• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

SyFy response to the cancellation

How many reading this feel Stargate went down the same road as Star Trek? The first series (TNG & SG-1) were great, had the most viewers and each spin off series started to have lower overall ratings than the last one. The last series of both franchise (Enterprise & Universe) ended up being canceled because of low ratings. The last show in both franchises also took on a different direction and style from the prior shows. The networks and production company had people in charge loosing interest in their franchise.

Hope no idiot turns this into which franchise or show is better. (IRRELEVANT). People are always going to have different opinions about which Star Trek or Stargate show they like more. Not necessarily the later show being better or worse than the prior show, more of an issue that a franchise just ran too long without a good break.
 
I probably won't be the only one to mention that TNG wasn't the first Star Trek series (or even the second), but even beyond that I don't see that many similarities. When DS9 came out, it was markedly different than the show that garnered such great ratings. At the time, I hated it and tuned out (it took a few years before I came back and ended up loving it). I think you'd have more of a case if it went TNG -> VOY since an argument could be made that both VOY and SGA were an attempt at "more of the same." I guess I could see some similarities between ENT and SGU, mainly that they were both rejected by a lot of long-time fans, but I think the reasoning was different (I liked both). But I guess you're mostly talking about ratings, anyway.

I do wish we could have had another three years of ENT. I would have watched more SGU for sure, but at the same time, I'm happy with the final episode, whereas I was not at all happy with the wrap-up of ENT.
 
I know TNG was not the first Star Trek show, but I was referring to how these shows with one spin off after another had declining ratings as time progressed. I am looking at the group of Trek shows TNG -> VOY -> ENT to SG1 > SGA > SGU.

I should point out DS9 was suffering in ratings and was the reason adding Worf. We know DS9 had a great improvement in quality in its 3rd season introducing the Dominion and adding the Defiant, but no one was paying attention until Worf.

Many fans were not happy with the final of Enterprise and they should have made a 2 hour final episode to wrap the series instead.

Something many people were assuming was the last series of both series were just like their predecessors and did not jump in and starting watching them. Those that did see Enterprise being a different than Voyager or SGU different than Atlantis. I like SGU borrowing the Battlestar Galactica (Ronald D. Moore's) style, but that is my opinion.
 
I know TNG was not the first Star Trek show, but I was referring to how these shows with one spin off after another had declining ratings as time progressed. I am looking at the group of Trek shows TNG -> VOY -> ENT to SG1 > SGA > SGU.

I should point out DS9 was suffering in ratings and was the reason adding Worf. We know DS9 had a great improvement in quality in its 3rd season introducing the Dominion and adding the Defiant, but no one was paying attention until Worf.

Many fans were not happy with the final of Enterprise and they should have made a 2 hour final episode to wrap the series instead.

Something many people were assuming was the last series of both series were just like their predecessors and did not jump in and starting watching them. Those that did see Enterprise being a different than Voyager or SGU different than Atlantis. I like SGU borrowing the Battlestar Galactica (Ronald D. Moore's) style, but that is my opinion.
You say Worf :klingon:, I say Avery Brooks shaving his head for his look, that of Hawk :evil:
 
I do wish we could have had another three years of ENT. I would have watched more SGU for sure, but at the same time, I'm happy with the final episode, whereas I was not at all happy with the wrap-up of ENT.

Nah, ENT had to die so that Star Trek XI could move forward. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

I blame ENT for taking until the fourth season to get good. Of course people were going to stop watching when the show is no good.
 
I do wish we could have had another three years of ENT. I would have watched more SGU for sure, but at the same time, I'm happy with the final episode, whereas I was not at all happy with the wrap-up of ENT.

Nah, ENT had to die so that Star Trek XI could move forward. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

I blame ENT for taking until the fourth season to get good. Of course people were going to stop watching when the show is no good.


This

The same with SGU. Just a full-on crappy show. Did it start to get better in the end...sure but not good. It was mediocre and the sad truth is that it was better at being mediocre than Atlantis but it was just they started off so badly, so empty and hollow were the characters, so blase was the writing in season one that is alienated the Stargate audience...it just wasn't interesting or dynamic and no matter how much the fanatics place the blame on SyFy or MGM lets put this to rest and place the blame where it belongs...

The show sucked and it's hard to come back from that.
 
I do wish we could have had another three years of ENT. I would have watched more SGU for sure, but at the same time, I'm happy with the final episode, whereas I was not at all happy with the wrap-up of ENT.

Nah, ENT had to die so that Star Trek XI could move forward. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

I blame ENT for taking until the fourth season to get good. Of course people were going to stop watching when the show is no good.

Funny - the first 2 1/2 seasons of TNG absolutely blew chunks; yet it went on to 7. :)

Also, as to ST09 - it was all Abrams. Paramount really did want to let the TV/Film franchise rest for 5 - 10 years. If Abrams had been very insistent ST09 wpuldn't have happened, regardless of ENT's situation.
 
I do wish we could have had another three years of ENT. I would have watched more SGU for sure, but at the same time, I'm happy with the final episode, whereas I was not at all happy with the wrap-up of ENT.

Nah, ENT had to die so that Star Trek XI could move forward. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

I blame ENT for taking until the fourth season to get good. Of course people were going to stop watching when the show is no good.

Funny - the first 2 1/2 seasons of TNG absolutely blew chunks; yet it went on to 7. :)

Also, as to ST09 - it was all Abrams. Paramount really did want to let the TV/Film franchise rest for 5 - 10 years. If Abrams had been very insistent ST09 wpuldn't have happened, regardless of ENT's situation.

Abrams tried to Have Insurrection Killed? When was this?
 
How many reading this feel Stargate went down the same road as Star Trek?
Stargate has never had a series that was equal to TOS or DS9. At best, I could say SG-1 was on par with TNG - easily digestible comfort food that had its moments. Then we got VOY and ENT, not necessarily in that order.

The analogy is basically good, though. Stargate needs what Star Trek got - a new creative team to breathe new life into it. And they don't have to be as careful about respecting the "core" of the franchise because let's face it, there is no core idea. It's just space opera about stargates and aliens. They can go back to the original movie and reboot from there.

From that perspective, the better analogy is Battlestar Galactica - just take the barest elements (proper nouns, Cylons, the basic backstory) and come up with something that has almost no relationship to the original. Except this time, if you want to mimic BSG's style, you need people who can DO that. :rommie:

Also, as to ST09 - it was all Abrams. Paramount really did want to let the TV/Film franchise rest for 5 - 10 years. If Abrams had been very insistent ST09 wpuldn't have happened, regardless of ENT's situation.

I'm pretty sure Paramount would have ignored Star Trek indefinitely if someone with Abrams' credibility hadn't come along and pitched the idea.

I doubt movie companies have master plans for failed franchises that they would even lay out a scheme to "bring back X in Y years." They have too many failed franchises to bother with such a thing, and too many wannabee new franchises always clamoring for attention. Hollywood is a big churn machine.
 
The same with SGU. Just a full-on crappy show. Did it start to get better in the end...sure but not good.

It was a fantastic show, along with Fringe, comfortably the best sci-fi on TV, and the best sci-fi character drama in years. See! I can post opinion as fact too :techman:
 
Lol... there seems to be a consensus among 'fans' that SG:U was 'bad'.
Similar to ST: ENTERPRISE.
And I can tell you I thought both Enterprise and Universe were better than shows that came before them.

I dunno why, but Universe seems more serious to me and plentiful in terms of actual 'scifi', and is less 'childish' than SG1 and Atlantis (though the latter definitely has it's own numerous moments - barring the 'medieval setting' type episodes - which were way too many if you ask me).
 
Lol... there seems to be a consensus among 'fans' that SG:U was 'bad'.
Similar to ST: ENTERPRISE.
And I can tell you I thought both Enterprise and Universe were better than shows that came before them.

I dunno why, but Universe seems more serious to me and plentiful in terms of actual 'scifi', and is less 'childish' than SG1 and Atlantis (though the latter definitely has it's own numerous moments - barring the 'medieval setting' type episodes - which were way too many if you ask me).

I can accept that you liked SGU better than SG-1 and Atlantis because they're very different shows. But COME ON, you can't seriously tell me you liked ENT better than any of the previous four series.:cardie:
I liked Enterprise too, but it wasn't that good. A times it was down right atrocious.
 
Well, I'm seriously not making it up.
I thought that ENT was a bit better in contrast to previous shows (especially DS9 which was a bore-fest to me for the most part).
 
Lol... there seems to be a consensus among 'fans' that SG:U was 'bad'.
Similar to ST: ENTERPRISE.
And I can tell you I thought both Enterprise and Universe were better than shows that came before them.

While that was the general consensus for most of SGU's run, the general consensus seems to be that the second half of season 2 was a big turnaround into a great show (although too late to make a difference to saving it). While this mirrors the opinion of ENT to a degree, that it started off weak and got better before it got canceled, it's still a pretty weak comparison. And I disagree about either show being better than what came before them.
 
The same with SGU. Just a full-on crappy show. Did it start to get better in the end...sure but not good.

It was a fantastic show, along with Fringe, comfortably the best sci-fi on TV, and the best sci-fi character drama in years. See! I can post opinion as fact too :techman:

Speak for yourself. I don't have any daft delusions that my like and dislike are define what is good and bad.

But I'll will give you some facts about SGU that do impact whether it was good or bad.

Air I,II, III was drawn out dry exposition that struggled to validate itself as a premiere. All of the exposition on Scott bore absolutely no relevancy to the plot or any later episode.

The writing glossed over Rush's instigation's with a statement failing to draw upon the magnitude of his arrogance of stranding them , they continued to stupidly rely on him.

They couldn't figure out how to attach an object to a Kino in order to close a DOOR on the inside of the shuttle to prevent them all from suffocating.

Afterwards the writers used much of Season One to show how the ship or random circumstances could resolve the plot instead of the characters.

Former Characters such as Jack O'Neill were re written out of their hero motif to become antagonist.

Young attempts to kill Rush by stranding him on a planet and yet when Rush reappears it's glossed over as though not important or never happened. (reset button)

Later Young asphyxiates Telford (in Youngs body) to save his life from being mind wiped yet the next episode he has the power to stop the ship from being invaded by asphyxiation but failes to do so for fear of killing Telford even though he had risked a much frailer Rush before.


I've lost count of how many different people have been "lost" and then magically make it back to the ship or the fact that these people were written in such an extremely unstable way could be justified as being apart of a super top secret international intergalactic venture. When your writing makes use of frequent plot contrivances, contradicts your premise of being a "realistic Sci Fi Drama" you've officially crossed over to bad writing. The show got what it deserved. Cancellation.

I gave it One Season. I couldn't stand the show. The plots were so forced, it wasn't even artistically done. It was flat out immoral just as a TIME FILLER. Young was a complete idiot, the arguing with Rush was just asinine. Wray was utterly irrelevant other than to complain, Cloe was useless, Greer was thug, nothing more than a walking negative stereo type of blacks. Johansen was just a a super cardboard character and I hope that does not define her acting abilities.
And Lou Diamond was horridly miscast as an antagonist when he should have been leading the team as a protagonist.


It's so sad that actors like David Blue, Carlye and Diamond weren't given scripts they could actually be great with because the show had some potential but it was never realized and it never will be. SGU was an opportunity take stargate from the story book endings to a real action drama and they screwed the pouch because they never stop writing those story book adventure endings like from SG-1 and Atlantis and when that happens it's a glaring flaw in your stated premise. Thank God its gone it was a black mark on Stargate and while fans will be fans I respect the fans that actually dared to stand up and say "NOT GOOD ENOUGH" instead of swallowing this swill willing just because the name stargate was attached. To them I say thank you for jumping ship, for getting out. For recognizing the slop and have enough self respect to speak up and tell them. I just had no idea that the execs would be this stubborn and hard headed to the end...

As such its a fitting end for them.
But the fans deserved better.
If MGM has any sense they'll dis miss JM and BW permanently and immediately retool the franchise for bigger and better things to return to the big screen.
 
Your entire position is ridiculous. Good or bad are completely subjective terms, and even if those were some facts that you listed (most of which aren't), they wouldn't impact at all on something that is ultimately just a matter of opinion. I could list a load of reasons why I think the writing is superior to it's predecessors, and pretty much any sci-fi on TV today and paint it as fact, but what would be the point? I'm not going to waste my time picking those weak points apart and replacing them with my own, because apart from being tedious, it would be completely pointless too. All I can say is that if you can't appreciate the show, that's very unfortunate for you.
 
Last edited:
Your entire position is ridiculous. Good or bad are completely subjective terms, and even if those were some facts that you listed (most of which aren't), they wouldn't impact at all on something that is ultimately just a matter of opinion. I could list a load of reasons why I think the writing is superior to it's predecessors, and pretty much any sci-fi on TV today and paint it as fact, but what would be the point? I'm not going to waste my time picking those weak points apart and replacing them with my own, because apart from being tedious, it would be completely pointless too. All I can say is that if you can't appreciate the show, that's very unfortunate for you.


Good and Bad is not entirely subjective.
Firstly, we make it subjective but despite what you may believe there is a common frame of reference for what is good and bad.It didnot live up to WHAT IT SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE....REALISTIC SCI-FI DRAMA....it failed.

It failed in it's ratings
It failed a large portion of the fandom of stargate

And last time I checked failure is a bad thing. So don't feel sorry for me. I'm under no delusions that the show was good. I won't miss it....at all. It's natural to feel defensive about someone elses feelings.
 
Good and Bad is not entirely subjective.

If we're talking about the quality of a show, then yes, it really is. The only way you can make it objective is to reduce the definition of 'good' to something that is measurable, like ratings, in which case, who cares? That sort of reasoning would dictate that shows like Dancing With The Stars is the best quality TV available.

It didnot live up to WHAT IT SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE....REALISTIC SCI-FI DRAMA....it failed.

In your opinion.

I'm under no delusions that the show was good.

You're under a delusion if you think the show was objectively bad, or that this or any other show even could be objectively bad. You're also insanely deluded if you there aren't people out there who enjoy the show immensely.

It's natural to feel defensive about someone elses feelings.

I genuinely have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
 
It didnot live up to WHAT IT SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE....REALISTIC SCI-FI DRAMA....it failed.
In your opinion.
Well, to be fair, his opinion happens to be backed up by a lot of TV critics such as that one Chicago Tribune critic who Brad Wright got into a tiff with back when SGU started.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top