SyFy response to the cancellation

[Deks]

Indeed.
And I have to stress that those 'TV critics' are merely expressing their own personal opinions on the show, which happen to carry weight because of their 'status' and only because people think they are 'experts'.
Anyone can give a sound criticism for anything when it comes down to it, but personal preference will also color these people's perceptions.
I would argue that a person is quite limiting when they go around saying things about something without actually experiencing it for themselves and merely taking everyone's else's word for it.
Isn't that described as 'not thinking for yourself'?

Also... just because the majority happens to share an opinion that something is 'good' or 'bad' (again, in THEIR opinion and definition of the said terms), it doesn't mean it will be an opinion that EVERYONE will share.
That majority may for example cancel a show because of low ratings, but just because they think it's 'bad quality', it doesn't mean it will be for others (and this goes into area of personal preference).

So just because I happen to like SG:U better than SG1 or SG:A, it will be perceived that my 'tastes' are somehow 'wrong'?
Lol...
Since I never went along with what the majority thinks or does anyway, it's only logical that there could be a higher % of things that don't fall into 'mainstream acceptance', or 'fanbase acceptance' which I'll like
It's not out of desire to 'stand out' or to be different 'just because', it's simply how my brain is wired.

 

[Professor Zoom]

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.

Just skimming the thread and I saw this regarding TNG a few times... and I just wanted to share my 2 cents.

Yes, the first two seasons of TNG sucked. But the RATINGS were there.

That's the important thing. SGU would have stayed on the air, REGARDLESS of quality, if the ratings were there.

Networks don't care about quality as long as the ratings remain HIGH and profit continues.

Would TNG been successful in today's market? Who knows. If enough people watched it, YES.

SGU was the first Stargate show I watched, because I was intrigued. But, I bailed at the 10 episode mark. For the most part, the characters weren't all that interesting (I seriously wanted to airlock Eli) and I HATED those fucking stones so we could go back to Earth. Dumb. So, I bailed.

But, again, if the ratings had remained, SyFy would have kept it on the air. SyFy is a business. If a product isn't selling, you stop producing it. If it sells, even if it's a piece of crap (TNG Season 1), you keep making it.

We can whine and complain that some how SyFy is to blame, but it's not. The show wasn't reaching enough viewers. Period. Full Stop. People weren't buying what they were selling.

 

[Saquist]

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.

I'm mostly talking about it's technical traits. While acting prowess is often considered subjective yes, the writing is not and must adhere to certain standards in a drama category therefore we must consider how much relevant material the story is putting forth, the reliance on crutch contrivances and plot holes. SGU had enough of all of those to contradict it's premise.

In your opinion.

No, sir, in my opinion the show just sucked.
But when it contradicts its premise with substandard writing and off topic ventures then it is not a realistic Sci-Fi Drama...note: Realistic and Contrivances can not be associated with any commonality. You're trying to justify your fan love by reducing the meaning of the facts into opinion. But that's your opinion of the data. The facts show differently. I imagine from your point of view you need my statements to be opinions so you're not insulted by the truth inherent in the observations. I'm impartial. Where the show did good and where the show did bad had no effect on me but it clearly does on you. It's just an objective critique of the technical problems with the show. Like and dislike doesn't play apart for me...

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.

I'm sure that's true in your world perspective but things can be judged as objectively bad or objectively good since objective is not a contradiction to either.

You're also insanely deluded if you there aren't people out there who enjoy the show immensely.

Irrelevant. I don't care whether or not there are people "out there" that enjoy or don't enjoy the show. I am not a producer, sponsor or executive and I never made any comment on the lack of people that like the show in this quote so I'm not the one seeing things.

I genuinely have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Well I don't believe you could be that daft. But I've been wrong many times before. It means stop rushing to the defense, stop attempting to contradict the obvious, if you love something, love it despite its flaws and fully embrace it. You don't need to defend its honor to me. I already know you love the show unconditionally.

 

[Distorted Humor]

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).

The fact is that if a show runs away its core fan group, it will fail each time unless it is so dang good it brings in a lot of new eyes to watch it. SGU was too dark and lost a lot of the core fans (most SG fans I know turned off SGU quickly. people LIKED the fact that SG was not too dark entertainment that had a little humor. That was a core viewership of the stargate franchise. SGU ran that away, without being good enough to bring in new viewers, so it died. )

 

[MacLeod]

Whilst I emjoyed SGU, I understand that some people didn't which is fair enough. What one judges as good and bad are entierly subjective based on what that person likes or dislikes. It doesn't mean one is right or wrong.

So it didn't pull in the ratings, perhaps because it was a different style of show from previous SG shows. Though I suspect if it had been the same style of shows of previous SG shows and still had been cancelled after 2 years, we would now be hearing cries of "They should have tried something different"

 

[AJ86]

SGU isn't infallible, no one is suggesting that it is, but that doesn't mean you can just cherry pick half a dozen flaws and then claim that that is proof of the show being objectively bad. By that criteria, all shows are objectively awful. I'm not defending the show or it's crew, I'm taking issue with your reasoning.

 

[Saquist]

The fact is that if a show runs away its core fan group, it will fail each time unless it is so dang good it brings in a lot of new eyes to watch it. SGU was too dark and lost a lot of the core fans (most SG fans I know turned off SGU quickly. people LIKED the fact that SG was not too dark entertainment that had a little humor. That was a core viewership of the stargate franchise. SGU ran that away, without being good enough to bring in new viewers, so it died. )

Some people judge good simply based off "different". Which they believe SGU and ENT were. I couldn't say that for ENT, SGU was different but it was just so incompetently executed from go that it was doomed to fail. It's not like the writing was up to the caliber of LOST or 24 or ALIAS. I think making the entire crew of Destiny from the Icarus Project was a mistake for the First year conflict. So much failed in that first year.

Whilst I emjoyed SGU, I understand that some people didn't which is fair enough. What one judges as good and bad are entierly subjective based on what that person likes or dislikes. It doesn't mean one is right or wrong.

No producer thinks that way (at least not the successful ones. Most of these TV producers know there is a wrong and right formula to a sucessful TV show and I think after so many decades of TV it's rather easy to see what that formula is.

SGA had a formula in Season 1 but the lost it afterwards.
The story was dynamic, with a variety of charming characters and humor in a suspenseful situation. It lost it's direction in Season 2 and meandered for Season 3. Season 4 was a strong recovery but relapsed in Season 5 as they still didn't know what to do with the characters.

Now compare that with Heroes.
Whether Kring didn't know what to do with his characters or he simply was taking to long to develop them it was clear almost every thought he was taking to long to develop them.

SGU in comparison seemed to have the characters already developed, their interactions were very cumbersome, and combined with almost nothing actually happening and other factors its rather easy to see why people left the show. No matter how BW and JM try and portray the facts of the ratings as flawed or negative to SGU it works with almost every other show. The US has grown. More people have cable than when SGA started and the excuse of download and internet watching just doesn't hold water. It says that the people that watched the show simply didn't think it was "APPOINTMENT TELEVISION".

 

[MacLeod]

As you say the entire nature of TV has changed, and overnight viewing figures don't mean as much as they once did.

After all these days we have things like the BBC's Iplayer, a catch up service, DVR's where you might not watch the show for a week or two after it's air date. In therms of the UK I don't think they release the final viewing for a week after it's air date and they factor into catchup services and Live+7 into the final rating so a show might get 6.2m overnight but have a final figure of 7.5m

 

[Saquist]

If anything DVR and internet options now should enhance the ratings not detract from them.

 

[MacLeod]

They might do, but they actually have to factor them into the rating. i.e a programme could air on Monday and someone DVR's to watch it at the weekend when they don't have work to worry about.

However if you only inlcude Live+1 that rating is lost, they still watched the show just not during the rating period. And as I pointed out they are factored into the UK ratings so a show sees a decent rise in ratings. Not sure how it works in the US

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If anything DVR and internet options now should enhance the ratings not detract from them.

DVR numbers are counted. Not as much as live - because some people zap ads, so that has to be discounted - and it's gotta be within seven days of airing - because ads have expiration dates. How much DVR numbers count is a negotiating point between networks and advertisers. The nets want them to count, the advertisers don't want to count them. The reality hits somewhere inbetween.

Internet viewing is still too small to count for much. Something to watch for the future, tho.

 

[Saquist]

They might do, but they actually have to factor them into the rating. i.e a programme could air on Monday and someone DVR's to watch it at the weekend when they don't have work to worry about.

However if you only inlcude Live+1 that rating is lost, they still watched the show just not during the rating period. And as I pointed out they are factored into the UK ratings so a show sees a decent rise in ratings. Not sure how it works in the US

UK's population is significantly smaller than Americas, it's sure to matter for them. America is 311 million people maybe a third of them have cable. Most of them are the country bumpkin variety that isn't going to watch Sci Fi but merely have cable because they can't get local TV reception in whodatville. The thing is many cable networks pull in VASTLY numbers than Sy Fy.

DVR numbers are counted. Not as much as live - because some people zap ads, so that has to be discounted - and it's gotta be within seven days of airing - because ads have expiration dates. How much DVR numbers count is a negotiating point between networks and advertisers. The nets want them to count, the advertisers don't want to count them. The reality hits somewhere inbetween.

Internet viewing is still too small to count for much. Something to watch for the future, tho.

TNT gets almost NETWORK TV ratings with nearly 8 to 10 million.

NFL Network gets 15 million just for football monday.

Clearly the viewers are out there. Stargate just didn't get them and we see that for the Sy Fy series...As much as people maybe believe that these series belong on cable it seems they did much better on local network TV.

The question is how to get to them.

SGU isn't infallible, no one is suggesting that it is, but that doesn't mean you can just cherry pick half a dozen flaws and then claim that that is proof of the show being objectively bad. By that criteria, all shows are objectively awful. I'm not defending the show or it's crew, I'm taking issue with your reasoning.

That's an improper use of a logical fallacy.
It is the most relevant data why the show was of poor quality in writing.

 

[AJ86]

If those were the strongest reasons you had it appears a bit of a weak argument to me, most (if not all) of them aren't even objectively weaknesses, just things you didn't like. Besides, I could just as easily make a list of reasons why the writing was great if I had the patience and this discussion was worthwhile. It wouldn't prove anything.

 

[Saquist]

If those were the strongest reasons you had it appears a bit of a weak argument to me, most (if not all) of them aren't even objectively weaknesses, just things you didn't like. Besides, I could just as easily make a list of reasons why the writing was great if I had the patience and this discussion was worthwhile. It wouldn't prove anything.

That's why it's not worth it.
Because to you the fan...anything negative would be weak and nonobjective because you wouldn't agree with it.

I on the other hand am used to detaching my feelings from these sort of critiques. All of the problems stated contributed to a lack reality. That's the short of it and there was more that was just predictable and mundane. Further the actors were mostly mediocre and that is if we actually consider that they had the script to fulfill their abilities. I think they're fortunante the show didn't last much longer so that typecasting would not stereotype them into a role. They can and have gone and gotten other jobs.

 

[AJ86]

It's not non-objective because I'm a fan or because I don't agree with it, it's non objective because ultimately all you did was list some opinions. You may have references some events that irrefutably occurred, but that doesn't make your analysis of them objective or unbiased. You can repeat until you're blue in the face that you've detached your feelings from your critiques, but your posting history suggests otherwise. Besides, there are critics far more talented and far more detached from fandom (and therefore bias) than you who reach often contradictory (especially in the case of the acting) conclusions than yours, so why should we accept your supposed 'truth' and not theirs? The real truth is that neither are the truth, and you're kidding yourself if you think that your opinions are anything more than opinions, ad hominem attacks about me being a fanboy won't change that.

 

[Saquist]

It's not non-objective because I'm a fan or because I don't agree with it, it's non objective because ultimately all you did was list some opinions.

They are opinions to you because you don't like the standards and that is all one needs to fabricate the label against the evidence.

You may have references some events that irrefutably occurred, but that doesn't make your analysis of them objective or unbiased.

The standards of writing do.
The statement of the producers placed as a premise do.

You can repeat until you're blue in the face that you've detached your feelings from your critiques, but your posting history suggests otherwise.

Doesn't matter what you think. You haven't set the standard. While you yourself conducted your own bias off topic attack on religion. You've established that your agenda works through your emotions. I suspect the same is happening here. Because while you know what my responses will be you persist. You state the obvious. you use logical descriptors with out knowledge of how to use them in formal debate.

there are critics far more talented and far more detached from fandom (and therefore bias) than you who reach often contradictory (especially in the case of the acting) conclusions than yours, so why should we accept your supposed 'truth' and not theirs?

What you accept and don't accept is none of my concern. As an objective critic I simply don't care. But someone already posted that several critics said similar things in critique of SGU...and because people that know how to write or have read and watched good literature know that it's not as subjective and flighty as you may think it is. It's extremely well thought out, elegant, purposeful and meaningful. That's story-telling. You know Great Story-tellers when you see them, They make you think, Good story-tellers just entertain you. Bad story-tellers will get lost in the details, stay on a point for too long, no metaphors and numerous contrivances...all of which SGU has.

The real truth is that neither are the truth, and you're kidding yourself if you think that your opinions are anything more than opinions, ad hominem attacks about me being a fanboy won't change that.

I never said you were a "fanboy". That is a false statement.
There was no ad hominem. It is not fallacious to call you a fan unless you say you're not a fan. Pointing out your bias toward SGU and for that matter against me is just par for the course. And what ever truth you accept is not something I would get hung up on, but it's not like I have anything to fear from your dismissal of my critique. You're stringing together confidence statements and posturing. You didn't offer your own rebuttal or bother to counter the facts stated...you just labeled it an opinion. And in your opinion it can be ...what-ever-you-want-it-to-be.

 

[AJ86]

You're now trying to reduce this discussion from one about the quality of the show, to one about the quality of the writing, when the sum total of a show is so much more than that. You're also deflecting my point out the critics. It's not the ones that agree with you that matter, it's the ones that don't that are the issue. You can't both be objectively right, and you're not. There is no right answer, because ultimately the quality of a TV show is decided by entertainment value, something which is inherently subjective.

 

[Saquist]

You're now trying to reduce this discussion from one about the quality of the show, to one about the quality of the writing, when the sum total of a show is so much more than that.

Now?
That was apart of the list...that was list..it's the part that wasn't subjective and the part you put up the most resistance to. Why do you think that I mention this only, "now"? Does "now" reprsent a sudden epiphany of what I was talking about because you were so transfixed on making opinions?

You're also deflecting my point out the critics. It's not the ones that agree with you that matter, it's the ones that don't that are the issue.

*smiles*
I can't deflect a point you're only making now.

You can't both be objectively right, and you're not. There is no right answer, because ultimately the quality of a TV show is decided by entertainment value, something which is inherently subjective.

If that's what you believe...

 

[AJ86]

Now?
That was apart of the list...that was list..it's the part that wasn't subjective and the part you put up the most resistance to. Why do you think that I mention this only, "now"? Does "now" reprsent a sudden epiphany of what I was talking about because you were so transfixed on making opinions?

Actually if you look back, the post that I took issue with and responded to starting this discussion was this one:

The same with SGU. Just a full-on crappy show. Did it start to get better in the end...sure but not good.

And...

*smiles*
I can't deflect a point you're only making now.

It's not non-objective because I'm a fan or because I don't agree with it, it's non objective because ultimately all you did was list some opinions. You may have references some events that irrefutably occurred, but that doesn't make your analysis of them objective or unbiased. You can repeat until you're blue in the face that you've detached your feelings from your critiques, but your posting history suggests otherwise. Besides, there are critics far more talented and far more detached from fandom (and therefore bias) than you who reach often contradictory (especially in the case of the acting) conclusions than yours, so why should we accept your supposed 'truth' and not theirs? The real truth is that neither are the truth, and you're kidding yourself if you think that your opinions are anything more than opinions, ad hominem attacks about me being a fanboy won't change that.

 

[Saquist]

Actually if you look back, the post that I took issue with and responded to starting this discussion was this one:

Yes back when you assumed my opinion of the show and it's critique of it's merits were one of the same.
But I've already properly responded to your replies in that area.

It's not non-objective because I'm a fan or because I don't agree with it, it's non objective because ultimately all you did was list some opinions. You may have references some events that irrefutably occurred, but that doesn't make your analysis of them objective or unbiased. You can repeat until you're blue in the face that you've detached your feelings from your critiques, but your posting history suggests otherwise. Besides, there are critics far more talented and far more detached from fandom (and therefore bias) than you who reach often contradictory (especially in the case of the acting) conclusions than yours, so why should we accept your supposed 'truth' and not theirs? The real truth is that neither are the truth, and you're kidding yourself if you think that your opinions are anything more than opinions, ad hominem attacks about me being a fanboy won't change that.

....and?
You were talking about critics contradicting themselves. Now you're talking about the ones that contradict me. There was no point here either. If all you're looking for is a contradictory statement to my own I'm sure you'll find it but the reality is most reviews for SGU have pretty much evaporated. The show became so much less relevant as it proceeded. News Outlets stopped covering it because it was truly a waste of time because it was generating no buzz and that was before the cancellation order went out.

Then there was those in the beginning who were paid to give a review. Now nothing...The only reviews I can find are Fan reviews of those that followed the series episode by episode. The truth is when it comes to the writing not many critiques talk about it unless they've been trained in literature to point out Deus Ex, plot holes and contrivances and understand how it weakens the realism in this genre. Then others place a lesser importance on technical merits. But I pay attention to the ones that do maintain the standard instead of enabling lazy writing.