My one concern about the show- besides possible, now realized, cancellation- was that new plotline about the ship's "real" mission. It seemed...forced.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Stargate Universe canceled
- Thread starter Shade
- Start date
Yep, that was the show's failing. It didn't grab that low-hanging fruit.
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
It's not failing to pander to the least common denominator that killed it, it was the fact that nothing ever seems to get resolved in the show, which can be just as bad as every plot getting solved in 45 minutes. Like I said in a recent thread, drama in real time is boring.
For example, the whole subplot of them accessing the ship's main systems. They worked on this all of last season without success. Then when Rush finally does get control, it takes another 5 episodes -- fully one-quarter of this season -- for anyone else to find out. And this is hardly the only element that takes up too many episodes.
Then on top of the glacial and plodding pace, they throw in a few filler episodes as well, like "Cloverdale" earlier this season. That episode dragged out the "Rush is in control and won't tell" plot needlessly for an extra episode, it didn't resolve anything, it really hasn't affected the following episodes as far as I can tell, and it wasn't even useful for character development, because the characters were all figments of Scott's imagination.
Croesus
Adventurer
Speaking as someone who gave up half way through the first season, I think the producers and writers made at least a couple big mistakes:
Yep, "Stargate" by this time has a certain expectation attached to it. It's almost Indiana Jones in space. But SGU was supposed to be more like Battlestar Galactica, with the Stargate name and backstory. A bit like doing the first Indiana Jones movie, but with characters from Schindler's List. It wasn't a "Stargate" type of show, so it lost a lot of SG1 and SGA viewers for that reason.
However, I gave the show a chance (and I suspect many other SG fans did too) and watched several episodes. Which is when I realized the second failing - I didn't really like a single character on the show. Some were interesting, some had potential, but I rarely found myself rooting for anyone, and I certainly didn't look forward to watching new episodes the way I did with SG1/SGA, or the way I do with shows like Castle and Leverage.
Sometimes TV writers forget that we need a reason to invite these characters into our homes each week. Writing for a serious show doesn't require that all the characters be jerks, wusses, irritating, etc. Even if a show has a dark plotline, there's no reason at all why some characters can't be portrayed positively. Think Buffy and the "Scooby gang". As dark as the 6th season was, the way it ended with Xander standing by Willow as the world was about to end was classic, and moving, and a great reason to watch.
Bottom line, the producers didn't give me much payback for the time I invested in the show. Darn it...
Yep, "Stargate" by this time has a certain expectation attached to it. It's almost Indiana Jones in space. But SGU was supposed to be more like Battlestar Galactica, with the Stargate name and backstory. A bit like doing the first Indiana Jones movie, but with characters from Schindler's List. It wasn't a "Stargate" type of show, so it lost a lot of SG1 and SGA viewers for that reason.
However, I gave the show a chance (and I suspect many other SG fans did too) and watched several episodes. Which is when I realized the second failing - I didn't really like a single character on the show. Some were interesting, some had potential, but I rarely found myself rooting for anyone, and I certainly didn't look forward to watching new episodes the way I did with SG1/SGA, or the way I do with shows like Castle and Leverage.
Sometimes TV writers forget that we need a reason to invite these characters into our homes each week. Writing for a serious show doesn't require that all the characters be jerks, wusses, irritating, etc. Even if a show has a dark plotline, there's no reason at all why some characters can't be portrayed positively. Think Buffy and the "Scooby gang". As dark as the 6th season was, the way it ended with Xander standing by Willow as the world was about to end was classic, and moving, and a great reason to watch.
Bottom line, the producers didn't give me much payback for the time I invested in the show. Darn it...
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
They even reneged on decisions they supposedly had made, like when they crossed between galaxies and made the point to mention that some of their previous problems (plot points) would be left behind just due to that great distance. They had this built in way to end certain subplot, which they could have used more effectively, yet they seemed to not only bring it up (as if to show they were thinking on their feet) but they then found ways to nulify it seemingly in an effort to avoid resolving some of the subplots.
Crothian
First Post
You should start to really like reality TV.
lin_fusan
First Post
My main beef with the show is that a lot of the interpersonal conflicts felt forced.
My first example is the IOA's attempt coup; I never understood the characters' motivations to oust Colonel Young. (Rush, I could understand, but I never felt that he had much to gain by being in control, even if he had motivation.) But what resource, status, or political gain could Wray have obtained from making Destiny a civilian-control ship? They're still on the other side of the galaxy!
My second example is Rush's withholding the knowledge that he had control of Destiny. What did he have to gain? I could imagine that he could gain so much more by giving control of the ship to everyone else. That way they would stop bugging him to fix/operate the ship's systems!
They also seemed determined to reset the show to status quo every episode and refused to make certain main characters important and useful (Chloe).
My first example is the IOA's attempt coup; I never understood the characters' motivations to oust Colonel Young. (Rush, I could understand, but I never felt that he had much to gain by being in control, even if he had motivation.) But what resource, status, or political gain could Wray have obtained from making Destiny a civilian-control ship? They're still on the other side of the galaxy!
My second example is Rush's withholding the knowledge that he had control of Destiny. What did he have to gain? I could imagine that he could gain so much more by giving control of the ship to everyone else. That way they would stop bugging him to fix/operate the ship's systems!
They also seemed determined to reset the show to status quo every episode and refused to make certain main characters important and useful (Chloe).
Similar Threads
