Why Stargate Universe is destined to flop

[Valandil]

http://www.scifiheaven.net/index.php/2009/07/14/why-stargate-universe-is-destined-to-flop/

<b>Stargate: Universe. It’s an unusually usual title compared to SG-1 and Atlantis. And I fear the show itself may end up being similarly usual.
</b>
The Stargate franchise today is a far cry from the creative strength SG-1 displayed some six or so years ago. Why? Simple. The writer’s room has suffered from the same affliction that suffers all long-running sci-fi shows. It happened to Star Trek, The X-Files; some would argue that Lost is suffering from it already.

The problem lies in the fact that no show is infinitely sustainable. Individual concepts will last longer than another – SG-1 for instance lent itself well to an episode-of-the-week format that was likely to be able to survive quite a long time. And it did – ten whole seasons. Atlantis had a similar concept – episodic adventures of the week – but this time there were half a dozen years of material already written by essentially the same writers team. Could originality really by expected for another ten years? The show lasted exactly half that, and was arguably weaker than its predecessor. What fate Universe, therefore? There are several things going for the new sequel. Namely, it has the potential – note: potential – to shake up the format a little. Robert Carlyle’s character – the lead of the show – could well be the first lead character of a Stargate show to be devious and manipulative rather than the clichéd and stoic American hero the writers have known to embrace. Coupled with the supposedly darker nature of the show, Universe has the potential to rely further upon character conflict than previous Gate incarnations. Certainly the acting talent is there. Ming-Na and Carlyle for instance are tried and tested actors with a great array of talent. Then again, David Hewlett was a fantastic talent for Atlantis, and there’s only so much individual talent can do to shore up collaborative failings above.

Additionally, the setting is slightly different. Set on a starship rather than fixed planet (yes, I know Atlantis was a city ship, but it didn’t go places often), the series should be able to tap into a wider array of story possibilities than the planet-of-the-week concept that has driven the franchise for over a decade. However even then, the show has strong Battlestar Galactica vibes - which it clearly shouldn’t have if its aiming to be something original: something Stargate clearly needs. Whether the writing department realise that potential is, however, another matter.

Star Trek: Voyager promised isolation from Earth, real danger and character conflict in the form of the Maquis/Starfleet divide. But the show was even lighter in tone than Deep Space Nine had been, and within a few years ways were found of limiting the extent of the isolation from which Voyager suffered.

Similarly, the Stargate writers have fallen into similar traps with Atlantis. Another tale of isolation, Earth was involved within a series, and crossovers became a bi-weekly occurrence. The tell-tale sign of a flagging concept: the child show falling back upon the success of its predecessor. That Universe should be immune from such failings is a pretty optimistic outlook – they’ve been made by the same writers before.&nbsp;

However, is it really their fault? If the network continues to order and accept the pitches for these shows, then the writers are just doing their job. It is surely the job of Sci-Fi (I’m denying the change to the SyFy brand) to rectify that – for instance to demand more challenging scripts. For the talent is surely there – see Atlantis’s The Shrine for further details. The problem is an absence of ideas symptomatic of a show or idea on the air for far too long.

Shows like 24 seem to get by creatively (for the most part) by drafting in new writers each season from other shows in order to inject fresh ideas. The Stargate team could perhaps do with a few outside views in order to ensure Universe doesn’t fall back into the same old tricks.

Of course, such creative rejuvenation doesn’t automatically mean success. Given the direction in which Sci-Fi/SyFy is heading, it wouldn’t be too surprising if the channel drafted in the writers of The O.C. or some other teenage hit in order to sex-up and rejuvenate the show. The whole younger/edgier nonsense works in some cases – even in some unexpected ones, when the talent is there (e.g. Battlestar Galactica). Does the current writing team have the talent to pull of a directionary overhaul? I fear not, given how Atlantis turned out. Could they surprise me and create a good show? Absolutely.

But for how long? How long will it be before they can gate back to Earth each week? How long will it be before Atlantis and SG-1 alumni turn up to save the day? I hope my cynicism is proven to be nothing more than bitter, nonsensical rambling, but deep down I know the show will turn out something like Atlantis or Voyager, or even Enterprise: squandered potential.

Here’s to being wrong.

 

[Kirby]

I'm holding out hope because one of my favorite sci-fi authors, Jon Scalzi is a consultant for the show, and the great Robert Carlyle is in the cast. There is still plenty of chances to screw it up, but between those two I'm hopefully optimistic.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I really hope it will be good, but I have similar concerns. I really don't want to see Battlestar Galactica, I want to see Stargate.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I refuse to accept that Stargate is suffering from creative burnout because before you get to burnout stage, you have to actually exhaust all your creative ideas and Stargate hasn't come close to adequately exploring the ideas it's broached, much less running them into the ground.

I feel like assigning them to do SG-1 over again, but this time, actually put some frakkin' effort into it. Just take the Tok'ra for example. They've spent well over a decade skimming the surface of Stargate. If they'd just DIG IN already, it would be fresh and new to us, because we haven't seen them do that yet!

The Stargate franchise today is a far cry from the creative strength SG-1 displayed some six or so years ago.

I don't recall any time when Stargate had "creative strength." I do recall when the surface approach hadn't worn out everyone's patience yet, and we were reasonably content to watch them coast along with RDA's quips and C4 explosions...

Meanwhile, Skiffy is receiving the message loud and clear that the audience wants "light and fluffy." Warehouse 13's ratings are strong (tho I've heard the demos aren't all that hot). This does not bode well for any BSG-style dramatics. Probably Skiffy will want one show to make them look "serious," but Caprica can do that.

 

[bullethead]

Meanwhile, Skiffy is receiving the message loud and clear that the audience wants "light and fluffy." Warehouse 13's ratings are strong (tho I've heard the demos aren't all that hot). This does not bode well for any BSG-style dramatics. Probably Skiffy will want one show to make them look "serious," but Caprica can do that.

Of course, they might allow SGU to get away with dark stuff as long as it's paired with a lighter show that airs right before SGU.

 

[Spiderpope]

Just wondering what the heck the article's author is basing all this on, the 30 second long trailers? Its a bit early to be saying its a BSG ripoff when no-one has even seen the first episode yet. But i forget, this is the Internet, i shouldnt really expect someone to actually wait until they have seen the program before deciding its terrible.

 

[cylkoth]

^^He's simply offering up his thoughts, opinions and concerns in a blog entry, not a news article or story.
He's obviously watched the shows for years, so he's not inventing problems to complain about, and he went out of his way to be fair, questioning whether the issues many viewers have had with the franchise where originated at the network, and not a reflection of the writers capabilities...

 

[Valandil]

Joseph Mallozzi responded to this article on his personal blog, saying the following:

Vecturist writes: “Joe, what’s your reaction to articles like the following: http://www.scifiheaven.net/index.php/2009/07/14/why-stargate-universe-is-destined-to-flop”


Answer: Well, I was alarmed as you can imagine. “Why Stargate Universe Is Destined To Flop”. Destined! What had we done to offend the gods? Why have the Fates reserved us to these woes? Should we take a day trip down to Delphi and make an offering? No? Too late for that? Well, I guess if we’ve been “destined to flop”, then there’s nothing we can do but strike the sets and go our separate ways. Thanks for coming everybody. Last one out turn off the lights…


Oh, wait a minute. Upon closer scrutiny, it would seem that I’ve been led astray. While the title of the article says the show is “Destined To Flop”, the article itself is only Chris’s opinion. A thoughtful, nicely presented opinion, but an opinion no weightier than yours or mine or those who thought SG-1 wouldn’t last or those who predicted Atlantis would crash and burn. Ultimately, it’s up to the fans. If they like the show, they’ll watch it and we’ll continue to produce it. If they don’t like it, they won’t watch it and I’ll finally be able to pursue my dream of owning my own petting zoo.


At the end of the day – meh. It’s easy to predict failure because the vast majority of shows do fail. It’s nice to see though that, just in case, Chris hedges his bets (“ Does the current writing team have the talent to pull of a directionary overhaul? I fear not, given how Atlantis turned out. Could they surprise me and create a good show? Absolutely.”).


Take THAT, destiny!

 

[Spider]

I really hope it will be good, but I have similar concerns. I really don't want to see Battlestar Galactica, I want to see Stargate.

My feelings exactly. I have to admit, I'm really tired of soap operas. Some arc's thrown into a series to revisit every now and then are a good thing, but anything more than that it's a frigging soap opera. And I really can't sit through another five years of something like BSG again, I no longer have the patience for that sort of thing.

 

[Harvey]

A weak reply from Mallozzi, as per usual. Luckily, Cooper and Wright are out there trying to explain what the show is about, and their approach to that material. We'll see if it works this fall.

 

[Barbados Slim]

The only thing that has me worried is that it does seem like it's trying to capture the look and feel of BSG and the dark & brooding TV series is passe now that The Shield and BSG and The Wire are over. I wish the writers would've went the other way and said "Universe is going to be more lighthearted and fun than Atlantis" and challenge themselves that way. But the writers are already starting out the series behind the times. It's like they're bragging about how they'll have a new My Space page soon.

The positives for me have been the actor videos and their character descriptions. It seems more character driven which is what Stargate sorely needs. The downside have been the spoilers I've read that sound like they've already started recycling ideas from the previous series.

 

[bigdaddy]

The Stargate franchise is on a burnout, however one loser on some site that no one cares about doesn't prove anything. Why should we listen to him more than you people listen to me of kpnuts?

 

[Harvey]

He did take the time to fully develop his criticisms into a complete editorial. And he elicited a response from Stargate writer (and occasional showrunner) Joe Mallozzi. But, in the final analysis, you're right, that's not much to go on. But, since Stargate is off the air now, and hasn't been critically praised for quite some time, we don't have much to do as fans except to wait and to spin our wheels until the new series is closer and we have something substantive to talk about.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The only thing that has me worried is that it does seem like it's trying to capture the look and feel of BSG and the dark & brooding TV series is passe now that The Shield and BSG and The Wire are over. I wish the writers would've went the other way and said "Universe is going to be more lighthearted and fun than Atlantis" and challenge themselves that way. But the writers are already starting out the series behind the times. It's like they're bragging about how they'll have a new My Space page soon.

What's the signs that lighthearted entertainment is now on the way in?

 

[TedShatner10]

I loved SG-1 in its earlier seasons, but Atlantis seemed even more blander and uninspired than Voyager or Enterprise, however Universe seems to be a return to form.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The only thing that has me worried is that it does seem like it's trying to capture the look and feel of BSG and the dark & brooding TV series is passe now that The Shield and BSG and The Wire are over. I wish the writers would've went the other way and said "Universe is going to be more lighthearted and fun than Atlantis" and challenge themselves that way. But the writers are already starting out the series behind the times. It's like they're bragging about how they'll have a new My Space page soon.

What's the signs that lighthearted entertainment is now on the way in?

Well there's the new Star Trek movie making an assload of money.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Meanwhile, Skiffy is receiving the message loud and clear that the audience wants "light and fluffy." Warehouse 13's ratings are strong (tho I've heard the demos aren't all that hot). This does not bode well for any BSG-style dramatics. Probably Skiffy will want one show to make them look "serious," but Caprica can do that.

Of course, they might allow SGU to get away with dark stuff as long as it's paired with a lighter show that airs right before SGU.

But then you have the problem of the tonal shift splitting the audience. The usual approach is to pair up two compatible shows.

My main concern is that the Stargate writers just don't have it in em to pull off a serious approach, regardless of whether it is "dark." And I doubt Caprica's ratings are going to be very strong, so that will just convince Skiffy all the more that light & fluffy is the way to go.

The only thing that has me worried is that it does seem like it's trying to capture the look and feel of BSG and the dark & brooding TV series is passe now that The Shield and BSG and The Wire are over. I wish the writers would've went the other way and said "Universe is going to be more lighthearted and fun than Atlantis" and challenge themselves that way. But the writers are already starting out the series behind the times. It's like they're bragging about how they'll have a new My Space page soon.

What's the signs that lighthearted entertainment is now on the way in?

Well there's the new Star Trek movie making an assload of money.

I wouldn't call Star Trek "lighthearted." It takes a serious, non-campy approach to its material (particularly nowadays) and makes no particular accommodation for the kids in the audience, although it's usually suitable for 13 and up. It just isn't doom & gloom about it. It's really an unusual approach, which makes it very distinctive. Seems like stuff is either too lightweight or ridiculously somber.

But I think the Big New Trend in sci fi on TV is going to be alien invasions. Stargate should bring back the Goa'uld.

 

[TedShatner10]

Stargate SG-1 was much better than Trek (overall) at mixing light humour with serious drama.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Meanwhile, Skiffy is receiving the message loud and clear that the audience wants "light and fluffy." Warehouse 13's ratings are strong (tho I've heard the demos aren't all that hot). This does not bode well for any BSG-style dramatics. Probably Skiffy will want one show to make them look "serious," but Caprica can do that.

Of course, they might allow SGU to get away with dark stuff as long as it's paired with a lighter show that airs right before SGU.

But then you have the problem of the tonal shift splitting the audience. The usual approach is to pair up two compatible shows.

My main concern is that the Stargate writers just don't have it in em to pull off a serious approach, regardless of whether it is "dark." And I doubt Caprica's ratings are going to be very strong, so that will just convince Skiffy all the more that light & fluffy is the way to go.

What's the signs that lighthearted entertainment is now on the way in?

Well there's the new Star Trek movie making an assload of money.

I wouldn't call Star Trek "lighthearted." It takes a serious, non-campy approach to its material (particularly nowadays) and makes no particular accommodation for the kids in the audience, although it's usually suitable for 13 and up. It just isn't doom & gloom about it. It's really an unusual approach, which makes it very distinctive. Seems like stuff is either too lightweight or ridiculously somber.

But I think the Big New Trend in sci fi on TV is going to be alien invasions. Stargate should bring back the Goa'uld.

Which would be totally pointless becuase THEY HAVE NO TROOPS BECAUSE THE JAFFA WILL KILL THEM ON SIGHT! Thats how Earth and it's allies beat them becuase they shattered the Goa'uld's image as gods allowing the jaffa to revolt.

Plus the System Lords are GONE Baul was the last one as pointed out in Continum.

Also theres that fact that an alien invasion would only work in seasons 1-7 of SG-1 after that they have an ever growing fleet of shipsn armed with Asgaurd weapons, the Antartic defense platform since Atlantis just has to warm up the wormhole drive to get to Earth in time or they could find another chair, and the entire Asgaurd database so unless they do the bigger badder enemy thing AGAIN Earth is pretty safe.

 

[Jax]

I do think SGU will be the first SG show to fail on reaching 100eps. 4 seasons max but I would not be surprised to see it canned in 2 am bored of SG because I invested years into SG-1/SG-A and got shafted two ties with no ending.