Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Do you like German cars?
It's light entertainment, people. Get a grip.
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?
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
"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?
Go out and get sailing!
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.
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).
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
:) :)
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!
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
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
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.
Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
*It was where Daniel and some chick were locked up for fear of being embedded with some kind of assassination-inducing parasite.
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.
Catch all the episodes you've missed:
http://www.sg1archive.com/
(of course, now I've slashdotted the site, but I've already downloaded all the episodes...)
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.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
...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.
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...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
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.
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...
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
Jokes about CT being married became old at exactly 09:29AM.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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...
Kevin Fox
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.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
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.
"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.
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.
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.
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
Now that he's getting married, I believe he'll be hearing more about periods than he wants to.
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).
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
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.
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
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
There's only one reason I can think of to watch Lexx... and someone who's just gotten engaged shouldn't need that. Or is there actually artistic merit in that show?
Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
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...
I stole this Sig
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.
---
"Sic 'em up, little buddy."
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
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?
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 or any one of a million Yahoo groups, 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 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.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
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.
sig fault
There *is* a televised version of H2G2 and it wasn't too great. Although I have a soft spot for it because it introduced me to H2G2.
I've never seen Lexx so I've no idea how good it is.
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.
I saw on a film news site (I forget which one) that season 2 DVDs will be coming out in the US around October, along with a new release of the movie.
--The Rizz
"Money is just something to make bookkeeping convenient." --H.L. Hunt
For us used to scandinavian alphabets the shows name is hilarious as STARGÅTE sounds something like a swedish version of StarGoth...
Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
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.
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
First of all, season 1 of SG-1 was a shaky start. Several of the episodes were, for lack of a better word, crap. I've been a fan of the show for years, but of the 22 episodes in season one, I'd only really consider 8 of them good, and most of those came at the very end of the season. The first few were OK, but the vast majority of the middle of the season was mediocre at best.
This reminds me much of Babylon 5, which many scifi fans consider the best scifi series ever. Season one of B5 is primarially composed of weak episodes with weak plotlines. Season one of B5 simply was never good enough to get me hooked until the few episodes at the very end - which is almost exactly what the first season of SG-1 is like.
If you want to give the series a fair chance, go buy/borrow/rent the DVDs/videos (or hit your favorite IRC #TV-seriez channel) and watch in the following order:
- Stargate: the movie (not as good as the series, but the series continues directly from the events of the movie)
- DVD Vol. 1 - episodes Children of the Gods and The Enemy Within (this sets up the main workings of the series and introduces most of the major characters)
- DVD Vol. 3 - episodes Torment of Tantalus and Bloodlines
- DVD Vol. 5 - episodes There But For the Grace of God, Politics, and Within The Serpent's Grasp (first 3 parts of a 4-parter; Politics is mostly a flashback episode and could be skipped)
These episodes are a good indication of the feel of the rest of the series. If you like it, you should go back and watch the rest of the episodes before continuing on with the series, as the events in most episodes of season one become very important in the later seasons (although you may want to skip Broca Divide, Brief Candle, Cold Lazarus, Fire and Water, and Cor-ai if you've got a low tolerance for cheezy episodes).--The Rizz
"Now, this all happened many years ago, yet I am certain that if they haven't since died, they are all still alive to this day." --Steven Brust
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.
"I his bow, and spun and wove, likes you." Vere de Vere out of my mould's mouth dragged me of the voluntary apes.
You might as well that stargate without a transvestite in the lead bad guy part isn't
stargate either. Whatever merits the character had in the film as fars as I'm concerned he was
really just making up the numbers in the series. After all , hes the only character where we know
very little about his personal life, he rarely does anything except get himself into trouble
he has to be rescued from because of his "scientific curiosity" and frankly his character so rarely shows any emotion beyond
the 1 dimensional curious-scientist-oblivious-to-danger that he could be quite easily played by
a plank of wood.
My brother just started as a shop foreman for this show, here in Vancouver, so I hope the show stays on. Coincidentally enough I went to see him at the shop earlier today... I probably shouldn't mention the new prop I saw them building, but it was cool. I haven't really seen a lot of the show, but it was interesting to see all the props. This was the shop, not the set. I saw a giant stack of spears in one corner. (Apparently there are a lot of spear scenes in the show.)
I also talked to the electrical engineer and the "systems technician" who build all the electronics for the show; they were both young guys. They had a pretty nice setup there. I saw a lot of LEDs, joysticks, and control panels with buttons and switches. Because I've done on similar things, I asked what they used when they needed to switch more powerful AC lights. The engineer told me they had tried using triacs, but they couldn't get them to work right, and just used relays (same experience as me!). He also told me they use DC, usually 12V, as much as possible.
Anyways, my brother and I agreed that it's really hard to find it on TV these days. He has all the episode tapes but I don't even know when (or if) it's on anymore.
yo
Someone commented that a good TV series always seems to go bad (what's the plural of series? I can't believe I was a a Lit major...). Well, those that don't start out bad.
Babylon 5 was a good example (for those who liked it) of why this is wrong - and shows that shows have cycles. It went from Okay, to Good, to Great, to Oh, Jeez That Sucked, to Okay again, to Good, and back to Great, and it ended on a relatively high note.
Most shows that 'go bad' get cancelled before they can cycle up again.
What I noticed about SG-1 is that it had good chemistry between the characters, which is also where B5 excelled, and its successor (Crusade) failed. Now one of the major players is gone, and that hurts the show. Fatally? We'll see.
I don't imagine the SG-1 fanbase and the B5 one cross over too much - "episode" lovers generally don't like "arc" shows, recurse. SG-1 did get repetetive (haven't had TV for a while).
Ok, Here is a guide to all those producers who want a great Sci-Fi show:
1. When you come up with a good first series that everyone likes, don't EVER change it. I don't care if you want to explore some bull shit artsy scenario that you learned in art school DONT. Don't change locations, don't change situations and NEVER EVER in a million F*cking years change the characters or actors.
X-Files - Started great, then they suddenly took scully out with some stupid cancer government conspiracy. No-one watched it. They learnt their lesson and when back and did a great couple of series. Then mulder leaves. I didn't even bother watching that.
Red Dwarf - Excellent, and then what? the last series was utter crap. I had only just got used to the new directing and loss of rimmer in the previous series when they just screwed it all up.
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. Lesbian is fine. Otherwise, keep the jocks in embarrassing situations to make us feel happy.
Half-Life - Who liked the Zen levels? Thought not.
All these sci-fi series have died because someone decided to change the formula. Now look at:
Friends (yes i know, not Sci-Fi) they have kept it the same throughout. They even live in the same place and its still great to watch.
2. Do not piss off the actors. The actors make the show. Cloning is not yet available to make new ones, so, if you piss them off you are dead. And don't try any "Oh no, bobs changed shape.. because...um he changes form every 2 years" it doesn't fool us (well maybe in Dr. Who). If the actor wants more money - give it to them. If they want some say in the plot - let them write it. We worship them, so don't piss them off.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Lex, farscape, SG1? Ha ha you are gay!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Seems a lame excuse to me. After all, the show never has exactly been shakespear so who cares
what changes in storyline it takes? More likely
he wanted a payrise, they refused and he left in
a petulant huff probably thinking (and rightly it seems) that the show wouldn't be the same without
him.
No! I didn't mean ugly ugly, I ment TV ugly.
- Simpsons
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
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Is it just me, or have there been no new episodes since the major marathon a couple of months ago on Showtime? I've got my TiVo set to record, but every time I get settled to watch a decent show, it's another re-run. I wouldn't mind it so much if it were an older re-run, but it seems to always be one of those ones from the marathon. If I see any part of that crappy "wormhole extreme" one more time, I'm going to get violent (just after I vomit.)
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...:
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
OTOH, a 40-year old woman might have a more realistic view than a teenager. So maybe, Stargate is (has been) simply a series for adults, and not for testosterone-damaged teens?
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
I suggest you give Andromeda a try. (Kevin Sorbo is actually a decent actor!) Anyway, it has everything that made me love SG:SG1, of course I've heard that one of the producers left because the suits wanted more gun fights and whatnot, but I haven't seen it yet (at least the plot and character devel, are still there). So, I'm holding out hope.
Sucks you can't see Farscape, that is a good show (although sci-fi has this habit of cancelling shows I like, I'm sorry but I-MAN just ruled) and maybe I'm in a minority, but I actually like Enterprise. Yes, it does have some blatantly obvious sexual suggestions, but it dosn't dictate the show.
Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
SG-1 sucks sucks sucks sucks SUCKS. I can't believe it's still on the air. The actors are bad, the plots are recycled/cheesy sounding, and overall it's just worn itself out.
Believe it or not, lots of geeks are good-looking behind those glasses. Some are downright stunning. The difficulty is dragging them out of their cubes, networking closets, and underground lairs long enough to clean 'em up. It's not ugliness that makes us geeks; it's... well... being geeky that makes us geeks!
I'll let you all in on a little secret - the REAL reason Michael Shanks left was so he could spend more time spanking Lexa Doig!
:o)
:o)
(It's pretty well known that the shooting schedules for Stargate SG1 and Andromeda conflict on a regular basis.)
Of course, any (straight) guy here would be an idiot to fault him for this
I mean - if you had a choice between work and this, which would you choose?
I thought so
I understand the whole syndication stuff ... but please don't let the series NOT be put on DVDs ...
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
I thought the whole Stargate concept was a pretty good one. I've seen most of the series by now, and I've enjoyed all but a very few. I only rarely ever equated elements of the show with the X-Files, Star Trek, or anything else. I'm a pretty big sci-fi fan and it's something I'd probably notice if it weren't done with taste. Sometimes it's easy to over analyze a good thing, and only end up loosing sight of the original purpose. The show has a unique and enjoyable set of characters that have shown growth since the beginning. It's too bad that a basically good show falls apart when writers and producers try to manipulate ratings by stepping out of bounds from the comfortable equation that kept the loyal viewers coming back for more of the same.
It's not just women who find him attractive. :-) He puts off a very nice "I'm a geek, but I'll cuddle with you all night long" vibe (which I'm sure most of Slashdot doesn't need to know :-P). I'm mortified to hear that he's left the show (no Showtime, so I haven't been keeping up on SG-1), because he was my second favorite actor (after Amanda Tapping) and only by a slim margin.
I agree with his reason for leaving, tho -- weekly far-flung government conspiracies do NOT have a place in a show that's fundamentally about the joys (and terrors) of discovering the unknown.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
You are mostly correct. Except, Sorbo himself also wanted more guns and fight scenes.
/. article from last month
Here's the
and the slipstream article.
Apparently, that's also how he strong-armed such great ratings for Hercules. (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.
I'm all for a good government conspiracy in the show here and there or the occassional episode where the team doesn't travel through the Stargate, but I just saw an entire episode where Jack and Mayborne track down and harass a Senator who's in on the conspiracy. Where's the fun in that? It's boring.
return;
I just realized that the central premise of the show is that the travel to other planets is not achieved by large phallocentric rockets, but rather by the use of an aperture which when properly manipulated opens into a channel to the desired place. Very feminine imagery. Of course, when the guys figure out what it does, they freak out over it's power, hide it in a deep cave and mount a big iris over it to control access. Very Taliban imagery.
I guess this observation comes from watching Eve Ensler's V* Monologs on HBO last night.
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
Lexx cancelled!
1. Main characters fart around for a while.
2. Main characters go to archaeological dig.
3. Bad Stuff Happens.
4. Goto 1
Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are both excellent shows.
Oh, and Survivor, though YMMV.
I think you mean implausible, but that's beside the point. It's a sci-fi show, virtually all sci-fi shows have implausible plots and premises. That's the fiction part of science fiction. If you want a sci-fi show with a plausible premise, try Space Island One. Other than that, they're all implausible.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
you've never seen lex so you don't know how good it isn't.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
it's because we're shadowing your connection and seeing what you're actually doing online. ;)
Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye need to know on Earth, besides TCP/IP.
Ever watch a cat mindlessly chase a laser beam?
:o)
No, I couldn't afford the patent fee
Personally I've had enough of collagen lip injected chickes on tv. I mean it's outta hand! One day they're just going to blow!
Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
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.
sig fault
The only thing the movie/television shows have in common with it is the Gate itself, but it's a great read! Very hard to find, too...
Huh? Why are there no comments to this story?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com