Joel Goldsmith was the score composer for Stargate Universe -- a short-lived, but high-quality science fiction tv series. His music for SGU made a lasting impression on me. The son of Jerry Goldsmith, Joel passed away in 2012, and he left very large shoes to fill.
So, here's a shortlist of musicians I would consider to compose music for any future iteration of Stargate Universe (hopefully a continuation).
People who have contributed a lot to science fiction and fantasy, and who are now major composers:
* Brian Tyler -- Best-known for his piece from Frank Herbert's Children of Dune, which featured in the first trailer for Star Trek 2009. Tyler also contributed to Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Regeneration". Track here. Tyler is now known for his work on major action movies.
* Steve Jablonsky -- Desperate Housewives (the theme is best-known), The Island, Ender's Game. Major composer, lots of movies.
* Ramin Djawadi -- Thunderbirds (film), Prison Break, Game of Thrones, The Island (additional music).
Other film and television composers:
* Ty Unwin -- BBC's documentary series: Earth, Space, Journey to the Edge of the Universe, The Incredible Human Journey, and several others.
* Leonard J. Paul -- The Corporation (documentary)
* Peter Golub -- Countdown to Zero (documentary)
Musicians who have written scores for films:
* Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails -- The Social Network, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (U.S. version)
* Pärt Uusberg -- In the Crosswind (Risttuules)
Musicians who should and would, given the opportunity:
* Front Line Assembly -- pioneering work in Techno-Industrial, soundtrack for the AirMech game
* Mike Foyle & Signalrunners -- Love Theme Dusk, Shipwrecked.
Composers, who generally don't write for film, but whose works have extensively been used in film and television:
* Arvo Pärt
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga Stargate Universe. Kuva kõik postitused
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga Stargate Universe. Kuva kõik postitused
reede, 23. september 2016
laupäev, 8. veebruar 2014
White male privilege
This was written in response to White male privilege in Star Trek: no single person's responsibility, but everyone's problem, written by Neil Shyminsky.
It would be easy for die-hard fans of 'Trek to claim that nearly each of the series had an episode that covered alternate sexualities, but this reduces the argument to the series only ever having a "special" episode each, like there were on a venue called "7th Heaven": "Oh, look, this time we're doing a serious story!"
It was not until the appearance of Stargate Universe that there was an LGBT character in the primary cast.
That role was played by Ming-Na, btw, and this is even more rare, given that, AFAIK, Asian-Americans aren't very often portrayed in LGBT tv, or LGBT roles anywhere (cf. "Looking", which takes place in San Francisco, a city with a large Asian-American population).
wrt Star Trek, Deep Space Nine relied more on the extended cast of regulars, who's characters still remain the most diverse in that franchise.
So, the two short-lived seasons of Stargate Universe was everything "Star Trek: Voyager" wanted to be, but was not.
Expectig a major positively-portrayed gay character to appear in some indeterminate future timeframe as part of Star Trek's primary cast is akin to waiting for Godot.
Even if the next Star Trek movie (be it done by J.J. Abrams or some other action movie director) is to ever feature a major gay character, it's likely to be "special" again. The reason being that these directors and writers aren't just straight, but 'white privilege', so they will in all likelihood fumble it. — Ang Lee doesn't count.
I have a feeling that by the time a future Star Trek tv property will have a primary gay character, it will by then be highly irrelevant.
It would be easy for die-hard fans of 'Trek to claim that nearly each of the series had an episode that covered alternate sexualities, but this reduces the argument to the series only ever having a "special" episode each, like there were on a venue called "7th Heaven": "Oh, look, this time we're doing a serious story!"
It was not until the appearance of Stargate Universe that there was an LGBT character in the primary cast.
That role was played by Ming-Na, btw, and this is even more rare, given that, AFAIK, Asian-Americans aren't very often portrayed in LGBT tv, or LGBT roles anywhere (cf. "Looking", which takes place in San Francisco, a city with a large Asian-American population).
wrt Star Trek, Deep Space Nine relied more on the extended cast of regulars, who's characters still remain the most diverse in that franchise.
So, the two short-lived seasons of Stargate Universe was everything "Star Trek: Voyager" wanted to be, but was not.
Expectig a major positively-portrayed gay character to appear in some indeterminate future timeframe as part of Star Trek's primary cast is akin to waiting for Godot.
Even if the next Star Trek movie (be it done by J.J. Abrams or some other action movie director) is to ever feature a major gay character, it's likely to be "special" again. The reason being that these directors and writers aren't just straight, but 'white privilege', so they will in all likelihood fumble it. — Ang Lee doesn't count.
I have a feeling that by the time a future Star Trek tv property will have a primary gay character, it will by then be highly irrelevant.
teisipäev, 2. aprill 2013
Stargate Universe, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and 2001: The Space Odyssey—A Perspective
This was published first to make sure that the post lasts longer than in IMDb forums.
I've reminisced a bit since first replying in this [IMDb] thread, so got some new ideas in support for TMP.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (TMP) was released ten years after "2001: A Space Odyssey" (2001), so it's historically placed within the timeframe of a generation that also had first-hand experience of 2001, which there is a huge fanbase of, and which extensively features elements of observation and contemplation. And, so, this is what the creators of TMP probably leaned on, most likely to offer an intelligent and ethereal view of space, in order, perhaps, to unintentionally counteract the "pew-pew-pew" effect of Star Wars.
So, when I think of Stargate Universe (SGU) and TMP having similarities, then a fair amount of all of that was borne out of 2001. Now that I'd thought of it, 2001 must have provided the people over at SGU quite a bit of influence in how SGU was presented.
When 2001 was initially released, it was lambasted by critics and a rather incredulous public, while only later was the film accepted as a classic. I hope for the same trend to happen with SGU, and, to a certain extent, to have happened already with TMP.
I've reminisced a bit since first replying in this [IMDb] thread, so got some new ideas in support for TMP.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (TMP) was released ten years after "2001: A Space Odyssey" (2001), so it's historically placed within the timeframe of a generation that also had first-hand experience of 2001, which there is a huge fanbase of, and which extensively features elements of observation and contemplation. And, so, this is what the creators of TMP probably leaned on, most likely to offer an intelligent and ethereal view of space, in order, perhaps, to unintentionally counteract the "pew-pew-pew" effect of Star Wars.
So, when I think of Stargate Universe (SGU) and TMP having similarities, then a fair amount of all of that was borne out of 2001. Now that I'd thought of it, 2001 must have provided the people over at SGU quite a bit of influence in how SGU was presented.
When 2001 was initially released, it was lambasted by critics and a rather incredulous public, while only later was the film accepted as a classic. I hope for the same trend to happen with SGU, and, to a certain extent, to have happened already with TMP.
neljapäev, 17. november 2011
Women, kids, and Stargate Universe
To refer to a user on GateWorld Forums who contended that the most populous demographic watching Stargate Universe (SGU) were older (white) men who would watch any and all Stargate that was available. He asked if women and kids "killed" SGU — implying those Nielsen viewers who didn't watch Stargate Universe, thereby letting SyFy have low ratings as the official reason as to not renewing SGU.I haven't seen the Nielsen statistics, but based on information presented here (that mostly men watched), then the conclusion is that not all [i]Nielsen[/i] women could watch the show — preferring "Dancing With The Star(let)s". — And those that could watch couldn't let their kids watch, effectively sacrificing watching it themselves.
Part of SyFy's favoured demographic wasn't adult enough: The young kids who couldn't see (under-14's), and older kids who wouldn't watch (the video game generation not interested in character drama). And assuming those were mostly male. The 'girl' demographic could have been turned off either by the very concept of science fiction, or other interests, such as Dancing With My Two Left Feet and a goth woman scientist secretly infatuated with her father-figure-boss.
There's been another thread over here questioning if any of the women characters could have been or could have become someone like Carter (I haven't read through all the thread yet, but I do have a draft reply for it), or very nearly as perfect as her. You know, these people are very few and far between anyway; the closest real-life examples are women astronauts or someone like Valerie Plame. — I have to admit I dropped my jaw when I first saw her on tv (IIRC :-).
This must probably be a cultural thing that women in nowadays' U.S.-based (or -targeted) television shows are very strong characters, possessing almost superwoman-like capabilities in each show, including NCIS, SG-1, and so on; as if that were something who young American women would strive to be, thereby failing to tolerate characters more fallible than your average superchick.
Truth of the matter is, that most people (including women) just are not as perfect as the 'hero'-type characters presented on popular tv shows. I have to contend that SGU was so realistic in its presentation that it perhaps turned viewers off to the collective dismay of us fans. I remember an unintentionally funny line by an SGU hater who wrote (on IMDb, I think) that tv shows weren't supposed to show real life...
Oh, and the kids that did watch SGU, didn't watch it from a Nielsen box, but I guess, very much on their own terms. I am also considering failures in marketing SGU, but I don't know where did the responsibilities lie as to who was supposed to do exactly what.
neljapäev, 1. september 2011
Why SyFy canceled SGU
Disclaimer: The post is all my personal opinion, based on some facts
I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts here about why SGU was cancelled. It's all speculation and I've said it before.
Just before MGM entered a pre-packaged bankruptcy, SyFy was probably considering picking the show up for the third season, but after MGM entered bankruptcy proceedings and before it emerged from bankruptcy (a matter of just a few weeks or even less, I might add), SyFy decided not to pick up SGU for S3.
The reason, which is all speculation and inference – is based on the facts that before MGM entered bankruptcy, it was 20% owned by Comcast, which owns 51% of NBC Universal (the other 49% owned by General Electric), which owns SyFy; and 20% of MGM owned by Sony. Thus, with both Comcast/NBC Universal & Sony owning 40% of MGM, it was still (simultaneously) a competitor to them.
After MGM emerged from a pre-packaged bankruptcy, the former owners didn't own it anymore.
Right after it became clear that Comcast+GE/NBC Universal (owner of SyFy) wouldn't own 20% of MGM anymore, any incentive for Comcast's television property to cough up 50% production costs to produce more SGU evaporated. — To reiterate, just because SyFy's parent company/ies didn't own 20% of MGM anymore. (The production went roughly $2 mil. per episode, AFAIK, with 50% by MGM proper.)
And imagine how all the money really ran around. I would love for some regulator to look into this.
My opinion is that SyFy's move of SGU to a terrible timeslot was intentional and I assume, that more than anyone else were Comcast/NBC Universal/SyFy aware that MGM would eventually go into bankruptcy after which they wouldn't own it anymore. Letting SGU fail ratings-wise worked as a convenient excuse not to finance its production any further.
</end of speculation>
The only facts are who and how much anyone owned MGM and who then did not own MGM at which time and who did then and still owns SyFy/NBC. See MGM Holdings article at Wikipedia.
Everyone knew that MGM were haemorraging money like crazy and most potential buyers wanted as a condition of any sale of MGM for it to go through bankruptcy, so that MGM would not be under its former owners. Source here.
Where I think SyFy is culpable in letting SGU's ratings go is shuffling SGU's air times too much; Joseph Mallozzi directly (AFAIK) blames moving SGU to Tuesdays against "Dancing with the Stars" (and starlets) and NCIS (a police-procedural show), in a time of year that is not Summer; I also noticed indirect finger-pointing at what I understand to be rather creative accounting practices (search for Bailey writes in text) over at skiffy. Now it cancelled Eureka.
I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts here about why SGU was cancelled. It's all speculation and I've said it before.
Just before MGM entered a pre-packaged bankruptcy, SyFy was probably considering picking the show up for the third season, but after MGM entered bankruptcy proceedings and before it emerged from bankruptcy (a matter of just a few weeks or even less, I might add), SyFy decided not to pick up SGU for S3.
The reason, which is all speculation and inference – is based on the facts that before MGM entered bankruptcy, it was 20% owned by Comcast, which owns 51% of NBC Universal (the other 49% owned by General Electric), which owns SyFy; and 20% of MGM owned by Sony. Thus, with both Comcast/NBC Universal & Sony owning 40% of MGM, it was still (simultaneously) a competitor to them.
After MGM emerged from a pre-packaged bankruptcy, the former owners didn't own it anymore.
Right after it became clear that Comcast+GE/NBC Universal (owner of SyFy) wouldn't own 20% of MGM anymore, any incentive for Comcast's television property to cough up 50% production costs to produce more SGU evaporated. — To reiterate, just because SyFy's parent company/ies didn't own 20% of MGM anymore. (The production went roughly $2 mil. per episode, AFAIK, with 50% by MGM proper.)
And imagine how all the money really ran around. I would love for some regulator to look into this.
My opinion is that SyFy's move of SGU to a terrible timeslot was intentional and I assume, that more than anyone else were Comcast/NBC Universal/SyFy aware that MGM would eventually go into bankruptcy after which they wouldn't own it anymore. Letting SGU fail ratings-wise worked as a convenient excuse not to finance its production any further.
</end of speculation>
The only facts are who and how much anyone owned MGM and who then did not own MGM at which time and who did then and still owns SyFy/NBC. See MGM Holdings article at Wikipedia.
Everyone knew that MGM were haemorraging money like crazy and most potential buyers wanted as a condition of any sale of MGM for it to go through bankruptcy, so that MGM would not be under its former owners. Source here.
Where I think SyFy is culpable in letting SGU's ratings go is shuffling SGU's air times too much; Joseph Mallozzi directly (AFAIK) blames moving SGU to Tuesdays against "Dancing with the Stars" (and starlets) and NCIS (a police-procedural show), in a time of year that is not Summer; I also noticed indirect finger-pointing at what I understand to be rather creative accounting practices (search for Bailey writes in text) over at skiffy. Now it cancelled Eureka.
teisipäev, 19. juuli 2011
GateWorld forums thread status icons
If you're wondering what do these red, blue and gray thread status chevrons and their variations at GateWorld forums mean, then here's your answer.
(I couldn't find the right answer at the GateWorld forum FAQ, so had to Google it.)
(I couldn't find the right answer at the GateWorld forum FAQ, so had to Google it.)
laupäev, 4. juuni 2011
Miks Stargate Universe tegemine tühistati
See kõik on kahtlused ja spekulatsioon, kuid faktilised andmed vähemalt annavad teatud pildi sellest, mis võis olla "Stargate Universe" tühistamise taga.
Ameerika telekanal SyFy otsustas SGU tegemist eelmise aasta lõpus mitte uuendada peale seda kui MGM läks planeeritud pankrotikaitsesse (Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection). SGU finantseerimine oli SyFy ja MGM vahel pooleks. SyFy on USA kaabelkanal, mis kuulub NBC Universal alla ja viimase omanikud on 51% Comcast, 49% General Electric. Enne MGM pankrotikaitsesse astumist oli Comcast 20% MGM omanik (teistest meediaettevõtetest oli ka Sony 20% omanik). Kui MGM pankrotikaitsest väljus, sai MGM endale täiesti uue omanikeringi.
Võib väita, et SGU oli rohkem korporatiivpoliitika kui reitingute ohver. Minu kahtluste järgi võis MGM-ist voolata selle omanike taskusse suurel hulgal raha, niigi nõrgenenud MGM oli lõpuks suurtes võlgades ja ei suutnud enam võlgu üleval pidada. MGM on peale selle veel konkurent NBC Universal (Comcast) ja Sony stuudiotele.
Minu väitel võib olla kaalu, kuna ammugi võlgades MGM potentsiaalsed ostjad ütlesid 2008. ja 2009. aastatel, et nad enne MGM-i endale ei osta kui viimane läheb pankrotikaitse protsessist läbi, misjärel endised omanikud ettevõtet rohkem enam ei oma. — Sest võimalikud ostjad ei teadnud mitte ainult, et MGM-i rahaseis on vilets, vaid ka seda, et sealt voolab raha välja. Seetõttu nad nõudsidki ostu peatingimusena MGM-ile pankrotikaitsest läbiminekut, et raha äravoolule lõpp teha.
SyFy tõenäoliselt omab veel SGU-le ekslusiivset lepingut SGU uute osade esimesteks näitamisteks ja ma arvan, et leping veel kehtib. SGU-d loodeti teha 5 hooaega ja võib oletada, et leping kehtib viis aastat. Isegi kui MGM tahaks sarja kogu Stargate frantsiisi omanikuna teistel kanalitel näidata, ei ole see eksklusiivlepingu pärast võimalik — oletatavasti ootab MGM-i rikkumise eest suur leppetrahv, kui MGM SGU-d enne teatud aega mujal näitab. Ning nii ootab MGM, kuni leping otsa lõpeb ja MGM-l on siis vabadus SGU-d teistele Ameerika kanalitele pakkuda.
SGU madalate reitingute üheks põhjuseks võis olla osade "Stargate SG-1" ja "Stargate Atlantis" fännide äärmiselt valulik reaktsioon SGU võetud uue ja realistlikuma kvaliteedi suhtes, mispeale hakkasid need fännid SGU sarja infantiilselt vihkama ja seda muidugi ka mitte vaatama.
* Teine põhjus on see, et USA-s valitsev Nielseni reitingusüsteem on oma aja ära elanud, sest paljud inimesed enam telekat ei vaata ja vaatavad telesaateid alternatiivsete allikate kaudu.
* Kolmas põhjus on see, et SyFy kandis SGU reedeõhtuselt ajalt teisipäevaõhtusele ajale ja SyFy (endise nimega SciFi) tõi samale ajale ameerika wrestlingu. Teisipäevasele õhtule ülekandmisega "uskus" SyFy, et siis on ehk paremad reitingud, aga viga tehti selles, et ei arvestatud suviste ja sügiseste hooaegade erinevustega, kus antud käik oleks suvise hooaja puhul töötanud, aga sügisel olid samal ajal suurteks konkurentideks "Navy NCIS" protseduurisari ja "Tantsud tähtedega" Ameerika variant.
* Väidetakse, et SyFy kandis SGU üle meelega halvale ajale, et reitingud viletsad oleksid ja et siis oleks võimalik kuulutada SGU näitamine kahjumlikuks ja saada mingi suurem maksusoodustus, millele üks SGU produtsente Joseph Mallozzi viitas, küll mitte otsesõnu.
Vot nii.
Ameerika telekanal SyFy otsustas SGU tegemist eelmise aasta lõpus mitte uuendada peale seda kui MGM läks planeeritud pankrotikaitsesse (Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection). SGU finantseerimine oli SyFy ja MGM vahel pooleks. SyFy on USA kaabelkanal, mis kuulub NBC Universal alla ja viimase omanikud on 51% Comcast, 49% General Electric. Enne MGM pankrotikaitsesse astumist oli Comcast 20% MGM omanik (teistest meediaettevõtetest oli ka Sony 20% omanik). Kui MGM pankrotikaitsest väljus, sai MGM endale täiesti uue omanikeringi.
Võib väita, et SGU oli rohkem korporatiivpoliitika kui reitingute ohver. Minu kahtluste järgi võis MGM-ist voolata selle omanike taskusse suurel hulgal raha, niigi nõrgenenud MGM oli lõpuks suurtes võlgades ja ei suutnud enam võlgu üleval pidada. MGM on peale selle veel konkurent NBC Universal (Comcast) ja Sony stuudiotele.
Minu väitel võib olla kaalu, kuna ammugi võlgades MGM potentsiaalsed ostjad ütlesid 2008. ja 2009. aastatel, et nad enne MGM-i endale ei osta kui viimane läheb pankrotikaitse protsessist läbi, misjärel endised omanikud ettevõtet rohkem enam ei oma. — Sest võimalikud ostjad ei teadnud mitte ainult, et MGM-i rahaseis on vilets, vaid ka seda, et sealt voolab raha välja. Seetõttu nad nõudsidki ostu peatingimusena MGM-ile pankrotikaitsest läbiminekut, et raha äravoolule lõpp teha.
SyFy tõenäoliselt omab veel SGU-le ekslusiivset lepingut SGU uute osade esimesteks näitamisteks ja ma arvan, et leping veel kehtib. SGU-d loodeti teha 5 hooaega ja võib oletada, et leping kehtib viis aastat. Isegi kui MGM tahaks sarja kogu Stargate frantsiisi omanikuna teistel kanalitel näidata, ei ole see eksklusiivlepingu pärast võimalik — oletatavasti ootab MGM-i rikkumise eest suur leppetrahv, kui MGM SGU-d enne teatud aega mujal näitab. Ning nii ootab MGM, kuni leping otsa lõpeb ja MGM-l on siis vabadus SGU-d teistele Ameerika kanalitele pakkuda.
SGU madalate reitingute üheks põhjuseks võis olla osade "Stargate SG-1" ja "Stargate Atlantis" fännide äärmiselt valulik reaktsioon SGU võetud uue ja realistlikuma kvaliteedi suhtes, mispeale hakkasid need fännid SGU sarja infantiilselt vihkama ja seda muidugi ka mitte vaatama.
* Teine põhjus on see, et USA-s valitsev Nielseni reitingusüsteem on oma aja ära elanud, sest paljud inimesed enam telekat ei vaata ja vaatavad telesaateid alternatiivsete allikate kaudu.
* Kolmas põhjus on see, et SyFy kandis SGU reedeõhtuselt ajalt teisipäevaõhtusele ajale ja SyFy (endise nimega SciFi) tõi samale ajale ameerika wrestlingu. Teisipäevasele õhtule ülekandmisega "uskus" SyFy, et siis on ehk paremad reitingud, aga viga tehti selles, et ei arvestatud suviste ja sügiseste hooaegade erinevustega, kus antud käik oleks suvise hooaja puhul töötanud, aga sügisel olid samal ajal suurteks konkurentideks "Navy NCIS" protseduurisari ja "Tantsud tähtedega" Ameerika variant.
* Väidetakse, et SyFy kandis SGU üle meelega halvale ajale, et reitingud viletsad oleksid ja et siis oleks võimalik kuulutada SGU näitamine kahjumlikuks ja saada mingi suurem maksusoodustus, millele üks SGU produtsente Joseph Mallozzi viitas, küll mitte otsesõnu.
Vot nii.
Kas päike võib tulevikus ikkagi pilve tagant paista?
Lootust muidugi veel on, sest produtsendid ja näitlejad on öelnud, et ettenähtavas tulevikus SGU-d ei tehta. Kolm aastat ootamist, nagu vähemalt SGU-st endas lõpuks teada saab, on nähtavasti varjatud vihje eksklusiivlepingule SyFy-ga ja et selle lõpp tuleb ära oodata. Samal ajal on MGM-il soojas uus Bondi-film ja kaks "Kääbiku"-filmi ning selle kolme aasta jooksul on MGM-il siis ka aega koguda raha päris oma asjade tegemiseks. MGM-i asju ajab praegu Spyglass Entertainment, kust tuleb $500 miljonit laenu või investeeringuid, millega teha praeguseid ja tuleviku-projekte, mille pealt oleks võimalik teenida ja saadud tulu investeerida näiteks SGU tegemisse. Et siis kolme aastaga on lootust saada ka piisavalt raha, et SGU-d edasi teha ja siis mitte tingimata SyFy-s näidata.laupäev, 1. jaanuar 2011
The blame game: SGA fans against SGU
Why some SGA fans didn't give a chance to SGU
The GateWorld forum rules have it over there, that posters cannot trash-talk other posters and fans, so it's best to opinionate about bad fans here. Admittedly, I am a huge "Stargate Universe" fan and therefore offer my opinion on the whole situation. Once I had finished writing on this topic, I realised that apart from unproductive blame games, it's better to know what went wrong and how to fix it and to look forward to how to keep SGU going.
There is a raft of "Stargate: Atlantis" (SGA) fans that hated and still hate "Stargate Universe" (SGU) from the outset, because "their baby" (SGA), which never was theirs in the first place, was cancelled.
The better strategy would have been to have two of the same shows cohabiting, with the option for SGA to conclude timing-wise the way "Star Trek: The Next Generation" did after the introduction of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine".Only that all SGA stories had been explored and any new episode would have been a rehash of anything from before, including, but not limited to the realm of 11 seasons of "Stargate SG-1" and other science fiction shows.The bitch and moan about "coulda, woulda, shoulda" is nevertheless pointless in here, because SGU is so good that I wouldn't want to change anything in the many a chain of events, where, for example, decisions were made for casting and who does the theme tune and the score and who would be the writers.
Reasons for SGA fans' hate/anger because of cancellation:
- SGA fans felt as disenfranchised as a junkie would feel himself in rehab; In short, they were having terrible withdrawal symptoms.
- Are some SGA fans
psychotic/sociopathicdevoid of remorse and empathy? Yes.Why, you may ask? — They were willing to give low ratings to SGU as a matter of payback and in order to get a "Stargate: Atlantis" movie or some continuation of that cheesy show. — While at the same time not keeping in mind the health of the whole Stargate franchise. In these times, no less.Devoid of remorse and empathy? Well, the "Sister Act" question and the article linked below explain that people devoid of such emotions are willing to do anything to get what they want. Unwillingness to consider a quality TV show by expressing opinion against it in bad faith are not legally punishable. Nevertheless, it is morally reprehensible: like bad-mouthing licorice and the people who really like it. That candy is also dark.
There is a popular, oversimplified and over-applied urban-mystery-type questionnaire consisting of just one question that pertains to detecting psychopaths and sociopaths. If anyone reads this, then you might probably know what the question is about; only that it was debunked.
While licorice candy is a type of food and may be produced by different confectioneries, "Stargate Universe" is a single tv show and neither is it an open source project (which may survive on the whims of enough willing developers and users) and is therefore dependent on viewership, along with viewer response to advertisements, ratings (Nielsen boxes+DVRs+IPTV solutions) and cable subscriptions.
- Are U.S. viewers really this bad? I hope not. But subscribers to SyFy, a cable channel which as of recently has further committed itself to airing wrestling shows?? What about admirers of science fiction in general? Or is it just about bullets, bombs, and boobs? Or just the number of young people not willing to watch TV at a predetermined time? SyFy's moving SGU to Tuesdays from Fridays was detrimental to SGU, but not to the new wrestling show.
More Ideas for SGU's Future
What I hope and pray for, is to see the continuation of Stargate Universe both as a TV show and a franchise.
My ideas (which I am sure I have written about before) for The Powers That Be:
My ideas (which I am sure I have written about before) for The Powers That Be:
- Before and until anything is clear about which television network is to pick up the show, MGM should make and promote a full-feature theatrical movie with the same actors and the same creative cast. The motion picture, if production is quick enough, could be released after Season II concludes on SyFy.
- Crazy idea: Why not market episodes as movies shown in pictures theatres? You could extend them to be at least 60 minutes long, for example, and the movie market is worldwide and not dependent on revenue from television advertisers (I don't mind product placement that is smart). Make sure to release in different countries near-simultaneously.
- Some forum posters have talked budget cuts, which I think are wrong. If cuts still happen, then it's best to reduce the number of episodes and not compromise on actors, the creative cast and production values, all of which affect series quality to a good degree.
- I much appreciate musical montages, so do keep these.
- If you haven't done that yet, publish an SGU soundtrack compilation both in CD and digital formats and maybe as an add-on in DVD sets (they're not cheap anyway, so value has to be added).
- In addition to current and very good musical selections, I'd like to hear music in SGU by some of the following acts: One EskimO/Kristian Leontiou, Nine Inch Nails/Trent Reznor, Frontline Assembly/Delerium (who are in Vancouver, btw), Linkin Park, Sarah McLachlan, maybe even 30 Seconds to Mars and Kanye West. All these musical acts and projects have large and/or dedicated fanbases: having a never-before-released song in some episodes of the show is likely to bring in new viewers (make sure to create positive buzz/tweet beforehand).
pühapäev, 19. detsember 2010
Sell Stargate Universe to another channel?
I recently posted this to GateWorld, but getting it here in my blog is just faster. I slightly edited the text for less ambiguity and better grammar.
2. The other problem is in marketing the show: First-viewing rights went to Anglo-Saxon countries (U.S., then Canada, then UK and Australia) and then some other country's channel got the episodes later or that channel wasn't quite interested: people in that country already had the episodes online (by any means): iTunes does not extend to enough useful territories, Hulu is only U.S.-based and did anyone consider having the episodes up on VEVO (an ad-supported YouTube project)?
The trick is in timing: Some very successful movies (The Matrix series came to mind) are screened near-simultaneously worldwide to avoid losses in second and third countries, because by the time a movie screens there, people in those might have already seen the material outside the movie theatre and may thus stay away from there.
Crazy idea #1: is for MGM to produce a quality SGU episode and launch it as a movie, worldwide (with nearly the same production budget). And many episodes back-to-back that way. I know it hasn't been done before.
Crazy idea #2: In trying to continue SGU on another channel, a collection of interested TV networks from around the world (I first thought Europe, where Atlantis was very popular, but then there's Australia, NZ, Japan, and maybe some friendly Latin-American countries) could create a collective financing pool to help produce SGU with the current producers keeping the creative freedom and all those channels could then near-simultaneously air the episodes. This would off-set the need to get individual episodes by ambiguous means. Now, how to get the channels interested in product and project, is another matter.
In addition, good DVD marketing could also help.
Farscape had the Library project and the Military/Navy project — donate VHS's (at the time) and DVD's to libraries and military/navy outposts. We could do the same and even more.
(This was my first post on GateWorld)
On causes and effects
1. I read some of the possible factors for cancellation by SyFy and one of them was timing, where a four-month delay throughout the winter is bad for an arc-based show, because new and casual viewers could quickly lose interest, which is why ABC kept airing "Lost" without much interruption. I belive that the choice to move the series to Tuesdays was a bad move (schoolkids are busy doing homework, other people working inside a week, while Fridays are freer).2. The other problem is in marketing the show: First-viewing rights went to Anglo-Saxon countries (U.S., then Canada, then UK and Australia) and then some other country's channel got the episodes later or that channel wasn't quite interested: people in that country already had the episodes online (by any means): iTunes does not extend to enough useful territories, Hulu is only U.S.-based and did anyone consider having the episodes up on VEVO (an ad-supported YouTube project)?
The trick is in timing: Some very successful movies (The Matrix series came to mind) are screened near-simultaneously worldwide to avoid losses in second and third countries, because by the time a movie screens there, people in those might have already seen the material outside the movie theatre and may thus stay away from there.
Crazy idea #1: is for MGM to produce a quality SGU episode and launch it as a movie, worldwide (with nearly the same production budget). And many episodes back-to-back that way. I know it hasn't been done before.
Crazy idea #2: In trying to continue SGU on another channel, a collection of interested TV networks from around the world (I first thought Europe, where Atlantis was very popular, but then there's Australia, NZ, Japan, and maybe some friendly Latin-American countries) could create a collective financing pool to help produce SGU with the current producers keeping the creative freedom and all those channels could then near-simultaneously air the episodes. This would off-set the need to get individual episodes by ambiguous means. Now, how to get the channels interested in product and project, is another matter.
In addition, good DVD marketing could also help.
Farscape had the Library project and the Military/Navy project — donate VHS's (at the time) and DVD's to libraries and military/navy outposts. We could do the same and even more.
(This was my first post on GateWorld)
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)