Anyone agree with McKay on why SGU got cancelled?

[Saquist]

Wholesome family fun!

This is standard oppositional macro when SGU's moral fiber is questioned. The offering of violence vs sex. A settings of unequals to justify a favorite (such as SGU)

Lets look at a few examples
The CSI TV shows CSI New York, SVU, CSI Las Vegas, CSI Miami,
Bones
House

Many of these shows make use of graphic portrayals of body fucntions and perhaps damage or corpses. I believe House gets a "viewer discretion warning" but like SGA they don't show explicitly show material in action. I can't recall seeing on Bones actual limbs being severed or heads. Is it morally viable to view such materials, it's questionable, it's certainly immoral in terms of horror flix were the whole purpose is watch a set number of people get slaughtered and it's a throw back to Roman times of the love of violence.

Was the severed head of the wraith necessary. I don't think so and it wasn't family oriented it definitely for a old viewing audience than children but is it the same level explicit viewing as copulation? I think clearly it isn't and psychologically we've explored why that is and most have come to the understanding that violence is a common occurrence among humans and most animals. Within a society it has both it's uses and it's taboos that we all take part in, we all relate too and viewing violence doesn't have the same attraction as the more positive assertions of sex which is regarded in terms of euphoria. If killing were viewed as euphoric I'd would be very much disturbed. But as it is violence is held strictly in check by laws and law enforcements of all types. From schools to jobs....

Sex doesn't work that way. Where before extramarital sex was frowned upon now it's norm and with it the transmission of sexual diseases, unwanted children and the abortions that follow and children growing up with out fathers or mothers and it leads to far more social problems...all because it's viewed as not just acceptable but highly desirable. People brag and celebrate their sexual exploits, it's given every positive support by medial, friends and family, it's an active social past time. But many people see that it shouldn't be that our schools systems, prisons and even our work place reflect the longer terms consequences of the current sexual social mentality. But as a society we look past those problems because sex is so desirable. For those conscious of these problems (such as myself) I find it irresponsible to encourage the cycle, to put further weight on our social systems which are bleeding money.

Neither is good but if I have to chose my poison (and it seems I do) then I prefer this milder end of violence than the sex.

 

[AJ86]

I could have used the three instances of rape from SG-1's first season instead, but they don't quite pack the same visual punch as a severed head or a busted open abdomen. Either way, SG-1 and SGA are not family friendly to a discerning parent, only one who is fooled by a light tone.

 

[Saquist]

I could have used the three instances of rape from SG-1's first season instead, but they don't quite pack the same visual punch as a severed head or a busted open abdomen. Either way, SG-1 and SGA are not family friendly to a discerning parent, only one who is fooled by a light tone.

Personally I'm not going to classify stargate as "family friendly" Family Friendly is rated G. Stargate before SGU was mild in violence, no sex was ever part of the viewing experience. It's a PG-13 show. or...just plain PG. Parental Guidance suggested. I think this typically means Parental discretion whether appropriate. And that rating changes per episode.

 

[Harvey]

Just don't show the kids the full frontal nudity (and not, in any sense, a tender love scene) in the very first episode of SG-1!

 

[Saquist]

I had never seen it until I got the DVD's from a friend.
They don't air that on Sy Fy.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Totally opposite experience here. I cared about the characters on BSG (it even made me cry at times). But I never could give a flip about anyone on SGU. Dull and uninspiring, through and through.

I checked out a couple episodes of SGU (the most recent) just to see if the actors have improved. They haven't. They're still unwatchable. David Blue is the only one putting in an effort or maybe the others are just completely untalented. The BSG actors could do far better even if the same level of writing. To be honest, I was so bored by the SGU actors that I didn't watch any given scene long enough to assess how good the writing is, but the BSG actors or actors of that caliber would at least have kept my fingers off the zapper.

 

[Saquist]

I think that's unfair.

Robert Carlye is doing a darn fine job.
For that matter David Blue is just doing the best he can with the character they right and the truth is that may be the same for all of them.

The medic is perhaps the worse actor. She's a robot most the time. No expressions, flat and uninteresting. Many of the secondary characters acting is just blaaa....

In fact it may be more the characters they're righting than the acting...

 

[AJ86]

Totally opposite experience here. I cared about the characters on BSG (it even made me cry at times). But I never could give a flip about anyone on SGU. Dull and uninspiring, through and through.

I checked out a couple episodes of SGU (the most recent) just to see if the actors have improved. They haven't. They're still unwatchable. David Blue is the only one putting in an effort or maybe the others are just completely untalented. The BSG actors could do far better even if the same level of writing. To be honest, I was so bored by the SGU actors that I didn't watch any given scene long enough to assess how good the writing is, but the BSG actors or actors of that caliber would at least have kept my fingers off the zapper.

Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I can't help feeling that you're confusing talent with likeability, because for me David Blue is by far the weakest actor of the lot. None of his performances ring true to me, and he always manages to find a way to deliver a line in such a way that I feel like cringing it's so fake. I also struggle to understand how anyone could not appreciate Robert Carlyle's performances, he's put on a masterclass from the start.

 

[USS Kongo]

If a character is likeable to you, isn't that because the acting is very good? For instance, I like Rush as a character on SGU, and that's largely because of Carlyle's solid performance.

Sean

 

[bullethead]

If a character is likeable to you, isn't that because the acting is very good?

No, their role in the story can play a big part in their likability. I can see why Temis might not like Rush, because the writers keep making him out to be an asshole with a secret agenda throughout the series.

 

[Worf]

How many SGU episodes left???

It might be out there somewhere on internet but hoping someone could give me answer here!! Thanks in Advance!!!

 

[Saquist]

If a character is likeable to you, isn't that because the acting is very good? For instance, I like Rush as a character on SGU, and that's largely because of Carlyle's solid performance.

Sean

I remember in the 25 Anniversary Q was named the villain fans loved to hate. It was because of his acting chopps....

The Master from Dr. Who was also such a character, so I think you're right. It's the delivery that counts for everything.

 

[AJ86]

If a character is likeable to you, isn't that because the acting is very good?

I think you can like a character because of good acting, but I don't really think that's the same as likeability, or at least what I meant my likeability. What I meant was characters that are endearing, or who's personality you like for instance. I don't think that either of those things necessarily have anything to do with good acting, they're just part of their appeal. For example I don't find either Rush or Young particularly endearing, or likeable people (and I don't think you need to to enjoy a character), but I think Robert Carlyle and Louis Ferreira have done fantastic jobs in acting the parts.

This reminds me of an article I read about the decline of science fiction, and how genre TV had become a battle for the most likeable cast rather than compelling storytelling. I suppose there's some truth to it when shows like Firefly are held in such high regard. Not that it wasn't a great show, but it was hardly great sci-fi.

 

[Agent Richard07]

^ What's funny is that I don't find the characters on BSG or SGU unlikeable at all wheras I don't like a lot of the characters on Firefly. Too cocky and sarcastic.

Anyway, I'd love to know more about this "battle for the most likeable cast". I too am noticing this expecation that scifi be fun and filled with "likeable" characters. You don't see that kind of expecation with non-scifi works.

 

[Caliburn24]

Because of the nature of sci-fi shows, particularly space opera, it is harder for us to relate to the setting and trappings of any given show, which means the characters have to make up the difference for us by being something we can relate to, even when everything around them is confusing and different.

It is the nature of genre TV, at least for now.