Looks like Stargate is officially done

[Dac]

In order to give a critical review of a subjective subject matter you must be aware that you can never be "right".

 

[AJ86]

I'm impartial.

The problem with that assertion of course is that your posts almost always suggest otherwise, and thus no one believes it. I can't think of anyone on the board who talks about the show with more vitriol, and more emotion than you do. Perhaps it's a coincidence, an illusion, but that's certainly the way it comes across.

 

[Kelthaz]

What's the problem with Emancipation?

I'm not really sure. Yes, the episode is sexist and stupid, but it's still somewhat entertaining. Maybe it helped that when I first watched it my expectations were somewhere between "Shades of Grey" and "The Way to Eden".

 

[SG-17]

What's the problem with Emancipation?

It was just awkward. Though that hasn't stopped me from watching it 5+ times over the years.

I'm impartial.

The problem with that assertion of course is that your posts almost always suggest otherwise, and thus no one believes it. I can't think of anyone on the board who talks about the show with more vitriol, and more emotion than you do. Perhaps it's a coincidence, an illusion, but that's certainly the way it comes across.

I get into it sometimes, I do that with most shows I enjoy. I don't however keep harping about shows I don't like over and over again. I've seen people do that with Stargate, Doctor Who, Star Trek, and almost everything. They all come across as children as a result.

 

[Saquist]

The problem with that assertion of course is that your posts almost always suggest otherwise, and thus no one believes it.

That's the part that doesn't matter.
Only the accuracy of statement matters everything else you're subjecting to your interpretation and as a fan criticism of that which you're fanatical about is almost always ill received.

I can't think of anyone on the board who talks about the show with more vitriol, and more emotion than you do. Perhaps it's a coincidence, an illusion, but that's certainly the way it comes across.

Because it's a message board system and not an emotion board system I've noticed a user predilection to project everything from intent, emotions and tone where there otherwise was none. It is also why I ignore most of it or dismiss it. I'm quite honest with my feelings, intentions and errors, it's not an ego factor to me. It just is. I don't like the show. But that's to simple. I have to break it down to more accurate appraisals of why I don't like it and those reasons are grounded in known standards. I learned in English Lit that contrivances were bad. Plot holes were bad, deus ex's and so on and so forth and under certain conditions they are absolute no-no's. But like I said the producers attitude played a part, the acting (which is a bit more subjection) and the pace (which is alot more subjectional) contribute to it the analysis that forms with my opinion but it starts with facts.

I never shy away from stating the facts even when those don't want to hear it. Facts aren't convenient they just are. We all have our likes an dislikes that run counter to facts all the time, maybe some don't care about literary standards. So it doesn't play into their opinion of productions but it does with my when we spell out "realism" and "drama". If this was A Midsummer Nights Dream that would be one thing but it's not. None of my criticisms were meant to anger, offend or hurt but it happens because of assumptions. All I can say is...sorry. That's not how it was meant.

What's the problem with Emancipation?

I'm not really sure. Yes, the episode is sexist and stupid, but it's still somewhat entertaining. Maybe it helped that when I first watched it my expectations were somewhere between "Shades of Grey" and "The Way to Eden".

Some one on here said it was so bad they almost stopped watching. I remember this episode, I believe they continually put Sam at risk almost on purpose and there seemed to be this need to point out since the first episode that Carter was a woman in a mans world and this just followed that idea....I'm glad they dropped it.

These are realistic issues true...
But I don't think this was well done. I don't think it was horribly done either but this is not an episode I would call SG-1's worst....that's reserved for the puppet episode which unfortunately has grown on me but still leaves a rather odd uncomfortable taste in my mouth as a waste of production and film.

I wasn't keen on Vala and Cam as part of SG-1. maybe it was resistance to change but his acting was a bit to personal to the actor. I think that contributed to the declining ratings of SG-1, Vala was roguish and cute at some times but clearly an irratant and it's not what some were expecting from it but the truth is some of those episodes were off, the chemistry didn't quite flow...it took time but they got there and both he and she fitted in.

It think they did better with Daniel's replacement character...(forgot his name) with the whole naquadria thing. But MGM got into this thing with swapping actors from other shows when really Stargate had a rich supply of actors to draw from and I often loved when they put these people from the background to the foreground...it's really good character development. Like McKay or Novak, I felt Novak should have become more of a regular on SGA. I had hopped they would have brought Young Jack back...I mean that was just good fodder for a replacement and stupendously awesome way for a sci fi show to go younger. It would have been an interesting juxtaposition with a much older Teal'c and this Young Jack....a fascinating dynamic to write on.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

For many of SGU's fans, it was the first Stargate show they ever watched. I realise it suits your agenda to paint the show as being on life support from hardcore fans, but it simply isn't true. Syfy's ineptitude did harm the show, we can look back objectively and see that as clear as day. The only point in dispute is whether that harm may or may not have been the difference between a two season run and a three season one, I suspect it may have been, but I suppose we'll never know.

Firstly. To critique is not an agenda and anything you realise beyond the facts is an opinion I'm not concerned with. You don't have to inform me directly of your prejudices.

This is flat-out wrong. You claim you are interested only in facts and then objectively declare that SGA and SGU were of poor quality. Criticism in and of itself is a subjective exercise--otherwise, critics would never disagree with one another.

That you believe your statements are factual truth rather than subjective opinion shows no small amount of delusion on your part.

I get the whole idea of criticizing things you find shortcomings in. I do that, too. What I don't do is beat the dead horse week after week, when I know I'm not being entertained anymore, and I just want to convince everyone else what a horrible, horrible show it is. I don't understand that mindset at all, unless some people's lives are just so bereft of enjoyment that their nearest alternative is to drag down the enjoyment of others.

That's where you and the others hit the wall so-to-speak. You're partial. It makes sense to you to engage ONLY in things which you like, to study ONLY things which you like. Sorry...Your expectations of me fall short of who I am and who I've told you I am, despite you actually asking "who do you think you are". I'm impartial. My interest was stargate sci fi in general but my main interest is critique and analysis-review. People do it for a living you know. In order to make a proper critique I have to understand the standard. The standard of writing, production at least some knowledge of cinematography, music and acting and I have to know Stargate Standards. While I didn't waste my time watching all of SGU I got a pretty sizeable helping of it's mediocrity and it's the same mediocrity that plagued Atlantis from Season 2 onward. Directionless plot wandering and contrivances. There is a trend that was easily recognizable but because the fans love everything they're fanatical about and producers because of fans have amassed large egos of their abilities and imagination (which happens to almost all artist) they were either blind or ignored it. You'll see the pattern again too.

You are not impartial. No matter how to try to spin your opinions, that is exactly what they are--opinions. You do not have some kind of high ground because you claim to be making objective statements. You aren't.

That you think I love SGU just shows how off the mark you are. I liked SGU, but didn't like it as much as SG-1, and I can fully understand why it failed to attract an audience and was thus canceled. You seem to read into it some kind of conspiracy on the part of the writers and producers to foist upon the public a shoddy, inferior product and then laugh all the way to the bank. You're the one ascribing motives you can't prove.

Hell, you claim to know how big the egos of the producers are! And yet you claim to be "objective." Did you sit down with them and have a therapy session to assess their rampant egomania? Didn't think so. You are speculating at best, making baseless conjectures at worst. Either way, there's nothing objective about what you're saying here.

You give SGU glowing reviews to no end.

Yeah, you definitely never read anything I said about SGU episodes.

I give it critical analytical reviews of it's faults because the show was failing and thus was canceled. We balance each other out. The only difference is I don't take critiques of fantasy productions personally.

I have no problem with people giving critical analysis as long as they acknowledge they're stating opinions and not facts. You provide analysis and then claim there can be no disagreement because you have stated incontrovertible facts. Sorry, but no.

It's funny how people who dislike something are the first to pull out the "objective" card. "You silly fans just can't grasp how ultimately right I am! You can't accept that your show is objectively terrible!" Meanwhile, back in reality, different people like different things, and many factors influence the survival of any TV show. A poor-quality show can survive easily as long as it gets good ratings and/or is cheap. A high-quality show can get canceled if it fails to draw an audience, has a bad timeslot, or is too expensive.

SGU did not suffer from poor production design and the acting wasn't especially bad (certainly not for a basic cable genre show) but it's been the consensus that the writing meandered and the showrunners weren't sure where they were going for the first season or so. Failing to plan your show in advance is not an unforgivable sin as long as you can make it entertaining until you find your footing. BSG proved that, although it can come back to haunt you later.

The problem with that assertion of course is that your posts almost always suggest otherwise, and thus no one believes it.

That's the part that doesn't matter.
Only the accuracy of statement matters everything else you're subjecting to your interpretation and as a fan criticism of that which you're fanatical about is almost always ill received.

Your statements, by and large, cannot be "accurate" because they are expressions of opinion. Why do you have trouble understanding this?

I can't think of anyone on the board who talks about the show with more vitriol, and more emotion than you do. Perhaps it's a coincidence, an illusion, but that's certainly the way it comes across.

Because it's a message board system and not an emotion board system I've noticed a user predilection to project everything from intent, emotions and tone where there otherwise was none. It is also why I ignore most of it or dismiss it. I'm quite honest with my feelings, intentions and errors, it's not an ego factor to me. It just is. I don't like the show. But that's to simple. I have to break it down to more accurate appraisals of why I don't like it and those reasons are grounded in known standards. I learned in English Lit that contrivances were bad. Plot holes were bad, deus ex's and so on and so forth and under certain conditions they are absolute no-no's. But like I said the producers attitude played a part, the acting (which is a bit more subjection) and the pace (which is alot more subjectional) contribute to it the analysis that forms with my opinion but it starts with facts.

One must project some kind of motivation onto a person who appears to have nothing but scorn and contempt for a particular TV franchise yet continues to talk about it incessantly. Doesn't that get boring?

If you learned those things from English Lit then I think you completely missed the point. Those are all devices available to writers, and while they are often used poorly, there is really no narrative device you should never use. It all hinges on execution. It may be nice to think storytelling can be boiled down to a set of objective rules that all "good" stories must follow--and indeed there is a whole school of thought based on this--but it's hogwash. Even so, if you think SGU was bad because it committed various storytelling "no-nos," you're overcomplicating the matter. Early on, SGU failed to provide characters that a broad audience could find compelling. It also took an unreasonably long time to reach the main arc of the story. Of course, that is my opinion and various other things influenced the show's fate, but those are common criticisms of the show.

I never shy away from stating the facts even when those don't want to hear it. Facts aren't convenient they just are. We all have our likes an dislikes that run counter to facts all the time, maybe some don't care about literary standards. So it doesn't play into their opinion of productions but it does with my when we spell out "realism" and "drama". If this was A Midsummer Nights Dream that would be one thing but it's not. None of my criticisms were meant to anger, offend or hurt but it happens because of assumptions. All I can say is...sorry. That's not how it was meant.

We get it, you are the noble preacher shouting to the nonbelievers your profound "truth," and if only we would accept it we would be "saved." Maybe you should try that in a church instead, people there tend to be more gullible.

 

[Dac]

FWIW, The most common criticisms leveled at SGU in the first season where:

1) Everyone is an asshole.
2) They have nothing interesting to do.
3) Those f**king music montages.

In season 2, the following happened:

1) The crew wizened up to their situation and worked together to overcome problems.
2) They introduced a a grand scope for the show which drove the characters to a greater goal of discovery and expanding the knowledge of humanity (the meaning of life code).
3) The music montages were scrapped except for when they served a purpose to illustrate the situation they were in where words wouldn't have been as effective. I'm thinking Park's having bodyswapped back to Earth and crying at the scenery because she could simply see. That 5 second shot in a montage was way more effective at expressing her situation than an entire scene about how she'll never see again.

So there, there are 3 widely held critiques of the first season which the producers became aware of and "fixed". To say they sat on their asses and did nothing is delusional at best.

 

[Mr Awe]

The people of the stargate franchise made millions selling a mediocre product for the last five years. Their arrogance, stubbornness and mediocrity finally caught up with them despite being told repeated they weren't meeting expectation...the writing was on the wall and they ignored it. They made the calls and they got what they deserve. To the "helpless" actors and the helpless production crews now out of the job...I hope they saved their money because good things tend not to last forever.

Wow, you sure have some sort of axe to grind. You can protest all you want, but you're clearly bent out of shape over something. Bitter. Bitter is the word.

I'd suggest chilling a little bit and stop agitating yourself over a show that's been canceled for quite some time now. Shoot, I enjoyed it a bit more than you and I'm not this worked up over it!

Mr Awe

 

[Saquist]

Wow, you sure have some sort of axe to grind. You can protest all you want, but you're clearly bent out of shape over something. Bitter. Bitter is the word.

You're projecting...

I'd suggest chilling a little bit and stop agitating yourself over a show that's been canceled for quite some time now. Shoot, I enjoyed it a bit more than you and I'm not this worked up over it!

Mr Awe

I'll consider that good advice should I ever become agitated about fictional universe.

This is flat-out wrong. You claim you are interested only in facts and then objectively declare that SGA and SGU were of poor quality. Criticism in and of itself is a subjective exercise--otherwise, critics would never disagree with one another.

....woefully poor use of the definitions available. You chose a definition which is in line with your agenda but the center definition of criticism is
the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything. The subjective quality is one of the possible variables of it's meaning. It can also be any remark or observation or evaluation.

You seem to read into it some kind of conspiracy on the part of the writers and producers to foist upon the public a shoddy, inferior product and then laugh all the way to the bank.

Welcome to capitalism.

Hell, you claim to know how big the egos of the producers are! And yet you claim to be "objective." Did you sit down with them and have a therapy session to assess their rampant egomania?

Blogs...press statements, etc.

Didn't think so. You are speculating at best, making baseless conjectures at worst.

If it was baseless then there would be no blogs or press statements that I could refer to, their would be no open criticisms of the fans to refer to, there for speculation maybe... conjecture....well that's a label you don't know how to use yet. Conjecture is usually considered (especially in law) to be absolutely baseless, which is under speculation, which is under some cases allowable by either side in order to present a case. But it's speculation on the facts...say like placing a suspect at the scene of crime by means of evidence found at the scene that belongs to the suspect. It doesn't prove he was absolutely there though but without that evidence the claim is pure conjecture.

Once the producers said, "If you don't like it don't watch it." Once they blamed "SGU sucks" for their woes and there by openly criticizing their fans... Once they said "we like what we've put together" in response to the general criticism and the cancellation of the show we now have reasonable theory as to the diplomatic public relations breakdown. Psychology says this is usually ambivalence or arrogance and judging from some of the statements on Gateworld about certain live chats with the producer now ex-producer it seems like a pretty solid theory at that.

Yeah, you definitely never read anything I said about SGU episodes.

Doesn't matter.
It was hyperbole and ingenuous meant to encapsulate the general resistance of all to an objective point of view.

You provide analysis and then claim there can be no disagreement because you have stated incontrovertible facts. Sorry, but no.

(...as he fails to lay out his own facts to the contrary...)
I appreciate your declaration but that's really all it is. A declaration of confidence.

It's funny how people who dislike something are the first to pull out the "objective" card. "You silly fans just can't grasp how ultimately right I am! You can't accept that your show is objectively terrible!" Meanwhile, back in reality, different people like different things, and many factors influence the survival of any TV show. A poor-quality show can survive easily as long as it gets good ratings and/or is cheap. A high-quality show can get canceled if it fails to draw an audience, has a bad timeslot, or is too expensive.

There is some truth to what you say but it's miss directed.
I never proposed that cancellation MUST mean a poor quality show and the initial statements on Fans is just posturing. The very definition of fan is FANATIC. A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.

SGU did not suffer from poor production design and the acting wasn't especially bad (certainly not for a basic cable genre show) but it's been the consensus that the writing meandered and the showrunners weren't sure where they were going for the first season or so. Failing to plan your show in advance is not an unforgivable sin as long as you can make it entertaining until you find your footing. BSG proved that, although it can come back to haunt you later.

I concur.

Your statements, by and large, cannot be "accurate" because they are expressions of opinion. Why do you have trouble understanding this?

Is that rhetorical or ignorance?
I ask because I've already identified precisely and previously were the facts of plot errors lay and where my opinions lay that are prone to my subjective tastes. There is a third option but it would require you to be purposely dense just to be contrary.

One must project some kind of motivation onto a person...

No, One doesn't have to, they chose to, because of their own inherent lack of objectivity and reliance on their own feelings to make value judgments. That's NOT objective.

who appears to have nothing but scorn and contempt for a particular TV franchise yet continues to talk about it incessantly.

Appearances can be deceiving if you chose to believe that your way of viewing a persons statements (through projecting your own feelings) is the only way in which to view them.

Doesn't that get boring?

Criticism is never boring. That's why we have so many critics. It's only annoying to the people who feel they are taking the criticism.

If you learned those things from English Lit then I think you completely missed the point. Those are all devices available to writers, and while they are often used poorly, there is really no narrative device you should never use.

For everything there is a proper place. A proper venue, genre or context. Choose your venue carefully and stick to it. That is what we learned.

It all hinges on execution. It may be nice to think storytelling can be boiled down to a set of objective rules that all "good" stories must follow--and indeed there is a whole school of thought based on this--but it's hogwash.

To you maybe but not to me. I don't find them threatening.

Even so, if you think SGU was bad because it committed various storytelling "no-nos," you're overcomplicating the matter. Early on, SGU failed to provide characters that a broad audience could find compelling.

That is an issue, true, but it was exposition and many people are willing to be more forgiving of that in the beginning. On Gateworld when I pointed out that Scott's dream sequence story of preachers and pregnant girlfriends failed to have purpose in the plot, the excuse was that this view into Scott's character would have implications later. I remember Deevil offering this reasoning. She recognized that plots are pretty succinct works and most of the material should be related to it. She thought that these were merely drawn out threads and we were seeing the beginning of important threads to be woven in the future. 2 Seasons later...it proved to be almost completely without meaning beyond the most vaguest and abstract parts of the premier. To my knowledge...never to be returned to...TIME FILLER

It also took an unreasonably long time to reach the main arc of the story. Of course, that is my opinion and various other things influenced the show's fate, but those are common criticisms of the show.

Not exactly. That's too perceptional.
It's more accurate to say they failed to be particularly engaging until they reached the main story arc. Reveals are often left for much later but this somehow failed. Many felt the wait...they were literally conscious of the time waiting for the other shoe to fall.

We get it, you are the noble preacher shouting to the nonbelievers your profound "truth," and if only we would accept it we would be "saved." Maybe you should try that in a church instead, people there tend to be more gullible.

preacher...professor...what ever ridiculing label you desire. Almost everything is ridiculed, few things are worthy of that kind of emotional sourness. Unless it's accurate I'm completely apathetic because it's irrelevant. It has more implication on you not me....

Remember I'm talking about objectivity in criticism. So a great deal of your post was more like a celebration on your lack of objective...you seemed proud of it. When you actually were objective...it was most refreshing....There was almost a meaningful exchange of ideas.

 

[Deckerd]

I suppose we can console ourselves that the actors will get recycled into the next sci fi series.

 

[lurok]

Those that haven't already shown up in Sanctuary.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think I've discovered the key to Saquist's strategy: exhaust his opponents into submission.

This is so not worth the time and effort, dude. Have fun hating Stargate, though. I'll be off enjoying things.

 

[Saquist]

I suppose we can console ourselves that the actors will get recycled into the next sci fi series.

While we may be hopeful for that many actors are hoping to go higher into more meaningful roles. They're afraid of getting type cast (at least the serious actors) Brent Spiner is a good example, I think he only got sci fi roles after Trek and none of them very serious. I think people from SGU have a better chance breaking that mold for type casting to get into movies.

Carlye has nothing to worry about. This probably works for his schedule better to get back into movies.

The others (because of the drama classification of SGU) should be able to movie on with SGU as a good template for what they could do aside from the actor playing Johanson.

I think I've discovered the key to Saquist's strategy: exhaust his opponents into submission. [

Actually it's literalism.
Correct a person until he ceases to be entertained by flinging irrelevant commentary.

This is so not worth the time and effort, dude. Have fun hating Stargate, though. I'll be off enjoying things.

Yes, Maxwell, I hope your beliefs serve you as well.

 

[AJ86]

Carlye has nothing to worry about. This probably works for his schedule better to get back into movies.

He's actually walked straight into another series:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_c4Ljx4_W8[/yt]

 

[bullethead]

Carlye has nothing to worry about. This probably works for his schedule better to get back into movies.

Carlyle isn't going to making any Brit films anytime soon. During SGU's run, he pretty much said straight out that he's pissed with their inability to get films released and likes that with TV there's a lot higher chance of a show getting released instead of being stuck in pre-release hell.

 

[Deckerd]

I suppose we can console ourselves that the actors will get recycled into the next sci fi series.

While we may be hopeful for that many actors are hoping to go higher into more meaningful roles.

I don't think actors have such lofty opinions of their careers. For most of them a regular spot on a television show is a good gig. Sure they'd all like to be doing Shakespeare at the Globe but just because they're actors doesn't mean they aren't pragmatists too. It's surprising how many people get re-cast in genres once they have made the breakthrough.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Acting is a job. You take the work you can get. Very few actors can afford to be choosy about their roles.

 

[Mr Awe]

That's where you and the others hit the wall so-to-speak. You're partial. It makes sense to you to engage ONLY in things which you like, to study ONLY things which you like. Sorry...Your expectations of me fall short of who I am and who I've told you I am, despite you actually asking "who do you think you are". I'm impartial.

Saquist, I think you and I agree on a lot of things about SGU. We also have high standards and are hard to please. So, lots of common ground.

But, for crying out loud, give it a rest!! Even I'm getting sick of your holier than thou attitude, I'm providiing objective reviews, etc.

We've got our opinions of SGU, and other shows. They're just opinions. And, if you don't like a show, move on! If you want to label that as being "partial" whatever. But, it's better than stressing over a frigging TV show that you don't like. If you were out fighting for justice or something, OK, but it's just a TV show meant for entertainment. It's totally valid that you weren't entertained. But, move on. There's nothing more pathetic than a viewer who gets bent out of shape over a TV show.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Wow, you sure have some sort of axe to grind. You can protest all you want, but you're clearly bent out of shape over something. Bitter. Bitter is the word.

You're projecting...

Please tell me you're joking? Otherwise you're coming across as a bit . . . silly. What the heck would I be bitter about? I haven't been posting rants for long past the shows been cancelled!

I'll consider that good advice should I ever become agitated about fictional universe.

Mr Awe

 

[Saquist]

Please tell me you're joking? Otherwise you're coming across as a bit . . . silly. What the heck would I be bitter about?

They are your issues, you tell me.

This was really all I was expecting, anyway.

Mr Awe

Saquist

Saquist, I think you and I agree on a lot of things about SGU. We also have high standards and are hard to please. So, lots of common ground.

But, for crying out loud, give it a rest!! Even I'm getting sick of your holier than thou attitude, I'm providiing objective reviews, etc.

I never said I was "holier than thou" that's your title/label. Don't put your complexes on me. If you wanted to actually know what I think, you would ask. And that's how these labels work, they christen ,usually inaccurately, but there is no discovery involved.

All I did was lay down the facts and gave a review based on them, and corrected the erroneous criticisms and interpretations. I prefer to have static set of standards based on reasoning rather than to be prone to arbitrary feelings and expressions. I think it's better that way, that's why I chose the methodology. If you think your way is better that CHOICE does not define you as better (than other people) only the results define what is better.

I'm not here to stroke your egos so forgive my lack of tact but I prefer just to give it straight. But I'm also not here to hurt your feelings but my position does not have to be compared with YOURS (meaning all of you). That's your doing.

We've got our opinions of SGU, and other shows. They're just opinions. And, if you don't like a show, move on!

If Maxwell feels that is what I should do then all he need is to give the order or suggestion and I will obey. This isn't my forum. But as long as the freedom of expression exist then there should be no problem with my opinion. Just as I have no problem with yours.

If you want to label that as being "partial" whatever.

That's what I strive for.

But, it's better than stressing over a frigging TV show that you don't like.

You're projecting.
I don't stress.

It's totally valid that you weren't entertained. But, move on.

I have an interest in stargate. It involves certain hopes and thus that is an invested interest. Failure such as SGU is a curiosity of social behavior, that too holds that interest. You see I'm not like you. We don't have the same standards. We're not the same person, we have different experiences. My interest seem to be far wider perhaps more universal. It's not just entertainment to me, they are opportunities to learn and grow in just about...everything, there are patterns and trends everywhere. Where others have turned their backs I'm still observant. I've found that even if you are not highly intelligent you can create an edge by adding to your smarts, taking in knowledge of all sorts. Knowing more can be the difference between success and failure. That's where discussion comes in where you are exposed to more than just one point-of-view.

There's nothing more pathetic than a viewer who gets bent out of shape over a TV show.

...indeed.
So why is there an issue over a simple critical breakdown of a two season series?

Mr Awe

Saquist

He's actually walked straight into another series:

WOW. IMPRESSIVE. That's a TV show?
That quick...and quite the upgrade to (from what we've been hyped here)

What fascinating concept, like a realistic version of Alice in Wonderland but completely different. Very bold. I have to say they chose well and the girl from House...don't know if she has much acting chops...but maybe she'll develop it more under these directors.

Thank you for the preview.

Carlyle isn't going to making any Brit films anytime soon. During SGU's run, he pretty much said straight out that he's pissed with their inability to get films released and likes that with TV there's a lot higher chance of a show getting released instead of being stuck in pre-release hell.

Unfortunate...
I understand how he feels though.

Acting is a job. You take the work you can get. Very few actors can afford to be choosy about their roles.

That's true and with the liberals taking such an elitist grasp on the market it seems you also can't betray any opportunity. But he's not just any actor. You have to believe he has his choice of roles. Hollywood is the one market experiencing growth in this economy.