sholio | More on the cancellation of SG1

More on the cancellation of SG1

I sincerely hope that I didn't offend any SG1 fans with my last post ... it was kind of a knee-jerk response, and after looking around at other people's reactions a little bit, I have some more thoughts on why I feel the way I do, and why I'm not joining in the rending of garments over the cancellation of SG1, even though I like the show and it was what got me into SGA in the first place.

This is probably a case of major fandom naivety on my part, but the thought had had actually not occurred to me that people would be that upset about the cancellation of SG1. It's partly the writer in me, and partly the reader, that makes me feel as if all good stories have a beginning, a middle and an END. One of the things that disappoints me about "Lost" (my other current fandom) is that apparently, the writers started off with a three-year plan for the plot, but threw it out the window when the show developed its runaway popularity. Personally, I'd rather have three tightly plotted powerhouse seasons, and be left with fond memories of the show, than a dozen seasons that wander through ups and downs but never really resolve anything.

I find that I look back much more fondly on shows that ended their run early than those that went on and on. Maybe it's just the "lure of the unfinished". However, it does seem to me like there's a general trend with long-running shows for the overall weakness of the later seasons to begin to eclipse the brilliance of the early ones. ("Buffy" comes to mind here.) I can't think of a single show, including SG1, that has maintained its quality throughout its entire run. For every good show cut down in its prime, I can think of another that should have been axed a season or two before the end; for every movie sequel that extended the mythos, I can think of a half-dozen that were so lousy they affected my enjoyment of the original film. Let's face it, you can only tell so many stories with one set of characters before you can't take them to new places anymore -- not without irrevocably changing them, anyway, and network television doesn't deal well with that.

I'm not saying SG1 hasn't been good. Once upon a time, I loved it to pieces. I grooved on Jack and Daniel like a regular obsessed fangirl. It was one of my first forays into Internet fandom. And I'm not even saying, necessarily, that the show is worse now than it was then. I don't enjoy it as much as I did back in '99, but I've changed too, and maybe a lot of it is just that I don't like the same things anymore. It definitely seemed to lose ... something ... around season 5 or 6 (something other than Daniel, I mean), and that's the point where I stopped feeling fannish about it -- but I think it's regained a lot of what it once had, and it's still a good show with good characters.

However, it's a show that's had a good long run. As a person who once loved SG1, I'd really like to see it retire gracefully, in style, rather than limping to a weak, long-overdue conclusion the way "Buffy" did. I feel as if a show should end while viewers still want more, not when they can't even be bothered to get up and switch on the TV.

I'm sure it makes a difference, maybe a bigger difference than I realize, that SG1 isn't "my show" anymore. I no longer have the deep investment with the characters that I do with the SGA cast. Still, I honestly can't see myself feeling differently about SGA -- assuming, through some Neilson ratings miracle, that SGA is still around in five or six years, I think I'd rather see that one, too, go out with a bang and leave its viewers wanting more, rather than hobbling into its twenty-fifth season, with Sheppard a five-star general, Rodney building ZPMs in his basement, and Elizabeth running the Pegasus Galaxy PLUS Earth.

Having said all that, I *do* expect to see SG1 continue in some form. Maybe it will be saved from the brink of cancellation for an 11th season; maybe it will go on to become a series of TV movies (I think the original Stargate people have the theatrical movie contract, so that isn't a possibility, unless I'm wrong); maybe the fabled "other" Stargate sequel will happen and bring a lot of the original SG1 cast on board; maybe some of them will guest star or even cross permanently over to SGA. It's just got too large of a fanbase to disappear.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Having not watched SG1 in some time, I'm just grateful it's finally over. Though you said it improved after the 5th-6th seasons? That was when I stopped following it...

If I had my way, there'd be a rule that no show could go on for more than 5 years without special dispensation, that is, a fully laid-out plot and goal and point. There's so many shows that go limping on for seasons after they should have been taken out back and shot...it serves a story and chars poorly to drag them on for too long. And it also makes way for new shows, gives them more of a chance...(I rather like the way most Japanese series come with expiration dates; with those few decades-long exceptions, most of them are limited to a season or two. ...well, except those shows which are cancelled before they're completed and leave huge painful gaps in the story *glares at Juuni Kokki*)

Though you said it improved after the 5th-6th seasons? That was when I stopped following it..

It had a bit of a reboot recently, and that really did help things a lot -- added a new set of major bad guys, took off some regulars and added new ones to the cast. But even though it's had an infusion of life, I still can't get *too* worked up about the cancellation. I mean, ten seasons! That's amazing! Very few shows make it that long, even popular network sitcoms.

Five does seem to be kind of the "magic number" for a lot of shows, beyond which they just end up rehashing old ideas and tottering feebly off to where old series go to die. The "sunset clause" built into most anime (leaving aside a few franchise shows) was actually one of the things that drew me to it ... and, ironically, one of the reasons why I've nearly stopped reading manga lately. I'm still following a couple (Saiyuki, Banana Fish) but I went to Barnes & Noble the other day with some vague idea of catching up on Rurouni Kenshin and realized that I'd have to buy fifteen volumes of it to get up to the most current one. Good grief! It's not just the money -- though it's that, too -- but the plots become so padded and circular that they never really get anywhere. It's like riding a stationary bicycle. And it's worth it for a while, because the characters are engaging, but eventually it's just ... too much.

So, yeah ... I think I'd rather have my metaphorical butt kicked by a short-lived series than watch a good one stagger out to pasture. And I think that's getting to be WAY too many old-farm-horse metaphors for one post. ;)

Yes! but I am torn some, by the really short ones...Firefly *hurts* that there wasn't more, because there's so much potential (and the movie spoiled a lot of it, excised a good portion of what I adored in the show...) and I'm grateful Supernatural got continued...for a lot of shows, the 2nd or 3rd seasons are the best, and it's great when they're allowed to get there. (on the other hand, some shows have incredible 1st seasons, and then it's all downhill from there...Earth: Final Conflict comes to mind.)

Ah, yes, shounen manga series can start to drag. Though most of them are worth it - I think Japan tends to be quicker to cancel when a series starts to drop off (Shounen Jump works almost entirely on reader ratings) but they let the mangaka finish the story, so most series go out with a bang. The final arc of DBZ (Buu saga) is my favorite...(and actually I think Kenshin's a nicely done series, the Revenge Arc is my favorite and ends on a high note. Though it's been years since I read it and I wasn't reading the manga for all of it (watched the anime until I ran out of good anime, then read the manga...))

Yes! but I am torn some, by the really short ones...Firefly *hurts* that there wasn't more, because there's so much potential (and the movie spoiled a lot of it, excised a good portion of what I adored in the show...)

Yeah, I agree -- on both counts on Firefly, really. I've finally just, for my own peace of mind, decided that in my personal canon, the movie never happened. In a lot of ways, it was kind of AU anyway, because out of necessity, they had to drop so many of the plot threads from River's story, the "Blue Hands" and all of that, and the overall tone was so very different from the series ... so I'm counting it as a different reality, just as, say, the X-Men movies are clearly a different reality from the comics. Problem solved! LOL! (Still floating down that river in Egypt, and very happy there, thanks.)

But, yes. I have a history of falling for eclectic, outside-the-mainstream shows that don't last very long -- most recently "Dead Like Me" -- so I know what you're talking about. It's sad to watch a show dragged out past its time, but sadder still when a really good one never gets a chance to *have* its time, because then you're left with that lingering "what if?". And most good shows do tend to have their best moments in seasons 2 or 3, when they've gotten over the freshman shakiness and the casts have really come together.

Hi!

Hope it's okay if I drop in? I've been lurking around for a while, reading your fics (and I never took the time to comment before today, and I apologize profusely for that.)

I just wanted to say that ITA with everything you said. I often think it's too bad that shows just don't know when to end--same thing goes for movies who make a hit and then are followed by a few dozen sequels. I guess it's why I remember Farscape with so much fondness; it got cancelled at the height of its success, and while it was still getting better with every year that passed.

Living in Belgium, I've only seen the first 8 seasons so far. In fact, I had told myself I'd stop watching SG1 after season 8--partly because it seems like such a fitting end to the series, partly because Jack leaves in season 9 and without him, and with two new characters, I thought I wouldn't recognize the show I once loved.

Having seen two season 10 episodes since then, I might change my mind, but still, I think it's time the show stopped. Everything has to end, and really, what more is there to say about SG1 adventures?

I'll be sad to see it go, but I guess it's better to stop now, while they're still good and successful. :)

Hi! I don't mind a bit, either the lurking or the contributing -- and I just saw your FB in my inbox, so I need to go respond to that, as well! Thank you!

I guess it's why I remember Farscape with so much fondness; it got cancelled at the height of its success, and while it was still getting better with every year that passed.

Yeah, and in a lot of cases like that, I don't think the show would have nearly as much impact (emotionally, or on the fanscape) if it had been allowed to go on until the writers ran out of ideas. Star Trek has been sequel-tized to the point where it's nothing but a joke. As much as I enjoy *finally* like a popular show (as opposed to my frequent track record of shows that get canned after one season), I really would hate to see Stargate get franchized to death the same way. SG1 has reached a good, strong place to stop, and they have some advance warning so they can tie up plot threads and give it a powerful finale ... and let it rest. SGA is *already* doing a bit of SG1 plot rehashing, and I suspect it won't have quite the same legs that SG1 did, just because so much of the Stargate plot universe has already been explored. That was what killed the Treks -- they just got to the point where there was nothing new and interesting to do in that universe ... at least not anything that the official writing team(s) could come up with, anyway. It was time for something new to take over. And I have no doubt that something new and cool will come along after the 'Gates. I thought I was done being severely fannish about shows -- and then SGA erupted onto my mental fanscape and I fell over dead for it. I'm very glad that SGA got green-lighted for a fourth season, but I'm also sure there's something else good out there, waiting in the wings.

There's a special part in my heart for DS9, but it's been argued that it wasn't a Trek series at all. And yes, by the end of VOY, the writers were shamelessly repeating themselves. How many stories can you tell about people on a starship?

I suppose there's no way to make everyone happy--if a show stays exactly the same for years, we grow bored; if it re-invents itself, we feel betrayed, because we don't want things to change... :)

I was fully prepared to hate SGA. I thought it would be SG1 redux, and I wasn't feeling for SG1 anymore, back then--it was during the Jonas days. Imagine my surprise when I fell in love with it... ut you're right; all good things must end. I hope SGA has a good, long run, but when it stops, I'm sure there'll be another show waiting in the wings.C'est la vie...

Still, it'll be weird not to see SG1 anymore. That show has been a part of our lives for so long...

I still love the original Star Trek, but of all the sequels, DS9 was the only one I really liked. And I think the reason is because they did something truly different -- they didn't try to rehash the "bunch of guys on a starship" idea, but created their own show-within-a-show, with flawed and likeable characters that broke out of the "too good to be true" mold that had been established for the canon of that universe. And it worked. I've noticed that it's pretty much universal for die-hard Star Trek fans to hate DS9, or at least not consider it a true Trek, because it was so different. But the difference was what made it *work*.

I was fully prepared to hate SGA. I thought it would be SG1 redux, and I wasn't feeling for SG1 anymore

Ditto me! At that point, I hadn't watched SG1 in a year or two, and my reaction to the idea of SGA was "bleh". I had a friend tape the premiere -- at that point I didn't have cable -- and watched it, and it didn't really leave me with any interest at all in seeing more. It wasn't until this spring that I watched the first SGA season marathon-style and discovered all the fannish joy I'd been missing out on. If I'd only given the amazing second and third episodes a chance, it might've been a whole different story...

Similarly, I went all gloom'n'doom on the whole idea of Browder and Black on SG1 -- John and Aeryn had been my two least favorite characters on Farscape (yes, I'm a total heretic) and I hated the notion of having them on SG1. And look how that turned out -- Vala's a fantastic character, Mitchell has actually made me like Ben Browder (which I didn't think was possible), and overall, the introduction of the two has rearranged the team dynamic and revitalized the show. Obviously not revitalized it *enough* ... but -- ten seasons! Dang!

It *is* going to be weird not having SG1 around anymore, though. It's a little alarming to realize that it's been there throughout my entire adult life, if you count the movie too.

But the difference was what made it *work*.

That, and the fact that the setting allowed for more recurrent guest stars (aside from the godawful Q, I mean), and the fact that it was and remained an ensemble show--as opposed to most Treks, where three characters got all the good stuff, and the rest of the cast didn't have much to do.

John and Aeryn had been my two least favorite characters on Farscape

*gasp*
I didn't mind them--in fact, I liked everyone on Farscape. I thought it would be weird seeing them both on SG1, but I like their characters better than I expected.

And now that you make me think about it, I was starting uni when the show started to air around here. Eeeeeps.

I think the main trouble with John and Aeryn, for me, is that I wasn't that big on the whole idea of them as a couple, and I felt as if the romance aspect kind of took over the show and detracted from the team vibe. On the other hand, I also never watched the show through from start to finish (I just watched episodes here and there, and then pretty much all of the last season) so one of these days, I need to go back and start at the beginning, and see how it strikes me ...

Yeah, it's somehow less affecting to just think "SG1 has been running for ten years" than to tie it to real-world events from the last ten years. I went off to college a year or two before the show began, and now I feel old. *grin*

I pretty much agree with what you have to say. I think it better for SG-1 to go out on as a high note as possible.

I do think there are a few shows that maintained it's level through out it's run (Star Trek Deep Space Nine) and few much older shows namely The Dick Van Dyke show and Mary Tyler Moore and both of those went off the before they were cancelled, in part because the writers did want to go out before they ran out of ideas. On the other hand MASH ran several years to long and should have gone off three to four years before it did.

I think there are plans for a movie and that may be part be the reason they are ending the show now. Not having to write 20 episodes will give the writers time to really focus on making a really good movie. And then the actors don't have work on the movie and then go right back to working on the show.

And lets not forget that ten years is a very, very long time. I will agree that they are just starting with a new set of ideas and new characters, but even so, ten years is more then most shows ever get.

I hadn't heard that they were working on a movie, so that does put a slightly different spin on it. And it would be nice to see what they do with a movie-sized budget. It could be quite grand, and maybe they're planning on wrapping up the Ori arc with some kind of huge big-screen finale.

I have to agree with most of your statement; I haven't actually been watching SG-1 for a couple of seasons now, yet I've been thoroughly sucked in by SGA. However, I do have one exception to your 'no show runs 25 years and stays fresh': "Doctor Who". That show ran for 25 years, and the fanbase demand was so great that it was eventually brought back and is now in (cumulative) season 28!!! Of course, I suspect the reason is like you said; you have to change the characters to keep a show fresh, and boy, does Doctor Who know how to do that!

Dr. Who has the best "hook" for character change EVER. I mean, what other series can get away with killing off the main character on a regular basis?

And I didn't mean to imply that it's completely impossible to maintain that quality. There are a handful of examples of shows (books, movies) that have managed to do it -- usually, like Dr. Who, by injecting freshness somehow, through cast changes or new writers or what-have-you. SG1, in fact, is an example of a show that flagged quite badly in the middle and then picked up again, if not quite up to its previous standards, when it shuffled the cast and added new bad guys. I'm also an off-again, on-again follower of various comic books, and I've seen some of the long-running ones go in cycles where they turn into total dreck and then get revitalized by a new writer-artist team.

So I agree with you, it's not impossible. But it's rare. And then, too, there's audience fatigue to deal with -- people get tired of the same show and want something different. Dr. Who is definitely a rarity in that it's managed to keep its audience as well.

Okay, butting in here with another perspective - and more heresy. Sorry.

I am very definitely an "old school" Whovian. I literally grew up watching each new season of the show every year (and many many repeats on Aussie TV) and I was fanatical about it. It was my first fandom, back when I was too young to really know what fandom was all about.

But I would disagree with anyone who says that throughout its 25+ years initial run that it always remained fresh and interesting. I remember the last few seasons where it was under constant threat of cancellation by the BBC and some of those weren't very good quality at all. There was very definite rehashing of ideas (I remember two stories with virtually identical storylines - just one had daleks and the other had cybermen - within the same season) and use of some really gimicky (and tacky) ideas ("Greatest Show in the Galaxy" which attempted to do what SG-1 did with "Wormhole X-treme" and "200" was a hideously preachy and smug piece of work). And what kept the show alive during that time was quite simply that the show was a British institution with fans that would support it no matter what and more than one generation of British people (and Australians like myself) who would support the very idea of Doctor Who due to fond memories from childhood alone.

Also ironically, the last season of it's initial 27 year run was the best season that Doctor Who had done in years. It almost seems like SG-1 is following a similar pattern.

But prior to it "going bad", which personally I date back to Peter Davison's departure from the series, what kept Doctor Who fresh was that it not only changed the lead actor and the lead character's personality, but they also changed the whole set up of the show. Initially, the audience had no idea who the Doctor actually was. At first, he wasn't really the "hero" but almost and "anti-hero" character. He became more clownish, then more "dashing", then more clownish again. There was a long period where the Doctor was tied to one particular place and time on Earth (the "UNIT years") and there were other times when he was wanderer in space and time with seemingly no ties to anyone but those who travelled with him. They got more and more involved in the mythos of Gallifrey (and they eventually overdid that aspect IMHO).

And I think that where the show went wrong was not changing its producer over its last 6-7 years - just the same guy coming up with no fresh ideas (and I do think getting a bit too fixated that he alone knew what the show needed).

And then let's not forget the failed attempt to revive the show with that TV movie in the 90s. Paul McGann's Doctor was great, but the overall show was terrible and failed to capture the essence of the original - whereas the current series has managed to have a sense of the original, but also its own unique qualities. You can't have a great show with just a great lead and nothing else to back it up.

To say that I love Doctor Who is an understatement of epic proportions. I love a lot of the "old school" stuff with a child's love - for I was a child when I fell in love with it. But even I was not blind to when it stumbled and fell towards the end. I didn't want it to end - I protested against it and signed petitions. But in retrospect I now realise that it did have to "die" to be "reborn".

I suppose my point in all this rambling is that even the great Doctor Who - which will forever be my "untouchable first love" as far as fandoms go - even it was not untouched by the "getting tired and old" thing before it ended.

Still... Peter Davison left in, what, the 21st season? That's still 20+ years where I can't seriously fault it. Which does put it streets ahead of any other show that I know of. ;-)

Admittedly I have to take other people's word for it when it comes to Dr. Who. I mean, I've certainly seen the show, but I haven't seen ANYTHING like all of it. I only started watching it as an adult in late-night re-runs on PBS, and it's mostly the cheesiness of it that appeals to me (which is also at least partly the case with SGA, come to think of it).

I suppose that in dealing with something as nebulous as "quality", there's a huge individual variation in how viewers perceive that quality. The wide range of reactions to SG-1's cancellation are a good case study, ranging from people who think the last couple of seasons are the worst yet, to those who love the Cam and Vala years. I stand by my original statement that I haven't, personally, watched a long-running show that didn't have serious quality fluctuations and end up much weaker than it started out, but at least some of that is certainly due to my personal quirks as a viewer, as well as that "audience fatigue" that I mentioned earlier -- I've been known to get terminal cases of it. In fact, I'm not entirely sure how much of my losing interest in SG-1 in the middle, then regaining it this season, is just due to getting tired of the characters and their universe, having a break and coming back refreshed.

Oh, I'm a scary Dr Who fangirl. I really did grow up with it. And I haven't seen anything near all of it either. They'd actually destroyed a number of the earliest episodes before I was born! But I am one of those annoying people who used to read everything about the show that they could get their hands on. When I was like 12 or 13, before I knew what fanfic was, was writing dreadfully Mary-Sueish "episodes" that I was going to send to the BBC. Oh, I was going to be script editor for the show when I grew up! I totally was! (And that's another thing that I can't help admiring about David Tennant and David Hewlett - they said that they were going to be the Doctor when they grew up and now one of them actually is and the other so close to being that it makes no difference IMHO! Seriously, they are my heroes! I gave up the dream for an ordinary though happy life. They are living it!).

Anyways...

I suppose that in dealing with something as nebulous as "quality", there's a huge individual variation in how viewers perceive that quality.

Well, yeah, you have hit the nail on the head. Not everybody likes the same thing or thinks the same thing represents "quality". Certainly what is "cheesy" to an adult is not necessarily so to a child - and Doctor Who was really a children's show to begin with. It also had a sly undertone (in what I consider its heyday) which often mocked itself or provided a subtle (or not so subtle sometimes) social comment.

I'm not entirely sure how much of my losing interest in SG-1 in the middle, then regaining it this season, is just due to getting tired of the characters and their universe, having a break and coming back refreshed.

I think I had an element of that too. But when I came back, I felt that I did see new things in the show which caught my imagination. NOt sure how much of that might be my imagination. Y'know how it is ;-)

Certainly what is "cheesy" to an adult is not necessarily so to a child - and Doctor Who was really a children's show to begin with. It also had a sly undertone (in what I consider its heyday) which often mocked itself or provided a subtle (or not so subtle sometimes) social comment.

I didn't have any experience with Who as a child, but I think my experiences with Star Trek: TOS were probably similar. Except that it wasn't ongoing, to say the least, at the time that I first started watching it (early '80s), so it didn't really have that "I'm going to grow up and be a part of this" element to it. Not that I didn't get that, later, with other shows -- I remember writing a number of appallingly bad fan scripts for various series in my teens! But it's interesting to look back on TOS and consider how interesting it is that it fascinated me so much at the age of eight, and yet I still have so much affection for it as an adult, even though now I'm aware of the goddawful special effects, the cardboard sets and the hilarious miniskirts. I've never been involved with Star Trek fandom in any way (mostly because the Star Trek fandom scares the pants off me), I just like the show.

It takes a special show to be beloved of both children and adults. Not many shows can do that.

It's also interesting to me to look back on the things that I remember specifically liking about TOS as a child (Spock and McCoy snark and h/c, mostly) and discover that it's still exactly what I look for in entertainment. The more things change ...!

that makes me feel as if all good stories have a beginning, a middle and an END.

I'm so with you on that one. I really thought that they had geared the show up to end with it's 8th season. That really had a sense of closure and, dare I say it, handing over of the torch to SGA at the end of that season.

Now with some shows/franchises, you can end one "story" and begin another in the same general framework. That's the whole basis of "spinoffs". Let's face it, some spinoffs are better than others. But when they work, there is some sense of continuity with the original, but also definite sense of new direction.

Something that has really hit home to me in the last few days is that seasons 9 and 10 have many hallmarks of a spinoff series. I almost think that TPTB were in some ways forced to run this "new series" under the flag of SG-1 due to fandom pressure. It's like the fandom weren't willing to let go of SG-1 and so they had to call this new concept and direction a "revamped SG-1" instead of a new entity in it's own right. That way, even though many fans would be grumbling how it just wasn't as good without Richard Dean Anderson there, they were still getting SG-1 in name.

assuming, through some Neilson ratings miracle, that SGA is still around in five or six years, I think I'd rather see that one, too, go out with a bang and leave its viewers wanting more, rather than hobbling into its twenty-fifth season, with Sheppard a five-star general, Rodney building ZPMs in his basement, and Elizabeth running the Pegasus Galaxy PLUS Earth.

Once again, I'm so with you on that. I vaguely remember some interview with Brad Wright saying that he had plan for Atlantis to develop over several years. Here's hoping that he gets the chance to play out his scenario - but that he doesn't get forced into extending it beyond that. As you said, the story should have a logical conclusion and one that let's them go out with a bang.

Then after that conclusion, fanfic writers can extend the story, predict the future stories, fill in the gaps and missing scenes. But let the television saga go through its natural cycle of bginning, middle and end.

One of the things that I did always love about SG-1 was the way that stuff developed over time -- like the acquisition of technology from other planets (the zat guns, spaceships, etc) and the way that they logically, sensibly adopted what was useful, modified what wasn't, had to deal with other countries wanting to acquire it, etc. Inasmuch as you can within the confines of a weekly adventure serial, I thought that they did a very good job with that sort of thing, and that's something that you really *do* need several seasons, at least, to develop. Ditto for some of the character evolution, like Daniel's transformation from a fidgety geek who was useless offworld, to a badass who spends his free time working out. Comparing season 10 Daniel to season 1 Daniel, they're like two entirely different characters, yet it was so slow that you hardly noticed it while it was happening.

Something that has really hit home to me in the last few days is that seasons 9 and 10 have many hallmarks of a spinoff series. I almost think that TPTB were in some ways forced to run this "new series" under the flag of SG-1 due to fandom pressure.

That's a very interesting thought. I hadn't ever considered it from that angle, but it *does* kind of fit. Interesting, too, to consider that viewer interest -- at least the kind of fanatical interest that SF shows tend to get -- may be in some ways a straitjacket that keeps a show from evolving. Fans want it to stay fresh, but don't want it to change ... and the two are mutually exclusive.

vaguely remember some interview with Brad Wright saying that he had plan for Atlantis to develop over several years.

That *is* interesting to know! I like knowing that, about a show -- that there's some kind of plan rather than just going week-to-week. And I *am* very glad that they're getting the opportunity to develop it. One of the worst things about the premature cancellation of Firefly was knowing that Whedon had this plan for the direction of the series and was setting up so many dominos that would be knocked down in years to come -- and then never getting to know how the dominos fell. The movie didn't really satisfy me on that score; it was more like a reminder that the show was gone, and begged the question of how much more satisfying it would have been if he'd had a whole season or two in which to develop the ideas in the movie, rather than trying to compress it into two hours.

My best-case scenario would be that SGA runs for five or six years, ties everything up into a sensible conclusion with hints of more to come, and then rides off into the sunset leaving a warm fuzzy glow behind. Of course this is assuming that they don't, oh, kill off McKay or something ...! In a way, it's nice to know that the Stargate universe doesn't consider main characters inviolate, because you do never quite know what they're going to do with somebody. (I'm still quite worried for Zelenka.) Even though I really don't want to see it happen, the possibility that it might happen is good for the show. I wish that I could make myself stop reading spoilers, because I really do prefer to be surprised and if they do throw another character-death curve ball or two at us, I'd rather have it sneak up and shock me.

Interesting, too, to consider that viewer interest -- at least the kind of fanatical interest that SF shows tend to get -- may be in some ways a straitjacket that keeps a show from evolving. Fans want it to stay fresh, but don't want it to change ... and the two are mutually exclusive.

Yes! I was thinking just that! Things have to change and evolve for the interest to be maintained. I don't always like the changes, but I do acknowledge that if there was no change, I'd become bored with the same old, same old.

My best-case scenario would be that SGA runs for five or six years, ties everything up into a sensible conclusion with hints of more to come, and then rides off into the sunset leaving a warm fuzzy glow behind.

Ditto.

Of course this is assuming that they don't, oh, kill off McKay or something ...!

BIG ditto!

In a way, it's nice to know that the Stargate universe doesn't consider main characters inviolate, because you do never quite know what they're going to do with somebody. (I'm still quite worried for Zelenka.) Even though I really don't want to see it happen, the possibility that it might happen is good for the show. I wish that I could make myself stop reading spoilers, because I really do prefer to be surprised and if they do throw another character-death curve ball or two at us, I'd rather have it sneak up and shock me.

Yeah, the way they played Grodin's death was very clever. They leaked that someone would die (coz can they really fight the spoilers?) and I was so very, very scared for Zelenka! He seemed like such a possibility and I already adored him. And I think that is precisely what they had planned because the number of times in that episode he said "paint a target on my forehead" lines like "We are at war, Elisabeth, and in war there are sacrifices." I was on such tenterhooks!

I don't know if I'll ever be able resist spoilers. Just too impatient, I guess. ;-P

They leaked that someone would die (coz can they really fight the spoilers?) and I was so very, very scared for Zelenka! He seemed like such a possibility and I already adored him. And I think that is precisely what they had planned because the number of times in that episode he said "paint a target on my forehead" lines like "We are at war, Elisabeth, and in war there are sacrifices."

That's really a wonderful idea, to use fan expectations like that! One of the sorta-good, sorta-bad things about watching the show the way I did -- both seasons in one big long marathon -- is that I didn't really get in on that sort of thing. I already knew that Grodin died -- I forget exactly how I found out, I think it was mentioned in a fanfic. And I had a pretty good idea that Zelenka survived up to the present day. On the other hand, I also didn't have to wait through the cliffhangers ... it was straight from one episode to the next. I'm already dreading the mid-season cliffhanger because it's going to be such a very LONG wait. The wait from the end of Allies wasn't too bad, but this is gonna be torment.

I wonder what sort of solutions to the spoiler dilemma we're going to see in the future, as studios get used to it and start coming up with creative ways to combat it. I'm sure they will come up with various ways to play off of it (like what you mentioned with Grodin and Zelenka). It's really become part of the fan-culture landscape -- just something that you have to deal with. To some extent, I find myself resenting the ubiquity of spoilers for unaired episodes (of whatever show, not just SGA) because you pretty much have to accept a certain number of spoilers as the price of discussing the show online. And I've already found out a few things about upcoming episodes that I think I'd be happier not knowing. (Actually, "Common Ground" is an example of an episode where I kinda wished I hadn't known the big twist -- it would have been more suspenseful that way.) On the other hand, knowing things about the unaired episodes does kick the anticipation into high gear, as with both "Common Ground" and "McKay and Mrs. Miller", my other must-watch of the season (for which we have to wait two weeks, aargh).

Actually, "Common Ground" is an example of an episode where I kinda wished I hadn't known the big twist -- it would have been more suspenseful that way.

Actually, I think I am out of the loop because I'm not really sure I did know the big twist. There wasn't anything I didn't know beforehand that wasn't in the promo trailer, I don't think.

And BTW SQUEEEEE!!! OMG! OMG! OMG! From the team racing to the gate until Shep's little "nice you made it" snark to Rodney at the end - squee moment after squue moment after squee moment! I do think my favourite was Rodney saying "some things Sheppard would have said" and everyone's reactions to it - especially Teyla's tolerant "well said, Rodney". To be quite honest, when I started watching the series, I never thought I'd like Teyla's character as much as I do now.

I think Sateda will have to wait a little while longer. I just have to squee over Common Ground right away.

Yeah, I just posted my very fangirly episode reactions to this one. I swear, I can't express how much I'm loving this season!

Actually, I think I am out of the loop because I'm not really sure I did know the big twist. There wasn't anything I didn't know beforehand that wasn't in the promo trailer, I don't think.

Well ... I knew that Sheppard's cellmate was a Wraith, and I knew that he got super-aged at some point during the episode. So, going into it, I was already thinking about ways to get him out of that situation. Not that it really diminished my enjoyment of the episode, I don't think ... it just didn't have quite the "OMG, I can't believe they did that" sort of feeling that I imagine it would have if I hadn't know about it.

Hi, just discovered your fic thru a rec (for Old Soldiers, very nice by the way) & I'm just going back thru your earlier posts and your comment in this one about not being able to think of a show that maintained it's quality til the end caught my attention.

I can think of one.

For your consideration: M A S H

One of the reasons I think is because, as some of the original characters
left, they didn't try to insert 'copies' of them.

BJ Hunnicut was very different from Tapper John as was Henry Blake from Col. Potter.

And could you get any further from the whiney Maj Burns to stuck up, 'cultured' Major Wichester.

Each character, old & new were very distinct from each other with their own wierd little quirks & foibles.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

More on the cancellation of SG1

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

SG-1

Re: SG-1

Dr Who

Re: Dr Who

Re: Dr Who

Re: Dr Who

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject