I'm still holding on for the time when the only job TPTB can get involves asking "and would you like fries with that?". ;)
BTW, at the con I attended last weekend we talked about interaction between showrunners and fans and there were three categories: the good, the bad and Joe Mallozzi (with frequent mentions of 'X is bad, but he's no Mallozzi').
"On a scale of Mallozzi to Whedon, where does this show's TPTB rate?"
I'm afraid to go on, I may actually manage to hurt myself laughing this hard. I really ought to get an icon ragging on Mallozzi, to go with the one I have ragging on SyFy.
Nice NCIS shot - would like to see the other side of that, too.
SGU isn't getting a good response from those who made the effort to watch it. ShakyCam makes me feel a bit queasy, so I don't tend to watch anything that uses it - really, what's the point? But that's okay, because I wasn't planning on watching this anyway.
Supernatural is good, though. And NCIS. And FlashForward.
I'd like the other angle for that shot as well. This angle alone is enough to reduce me to goo.
I loathe shaky cam, so that alone would have kept me away. Supposedly it adds "realism" but to me it just looks like they're too lazy to use a steadicam.
I've been watching Supernatural from the start. NCIS from pretty close to the start. I watched FlashForward and like what I've seen, I just hope it doesn't wander around at a loss for forward momentum like Lost did for a while. I quit watching because it got so boring.
I think they actually believed that the "old audience" would automatically tune in, despite the huge uproar created by canceling SGA one day and announcing SGU the next. Not to mention just generally pissing off a lot of fans.
I know a lot of people watched SGA that hadn't watched much, if any SG-1, but I think the more they add to the franchise, especially keeping it in current times, decreases the likelihood of new viewers tuning in.
Some may dive in at the ground floor of a new show, but too many will know there's hundreds of previous episodes out there, and feel like it's too much effort to figure out what's going on. Even if TPTB do very little to tie back to the originals. Though it's sounding like they're trying to get SG-1 folks at least to cameo a lot. I guess they think it will lure old viewers back, but that time has long gone for me.
There are so, so many reasons to not believe a word they say. They lost me over Atlantis's season 5, and this summer's SGU shenanigans just make me sick.
They're very good at creating what I see as potential... and they either didn't want it to be viewed that way and change it or don't even see it to begin with.
I gave up believing a word they say a long time ago, but it is so much fun to pull up quotes that totally disagree with what they're saying now.
It's interesting. Most people I know didn't watch it at all. And those who did considered it rather lackluster. On the other hand, I follow Ivon Bartok on Twitter and he's commented that there are "so many great reviews about the show". So maybe I'm just not reading the same reviews he is?
Hewlett has mentioned FlashForward a hell of a lot more than SG:U the past few days. Lexa has mentioned SG:U a couple times but primarily because of Michael, otherwise it's been Supernatural. The only other person I've seen mention it is John Scalzi, and I can't remember what his involvement was.
If I can take a moment to stop staring at that NCIS picture I might get around to making one or two icons...
Most reviews I've seen are towards the "meh" end of the spectrum. It's the bastard child of Stargate and BSG, and those who like one might not have liked the other and want to avoid it altogether because they're thinking it will be heavy on the element(s) they didn't like.
The few that I've seen towards the positive end of the spectrum are either diehards or, oddly, people who've never watching the previous shows and are willing to give it a chance on its own merits. No real raves though, at least not from any mainstream reviews I've read.
Hewlett's in the UK at the moment, so I don't think he's seen the show yet. I think previous comments at cons and such speak volumes though. And now he's got me wanting to read the book too, though I know it's different from the series.
Scalzi was some sort of consultant for the show. I think they were trying to act like they were doing "real science" by hiring a science fiction writer. Sounds like he was trying to fix some of their "logic fail" writing.
Comments 27
That pic took a while to load, but whew, was it ever worth it! Must try and icon.
Reply
D'oh! I forgot to put in a hi res warning about the pic. Best do that before poor souls on dial-up kill me.
I also added an ETA about SGU's ratings, if you're interested.
Reply
Reply
TPTB? Oh yeah. They touted this as "theirs" and "not your father's Stargate" and all that, and if it falls flat, I will point and laugh.
Reply
BTW, at the con I attended last weekend we talked about interaction between showrunners and fans and there were three categories: the good, the bad and Joe Mallozzi (with frequent mentions of 'X is bad, but he's no Mallozzi').
Reply
"On a scale of Mallozzi to Whedon, where does this show's TPTB rate?"
I'm afraid to go on, I may actually manage to hurt myself laughing this hard. I really ought to get an icon ragging on Mallozzi, to go with the one I have ragging on SyFy.
Reply
SGU isn't getting a good response from those who made the effort to watch it. ShakyCam makes me feel a bit queasy, so I don't tend to watch anything that uses it - really, what's the point? But that's okay, because I wasn't planning on watching this anyway.
Supernatural is good, though. And NCIS. And FlashForward.
Reply
I loathe shaky cam, so that alone would have kept me away. Supposedly it adds "realism" but to me it just looks like they're too lazy to use a steadicam.
I've been watching Supernatural from the start. NCIS from pretty close to the start. I watched FlashForward and like what I've seen, I just hope it doesn't wander around at a loss for forward momentum like Lost did for a while. I quit watching because it got so boring.
Reply
A show with a huge tie-in to two successful shows (SGA: 4.2 million premiere in 2004), but created by the Boys from Bridge: 2.35 million viewers.
I think they've managed to alienate huge swaths of audience--quelle surprise.
Reply
I know a lot of people watched SGA that hadn't watched much, if any SG-1, but I think the more they add to the franchise, especially keeping it in current times, decreases the likelihood of new viewers tuning in.
Some may dive in at the ground floor of a new show, but too many will know there's hundreds of previous episodes out there, and feel like it's too much effort to figure out what's going on. Even if TPTB do very little to tie back to the originals. Though it's sounding like they're trying to get SG-1 folks at least to cameo a lot. I guess they think it will lure old viewers back, but that time has long gone for me.
Reply
Reply
I gave up believing a word they say a long time ago, but it is so much fun to pull up quotes that totally disagree with what they're saying now.
Reply
Hewlett has mentioned FlashForward a hell of a lot more than SG:U the past few days. Lexa has mentioned SG:U a couple times but primarily because of Michael, otherwise it's been Supernatural. The only other person I've seen mention it is John Scalzi, and I can't remember what his involvement was.
If I can take a moment to stop staring at that NCIS picture I might get around to making one or two icons...
Reply
Reply
The few that I've seen towards the positive end of the spectrum are either diehards or, oddly, people who've never watching the previous shows and are willing to give it a chance on its own merits. No real raves though, at least not from any mainstream reviews I've read.
Hewlett's in the UK at the moment, so I don't think he's seen the show yet. I think previous comments at cons and such speak volumes though. And now he's got me wanting to read the book too, though I know it's different from the series.
Scalzi was some sort of consultant for the show. I think they were trying to act like they were doing "real science" by hiring a science fiction writer. Sounds like he was trying to fix some of their "logic fail" writing.
If I can take a moment to stop staring at ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment