is portrayed. It is weird that shows are portrayeing the geeks as the sex symbols now (just look at the Vulcan on Enterprise).

  • When did Macgyver join the Air Force? Missed that episode.
  • I went to see Stargate the movie opening day. At the end of the movie there was a brief applause, then most of the audience laughed and booed. The theatre was packed at one in the afternoon, we were starved for a Sci-fi film. The smoking slow-mo helmet. Terrible dialogue, inexcusable for a movie. All it had was a good concept, poor execution (Emeric & Devilen (sp?) have yet too make a decent movie).

    The TV Show is infinitely better. Great cast chemistry. The stories are good and sometimes excellent. It's positive and has a good message and Amanda Tapping is a real hottie.
    • To each his own - but my take is the complete opposite. Loved the movie, as did the theater. I remember hearing about plans for a trilogy, and was mildly disappointed when I heard about the TV series instead. I gave a few early episodes a shot, but could never really get into it.

      Sure, the movie had some flaws, but I thought that the scenery and camerawork was great. Watching the TV series, I get claustrophobic. No scope. No grand vision. And the "revolving bad guy of the week" never did it for me.

  • Scene: Patty and Selma's loungeroom. In the corner sits a robot Pierce Brosnan with a coat over the top and a sign reading "out of order". The television is on.

    Patty: MacGyver is quitting stargate! He's abandoning us!

    Selma: I'll never watch this program again!

    Patty: Thank god for our collectors edition of MacGyver on DVD (fetches a disk and slaps it in).

    Patty and Selma (lighting up): Aaaaaaaaah

  • Jackpot (Score:4, Funny)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @02:23AM (#3012417)
    Dr. Daniel Jackson speaks 23 languages, wears glasses, suffers from allergies, and occasionally launches into tedious Spock-like discourses on obscure academic subjects. But women have decided that the quirky character, and the actor who plays him, are all the more appealing for it.

    more than 1,000 protests had been phoned into Cohen's office.

    I knew these women were out there! CmdrTaco won't be the only one!!!

    I wonder if Cohen kept any phone numbers...

  • Rumored Changes to Show (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Friday February 15, 2002 @02:24AM (#3012418) Homepage Journal
    Showtime may change one or two things about the show before passing it on to the Sci-Fi Channel, as evidenced by this recently leaked image. [somethingawful.com]

    ---
    "Sic 'em up, little buddy."
  • They should have locked that time/warp gate thingy at the end of the Stargate movie. Now it seems MacGyver, who was hopelessly trapped in ancient egypt after the final season of "MacGyver", used a typical duct-tape-and-ball-point-pen-wormhole-trick to reappear in 2002 in a half baked sci-fi series.

    Patty and Selma must be freaking.
  • ...women have been abandoning the show in droves.

    But they've got Richard Dean Anderson .!!!

    What would Patty and Selma say?
  • Farscape better than SG-1: Sometimes

    Lexx Better than SG-1: Not in this lifetime

    Lexx Better than watching paint dry: A Toss-up
  • Each stargate is seperated by many lightyears and hasn't been used in quite a while. Right?

    Howcome 97% of every one on the other side is white and speaks american english?

    What gives man? They don't even have accents and they have like american black people (european african mix) that have never existed en masse until the past few centuries.

    Was there an episode that I missed that explained all of this?
  • To be honest, what this reads to me is not so much a significant blunder on the part of the Stargate writers, but simply shallowness on the part of its female (and male) audience.

    I think it's truly sad that so many women apparently watched Stargate simply because they were attracted to Daniel Jackson. It also makes me angry that these people are so petty that when their loverboy inconveniently disappears, they start raising hell and spoiling it for the rest of the SG-1 audience who are still enjoying the show and want it to continue in the progression its writers envisaged by moving into films after the end of the sixth season, despite the disappointment of losing the character of Daniel Jackson.

    Please realise that I'm not saying that there aren't other problems. I don't know Shanks, and I don't know much about him, so he may well have had good reasons for leaving; reasons that I'd agree with. I haven't seen the most recent episodes so I can't be sure. But as a writer myself, I am very aware that sometimes compromises must be made if you have a long-term plan for your work. I have occasionally changed my writing to reflect an issue I felt was particularly important, and of course some people don't like that.

    I am reasonably familiar with the SG-1 writers/creators (Brad Wright, Jon Glassner etc), and they are smart people. It is definitely a very big deal that Shanks has left, because as the Salon article mentions, the interaction of the four main characters was truly spectacular from a writing and acting standpoint. With Shanks gone it will never be as good again. Daniel Jackson was actually my favourite character too, because I could most identify with him (as a geek). However (and this is a very big "however"), what really pisses me off is that the Salon article indicates that huge numbers of people were interested in Daniel because he was "three-dimensional" (and I can accept that audiences can become attached (even obsessively) to a character for romantic reasons, however shallow I think that audience may be), and yet none of them are interested in the show. The show is 3D too! All the characters have a lot of depth. Daniel just appeals to more people.

    The government conspiracy story thread has been slowly worked in from early on, as mentioned, and I can see a very obvious reason for that; if I were writing SG-1 I'd have done the same thing, both for the feature film (if they're going in the direction for the feature film that I think they are), and for the development of the SG-1 universe in general. It's hopeless to have a wonderful, diverse tapestry of alien cultures when the events on Earth itself are completely dead and flat. This show isn't just about exploring other planets. It's not Star Trek. It's about people too, and about how worthy goals can be threatened by those too selfish or petty to see them (unsurprisingly, this fact is obviously lost on the members of the audience too petty to see the long-term goals of Stargate). It's unfortunate that people seem to care so little for the long-term story arcs, and don't want to give Stargate a chance despite it proving many times that its writers know what they're doing when it comes to far-reaching developments in the SG-1 universe.

    Without seeing the episodes myself, I can't really make any further comments, but I would like to mention that I have written things that, when I went back to them, bore a close and completely unintentional similarity to another piece of writing already published. Usually it's a thread of my novel, and it looks almost like plagiarism of an idea, but as long as I know I'm doing the right thing for my long-term plans, I don't worry too much. If people want to criticise things they really aren't qualified to criticise, they can do that while I get on with writing again. The Stargate writers have demonstrated that they know what they're doing for the last five years. Why do people have to shaft them so quickly for a thread they don't even know the outcome or purpose of? I have my doubts that its even inspired by the X-Files. I just hope my audience is a bit more trusting. All I can conclude from the Salon article is that the "core" audience they speak of was not actually very interested in Stargate at all, and were focusing on Daniel Jackson.

    For those interested, get an idea of the atmosphere surrounding BabeMagnet Jackson on forums like Gaters.net [gaters.net] or any one of a million Yahoo groups [yahoo.com], where, as was mentioned in the Salon article, women cry foul if anything is said about Jackson that doesn't comply with their romantically-motivated ideas. Also check the SG-1 Archive [sg1archive.net] where you could (last I checked) download up to season 5 of SG-1.

  • For those of you who can read Portuguese (or its sibling language Spanish), a short overview of MGM's decadence by Ruy Castro [estado.com.br].

  • When is this show on anyway? I used to watch it every week, but I've reset my VCR 4 times based on the TV listings and it's never on when it's supposed to be.

    This was only one of two shows that I ever watched regularly, but I didn't even know Shanks had left the cast - I think I got half of that episode on tape, but they must have screwed with the schedule then too because it got cut off just after the opening credits...

    Anyway, the meandering point I was coming to is: for a show that is (was?) produced in Vancouver, it's impossible to find it here even if you're looking for it. I don't doubt that ratings have dropped with that sort of thing going on.

    One more excellent show swirling in the bowl because somebody had to make changes for the sake of change, rather than to make things better... the need to "put one's mark" on something to justify their position/existence will be the end of us all.
    • Welcome to Global incompetance.

      Stargate plays, or played, on Global. I don't know if it still does because I've got fed up with this conspiracy crap mixed in with repeats, but it used to be on Monday at 8 or 9 PM on Global TV here in BC.

      The problem that I've always had is that the shows are never in the right order. Picture this: Show A, with preview for Show B next week. Show B, with preview for C. E with preview for F. F with preview for G. C for D, D for E, G for H, and so on. My guess is, Global gets the unlabelled tapes in boxes of 6 at a time and doesn't have time to watch them first.

      Oh well. I'll buy the DVD box-sets, and that'll be that. I've been watching since the second half of the first episode (I've never seen the first hour, but I've tuned in an hour late for it five times), and lately, it's just not worth the hassle. Either MGM is screwing up (well, they are for sure now), or Global is screwing up (which I can easily see happening), or everyone's screwing up and no one knows wtf is going on.

      Either way, DVDs are nice. Mmm, director commentary.

      --Dan
      • Stargate plays, or played, on Global. I don't know if it still does because I've got fed up with this conspiracy crap mixed in with repeats, but it used to be on Monday at 8 or 9 PM on Global TV here in BC.

        I watched it there and then for over a year, then it disappeared... since then, the time has changed every week according to the listings, but has never been on when it was listed.

        Don't know if they're trying to kill it or the listings are wrong. It sucks anyway.
  • At least he was still very much alive at the end of the episode that aired here last sunday so
    I'm not sure where salon.com are getting their info from but their source is a bit suspect.
  • It is a shame that MGM tried to add elements from Star Trek or X files into Stargate. IMHO Stargate was / is better, the people seem real, the threading was getting better as well.

    If MGM have any sense then they might read this on /.
  • I have always maintained that the Sci-Fi channel is where great Sci-fi shows go to DIE...and I knew as soon as I heard about Stargate going there that its fate was sealed. They do have some good Original series on sci-fi, although even then they have staying power problems...however when a show makes the switch to sci-fi its all over....pity, I was actually looking forward to seeing the 6th season at the same time as everyone else, instead of a year behind like on fox...Now who knows...:
  • What I was always disappointed with was that it was on showtime. Well, more accurately I was disappointed that I can't _afford_ showtime. Eventually I just settled for pirating the shows off the net. Really poor quality, and the studios don't get any money, but what choice do I have? Wait over a year for it to get to public TV and then have it stuck in a horrible time slot?

    Argh, when will they realize that there are a LOT of people interested in on-demand video!

    Travis

  • Huh? Why are there no comments to this story?

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close