Trouble at Stargate SG-1 267
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.
I've observed something... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:I've observed something... (Score:2)
> 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.)
Re:I've observed something... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:I've observed something... (Score:2)
What's suddenly up in the air is the future of the second Stargate movie and the spinoff series Stargate: Atlantis.
Re:I've observed something... (Score:2)
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.)
Re:I've observed something... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:I've observed something... (Score:2)
Which is something quite likely to upset US based televsion networks.
Kill your television (Score:4, Funny)
Hear! Hear! (Score:1)
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)
Re:That sucks... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:That sucks... (Score:1)
Re:That sucks... (Score:2)
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/30/01_1_m.
This was conducted by the "University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Lab," who seem a bit too eager to find this stuff out, so they might not be entirly "impartial" anyways.
Btw these links are both from the university news paper, and not the best information, but the only thing I could find that wasn't hugly partial one way or the other.
Re:That sucks... (Score:2)
Re:That sucks... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly why I love 24. (Score:1)
Fiction and Faith (Score:2)
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)
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...
Re:That sucks... (Score:2)
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.
Re:That sucks... (Score:2)
...and what about scarecrow's brain?!
Re:That sucks... (Score:1)
I mean the first part of Sci-Fi is Sci, i.e. SCIENCE
True, but the last part stands for Fiction.
Hehehe. (Score:1)
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.
$$$ problems -- Should start a themed ISP (Score:2, Funny)
I am sure that people will find there is a lot of money in this sort of thing. I am sure you could have Stargate-AOL or something else. The possibilities are endless - Stargate Credit Card, Bank. You could even have a special log on for your favourite online services eg amazon, ebay, google?
Re:$$$ problems -- Should start a themed ISP (Score:1)
a true alpha geek. (Score:5, Funny)
This, my frineds, is the alpha geek. Aspire to this, and learn from the master.
Re:a true alpha geek. (Score:1)
Re:a true alpha geek. (Score:2)
Re:a true alpha geek. (Score:1)
Wait. That would be me.
This sucks!
Re:a true alpha geek. (Score:1)
Re:a true alpha geek. (Score:2)
YES. Your post was ugly & mean-spirited. Slashdot would improve without you.
Evol (Score:1)
Hey Malda-
I can't believe you're submitting. It's Valentine's Day. Go stuff the porkster.
Lexx? (Score:1)
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).
Re:Lexx? (Score:1)
Re:Lexx? (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re:Thanks for spoiling the surprise, damn yanks! : (Score:1)
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)
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]
Old. (Score:2)
In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensitive (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensiti (Score:2)
He's not just good looking, he has personality traits that make him attractive, and last time I checked, looks != everything.
--Dan
Re:In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensiti (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
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)
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)
*It was where Daniel and some chick were locked up for fear of being embedded with some kind of assassination-inducing parasite.
Re:funny... (Score:2)
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.'
SG1 online DIVX archive (Score:1)
http://www.sg1archive.com/ [sg1archive.com]
(of course, now I've slashdotted the site, but I've already downloaded all the episodes...)
Re:SG1 online DIVX archive (Score:1)
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
Michael (Score:1)
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)
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...
Are women really that shallow?? (Score:1)
Re:Are women really that shallow?? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Are women really that shallow?? (Score:2, Funny)
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)
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...
Not just female fans who like Jackson on SG-1 (Score:1)
So glad I don't have Showtime... (Score:2)
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...
I can see the board meeting... (Score:1)
Plot of every SG-1 show... (Score:1, Flamebait)
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.
Re:Plot of every SG-1 show... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Plot of every SG-1 show... (Score:1)
want a tragic hero? (Score:2)
"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)
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 (Score:2)
What ?! (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:What ?! (Score:1)
Re:What ?! (Score:2)
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.
Re:What ?! (Score:2)
Re:What ?! (Score:1)
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...
Very dissappointing (Score:2)
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).
MacGyver (Score:1)
TV Show is way better than the movie (Score:1)
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.
Re:TV Show is way better than the movie (Score:1)
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.
Picture this: (Score:2)
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)
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)
---
"Sic 'em up, little buddy."
Stargate Blows - Duct Tape Please (Score:1)
Patty and Selma must be freaking.
Re:Stargate Blows - Duct Tape Please (Score:3, Funny)
Impossible (Score:1)
But they've got Richard Dean Anderson
What would Patty and Selma say?
RE: SG-1 Better than Lexx (Score:1)
Lexx Better than SG-1: Not in this lifetime
Lexx Better than watching paint dry: A Toss-up
Stargate questions (Score:1)
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?
Lame. Lame and shallow. (Score:1)
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.
MGM is just a shadow (Score:2)
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].
Attn: Those in Vancouver area (Score:2)
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.
Re:Attn: Those in Vancouver area (Score:2)
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
Re:Attn: Those in Vancouver area (Score:2)
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.
Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! (Score:1)
I'm not sure where salon.com are getting their info from but their source is a bit suspect.
Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! (Score:1)
Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! (Score:2)
Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! (Score:2)
And there's Willow/Tara sex!
Just my $0.02 (Score:2)
If MGM have any sense then they might read this on
SCI-FI, Gravey...er Channel (Score:2)
showtime (Score:2)
Argh, when will they realize that there are a LOT of people interested in on-demand video!
Travis
No comments? (Score:2)
Re:CmdrTaco must have skipped grammar class... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ughhh, Lexx? (Score:1)
Re:Ever read Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe? (Score:2)
I've never seen Lexx so I've no idea how good it is.
Re:Ever read Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe? (Score:2)
Re:WTF is *LEFT* ? (Score:2)
Oh, and Survivor, though YMMV.
Re:WTF is *LEFT* ? (Score:2)
Here's the
and the slipstream article. [slipstreamnews.com]
Apparently, that's also how he strong-armed such great ratings for Hercules [scifi.com]. (pun intended *ducks*)
Note the following from SS:
One large difference between the changes for the two shows is that all of Andromeda's main characters seem to be staying on board. In fact, it seems that main star Kevin Sorbo will be very influential in the creative tone of the series from now on. Sorbo has always said he had a major hand in the creative success of his former series Hercules, and hopefully that experience will enable him to let Andromeda continue to be a successful show as well.
Re:Guide to Sci-Fi for Producers (Score:2)
Characters and situations that never change is BORING. And Friends(along with most sitcoms) is a perfect example of that kind of crap.
>>Buffy - Started great, then they moved to college. And please understand this simple fact: Most people who watch Sci-Fi are male geeks. We do NOT like watching dumb footballer/jocks getting with hot girls.
I seriously doubt the demographics match your perception. I think it's safe to say that more women watch Buffy than "male geeks". Of course, women hated Riley too but he was written out of the show over a year ago. And Buffy treated him like crap anyways.
As for Buffy, the 6th season is shaping up to be its best yet. I'm sure the situation with Spike is irking you even more though. I'm sure you'd prefer that Buffy settled down with Jonathan or something.
As a series, Buffy has *always* toyed with developing characters and changing the situations. Angel going evil and killing Jenny Calendar. The revolving door of characters. Spike's relationship with Buffy. Xander and Anya getting engaged. Willow's relationships with Oz and Tara. The inventive villains.
Change is generally a good thing though it's a risk. And change isn't always done intentionally. It just happens. Would you have Buffy still be set in High School this season?
My life has gone through so many changes in the past six years it's not even funny. I've moved six times, lived in five different cities, worked four different jobs in three different industries and had relationships with two women, one of whom I loved.
If I were still in college going down to the game room at the HUB to play Magic, I'd be bored out of my mind and clawing my eyes out in agony. I certainly don't want to watch a TV show that's *less* interesting than my own life.
>>X-Files - Started great, then they suddenly took scully out with some stupid cancer government conspiracy.
That's because the actress was pregnant, moron.