Why would SCI FI Channel, which has heavily relied on
Stargate SG-1 for five years (at one point using the show to make up something like 25 percent of its primetime programming), which has become a Top 10 cable network almost solely because of
Stargate SG-1, and which still airs
Stargate SG-1 as one of its highest-rated and best-known shows, cancel
Stargate SG-1?
Let's pick the network executive's brain for a moment. Don't worry, it won't take long.
SCI FI doesn't want Stargate. In recent years SCI FI executives have publically expressed a desire to move the channel away from traditional, "space-based" science fiction programming. Unfortunately, this is a difficult move to make when your top three shows are
Stargate SG-1,
Stargate Atlantis, and the critically acclaimed
Battlestar Galactica -- all traditional, space-based series. Their number one show is even set on board a space ship.
Instead, SCI FI has been putting its development dollars into series and mini-series such as (look for the pattern):
The Triangle
Legend of Earthsea
Tremors: The Series
Painkiller Jane
Dark Kingdom: The Dragon King
Dragon Dynasty
Dragon Sword
Warehouse 13
The Lost Room
Ghost Hunters
The Dresden Files
Eureka
Who Wants To Be A Superhero?
And the list goes on. Did you see the pattern?
Rather than traditional science fiction, SCI FI wants to push toward the "fantasy" side of the genre -- perhaps even so far as to exit the science fiction genre entirely.
What? SCI FI Channel not doing sci-fi anymore?In my analysis, that may be the network's ultimate goal. Following basic cable networks like Spike TV, I could see them gradually getting rid of traditional sci-fi programming and, a few years down the line, rebranding themselves. In fact, let's call it a prediction.
I believe SCI FI cancelled
Stargate because, ultimately, they don't want it anymore. They don't want to be the kind of network that is known for an action-adventure space show with ships, ray guns, and special effects.
When a network has a show with falling ratings, they typically
try something different with it -- especially if the show has a long, proven track record. They change time slots. They change nights. They advertise it off their own network. SCI FI made no efforts whatsover to combat the ratings freefall, even making the decision to cancel the show
before the highly publicized two-hundredth episode had aired. That's really the evidence that they just don't want it any more.
Mark Stern, the network's executive VP of programming, this week told
Variety that this "was not a ratings-driven decision. ... "We're actually going out on a high note." TVGuide.com confirms: "According to Sci Fi Channel original programming exec Mark Stern, one of the reasons the cabler canceled the venerable series was to make room for new shows, including
The Dresden Files (think Jim Rockford as a wizard), which is currently being retooled and readied for a January premiere, and a complete revamping of
Painkiller Jane, which ran as a Sci Fi movie last year."
The network is replacing a proven show that gets good ratings (when it is advertised) with new shows that may or may not succeed. That, to me, is proof that they no longer wish to be the network defined by
Stargate -- regardless of its ratings performance.
Yes, it would be great if SCI FI could be convinced to keep
Stargate around. But ultimately, it may no longer be the best long-term home for the franchise we love.
Born to be a Stargate fan, Darren started GateWorld in 1999. In addition to personal and freelance
Web work he is also a writer, a graduate student in theology, a husband and a father of two. He is a big fan
of genre hits like Star Trek, Babylon 5, Farscape, LOST, and Battlestar Galactica.
Hmm. Last time I checked, Darren, Eureka wasn't fantasy- it's science fictiony in origin, as is Painkiller Jane . I'm also inclined to think that Warehouse 13 is on the SF side and the graboids in Tremors, as I recall, were part of a government experiment.
Some of them may be a little on the fluffy side, but then, Stargate isn't exactly hardcore military scifi, either, is it? I resent your implication that there's something wrong with the shows you listed. I happen to LOVE Eureka and I'm planning to watch several of the shows listed there, including the dreaded Dresden Files.
Scifi and fantasy invariably get chucked together- hell, there's even a "General sci-fi and fantasy" folder on the forum! So how come all of a sudden Skiffy's expanding more into the fantasy genre is this big dreaded thing? You wanna complain about ECW having no place on the SCIFI channel and I'll be one of the first to back you, but taking arms against fantasy? Um... No. I happen to like BOTH, thank you, and I'm happy to have one channel where I can watch BOTH- occasionally at the same time. ;)
And for all your sneering at Skiffy and its "anti scifi" agenda, as you seem to see it, how do you explain the continuing success and renewal of BSG? And the fact that there's a spinoff, which is ALSO guaranteed to be action-adventure-y. And there's Doctor Who, which is also science fiction even if it isn't originally produced by Skiffy.
Now, if BOTH Stargates had been cancelled and BSG was getting scaled back and Caprica was dropped, maybe there'd be evidence for an argument about Skiffy veering in other directions, but if anything the continuing success of BSG shows that there's a definite market for "action-adventure space show with ships, ray guns, and special effects."
They also chose to keep Atlantis. They could have cancelled that, too. ONE show getting cancelled does not mean the downfall of an entire network.
And for pity's sake, implying that lack of advertising is responsible for the drop in ratings? C'mon! Fans of the show are gonna care enough to find out when the show is on for themselves- or better yet, they're gonna REMEMBER from previous years the approximate time the new season starts. "Lack of advertising" might lead to a drop in NEW fans coming in, but it won't be responsible for OLD fans not watching. If old fans aren't watching, chances are that the reasons are a lot closer to home than "I didn't know it was on." Maybe people don't like the direction the show is taking. I sure as heck didn't, which is why I stopped watching.
There are other factors, too. Like the age of the show, the cost of production, the salaries, the giant changes in casting, the lack of RDA, etc. If SCIFI is to blame... they aren't the only ones.
I wish you and everyone the best of luck at getting SG-1 resurrected, but apparently MY tastes are far different than I realized because I'm looking forward to some of those new shows- and I am LOVING Eureka! For all that people snap at me for being "unable to accept change" I don't seem to have much trouble with the direction SCIFI is apparently headed.
Do I think that ALL of their stuff is top notch? Heck no! 80-90% of what SCIFI has to offer is sheer crap... but it's been that way for more years than Stargate has been on it. In my opinion. But some of what they DO offer is good enough to keep me coming back for more. And I will- with or without SG-1 on its airwaves.
You basically said everything I was thinking Darren. (Except I like Eureka) You kind of surprised me with some of the things you wrote, though I don't know why they surprised me seeing as you were the creator of Gateworld.
I agree with about 95% of what you wrote.
Hi Shadow,
You're reading a lot into this that isn't there. I love my straight-up fantasy and my fantasy-leaning sci-fi as much as the next person. Call it "SF," call it "SF&F," call it "speculative fiction" ... I'm there.
My point was not to berate these shows or the fantasy side of the broader genre, but rather to illustrate that SCI FI seems to be making a deliberate effort to exclusive traditional space-based science fiction (outer space, space ships, ray guns, etc.). Heck, they've said as much.
Nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a space. I think they cancelled SG-1 because they want to gradually reach the point where they aren't including that side of the genre at all anymore, but are solely focusing on the fantasy side.
Now fantasy, of course, doesn't just mean dragons and wizards. I consider it more of a spectrum -- some sci-fi is less "spacey" and more fantasy (e.g. a lot of The X-Files, though by no means the show as a whole).
BSG -- on the one hand, I think that this movement within the network is not uniform. I am under the impression that the programming execs don't always agree. But moreover, I think they got themselves a bona fide, critically acclaimed hit, so they are riding it out until it's done. They also like it because it is much more of a gritty, real-world drama than what people usually expect out of a "space ship show."
Notice that BSG's heir apparent, Caprica, is decided un-spacey.
I think they cancelled SG-1 because they want to gradually reach the point where they aren't including that side of the genre at all anymore, but are solely focusing on the fantasy side.
I think there's quite a bit more to the cancellation than Skiffy wanting to turn to fantasy, but your opinion is yours and I can hardly argue with it.
I do, however, still feel you're implying that this fantasy trend of Skiffy's is a bad thing. Maybe it's a necessary thing- maybe lighter scifi/fantasy shows do better and/or are more palatable to a wider audience than hardcore scifi is. Skiffy might have started off wanting to offer "real" scifi to scifi fans, but the reality seems to be that they need to show what sells. Science fictiony shows in general don't seem to do well on regular TV (even the "lighter" ones) so maybe they don't fare a whole lot better on cable. And then again maybe not. *shrug* It's hard to say when NO ONE is producing any seriously "spacey" shows (other than the obvious pre-existing ones). Is that because there isn't enough of a market for it, or because no one's willing to try and find out?
I'm glad you took the time to explain that to people. I've always suspected the same things you touched on. I love stargate so much and I can't figure out why they are throwing it under the bus. It is a hit for heaven's sake!! I wept for hours when I heard the news. ...Though I may not have said this before (I hope I did) Gateworld is a great community, thank you...
I do, however, still feel you're implying that this fantasy trend of Skiffy's is a bad thing.
It's certainly bad for Stargate, as a more traditional "spacey" science fiction show in the tradition of Star Trek. That's really all I'm trying to say.
If SCI FI wants to go fantasy / speculative fiction and even rebrand themselves "The Fantasy Channel," more power to them. Unfortunately it means that cable will be left without a home for the other end of the sci-fi category.
And any future Stargate series, if it airs on a network that does not have sci-fi as a core value(e.g. G4, Spike, TNT), will be in a more precarious position.
If I remember correctly, SG1 wasn't a space based show during its initial 5 seasons. The majority of the episodes were merely walking thru the Gate and the majority of the episodes were planet based. SG1 was for the most part a character driven show.
While there were space ships in the show, it wasn't a weekly affair so the fx/cgi budget was "usually" saved for the season premiere, mid-season break, and the season finale.
Dark Kingdom aka Ring of the Nibelungs was actually a 184 min 2004 German theatrical film (was only shown in Germany). The SFC bought the U.S. rights and packaged it as an original mini series.
Eureka and The Dresden Files are/were highly anticipated new series. Painkiller Jane was a comicbook heroine, but unless they follow the Bionic Woman formula and mix in social commentary, that series will fail. Warehouse 13 reminds me of Friday the 13th: The Series. Tremors (the movies) was a low cost cash cow for Universal...Ironically there was a save Tremors: the series effort by that fanbase...which they ended with with another movie or 2 or 3...lol. Some of the other projects are min-series, so I'm not commenting on those.
The question becomes, "What is considered Sci-Fi?" Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus is considered the 1st Sci-Fi novel. We would call it science-horror today. So who draws that thin line? Should a scifi show have hard or soft science? Is true scifi considered or has to be space based today? Star Wars is categorized as science-fantasy. Ghost Hunters is just bad science...lol...but it pulls in the ratings and falls into the science-mystery category. Is or does scifi need a lot of fx/cgi in it to be truly scifi?
OT: If I remember correctly, the SFC channel was supposed to be the home of ST, but the partnership with Paramount was permenently side tracked by the Viacom takeover. Gene Roddenberry, an advisory board member for the channel said before the merger, "The Sci-Fi Channel will be bigger than Star Trek." Little did he know that without ST, the SFC would struggle for years trying to find that signature anchor show to build around.
The question becomes, "What is considered Sci-Fi?"
Good question. Just because it doesn't have spaceships and laser fire doesn't mean it isn't scifi- at least not from my POV.
If I remember correctly, SG1 wasn't a space based show during its initial 5 seasons. The majority of the episodes were merely walking thru the Gate and the majority of the episodes were planet based. SG1 was for the most part a character driven show.
Also a good point. Stargate didn't become primarily ship-based until... well, until after I stopped watching. And that was actually one of the changes that made me stop. I liked SG-1 because it wasn't ship based- they did most of their exploring and fighting WITHOUT space ships and photon torpedoes and it added a certain edge because they didn't have ships to protect themselves. Maybe it was a natural progression that Earth get a fleet of ships, but it made the show less interesting to me, as did the shift away from exploration.
I like some of the more hardcore ship-based stuff- BSG is a top favorite and I loved Space: Above & Beyond in its day- but that was never the point of Stargate to me.
I guess my definition of "what's scifi" is simply a lot more forgiving. That's another irony, since I'm usually accused of being too narrow-minded. ;) Lost World (the original one), Invisible Man, Time Machine, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Journey to the Center of the Earth... I'd call those classic scifi stories, but I guess they aren't "traditional" enough. *shrug* Like I said, my definition is different and I don't see the cancellation of SG-1 as proof of some grand anti-scifi conspiracy because I still see a lot of scifi on the SCIFI channel.
Why isn't anyone willing to admit that SG-1 itself may have shared some of the blame for its own cancellation? Why does it have to be entirely someone else's fault? And why does it have to be a conspiracy??
edit: and can I say that if Blogger is going to have this stupid "wod verification" BS they should at least use fonts that make the letters legible?
Darren said: My point was not to berate these shows or the fantasy side of the broader genre, but rather to illustrate that SCI FI seems to be making a deliberate effort to exclusive traditional space-based science fiction (outer space, space ships, ray guns, etc.). Heck, they've said as much.
Nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a space. I think they cancelled SG-1 because they want to gradually reach the point where they aren't including that side of the genre at all anymore, but are solely focusing on the fantasy side.
Then how do you explain the reasoning behind Skiffy picking up Star Trek: Enterprise which is reportedly going to air as reruns this fall?
I still believe that Skiffy employs a bunch of monkeys to plan its programming and programming schedules. Occasionally they press the right buttons but the rest of the time….. Your guess is as good as mine for the reasoning behind some of the crap they show and/or produce on that channel.
It's a pity. I'm based in Germany, and we don't have Scifi channel here. I know Stargate because i bought all the dvd boxes. So there is a worldwide market for it. The Stargate fanbase certainy is.
As I understand it, Scifi is a television channel in America. Mgm is the producer. Mgm could just sell it to another customer, right ?
Cheers,
Andy
Well written and reasoned. Its hard to be sure how accurate you are, but I get the feeling you may be right. Its a pity though, they could at least give MGM the option to move the show to another network...
Also, they JUST started putting Stargate on iTunes. Now I, as an American working in Japan, can FINALLY legally watch the dang show now and contribute to the revenue... but of course they did this right after cancelling the show. Which of course, makes tons of sense.
This is just obvious...SG-1 was expensive and isn't pulling in the ratings anymore either due to exhaustion or reduced quality or both.
Atlantis is suspected to be cheaper and the ratings are better.
BSG is probably expensive and the ratings are apparently very good.
Yes, Stargate is expensive, so why can't we start a worldwide donation drive to rally as many millions of people all over the world to donate $1 or $2 for a "SG-1 Season Fund". From an estimate, it cost $2 million per episode. Since money talks LOUDER then message drives (emails and postal), then by raising millions of dollar from around the world, then it will show SciFi channel that there are more viewers and fans out there then they believed. By cancelling this series, they are alienating a very large section of viewers to SciFi. If anyone out there knows anything about organizing a funds drive, let get this started. Please there are at least 2 more seasons of SG-1 left. Let's try and keep it going for a proper series ending. Oh, not only fans of the series should be involved, but also fans of the actors/characters should be involved. Friends of fans and their fans and so on and so on. With over 7 billion people in the world, there must be at least 10 million fans and friends of fans. Let's join together and create something that has never been done before and make history.
I don't believe it has to do with not doing Science Fiction anymore...And from what I can read on SciFi website, it's defenitely SciFi content with it's SciFi Wire informing about the genre everywhere, the SciFi Pedia, a mini encyclopedia about the genre, and all the shows that are played on the channel!
You know that Science Fiction is first of all interesting when it has a purpose! As the story with the Oris continues, I find echos to real life and that's what is interesting with the last seasons of Stargate.
They should develop this in some films if the series must come to an end.
I honestly cannot understand SciFi's reasoning behind this. I honestly am fed up with reality shows and such. Every channel you turn to mostly has a reality show or ten. Who want's to be a Superhero...yuck. Totally unproven shows like Dresden Files (I am really sick of seeing the ads every couple of minutes on SciFi) and Painkiller, oh joy..not. I cannot stand Heroes and Eureka, Heroes is just boring in my opinion and Eureka is just too stupid for my taste. I do like Doctor Who, BSG, and both Star Gates. I just can't see why SciFi would just dump SG-1. Honestly, what the heck does ECW have to do with SciFi? Why don't they just start calling SciFi a Spike Clone? They keep cranking out junk and pretty soon no one will be watching.