SGU CANCELLED!

[Temis the Vorta]

Which proves that it's the producers and not the SG:U concept that are dragging everything down. When Jonathan Glassner left SG-1 way back in the olden days, that was when it all started to slide downhill.

You think the peak of the franchise was before season 3 of SG-1? I don't think many fans would agree with you.

After Glassner left, it seemed like a lot of the heart went out of the series, leaving just a lot of empty action. But without heart, action is pointless. For a while, they coasted along with some fairly competent action, which was watchable in a mindless way, but I definitely noticed the difference. Then, a few seasons on, even the action became repetitive and increasingly unbearable.

Whether or not "fans" agree with me is immaterial. Glassner was the only person who was keeping SG-1 from turning into a generic space opera action without any particular identity. Even when he was on board the show wasn't all that good.

Thor, Harry Maybourne, Ba'al, Matouf, Jacob Carter, Janet Fraiser, Bra'tac and Oma Desala.

None of those characters really interested me all that much. Ba'al at least wasn't another cardboard Goa'uld and the episode with Janet's death was interesting, but that's pretty skimpy. Martouf, like all Tok'ra, never went anywhere interesting. I watched SG-1 for years, "waiting for it to get good." All it ever achieved was a barely tolerable level of watchability.

 

[AJ86]

I wouldn't expect philistines to appreciate Human...

 

[Bonzo the Fifth]

SG-1 didn't get Sliders canceled, First Wave did.

Yeah, SG-1 is what got Farscape killed...

 

[SG-17]

I thought that was Tremors the Series?

 

[bigdaddy]

SG-1 didn't get Sliders canceled, First Wave did.

Yeah, SG-1 is what got Farscape killed...

I thought Farscape died when some company dropped funding?

There was the Outer Limits, MST3K and Andromeda as well.

They picked up the Out Limits and produced one bad season, they picked up Andromeda but no one cared about the show by then.

They picked up MST3K from whom?

 

[RoJoHen]

I thought that was Tremors the Series?

Well, Tremors is what they replaced Farscape with. Not sure it was the reason for the cancellation, though.

 

[Kaijima]

I thought that was Tremors the Series?

Well, Tremors is what they replaced Farscape with. Not sure it was the reason for the cancellation, though.

There's always been a lot of urban legend and speculation about why Farscape was cancelled. But the story I've always put the most stock in, because it's verified by the network's subsequent behavior and attitudes of its executives is this:

It was too stereotypically science fiction.

Back in the day, Sci-Fi network made some excuses that the show would be too costly to produce in season 5, and also that the ratings were declining in season 4. IIRC some internet detective work by fans revealed both of these were falsifications. I believe the producers of the show stated that ratings were holding steady, and that while costs had increased between season 3 and 4, their budget for season 5 was no higher than season 4. They'd stabilized the production.

However, about that time Sci-Fi and USA (I think?) had been acquired by Vivendi and there was a lot of consolidating going on. There were rumors that executives had gotten on the phone with Farscape's producers and said that it had to be "broadened" for a wider audience, to fit the new plan to grow Sci-Fi; I've read claims that the Farscape guys were LITERALLY told to "make it more like South Park". What "more like South Park" could possibly mean in the context of Farscape is unimaginable.

From that point, there are claims that saber rattling took place where Sci-Fi mock-threatened to renegotiate Farscape's two-year contract and shorten season 4 and 5 to 13 episodes a piece. Farscape's producers met for talks, but didn't seem to roll over on their backs and beg for forgiveness, so at some point, somebody up the chain of command decided those morons who make that stupid puppet show - did it have a space ship in it? - didn't understand the pecking order; fire 'em.

Basically, Farscape was the first casualty of Sci-Fi - ahem, SyFy - going to war against science fiction that looked too geeky to Joe Sixpack and/or to sniffing critics who wouldn't watch anything that wasn't NYPD Blue. If one goes back to look at Ron Moore's early pitching for his version of BSG, you find that he was doing everything in his power to sound above and better than silly space battles and aliens, whether it was warranted or not.

Stargate survived because while it did have aliens and people with funny hats, it was largely an "aw shucks" action hour with people who looked like regular soldiers firing lots of ammo. And it was Sci-fi's biggest property.

 

[AJ86]

Glassner was the only person who was keeping SG-1 from turning into a generic space opera action without any particular identity. Even when he was on board the show wasn't all that good.

I'll be honest, it feels bizarre to me to be on a Trek forum of all places reading complaints about Stargate being a generic space opera. In fact for the most part it was never really a space opera at all, let alone as early as when Glassner left.

 

[The Wormhole]

Glassner was the only person who was keeping SG-1 from turning into a generic space opera action without any particular identity. Even when he was on board the show wasn't all that good.

I'll be honest, it feels bizarre to me to be on a Trek forum of all places reading complaints about Stargate being a generic space opera. In fact for the most part it was never really a space opera at all, let alone as early as when Glassner left.

What about the final seasons where Earth had a fleet of starships and squadrons of space fighters? Hell, most of Stargate's space battles are usually Trek-esque with lines like "shields down 47%" "evasive maneuvers" and so on. The only non-Trek thing was the use of railguns.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Don't buy the "stereotypically skiffy" explanation for Farscape's cancellation at all. It's all dollars and cents - if the suggestion was made to broaden the show it would have been because the ratings were deemed insufficient for the outlay. No one cancelled anything to "show 'em who's boss."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The "make it more like South Park" theory comes from this page, evidently.

It doesn't sound like Farscape was canceled because someone came in and had a grudge against it, but rather Sci-Fi came under new management that demanded better results for its money and when the people making Farscape said "it can't be done" they got canned. You don't tell your new boss, "no, I'm not going to do that." Whatever ratings let the show get by under the previous management were evidently insufficient for the new management.

 

[AJ86]

Glassner was the only person who was keeping SG-1 from turning into a generic space opera action without any particular identity. Even when he was on board the show wasn't all that good.

I'll be honest, it feels bizarre to me to be on a Trek forum of all places reading complaints about Stargate being a generic space opera. In fact for the most part it was never really a space opera at all, let alone as early as when Glassner left.

What about the final seasons where Earth had a fleet of starships and squadrons of space fighters? Hell, most of Stargate's space battles are usually Trek-esque with lines like "shields down 47%" "evasive maneuvers" and so on. The only non-Trek thing was the use of railguns.

Most people would define a space opera as a sci-fi set in space. Very little of SG-1 was set in space or on ships in the grand scheme of things.

 

[DWF]

The "make it more like South Park" theory comes from this page, evidently.

It doesn't sound like Farscape was canceled because someone came in and had a grudge against it, but rather Sci-Fi came under new management that demanded better results for its money and when the people making Farscape said "it can't be done" they got canned. You don't tell your new boss, "no, I'm not going to do that." Whatever ratings let the show get by under the previous management were evidently insufficient for the new management.

Strange how O'Bannon changed his tune in two years time, this interview from 2001 indicates that Sci-Fi didn't orde any changes made to Fascape.

http://www.karlsweb.com/KarlswebNewscape/Articles/RockneStarlog.htm

One can't help but wonder if the network – unhappy with what they were getting in terms of content – ever approached O'Bannon or executive producer David Kemper with notes about making Farscape more accessible to new or casual viewers. "There were never any specific notes that I know of," says O'Bannon. "Believe me, there were constant conversations of, 'How can we make this more accessible?' But does that translate to dumbing it down or making the stories or characters less complex? We were battling our personal feelings that the show's appeal – to the passionate core audience and the critics – was that it was so outside the box. But the very thing that made it so unique also made it [difficult] for new viewers to hop aboard any single episode and get caught up in who these characters are.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It doesn't sound like Farscape was canceled because someone came in and had a grudge against it, but rather Sci-Fi came under new management that demanded better results for its money and when the people making Farscape said "it can't be done" they got canned. You don't tell your new boss, "no, I'm not going to do that." Whatever ratings let the show get by under the previous management were evidently insufficient for the new management.

That sounds plausible - it's what you would expect. I wasn't buying the "South Park" thing as an actual proposal from management, and obviously it wasn't

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think sci-fi fans are so used to feeling alienated and marginalized--rightly or wrongly--they instinctively make themselves victims whenever their favorite TV show or whatever gets canned. "They didn't cancel it because it wasn't making money, they canceled it because they hate us!" Might have something to do with many male sci-fi fans being the guys who couldn't get laid in high school, so they naturally feel excluded from and persecuted by the world at large, assigning such sinister and personal motives to everything that negatively impacts them.

 

[Saquist]

Glassner was the only person who was keeping SG-1 from turning into a generic space opera action without any particular identity. Even when he was on board the show wasn't all that good.

I'll be honest, it feels bizarre to me to be on a Trek forum of all places reading complaints about Stargate being a generic space opera. In fact for the most part it was never really a space opera at all, let alone as early as when Glassner left.

I concur with that irony.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think sci-fi fans are so used to feeling alienated and marginalized--rightly or wrongly--they instinctively make themselves victims whenever their favorite TV show or whatever gets canned. "They didn't cancel it because it wasn't making money, they canceled it because they hate us!" Might have something to do with many male sci-fi fans being the guys who couldn't get laid in high school, so they naturally feel excluded from and persecuted by the world at large, assigning such sinister and personal motives to everything that negatively impacts them.

There's a bit of that, yeah. And it goes along with the maladjusted "we're really smarter than most people" vibe as well.

 

[RoJoHen]

"They didn't cancel it because it wasn't making money, they canceled it because they hate us!"

THEY DO!

Really, it just surprised me. At the time, Farscape was their flagship show. It was weird for them just up and cancel it the way they did.

 

[Noname Given]

"They didn't cancel it because it wasn't making money, they canceled it because they hate us!"

THEY DO!

Really, it just surprised me. At the time, Farscape was their flagship show. It was weird for them just up and cancel it the way they did.

From what I read at the time back then (when they cancelled Farscape); it had more to do with the way Farscape was being financed; and that SiFi was sharing profits from all the Farscape stuff with Nine Austrailia; so, in Si Fi management's eyes, the return on investment wasn't great. When Shotime and MGM agree to sell them Stargate, lock stock and barrel, and that since SG-1 already had a built in audience, they thought at the time their ROI would be greater, and they'd have an easier time dealing with production issues (Canada and oppesed to Austrailia,e tc.); so they decided not to renew the Farscape financing agreement; and went with the Stargate franchise (which would have ended after 5 seasons on Showtime had Sci Fi not picked it up.)

 

[bigdaddy]

"They didn't cancel it because it wasn't making money, they canceled it because they hate us!"

THEY DO!

Really, it just surprised me. At the time, Farscape was their flagship show. It was weird for them just up and cancel it the way they did.

From what I read at the time back then (when they cancelled Farscape); it had more to do with the way Farscape was being financed; and that SiFi was sharing profits from all the Farscape stuff with Nine Austrailia; so, in Si Fi management's eyes, the return on investment wasn't great. When Shotime and MGM agree to sell them Stargate, lock stock and barrel, and that since SG-1 already had a built in audience, they thought at the time their ROI would be greater, and they'd have an easier time dealing with production issues (Canada and oppesed to Austrailia,e tc.); so they decided not to renew the Farscape financing agreement; and went with the Stargate franchise (which would have ended after 5 seasons on Showtime had Sci Fi not picked it up.)

Umm... Showtime had no real rights to Stargate, so they didn't need to agree with anything. Showtime agreed to 5 seasons, and then Sci-fi Channel picked it up. Wouldn't it be ironic if Showtime picked up Universe after SyFy canceled it.