SGU Team fires back at critics

[PREDATOR490]

While I do not find SGU compelling to watch for numerous reasons the rabid comments being made are beyond stupid.

I have met more than my fair share of people who despise DS9 because it is different from 'true' Star Trek and from the way this is going Stargate Universe is essentially going the same route as DS9 did for Star Trek. I fully acknowledge that this is supposed to be a 'spin-off' and will be different but that dosent spare the show ire for using obvious means of attacting a fanbase through brand recognition and throwing in cheap and cliche dialogue to give the show momentum.
If the show is meant to be 'completely' different then bringing in O'Neil is hardly worth it or Carter. Nevermind the obvious mechanic provided by the stones to give them any guest star they want in future.
As it is the show leaves me feeling like I am watching an ungraceful milking of the franchise cash cow and copying of other series concepts. The same feeling which DS9 brought about in its similarity to Babylon 5.

Since DS9 turned out allright I'm more than open to watching SGU to see if it will follow the same trend or end up ruining the franchise like Voyager between becoming nBSG, Lost and Stargate.

[Zac Naloen]

And in the mean time Stargate Universe is getting the highest Ratings for Stargate since season 1 of Atlantis.

Universe ratings give Syfy a boost

Sunday - November 1, 2009

Category: RATINGS | Tags: Universe

by Darren Sumner

SGU Destiny 1Stargate Universe is holding its own against baseball playoffs and big-network shows, helping to give Syfy Channel its best October ever, the network announced. Despite ratings slipping a bit from the 1.8 season high rating (for “Air, Part 3″), the show continues to draw more than 2 million viewers on Friday night and is seeing a significant lift in the first “Live + 7 Days” DVR-delayed ratings.

The first season of SGU is averaging a 2.1 average household rating and 2.85 million total viewers, the network said in an October 27 press release. This includes full “Live + 7 Days” viewing data, though Syfy would probably have only had access to that data for about the first two weeks of the show (three of the six hours broadcast so far).

Nielsen Media Research releases full DVR ratings numbers to the networks approximately three weeks after broadcast.

In the key demographics, Syfy said that Universe is averaging 1.5 million adults ages 18 to 49, and 1.7 million ages 25 to 54.

The time-shifted viewing data for Stargate Universe is clearly significant, with 2.99 million viewers and a 2.1 rating for “Air, Part 3″ — up from the 1.8 rating (2.4 million) on Friday night. That’s the most-watched episode of a Stargate show since March 2005 (“The Siege, Part 1″), Syfy said.

Compared to the last season of Stargate Atlantis, SGU is up 59 percent among adults 18 to 34, 41 percent among adults 18 to 49, 33 percent among adults 25 54, and up 36 percent in total viewers, the network said.

Along with the 2.1 average rating for Ghost Hunters, the 1.7 average for Destination Truth, and the 1.8 rating earned by the season premiere of Sanctuary, Syfy is looking at its most watched October ever.

While we don’t have official ratings numbers for the last three episodes, on Twitter actor Brian J. Smith mentioned a 1.6 rating for “Darkness” — which aired against an MLB playoff game on October 16. TV by the Numbers reports viewership of 2.099 million viewers (”Live + Same Day”) for that one, and 2.015 million for October 23 (“Light”).

Universe is the network’s second-highest rated show behind Ghost Hunters (about 3 million viewers before DVR).

Brand new episodes of Stargate Universe continue this Friday at 9 p.m. (8 Central)! Learn more about this week’s episode, “Earth,” in GateWorld’s Season One episode guide.

http://www.gateworld.net/news/2009/11/u ... y-a-boost/

[Bilbo]

I just cannot get over that the number one rated show on SyFy is Ghost Hunters. Who watches that stuff?

[AMT]

About 3 million people per week, plus however many who record it.

[JME2]

I hear there are these things called "spin-offs" that happen in TV sometimes that may do radical things such as explore an established universe while altering tone and characters.

These guys have been saying from day fucking one that the show is nothing like SG-1 tonally. Why are you acting so butt-hurt? They warned you in advance that you wouldn't like their show.

Same with the die-hard TOS or TNG that hate DS9 because of its darker, more realistic take on Roddenberry's 'utopia'. I'm personally finding SGU to be a refreshing change of pace.

[Anguirus]

I don't understand the objection that "it should have been a different universe" either. How much fucking exposition would it have taken to set up a whole different universe, when clearly they just wanted to tell a different kind of story in the Stargate one? Why isn't RDA allowed to work on Stargate again? I like seeing him guest star.

I'm trying to figure out how you would do SGU in a new universe and I'm not coming up with it, it relies heavily on the existing backstory and carries through the motif of the US Air Force stumbling into the unknown. If the show had been created with all the major existing elements in place and yet not part of the Stargate franchise, people would complain that it was a Stargate rip-off.

Clearly the solution is just never to let the Stargate creative team work again. Oh, and the LAST thing we want is for SyFy to use its "cash cow" science fiction franchises to make some motherfucking money as opposed to relying on fucking Ghost Hunters and pro wrestling.

I can't believe I'm hyper-ventilating over this...adequate...show, but I see all these objections to its existence that are just completely alien to me. I don't follow the reasoning at all.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

I can't believe I'm hyper-ventilating over this...adequate...show, but I see all these objections to its existence that are just completely alien to me. I don't follow the reasoning at all.

A lot of them... it's reasoning along the lines of a child not wanting to try a new food...

Though, on the other foot, can you say you've fleshed out all of your opinions? In cases like this, it's only infuriating because they hold it so vitriolically without a sound reason beyond "It's not perfect!"

[Covenant]

Baaaaaaaaaw.

The counter-whine is more annoying than the primary whine. Are these people on their first television show? Is this the first time they've written for entertainment? No? Then what the fuck are they so goddamn surprised about? Any time you take something and alter the formula, even if it's not bad, you run a serious risk of people flipping their shit. I love DS9 and it did not do nearly as well as it should because people complain it wasn't "True To The Vision." But it got a chance to explore topics that TNG never did, and it was awesome. SGU can be like that, but it might be alittle rocky. When you make a Stargate show and have a big focus of that show on some of the things parodied back in SG:1 (the 'younger and sexier' stargate clip) you should expect a backlash as old viewers filter out and new ones filter in. Your viewerbase will not always expand on the old base, sometimes you need to shed a few. And acting petulant about it is a good way to take someone like me, on the fence, and just piss them off. For god's sake, do not engage the fanbase!

Secondly, I do not feel at all bad for expressing my dislike of Chloe's character or the romance plot. I like the SGU concept, but don't enjoy the kids yet, but honestly I don't think they wanted me to. Wasn't I supposed to be annoyed that he dumped James for the out-of-nowhere introduction of Chloe? Scott is a horndog, but he's gotten chewed out, has had some character growth, and hasn't acted like anything other than a guy who likes sex. That's consistant. Chloe, though, if they want me to like her, they need to change the way she's being written. If they don't care, or expect me to dislike her, then stop being so goddamn thin-skinned. If you're deliberately writing a character as superficial so you can give them a revealing emotional moment later then you should not be upset during the earlier phase when I call her superficial. I'm sorry, that "I feel closer to you..." line was absolutely atrocious, and it made her look idiotic. I don't mind characters that enjoy sex or sleeping with someone just because it feels right--but if they think this was the best way to introduce the Chloe/Scott relationship, then they're hack writers who are defensive and obviously in need of an emotional crutch.

Please, give us a new look at the Stargate universe. Show us how the non-heroes cope before an SG team arrives--even if that team may NEVER arrive. Give us people behaving badly, or rashly, or stupidly. But when people say "Oh god, that was so dumb, Lieutenant Moron should never have opened that door" you gotta realize, as a writer, that they're just responding to what's written for that character. Plus, they're just defending the stupid bullshit parts that they like, and most people seem to be fine with big characters like Rush and Young and Grier. Build on that, add some depth to Scott and Chloe, make Eli get off his ass to do something helpful and bam--fans will quiet down. Yelling at them won't make them learn the song.

[Simon_Jester]

Perhaps it honestly is the first time they've been exposed to a fan avalanche of this magnitude. Not all shows have fans who will explode at you like a claymore mine if you do anything they see as impugning the show's honor. In some cases, the fans will just fume quietly, or explode in less directed ways.

So after the first few hundred people who march past shouting about "Lieutenant Titty McBoobs" and how the writers are idiots, I can understand why their tempers are starting to fray. It's a human reaction; most people do not enjoy sitting there and having an unlimited amount of bullshit thrown at them.

[Covenant]

Perhaps it honestly is the first time they've been exposed to a fan avalanche of this magnitude. Not all shows have fans who will explode at you like a claymore mine if you do anything they see as impugning the show's honor. In some cases, the fans will just fume quietly, or explode in less directed ways.

So after the first few hundred people who march past shouting about "Lieutenant Titty McBoobs" and how the writers are idiots, I can understand why their tempers are starting to fray. It's a human reaction; most people do not enjoy sitting there and having an unlimited amount of bullshit thrown at them.

This isn't about the actors--they're all fine actors--it's the writing and the direction they're being given. Lt. Nipples didn't get her name by being a bad actress, but because they've given her pretty scant screentime so far that isn't her in a state of undress. There's more to her character, of course, but that doesn't mean the writers have done a goddamned thing to show it, and the viewers can pick up on that.

Joseph Mallozzi has been a writer for the Stargate franchise for a long time now, and he's a good writer too. He's done some good episodes on SGA that were out of the ordinary, like the one with the monsters that breathed out mist, and shrouded the whole town as evil zombie critters creeped around... that was not a bad episode at all. He's not a newbie to the Stargate universe, and he knows how to contribute. So his vision for SG:U isn't because he's an outside to the Stargate franchise, it's an honest and admirable attempt to grow the program.

So he's got no reason to act surprised, he just has no clue what the hell he's talking about. Look at TOS--sex all over the place. Off-camera sure, but Kirk be bangin' those women, no doubt. Or nBSG recently--you think that NONE of these comments are from nBSG watchers? Sex in nBSG was a lot more common, a lot more visible, and with a lot more variety between participants. This might be steamy by Stargate standards, but I think he's absolutely off-his-fucking-rocker by claiming it's only prudishness that people are reacting to, as if Sci-Fi audiences cringe at seeing sexy aliens or women in tight chrome suits.

[Zac Naloen]

Read the thing again Covenant,he specifically says that the line is drawn when they started the personal attacks again the actors.

Which is just fine, the people attacking the actors or calling characters whores do need to grow the fuck up or stop watching the show, the show is going to do just fine without them and could do without their bullshit.

[Commander 598]

Others shrieking about how horrible it was that they dared to have a romance in the show. Then you have the ones saying that they are turning SGU into a porno.

Probably angry young virgins pissed that the male lead got random sex with a hot girl without even trying, while they can't get a girl to look a them.

You missed something: They identify too much with Eli. Watching Eli inadvertently become aware of the fact that the cute girl who put him in a good mood and sent his easily distracted mind wandering went off to pursue more intimate relations with someone else five minutes later just drags up loads of bitter feelings from nerds.

"See this girl? She's cute, smart, and rich. Basically your nerd fantasy. Unfortunately you are no more than a loosely defined "friend" to her and that's all you'll ever be except in the unlikely situation that she literally has no one else's shoulder to cry on."

It basically has nothing to do with sex at all, they just hurt the feelings of many nerds.

[Oskuro]

^This. I identified with Eli too, so the sudden sexing with the hot soldier stirred those same feelings in me. Upon rewatch, I noticed that appart from being the hot guy, Scott was also with her after her father's death, so it's undertandable that she has an emotional connection with him. I guess this relationship will be expanded upon, with as much drama as possible.

I'm liking these characters and their potential. One thing I particularly like about Chloe, is that she's in essence, purposeless. She was in the base as an aide to her father, she has no expertise or skills, just a regular person caught up in all the mess. This has a lot of potential for writers to show the development of a regular person in such an environment, as long as they don't screw it up by giving her mutant powers or something like that.

[Solauren]

Most of the 'trolls' and 'critics' are just crybaby's anyway.

Let's focus on the stupidest complaints:
A female with large breasts. Guess what, LOTS OF THEM DO. And many of them are in professional careers, like the military.

She was in a tank-top. Guess what, that's what alot of people wear underneath their outercloths! Regardless of if they wear a bra or not.

i.e I'd wear a tank top if under my shirts if I started to get a little cold when normally dressed.

You know what? People immedaitely assuming she's on the show for eye-candy, or sexuality, it the sexist part. Can't a woman with a sexually mature/able/appealing body be a productive, intelligent, effective member of a group? Hells yes they can. Big Boobs does not equal 'useless except for sex + related topics/actions'.

Oh no, the punk kid with a small flying remote control camera nearly spied on her. Guess what, that's what immature punks do.

Oh no, she was going at it with someone while on duty. You know what, it happens. It also could have been the blonde Lieutenant, or someone that got killed off during the attack, but it wasn't. The personals physical attributes are irrelevant unless otherwise depicted to be a major part of the character. i.e some weird alien thing (i.e Odo from DS9)

Yes, her physical attributes are 'unusual' in a sci-fi setting. So what?

Other Complaints:
Everyone is stressed out, they were part of a base that was looking to go far far away!

Yes. They were part of the BASE. Base, as in no movement. Their jobs were almost the same as peace-time civilian work. A Cook is a cook is a cook. A computer programmer is a programmer is a programmer, and a Guard is a Guard is a Guard.

They were not the explorer team that wanted to go 'Far Far Away'. These are the people that were looking forward to going home in a little while. (i.e Lieutenant Tamara Johansen)

This is literally a show about the Stargate program finally making a mistake. It's literally the 'wrong group of people for the job, stuck having to do it'.

Which is the entire point.

Consider:
Everyone in SG-1 (the series) more or less put in a 9 - 5 day, and then went home. Some of them would step through the Stargate, explore for a while, and then come home. They were also trained special forces. That's what special forces do. Get in, Complete mission, get out, return to base, have pizza, go home.

Everyone in Atlantis knew they might not be able to get home, or even survive. So they all went in prepared.

No on in 'Stargate Universe' was prepared to end up with no way home, no hope of rescue (incoming wormholes are worthless for evacuation purposes after all), extremely limited contact with home, and worse yet, limited supplies!

And they're all having a hard time over it. And they are handling as you'd expect people with their backgrounds to.
The miltiary people are following orders, and trying to survive. The civilians are worried and scared. And the few people that wanted to go are handling things as dictated by their personalities. (i.e Dr. Rush wanted to go, Eli Wallace is thinking this is cool and didn't leave much of a life behind anyway).

And the show is going a damn good job of showing it.

That's the idea of the new show. It's as much a survival show as it is about exploration. Except now the exploration is a means of survival, not simply for the sake of exploration.

Anyone that can't figure that out should just shut the hell up, sit down, and let the rest of us enjoy the show.

And if anyone on SD.Net wants to fire back at me for saying that, go the hell and fire back.

[Bilbo]

Most of the 'trolls' and 'critics' are just crybaby's anyway.

Let's focus on the stupidest complaints:
A female with large breasts. Guess what, LOTS OF THEM DO. And many of them are in professional careers, like the military.

She was in a tank-top. Guess what, that's what alot of people wear underneath their outercloths! Regardless of if they wear a bra or not.

i.e I'd wear a tank top if under my shirts if I started to get a little cold when normally dressed.

You know what? People immedaitely assuming she's on the show for eye-candy, or sexuality, it the sexist part. Can't a woman with a sexually mature/able/appealing body be a productive, intelligent, effective member of a group? Hells yes they can. Big Boobs does not equal 'useless except for sex + related topics/actions'

Lets look at some history here.

Counsilor Troi - Bimbo with tits in tight outfit
7 of 9 - Bimbo with tits in tighter outfit
6 - Lots of bimbos who even without large tits still get lots of camera time for obvious reasons.

Scifi programming seems to think that scifi fans are all nerdy morons who cannot get laid and thus have to cater to them with "hehehehe boobies" shots. So call the fans a bit jaded when the only real moments on the show for Lt Nipples is either her getting banged or her in a tight tank top.

[Oskuro]

So call the fans a bit jaded when the only real moments on the show for Lt Nipples is either her getting banged or her in a tight tank top.

Or her in full combat gear leading a team into the desert to try and find the lost men. What, didn't recognise her?

[Covenant]

Anyone that can't figure that out should just shut the hell up, sit down, and let the rest of us enjoy the show.

And if anyone on SD.Net wants to fire back at me for saying that, go the hell and fire back.

Yeah, like people are ever going to just shut up and let you enjoy the show because it makes you annoyed.

However, the complaints you mentioned are not the complaints I have, so I won't bother addressing them. Unlike some people apparently, I've got nothing against the actors or the tone the show is trying to take. I liked nBSG, so if they want to make it more like that, I'm cool with it. If they want to make it 'dark' and 'gritty' in a different way, whatever, they can do that too, I've got no issues with a gritty tone. Some people dislike the characters because of the way they've been written as acting. If what you're saying is that the show is immune from criticism because this writing is intentional, then you're on the wrong site. Since when has "Oh, it seems retarded, but that's intentional" been a legitimate excuse from criticism?

A lot of tempers are flaring up, but there's no uniform positions on either side. Some people hate Chloe's current characterization because they feel her character seems useless, uninteresting, and serves no function other than to advance a dull romantic subplot. Some hate her because they're idiots who are upset that the character they identify with isn't attractive to her. Whining at the whiners and acting as if everyone's criticisms are equally retarded isn't going to accomplish anything. None of this matters anyway--the show's authors clearly don't care for this criticism and aren't changing their focus, so you're not doing anything other than upsetting yourself by throwing down the gauntlet to everyone who didn't like it yet. It's the first handful of episodes--anyone remember how Carter acted that first episode? She sure seemed to work out fine in the end. So some of us hate Chloe, and you don't. So?

[Bilbo]

So call the fans a bit jaded when the only real moments on the show for Lt Nipples is either her getting banged or her in a tight tank top.

Or her in full combat gear leading a team into the desert to try and find the lost men. What, didn't recognise her?

Nope, I recognised her,but the scene is shorter and has less substance than either one of the other scenes.

[Themightytom]

So call the fans a bit jaded when the only real moments on the show for Lt Nipples is either her getting banged or her in a tight tank top.

Or her in full combat gear leading a team into the desert to try and find the lost men. What, didn't recognise her?

Nope, I recognised her,but the scene is shorter and has less substance than either one of the other scenes.

For me that scene was awesome, it harkened back to SG-1 and I could imagine for a second, "Oh thank god, the n00bs have some back up, they had a real SG team standing by to rescue the primadonnas.

Later of course I found out the B team had no idea what it was doing but oh well. Good Moment.

[Covenant]

For me that scene was awesome, it harkened back to SG-1 and I could imagine for a second, "Oh thank god, the n00bs have some back up, they had a real SG team standing by to rescue the primadonnas.

Later of course I found out the B team had no idea what it was doing but oh well. Good Moment.

I don't want to keep stirring up the frenzy about James--I think everyone wants her to get more acting time. I actually didn't make the connection that those were the same character until later. I think it needs to be said that I like Lt. Nipples as a character, since her being peeved at Scott means I'm not the only one who feels his behavior was pretty insensitive (though consistent with Scott's character), the people who make this show need to realize they're not helping change her nickname.

I went to the SGU page to figure out what she does--I wish she had been one of the other pilots, or maybe she's a kickass technician who'll provide valuable skills maintaining alien technology... or something, anything. When I went to their character page for her and found it blank, but lots of focus on those same shots and a bonus video or something I missed, of her starting to disrobe for a shower before bagging the spycam kino. It can't be from that same episode though, because in this one she's got her pants on, and her shirt off. Honestly, I like having sexy military gals, and I'm still fine with her being picked on for being attractive (especially since she's not a wilting violet about it) but it's hard to fault the viewer for thinking the writers are playing up her physical attributes more than her acting chops. She's a Stargate vet herself apparently, having been on a previous episode, so again--I'm sure she can act.

[Oskuro]

I personally like her character because she's a regular person. Most women we've met in the Stargate series have been or felt exceptional in one way or the other. Even in that episode from SGA were the backup team was composed entirely by women, each character was "special". And don't get me started on Teyla.

If this series is about regular people being put in exceptional circumstances, then I think they are doing it right with the characters.

[JME2]

I personally like her character because she's a regular person. Most women we've met in the Stargate series have been or felt exceptional in one way or the other. Even in that episode from SGA were the backup team was composed entirely by women, each character was "special". And don't get me started on Teyla.

If this series is about regular people being put in exceptional circumstances, then I think they are doing it right with the characters.

Yeah; both SG-1 and SGA consisted of Earth's best and brightest. Again, this is a refreshing change of pace after 12 years of the same old format. And that's what's annoys me about these cries of foul play and ignoring the spirit of Stargate. Didn't any of these fans learn anything from the collapse of the Star Trek franchise and B&B's attempted recycling of the same old TNG format? You need to adapt, you need to change the format of your storytelling, like DS9 did. Again, I'm not saying SGU will surpass SG-1, but it's a nice change of pace and if these idiots don't like it, then just go back and re-watch your DVD's.

[Uraniun235]

I love DS9 and it did not do nearly as well as it should because people complain it wasn't "True To The Vision."

Do you really think that big a proportion of the audience actually cared about the "vision", or even knew what it was? That seems like a pretty generous estimation of the number of Trekkies out there.

It could be that DS9 never got as many viewers because it was always another Star Trek show - it ran alongside TNG and then Voyager and never got as heavily promoted by Paramount. It was also in competition with Babylon 5.

Didn't any of these fans learn anything from the collapse of the Star Trek franchise and B&B's attempted recycling of the same old TNG format?

Do you really think that the collapse was about the format and not about just plain shitty writing? Because I'm pretty sure the movies wouldn't have tanked so hard if they could have written their way out of a brown paper bag. Recycling the format wasn't the problem, it was a symptom of the fact that Trek had been infested with bad writers and worse producers.

[JME2]

Do you really think that the collapse was about the format and not about just plain shitty writing? Because I'm pretty sure the movies wouldn't have tanked so hard if they could have written their way out of a brown paper bag. Recycling the format wasn't the problem, it was a symptom of the fact that Trek had been infested with bad writers and worse producers.

No, that was a generalization on my part. I think the recycling was only part of the problem; the shitty writing was definitely the greater of problems. With SG, Wright, Cooper, and company have never struck me as idiots. Lazy on occasion, but not idiots and certainly not in Berman and Braga's league.

[Zac Naloen]

The problem with TNG-era Star Trek, was that with TNG, Voyager and then Enterprise basically having the same premise they limited the stories they could tell and that resulted in recycled plots.


Stargate was already starting to have that problem in Atlantis.

The only reason it took until the third concurrent Star Trek series was because DS9 was such a departure and they went a more militaristic route from the beginning.




By changing the setting so drastically, and changing the entire approach to telling the story they've basically given themselves a completely fresh way of approaching the stories.

I don't know how much longer they could have carried on telling stories in the old style, but I'm glad they are doing what they are doing with Universe because if Enemy at the Gates proves anything, it's that they were jaded to it themselves.