Just Started Stargate Atlantis
- Thread starter TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME
- Start date
Picardo made an appearance?
Just one on SGU, yeah. Obviously many more appearances when it comes to the other two Gate shows.
I've seen some episodes of Atlantis on TV, and I watched the DVD set of the first season. I liked it ok, but not anywhere near as much as I like SG1. There is just something about the characters that don't get me as interested as the SG1 team. Its not bad by any means, and I like it much more than SGU, but SG1 will always be my favorite Stargate show.
I was a SG-1 fan who came to like SGA, but I was turned off very early on. The Marilyn Manson reject, combined with the resemblance in concept to the Atavus (of Season 5) of EFC followed by such a crappy 2nd (3rd) episode made me tune out. Not until I saw the Genii in the hurricane 2-parter (quite cool), a real pale-haired Wraith and not a music video Wraith ("The Defiant One") and 1 other episode ("The Brotherhood") did I really get into it.
The thing about SGA is the writers suck. Later on (Seasons 4-5 + what they did to 1 character in Season 3), it was clear they were apathetic and didn't care about the show (dreaming of SGU). What made the show enjoyable was the characters, brought to life by their actors and the enjoyable premise that was created, particularly once the Replicators were finally finished (they were too overused). Beware, later on they like to spite/troll the fanbase in a manner similar to B&B in ENT late in that run. At least they were forced to reverse one boneheaded move, something ENT fans didn't get. Even in Season 5, where it's clear the writers hate the show and want their precious SGU, there's still some interesting concepts introduced. The actors make the show enjoyable, much to the chagrin of the pompous writers/producers that treated them like crap.
The thing about SGA is the writers suck. Later on (Seasons 4-5 + what they did to 1 character in Season 3), it was clear they were apathetic and didn't care about the show (dreaming of SGU). What made the show enjoyable was the characters, brought to life by their actors and the enjoyable premise that was created, particularly once the Replicators were finally finished (they were too overused). Beware, later on they like to spite/troll the fanbase in a manner similar to B&B in ENT late in that run. At least they were forced to reverse one boneheaded move, something ENT fans didn't get. Even in Season 5, where it's clear the writers hate the show and want their precious SGU, there's still some interesting concepts introduced. The actors make the show enjoyable, much to the chagrin of the pompous writers/producers that treated them like crap.
I was referring to Joe Flanigan in particular. There were a number of stories out of that show about the writers/producers having contempt for the actors.
8472 on SGA? Pass me some of that codeine.
The thing about Stargate is that the writers suck.
They weren't just picking on SGA. That was bout the best they could do, and on SGU, they did worse.Oh PS, for Colm Meany fans, he's got a recurring role as a baddie (???) on Hell on Wheels - AMC this fall, I think it debuts early Nov. Now there's a series where I don't think the writers will suck.
They dissed Joe? Who the flax did they think was earning their paychecks for them?
Hey writers. We weren't watching for your brilliant prose.
That stemmed from a fan conspiracy theory based simply on the fact that when Mallozzi listed the people he'd miss, Joe wasn't one of them. Given some of his behaviour since the cancellation though, it wouldn't be that surprising if Flanigan wasn't well liked. He's insulted the producers and tried to rile up the fans every chance he's got, totally unproffesional, no wonder all he's managed since Atlantis is a Syfy movie and some 80's Desney-esque crap.
I'm on to season 2. I have mixed feelings about it but I'm still enjoying the kind of basic sci fi element of it. Weir is amusing simply for having zero command presence or lines. It seems every episode Joe suggests something, she expresses concern/says no, he issues a one sentence explanation and she acquiesces. She is SO bad it's fun to watch.
I was rather taken aback that the big reveal they built up to towards the end of season 1, what the Wraith are really coming for, was something we found out in the pilot or thereabouts. There are odd lumpy things like this in the series that make it kind so bad it's good, though it still has some great sci fi bits too.
No. 1 reason I bought season 2 was that Rodney is hot. Yes I know he's also a wanker, but he's really perfect looks wise to my taste, lol.
I was rather taken aback that the big reveal they built up to towards the end of season 1, what the Wraith are really coming for, was something we found out in the pilot or thereabouts. There are odd lumpy things like this in the series that make it kind so bad it's good, though it still has some great sci fi bits too.
No. 1 reason I bought season 2 was that Rodney is hot. Yes I know he's also a wanker, but he's really perfect looks wise to my taste, lol.
It's more than that list. There are a number of stories. I think one other actor confirmed it too. And the writers have been shown to be quite arrogant and pompous over routinely lying to the fans in their blogs and in interviews and the whole SGU debacle which was all theirs.
And who are you, a relative/friend of those writers/producers or a SGU fan?
Consider me sceptical. I've yet to see one of these supposed stories that hasn't turned out to be either totally debunked, or else just completely unsubstantiated. Bitter Atlantis fans in particular have invented all manner of conspiracy theory designed to vilify the production team because they need someone to bash, it's nothing new. It's hilarious when Mallozzi in particular calls them out on their BS, though admittedly it's probably not a wise PR move regardless of who is in the right.
Why? Are you lining up a few ad hominem attacks?
Last edited:
Wow! That's so weird! The same thing happened when they killed SG-1 because they liked Atlantis better!
^
No, its just unusual when someone is so critical of the actors, yet so unusually silent on the flaws of the writers/producers. It's surprising given all the news items, blog posts (including the writers own responses. They do not defend themselves well) I read when the whole SGA-SGU thing was going on and what's been revealed since (Syfy's side of the story).
You keep going after the actors. Can the writers do no wrong in your eyes? Do you think SGU was cancelled because it was a flawed show that didn't appeal to enough people or do you pin the blame on Syfy, boycotting SGA fans, timeslot changes, the Nielsen ratings system, etc etc?
And Teacake, as can be seen, the producers & writers of Stargate tore apart the fanbase and created some major divisions over how they handled SGA in its last few seasons and the SGA -> SGU transition. Having seen both, I think the divisions over the cancellation of SGA/creation of SGU were greater than the creation of ENT/realization the Temporal Cold War has no substance. Part was because no Star Trek series was cancelled to launch a series where many existing fans felt was "not" Star Trek, part was ENT saw little spite from the writers ("These are the Voyages... ) whereas SGA fans got bits of spite periodically from late Season 3 thru the end of the series and writers that got so tired of writing classic Stargate, they should've been replaced with writers that were enthused about Stargate (they weren't because the bigwig had the same SG ennui). Imagine no Manny Coto taking over in Season 4 and B&B getting more bored, churning out blander stories and being more spiteful towards fans critical of the casting changes (like if they killed off and replaced Archer and replaced him with a temporal cut-and-paste of a Star Trek alum and killed Phlox and replaced him with an unlikeable character). Maybe MGM didn't know what was going on because they were dysfunctional or maybe the problem was too subtle to really intervene (writer/producer apathy).
No, its just unusual when someone is so critical of the actors, yet so unusually silent on the flaws of the writers/producers. It's surprising given all the news items, blog posts (including the writers own responses. They do not defend themselves well) I read when the whole SGA-SGU thing was going on and what's been revealed since (Syfy's side of the story).
You keep going after the actors. Can the writers do no wrong in your eyes? Do you think SGU was cancelled because it was a flawed show that didn't appeal to enough people or do you pin the blame on Syfy, boycotting SGA fans, timeslot changes, the Nielsen ratings system, etc etc?
And Teacake, as can be seen, the producers & writers of Stargate tore apart the fanbase and created some major divisions over how they handled SGA in its last few seasons and the SGA -> SGU transition. Having seen both, I think the divisions over the cancellation of SGA/creation of SGU were greater than the creation of ENT/realization the Temporal Cold War has no substance. Part was because no Star Trek series was cancelled to launch a series where many existing fans felt was "not" Star Trek, part was ENT saw little spite from the writers ("These are the Voyages... ) whereas SGA fans got bits of spite periodically from late Season 3 thru the end of the series and writers that got so tired of writing classic Stargate, they should've been replaced with writers that were enthused about Stargate (they weren't because the bigwig had the same SG ennui). Imagine no Manny Coto taking over in Season 4 and B&B getting more bored, churning out blander stories and being more spiteful towards fans critical of the casting changes (like if they killed off and replaced Archer and replaced him with a temporal cut-and-paste of a Star Trek alum and killed Phlox and replaced him with an unlikeable character). Maybe MGM didn't know what was going on because they were dysfunctional or maybe the problem was too subtle to really intervene (writer/producer apathy).
While Syfy revealed the story behind SGA's cancellation (it was on MGM's side, Syfy was happy with SGA's ratings), from what I've read, SG-1 was cancelled by Sci-Fi Channel because they felt production costs were too high for the ratings (going in to a 11th season vs. what would've been the 6th for SGA). And they cruelly informed the cast & crew at the 200th episode filming wrap party. When MGM was informed, they had only 2 or 3 episodes left to film. That's why the series finale is 1 episode long only and why it has the feel of being written quickly (it's ok, but not great).
Or maybe it's because TV is a tough business for anyone over the age of 35. That was always true for women, but now it's start to hit guys, too. Why doesn't Connor Trinneer have his own show by now? Why has Ben Browder disappeared? Why is an incredible actor like David Straitharn reduced to slumming on a mediocre skiffy show?
I doubt that actors really lose gigs because they're a-holes. More likely, it's because they get too many wrinkles to pull in the fans anymore. As long as an actor is pulling in the $$$, he'll be valued. Better be an a-hole while you got the chance.
Particularly when the actors' and writers' talents are pretty much on par. Joe ain't much of an actor, true - but his mediocre talent level is a good match for the material he was being given. It's a wash.
All this behind the scenes gossip, blogs, etc is news to me. I never pay attention to that stuff. But Stargate has always been a franchise that I watched to the extent I liked the actors. The writing has never been good. So when SGU came around, and the casting was so mediocre that there was nobody to really latch onto (David Blue was ok, but I'm not into pudgy nerds), that was the end of that.
Similar threads
