Oh. Okay. Just checking, really.
How Come Stargate goes on but Star Trek died?
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
Yes, although Trek was on shaky ground even before ENT came along.
This makes no sense.The dropoff in quality from StarGate SG:1 to StarGate: Atlantis wasn't nearly as bad as the dropoff in quality from ST:OS & ST:TNG to STS9 then to Voyager then to Enterprise.
Stargate's production quality has actually gotten a bit better over the past decade. It still makes use of cheap outs like pine forest planets and Renaissance villages (Star Trek at least tries to make aliens and alien worlds look, yknow, alien) but the interior sets have gotten noticeably better. The costuming is as horrible as ever. The production quality overall is way below Star Trek's, but it hasn't nose dived.
In terms of writing quality, Stargate was by far the best during SG-1's first four or five seasons, when it still had a bit of imagination, even if the writers never really knew where to go with their ideas. Since then, it has just repeated itself to the point of utter boredom. In terms of acting, it's got very few good actors (Browder, Picardo), several okay ones, and hordes of terrible actors, even in the main casts, and especially in the guest actors.
Production quality on Star Trek has always been strong (and no doubt pricey) and has gotten somewhat better over time. Obviously the biggest jump was TOS to TNG, but TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT also showed improvement. The writing was extremely mixed on TOS, generally good on TNG, great on DS9, meh on VOY, and meh and then good (S4) on ENT. Star Trek has always had the ability to attract some very good actors, and the guest stars have ranged from outstanding to terrible. The writing and acting is where Star Trek really has Stargate beaten.
So what happened to its ratings?
Now, "The X-Files"... That was a TV show that transcended SF cultism and reached the mainstream. As did TOS (in repeat syndication) and first-run TNG.
Ah, from the beancounter perspective, that's not at all insane.
Remember, to them Star Trek is ketchup. But it's like really high-end premium ketchup and Stargate is the generic brand. They put out a brand of premium ketchup that didn't taste so good and when you want people to pay a ridiculous price for tomato paste, it better taste good. But the generic crap doesn't have to taste good at all. Which really says it all. It's the difference in how you handle a premium brand of ketchup versus the crap for $1.99 a jug.
Which matters only when you are trying to position your product as a premium product. This does not apply to Stargate, which has declined to a point worse than VOY or ENT at their most horrid. You can still sell ketchup that tastes bad, as long as it's cheap. You just sell it to people who don't care what it tastes like.
Unless they go for the Stargate bargain-basement approach, but Paramount would be stupid to do that, when they could set their sights higher and revitalize a brand that could pay off handsomely. There is no such option for Stargate - it's never been a premium brand and I doubt it has the ability to ever become one.
90% of what's on TV is atrocious crap, so even with my low opinion of Stargate (and much of Star Trek, to be honest), I might have to agree with ya. But it's nothing to brag about. Better than 99% of the crap on TV, now we're talking.
Last edited:
In terms of the production quality on the 'gates, I've found that in recent years, there is one aspect in which both SG-1 and Atlantis were markedly improved - with the starship CGI.
Atlantis itself is a beautiful CG model, and 'shot' well, while ships like the Daedalus-class battlecruisers, Ori motherships and Wraith Hive ships, and smaller craft like puddle jumpers, have all looked pretty good on-screen - a lot better than the first CG effects of Goa'uld deathgliders and Ha'taks did back in SG-1's early days.
Atlantis itself is a beautiful CG model, and 'shot' well, while ships like the Daedalus-class battlecruisers, Ori motherships and Wraith Hive ships, and smaller craft like puddle jumpers, have all looked pretty good on-screen - a lot better than the first CG effects of Goa'uld deathgliders and Ha'taks did back in SG-1's early days.
Ah, from the beancounter perspective, that's not at all insane.
Once you take the labels off there's really no difference at all.
Right. It's important to belittle other good science fiction (by which I mean SG1 and mostly not Atlantis) in order to show your true Trek fandom.
Can't we just agree they have both produced stuff better than 90% of what's on TV?
No. In fact, a great deal of and maybe even "most" dramatic television is better than the "Stargate" franchise. That's not "belittling good science fiction;" it's recognizing what "Stargate" is - mediocre programming, science fiction or otherwise.
.
For one,the ratings for cable channels are different than broadcast TV.Directly comparing the two and saying Stargate sucks is wrong,as Stargate was not aired on a public network like Enterprise did.
You may think Stargate is mediocre,but that doesn't make it fact.How many episodes of Enterprise won Saturn awards ?
The hard truth is star trek crashed and burned on TV.Too much continuity,technobabble,fanboy-ism,and politics resulting in weak episodes.
The movies that followed SG1 are pretty good productions,ironically much better than the weak duo of Insurrection and Nemesis both in plot and ,in comparison to Nemesis,sales.
I'd argue that it is Trek that's gone mediocre,not Stargate.And that's why the next trek needs to succeed-or it will be surpassed by the higher-caliber. Sci-fi series' to follow.
No, I'd say they both have. But my point was that even mediocre repeats of Trek or 'gate are better than most of what's on. (America's Next Top Model, anyone? Twenty shows that don't play videos on MTV?)
Unless one is organic and doesn't contain high fructose corn syrup. But maybe I carry the analogy too far.
Once you take the labels off there's really no difference at all.Ah, from the beancounter perspective, that's not at all insane.
I can find premium ketchup at my grocery store, and yeah, there is a difference.
Yeah that analogy is being stretched to the breaking point. But the larger point is, there are plenty of products in which there are vast differences in quality, and wherever you are on the spectrum, you can make money. You target difference audiences. Which is why it makes no sense to compare Stargate and Star Trek as though they are trying to do the same thing. They're not.
If Stargate won Saturn awards, that just goes to show that the Saturn awards are even more meaningless than, say, Emmys.
You mean that DVD drivel? They're crap. Stargate desperately needs a BSG style reimagining, if there's any motive to make it anything other than the bargain-basement brand. But the point is, that motive isn't there. The people in charge of the decision-making are happy to keep Stargate the bargain-basement brand forever.
That doesn't have any impact on what Star Trek needs to do, to be revived. Whole other thing. Paramount will never permit a bargain-basement strategy, so forget Stargate as a guideline. That's exactly what Paramount won't do.
What will work instead is another issue. I'd imagine Paramount is waiting to see how the movie goes before making any further plans or strategizing how to get Star Trek back on TV.
No matter what anyone argues or begs to differ... it's all just opinion.
I think Stargate has been brilliant TV where Trek wasn't anymore, and that
really the only thing better than Stargate on TV was BSG.
There is no ultimate truth people, it's entertainment and each person views
it differently regardless of anyone elses opinion. Even if a show is a financial
and critical flop and is canceled after one or thirteen episodes...
it means nothing of how good it is if even one person watched it and found
it to be the best episode of TV they had ever seen.
It's all in the eyes of the beholder.
I think Stargate has been brilliant TV where Trek wasn't anymore, and that
really the only thing better than Stargate on TV was BSG.
There is no ultimate truth people, it's entertainment and each person views
it differently regardless of anyone elses opinion. Even if a show is a financial
and critical flop and is canceled after one or thirteen episodes...
it means nothing of how good it is if even one person watched it and found
it to be the best episode of TV they had ever seen.
It's all in the eyes of the beholder.
Star Trek marched on endlessly for many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many years. With the upcoming movie, one could argue that it's still marching on endlessly. Your premise isn't valid.
And yes all Star Trek had to go away for a while. If it hadn't, the people in charge wouldn't have gotten the message that the direction they took it in sucked and future Treks would just have kept getting worse.
In short... "yes."
Ever heard the term "George Lucas Syndrome"? Rick Berman suffered from it, and took a wonderful franchise and plunged it into the toilet. Just like Georgie did with Phantom Menace. It's called greed. Greed superseded good writing. And we got the last half of Voyager and Enterprise as a result.
Once you take the labels off there's really no difference at all.Ah, from the beancounter perspective, that's not at all insane.
I can find premium ketchup at my grocery store, and yeah, there is a difference.
Yeah that analogy is being stretched to the breaking point. But the larger point is, there are plenty of products in which there are vast differences in quality, and wherever you are on the spectrum, you can make money. You target difference audiences. Which is why it makes no sense to compare Stargate and Star Trek as though they are trying to do the same thing. They're not.
If Stargate won Saturn awards, that just goes to show that the Saturn awards are even more meaningless than, say, Emmys.
You mean that DVD drivel? They're crap.
.
Um,have you watched SG:Continuum and Ark of Truth?
Here's a test;Watch either movie of your choice,then watch Insurrection.You'll understand right there why Stargate is still around-and why Trek is not.
As another poster said,greed and politics killed Trek on TV.
That's true.
No; the unimpressive quality of the shows makes it fact?
Who cares? How many real awards - EMMYs, Peabodys, you know, something that's not bestowed by enthusiastic hobbyists - has "Stargate" won? Ever?
I expect if you look hard they've won some Canadian TV industry award, though. They keep people employed.
Yep, and they pretty much prove the point. Even given somewhat larger budgets and resources to make alleged "movies" the Stargate folks just don't have what it takes to make it in the big leagues.
Once you take the labels off there's really no difference at all.Ah, from the beancounter perspective, that's not at all insane.
That Proctor&Gamble world view that it doesn't matter what's in the box, only the brand that's on the box matters has nearly killed General Motors and made a good run at killing Star Trek. You'd think that by now it should be beyond obvious to the densest corporate executive that the only thing that matters is what's IN the box.
I'll take what's in GM's box anyday over the others...
Misconceptions are funny.
Misconceptions are funny.
Actually Atlantis and SG1 were nominated for emmy awards in the same year.
Link here: http://www.gateworld.net/news/2005/07/istargatei_series_earn_three_emm.shtml
Stargate isn't the best sci-fi ever made,but its better than mediocre.It wouldn't have lasted 7 seasons ,with its spin off lasting 5 if it sucked.For point of comparison,SG1 outlasted Enterprise.
One of the few times I would disagree with you.
To claim it is fact based on your observations is to take away
the fact that they observed it differently, the fundamental
problem with these debates. We each have our own eye and
to any one of us something may be utter crap while to another
it is gloriously entertaining.
Similar threads
