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/sociopathic devoid 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:

• 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).

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.

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)

Reaktsioonina E24 artikli
"Arrak: vaesus on iseloomuomadus" kommentaaridele
Ei õnnestunud miskipärast postitada, seega kirjutan siin

Mahatma Gandhi elas meie mõistes väga tagasihoidlikult, aga kas keegi vingujatest-kommenteerijatest julgeks teda vaeseks nimetada? Barack Obama vanaema pidi kasutama toidutalonge, et tema lapselaps saaks kvaliteetse hariduse. Kas Obama oli vaene, kui ta õppis väga mainekas ülikoolis? Või oli seda tema vanaema?

Seepärast ongi olemas terminid suhteline (tunnetatud) vaesus ja absoluutne vaesus — see, kui tõesti ei ole puhtust, süüa-juua, riideid ja ulualust.

See vaesus, mida mina tolle artikli enamikest kommentaaridest lugesin, on põhjustatud puhtast kadedusest: "Näe, mul on see ja see puudu ja ma olen nii vaene, aga vaata seda rikkurit seal uhkes autos ja üldse saan ma vähe raha ja puha..."

Ning kadedus on säherduse vaimuvaesuse üks arvestatav osa.

Mis puutub vaesusesse kui iseloomuomadusse, siis on Arraku mõte õige: inimesed mõtlevad end vaesemaks ja väetimaks kui nad tegelikult on ja panevad sellega nii kiunu, et vähe pole. — Just nagu polekski võimalik oma aega millegi muuga sisustada. Võimalik, et Arrak pidas silmas hoopis vaesust kui meelelaadi, millest ülalpool ka näide.

Iseasi muidugi, kas niisugust mõtet saabki väga ääri-veeri välja öelda. Või on probleem selles, kuidas lugeja suhestub Arrakusse: kui näiteks vaimulik oleks väljendanud sisuliselt sama mõtte (ja seda nad muuseas ka teevad), siis oleksid kõik eriti vasakpoolselt (ehk "sotsiaalselt hoolivalt") meelestatud inimesed temaga nõustunud (mõeldes samal ajal tegelikult rahakatest inimestest, keda peetakse vaimuvaesteks, aga enda kohta ei saa mitte niimoodi mõelda). Õnneks on heal vaimulikul oskus edastada seesugune mõte ka nendele ühtlasi vaestele ja vaimuvaestele, kes tegelikult nii väga vaesed polegi ja kes suudavad netiavarustes rämedate kirja-, grammatika- ja trükivigadega näidata, et pööbel ja matslus pole veel kuhugi kadunud :P

Taskurahast, raha teenimisest ja hooplemisest

“16aastaselt hakkasin teenima rohkem kui vanemad kokku” - Delfi "Noorte hääl"

Töökus (inglise keeles ka "hard work") on selline väga inetu sõna järjepidevuse kohta ning on järjepidevaid ja eesmärgile pühendunud noori ning ka selliseid, kes seda ei ole.

Inimesed on erinevad ja kodune kasvatus on seejuures mitmel puhul määrav.

Omapärane on see, et edule orienteerunud sisuloojad soovivad tõenäoliselt head soovides niisugust edumõtlemist ehk taasluua, kuid see tuleb neil niisuguste ja sarnaste artiklitega viletsasti välja.

Seda seepärast, et nii pealkirja ja kogu jutu raskuskese põhineb tõdemustel, et kui palju keegi raha saab (olgu siis teenimisega või teisiti) ja mitte sellel, et millega noor inimene tegeleb, kuidas ta end teostab ja kas eneseteostusvõimalused on piisavad ja/või rahuldavad.

Võimalik, et iseäranis hooplevalt paistev pealkiri ei peegeldanud õigesti artikli sisu, mille eesmärk tegelikult oligi näidata ära see, et milline on koolinoorte sissetulek.

"Raadioteatri" kuuldemängudest

Hakkas nagu huvitama nende kuulamine, seega tekkis vajadus leida ka mingid relevantsed Wikipedia artiklid
Kuuldemängude pealkirjade lingid viivad heliarhiivile ning nendele järgneb aasta, mil lugu Raadioteatris esimest korda kõlas.

• Walentin Chorell — "Kolm valget särki" (Raadioteatris 1971)
• Paavo Rintala — "Lõikuskuu hääli" (Raadioteatris 1967)
  Nagu võlutult, mängis see raadios umbes siis, kui Eestis käis uus Soome film soome meeste hingeelu avamisest saunas.
• Veera Vrubljovskaja (Врублевская, Валерия Васильевна) — "Kateedri koosolek" (Raadioteatris 1983)
• Albert Uustulnd — "Täispurjedega" (Raadioteatris 1962)

Kõiki heliarhiivis väljatoodud kuuldemänge pole ma kuulanud, sest kuulasin neid raadiost ja enam-vähem nii, kuidas peale sattusin.

Naljakas valimisreklaam

Hiljuti potsatas mulle vahelduseks sisse midagi, mis mulle ehk alguses vaid naeratuse suule tõi, aga siis hiljem laginal naerma ajas.

Väljavõte Urmas Reinsalu valimisreklaamis veerust, kus on tema "algatused, mis on teoksil:"

“Kodutoetus paljulapselistele peredele

2008. aastal rakendatud kodutoetus ehk riiklik programm paljulapseliste perede elamistingimuste parandamiseks aitab igal aastal sadu peresid. Selle kaudu on juba uue kodu saanud või remonti teinud pered, kus kasvab üle 4000 lapse.

”

Muahahahahah :D

Idee ise on sisuliselt muidugi väga armas, ainult et mitte ükski pere ei ole puht bioloogiliselt võimeline endale nii palju lapsi sigitama. Nii palju ei lastaks ka adopteerida.

Võib-olla peeti silmas sipelgaid ja mesilasi?