Anyone agree with McKay on why SGU got cancelled?

[Romulan_spy]

Here is quote from David Hewlett on why SGU got cancelled. Agree or disagree?
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2011/04/david-hewlett-talks-sgu-and-why-he-thinks-it-was-cancelled/

“I think the biggest detriment they had was that people came from watching Atlantis expecting more of the same from SGU, and it was a really different change of direction. And it’s beautifully done … I think the problem they came up against was that they had a very strong existing fan base for something that was, I think, lighter. [Atlantis was] the kind of science fiction that families sat down and watched together. We had kids and parents and grandparents and the neighbors come by all to watch our show. That’s an amazing thing in this day and age. But SGU is definitely an adult show for an adult audience, and it was a much darker show. So obviously the people who want to sit down wither their family, you know, they can’t do that with SGU.

“But that unto itself opens up a whole other audience. It’s just unfortunate that they hadn’t had a chance to really spread their wings and become their own show. But I think that’s the danger when you play with the tone of a franchise like this.”

“Was it a mistake or not? I don’t know, I don’t think so. They certainly did a great job with it. I mean, my God, the acting, the writing, the effects … it’s gorgeous. It’s an absolutely gorgeous show. But the problem, I think, is that it didn’t bring enough from the original ‘Stargate’ franchise. I think they were aiming for more of a Battlestar type audience, and Battlestar had the same issue, where it was a very, very highly acclaimed show … but it didn’t hit the numbers. I think when you go for dark and edgy you lose out what’s certainly not the sexiest demographic in the world for TV by network standards, but certainly a powerful one. The shows that allow for the communal activity of sitting down and watching television are incredibly powerful franchises, and that, to me, is what viewers got out of Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis.”

I agree with him somewhat. Yes, the show was very different but that by itself is not why the show tanked. I do agree with him that the writers should have kept the tone of SGU closer to SG1 and SGA. He references nuBSG but that show while dark and gritty was also very captivating. The beginning of season 1 of SGU was just too slow, nothing happened to grab the audience. It was basically 1 hour of "look they are running out of air", "look they are running of food" etc... More realistic, yes, but it was not entertaining or captivating. First impressions hurt the show eventhough now the show is better and we can see the arc running through the show.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Agree with everything in the OP. It was a combination of fans being disappointed and angry about the change in style, and also the show starting off quite boring and not including enough of the best elements of the previous shows.
The show has had some great moments, and those great moments are usually when they stick closer to what SG-1 and SGA were all about, rather than what people associate with this show specifically, such as people bickering, not enough gate travel, and focusing on survival too much. It has picked up a bit now, but not enough for it to stand against the best of SG-1 and SGA.

 

[Leroy]

Another problem SGU faced was being TOO much like nuBSG it's like they thought they could make a near carbon copy and they'd think we wouldn't notice?

 

[Psion]

Another problem SGU faced was being TOO much like nuBSG it's like they thought they could make a near carbon copy and they'd think we wouldn't notice?

Carbon copy?! Hardly. I wish nuBSG had entertained half of the science fiction concepts present in SGU. SGU is also a helluva lot more optimistic than nuBSG ever was. Moore's show never once stopped to look at the awe and wonder of their environment ... except possibly that one fly-through of the Eagle Nebula.

SGU primarily got the look of nuBSG, along with a more realistic take on the challenges faced by space travelers. Hewlett is also right about the adult storylines -- shows where the commanding officer smothers one of his subordinates and the audience is forced to sit through the whole process aren't exactly kid-friendly.

Or Psion-friendly. [shudders]

But this show has more in common with Star Trek: Voyager or even Lost in Space (concept-wise) than Moore's remake of Battlestar:Galactica.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I think the biggest detriment they had was that people came from watching Atlantis expecting more of the same from SGU, and it was a really different change of direction.

I agree with this as one of the show's problems. There have been a lot of comments around here alluding to this. I'm the opposite though. I actually left the franchise for several years because I was tired of the old style and was happy to see SGU do something different.

I do agree with him that the writers should have kept the tone of SGU closer to SG1 and SGA.

I don't think he said that. He seems to like what they're doing with SGU, but acknowleges that it didn't sit well with many existing fans.

 

[Kelthaz]

I don't agree at all. I'm more than willing to watch dark shows -- some of the stuff I'm into makes SG:U look as dark as the Care Bears -- but SG:U just wasn't good. It wasn't that the old fans couldn't handle a new tone -- it's that the show sucks.

People, Stargate fans and newbies alike, watched Universe hoping to like it. They did not. The show failed because it was disliked, and not because fans can't handle change.

 

[The Habs Fan]

In retrospect, SGU should have been closer in tone to SG-1 and SGA. However, at the time they announced the show, I was happy they were developing SGU in a different direction. I like the more darker version of Stargate we got, but there's no denying the fact that it would've probably gotten better ratings if it was closer in tone to SG-1/SGA.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

A lot of what Hewlett said has been echoed by many of us in different posts. A lot of it could probably be applied to BSG and Caprica for that matter. It's always a danger when a franchise creates a black sheep entry because it's going to put off some of the base.

Another problem SGU faced was being TOO much like nuBSG it's like they thought they could make a near carbon copy and they'd think we wouldn't notice?

Carbon copy?! Hardly. I wish nuBSG had entertained half of the science fiction concepts present in SGU. SGU is also a helluva lot more optimistic than nuBSG ever was. Moore's show never once stopped to look at the awe and wonder of their environment ... except possibly that one fly-through of the Eagle Nebula.

SGU primarily got the look of nuBSG, along with a more realistic take on the challenges faced by space travelers. Hewlett is also right about the adult storylines -- shows where the commanding officer smothers one of his subordinates and the audience is forced to sit through the whole process aren't exactly kid-friendly.

Or Psion-friendly. [shudders]

But this show has more in common with Star Trek: Voyager or even Lost in Space (concept-wise) than Moore's remake of Battlestar:Galactica.

I think it was easy to make that connection on first impression though. You had a lot of edgy characters at each other's throat including a civilian/military rift stuck on an undersupplied ship. In particular, you had Rush as a long-haired scruffy arrogant British guy whose motivations were very shifty and untrustworthy. Eventually, he even received Head-Six like visitors.

 

[Tom]

They should have gave SGA at least one more season, IMO. Everyone was was to hungry to replace BSG with a similar themed show,

 

[AJ86]

I don't agree at all. I'm more than willing to watch dark shows -- some of the stuff I'm into makes SG:U look as dark as the Care Bears -- but SG:U just wasn't good. It wasn't that the old fans couldn't handle a new tone -- it's that the show sucks.

People, Stargate fans and newbies alike, watched Universe hoping to like it. They did not.

That isn't true though is it? Sure the majority didn't, but others did, and many consider it to the the best of the three.

 

[broberfett]

Another problem SGU faced was being TOO much like nuBSG it's like they thought they could make a near carbon copy and they'd think we wouldn't notice?

SGU was bright and cheery in comparison. The crew didn't spend 90% of their time crying. They needed a Starbuck to do everything perfectly while drinking and fucking everything in site. When they needed a science guy-call Starbuck. When they need a sniper-call Starbuck. Need a pilot-call Starbuck. You know, now that I think of it, that really sucked. God, I hate Starbuck.

 

[Caliburn24]

What Hewlett is saying is nothing we haven't been saying since the show started. And it is certainly true to some extent.

But for my own part I think the main reason SGU failed was that it lacked adventure. Richard Dean Anderson said in an interview for SG-1 something along the lines of, "The Stargate is the best tool for storytelling because you can go anywhere and meet anyone."

In SGU they rarely went anywhere interesting, and never met anyone interesting. All the key plot points and drama were either aboard Destiny or on Earth. And frankly both of those places are freaking boring, particularly as seen in the show. The few times where they went through the Stargate and actually had some adventure were the best points of SGU, stuff like Time, Malice, and the all too brief Chloe/Eli/Scott arc of them wandering through different planets.

 

[bigdaddy]

It's boring, the characters suck, the writing sucks, and it is just boring.

 

[BlobVanDam]

What Hewlett is saying is nothing we haven't been saying since the show started. And it is certainly true to some extent.

But for my own part I think the main reason SGU failed was that it lacked adventure. Richard Dean Anderson said in an interview for SG-1 something along the lines of, "The Stargate is the best tool for storytelling because you can go anywhere and meet anyone."

In SGU they rarely went anywhere interesting, and never met anyone interesting. All the key plot points and drama were either aboard Destiny or on Earth. And frankly both of those places are freaking boring, particularly as seen in the show. The few times where they went through the Stargate and actually had some adventure were the best points of SGU, stuff like Time, Malice, and the all too brief Chloe/Eli/Scott arc of them wandering through different planets.

Agreed. Time was the first episode of SGU that I thought was great, and it's because they actually went through the damn Stargate for once! And the Chloe/Eli/Scott episodes were highlights of the season, just because of the random exploring to other worlds, and getting to know this gate network a little bit better. Every other highlight I can think of involves traveling off world.
I don't mind them changing the tone of the show and trying new things, but the fact that the show doesn't center around the namesake of the show is what hurt it more than any other single factor.

 

[Star Wolf]

Another problem SGU faced was being TOO much like nuBSG it's like they thought they could make a near carbon copy and they'd think we wouldn't notice?

Carbon copy?! Hardly. I wish nuBSG had entertained half of the science fiction concepts present in SGU. SGU is also a helluva lot more optimistic than nuBSG ever was. Moore's show never once stopped to look at the awe and wonder of their environment ... except possibly that one fly-through of the Eagle Nebula.

SGU primarily got the look of nuBSG, along with a more realistic take on the challenges faced by space travelers. Hewlett is also right about the adult storylines -- shows where the commanding officer smothers one of his subordinates and the audience is forced to sit through the whole process aren't exactly kid-friendly.

Or Psion-friendly. [shudders]

But this show has more in common with Star Trek: Voyager or even Lost in Space (concept-wise) than Moore's remake of Battlestar:Galactica.

On NuBSG space was nothing new. Nobody was "Boldly Going....", they were just refugees on the run. On SGU it took a season and a half for a few characters beside Dr. Rush to admit that this is why they joined to Stargate program. Maybe they expected a better ship or MREs instead of gruel

 

[bigdaddy]

Another problem SGU faced was being TOO much like nuBSG it's like they thought they could make a near carbon copy and they'd think we wouldn't notice?

Carbon copy?! Hardly. I wish nuBSG had entertained half of the science fiction concepts present in SGU. SGU is also a helluva lot more optimistic than nuBSG ever was. Moore's show never once stopped to look at the awe and wonder of their environment ... except possibly that one fly-through of the Eagle Nebula.

SGU primarily got the look of nuBSG, along with a more realistic take on the challenges faced by space travelers. Hewlett is also right about the adult storylines -- shows where the commanding officer smothers one of his subordinates and the audience is forced to sit through the whole process aren't exactly kid-friendly.

Or Psion-friendly. [shudders]

But this show has more in common with Star Trek: Voyager or even Lost in Space (concept-wise) than Moore's remake of Battlestar:Galactica.

On NuBSG space was nothing new. Nobody was "Boldly Going....", they were just refugees on the run. On SGU it took a season and a half for a few characters beside Dr. Rush to admit that this is why they joined to Stargate program. Maybe they expected a better ship or MREs instead of gruel

And one again 50 billion people were killed in about 3 hours, so BSG had a right to be sad and depressing.

 

[Kelthaz]

I don't agree at all. I'm more than willing to watch dark shows -- some of the stuff I'm into makes SG:U look as dark as the Care Bears -- but SG:U just wasn't good. It wasn't that the old fans couldn't handle a new tone -- it's that the show sucks.

People, Stargate fans and newbies alike, watched Universe hoping to like it. They did not.

That isn't true though is it? Sure the majority didn't, but others did, and many consider it to the the best of the three.

Sure, some people like it, but just look at the ratings. The show fell from 2.3 million to 0.8 million in a little over a year. People tuned in, watched the show, and tuned out. People like the idea of a darker Stargate, but Universe simply did not deliver for many of us. The excuse that Stargate fans hate change and that's why SG:U failed just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[AJ86]

Sure, some people like it, but just look at the ratings. The show fell from 2.3 million to 0.8 million in a little over a year. People tuned in, watched the show, and tuned out. People like the idea of a darker Stargate, but Universe simply did not deliver for many of us. The excuse that Stargate fans hate change and that's why SG:U failed just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The problem though, is that most people tuning in were expecting to some extent more of the same. The show was not more of the same, far from it. So those who wanted more of the same were disappointed and many left, and those who knew what Stargate had been about and didn't like it just didn't tune in in the first place. I don't think the stigma attached to the brand name helped the show out much at all, not to mention the calibre of Syfy's viewership. I mean even with all it's huge critical acclaim BSG was never really a ratings hit on that channel, and that was on a Friday night with SG-1 and Atlantis' highest rated seasons as lead-in. Of course SGU could have had a 3 million+ viewer lead-in too had it stayed on Fridays, but Syfy decided to stick it on the insanely more competitive Tuesday nights with TNG repeats as a lead-in instead. Genius.

 

[Starbreaker]

I don't hate the change... I hated the poor change. As I've said several times before... why put these guys all the way across the universe only to have every other story be set on Earth?

 

[Saquist]

Here is quote from David Hewlett on why SGU got cancelled. Agree or disagree?
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2011/04/david-hewlett-talks-sgu-and-why-he-thinks-it-was-cancelled/

“I think the biggest detriment they had was that people came from watching Atlantis expecting more of the same from SGU, and it was a really different change of direction. And it’s beautifully done … I think the problem they came up against was that they had a very strong existing fan base for something that was, I think, lighter. [Atlantis was] the kind of science fiction that families sat down and watched together. We had kids and parents and grandparents and the neighbors come by all to watch our show. That’s an amazing thing in this day and age. But SGU is definitely an adult show for an adult audience, and it was a much darker show. So obviously the people who want to sit down wither their family, you know, they can’t do that with SGU.

“But that unto itself opens up a whole other audience. It’s just unfortunate that they hadn’t had a chance to really spread their wings and become their own show. But I think that’s the danger when you play with the tone of a franchise like this.”

“Was it a mistake or not? I don’t know, I don’t think so. They certainly did a great job with it. I mean, my God, the acting, the writing, the effects … it’s gorgeous. It’s an absolutely gorgeous show. But the problem, I think, is that it didn’t bring enough from the original ‘Stargate’ franchise. I think they were aiming for more of a Battlestar type audience, and Battlestar had the same issue, where it was a very, very highly acclaimed show … but it didn’t hit the numbers. I think when you go for dark and edgy you lose out what’s certainly not the sexiest demographic in the world for TV by network standards, but certainly a powerful one. The shows that allow for the communal activity of sitting down and watching television are incredibly powerful franchises, and that, to me, is what viewers got out of Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis.”

I agree with him somewhat. Yes, the show was very different but that by itself is not why the show tanked. I do agree with him that the writers should have kept the tone of SGU closer to SG1 and SGA. He references nuBSG but that show while dark and gritty was also very captivating. The beginning of season 1 of SGU was just too slow, nothing happened to grab the audience. It was basically 1 hour of "look they are running out of air", "look they are running of food" etc... More realistic, yes, but it was not entertaining or captivating. First impressions hurt the show eventhough now the show is better and we can see the arc running through the show.

I don't agree with everything he said.
He's flat out wrong that it was a "well written show". I think the sets and mood were a big mistake, dark and drab. But Yes the acting was mostly good and the dark and edgy does have it's own demo to feed t. Yes, we (the fan)s were expecting something similar to Atlantis, something family oriented fun and light hearted,

But what I agree with the most is..."that’s the danger when you play with the tone of a franchise like this.”

Right on the nail...