Trouble at Stargate SG-1

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.

Comments

Thanks for spoiling the surprise, damn yanks! :)

[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!

In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensitive

[Badam]

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.

funny...

[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.

Are they nuts? This was Stargate's MAIN CHARACTER!

[osu-neko]

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...

Great show

[sunhou]

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.

Re:Are women really that shallow??

[coyote-san]

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.