Why SGU failed. My 2 cents

Andrew W

unread,

Jun 12, 2011, 10:37:43 PM6/12/11

to

This is my first post in these particular groups and this sentiment may have
already been covered.

I've been listening to the GateWorld podcast.

Why I think SGU failed is because it was too much about human struggle and
tragedy and not enough fun, adventure and excitement like Star Trek and
Stargate SG1.
I think it took itself way too seriously.
When I first saw the trailer for SGU I thought, nup, probably not going to
watch that one. Too serious and tragic. But ended up doing so anyway like
many others.
Throughout the 1st season it was all just bitter arguments, fights and
things going wrong. No fun.

I hope this doesn't spell the end of SCI-FI because we need SCI-FI for
creative inspiration.

I don't really think much of the new crop like Eureka, Warehouse 13 and
Sanctuary.
Boring, however maybe I just need to watch them from the start to appreciate
them.
I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I find her English
accent off putting.

I think SCI-FI started going down hill when Star Trek Enterprise and Firefly
came out.

--
Education cures religious fundamentalism.

Frosty

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 1:07:16 AM6/13/11

to

> Why I think SGU failed is because it was too much about human struggle and
> tragedy and not enough fun, adventure and excitement like Star Trek and
> Stargate SG1.
> I think it took itself way too seriously.

But they pretty much had to change the course did they not? Atlantis was
like SG-1 and after 5 season people were getting sick of Atlantis. Or maybe
they were sick of the casting changes.

> When I first saw the trailer for SGU I thought, nup, probably not going to
> watch that one. Too serious and tragic. But ended up doing so anyway like
> many others.
> Throughout the 1st season it was all just bitter arguments, fights and
> things going wrong. No fun.

SGU was Stargate's BSG and that to me was a good thing.

> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I find her
> English accent off putting.

I've only seen parts of the show but I kinda agree, the accent seems to be
British light

> I think SCI-FI started going down hill when Star Trek Enterprise and
> Firefly came out.

Well the last 2 seasons of ENT were pretty good and I liked Firefly.

Ryan P.

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 1:45:36 AM6/13/11

to

On 6/12/2011 9:37 PM, Andrew W wrote:
> This is my first post in these particular groups and this sentiment may have
> already been covered.
>
> I've been listening to the GateWorld podcast.
>
> Why I think SGU failed is because it was too much about human struggle and
> tragedy and not enough fun, adventure and excitement like Star Trek and
> Stargate SG1.
> I think it took itself way too seriously.
> When I first saw the trailer for SGU I thought, nup, probably not going to
> watch that one. Too serious and tragic. But ended up doing so anyway like
> many others.
> Throughout the 1st season it was all just bitter arguments, fights and
> things going wrong. No fun.
>
>
> I hope this doesn't spell the end of SCI-FI because we need SCI-FI for
> creative inspiration.
>
> I don't really think much of the new crop like Eureka, Warehouse 13 and
> Sanctuary.

Eureka was fun in the first season. I don't know if the changed
writers or what, but after the first season, they jumped into Science
Ridiculous territory. And way too many forced "funny" scenes...
Warehouse 13 was interesting.. until I realized they were looking to be
nothing more than a sitcom with an extended plot.

> Boring, however maybe I just need to watch them from the start to appreciate
> them.
> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I find her English
> accent off putting.

Agreed. The show has its moments... but the green screen scenes are
way too obvious, and that throw me out of the story.

> I think SCI-FI started going down hill when Star Trek Enterprise and Firefly
> came out.

Enterprise was a good concept... but casting was a bit odd... Scott
Bakula was a very poor choice for what should have been an action role.

What didn't you like about Firefly, out of curiosity? I thought it was
a great show. The characters interacted extremely well with each other
from the start, something that's extremely rare. It was also a lot of fun.

Andrew W

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 3:40:34 AM6/13/11

to

"Frosty" <frostyw...@mymts.net> wrote in message
news:it45u5$qe7$1...@dont-email.me

>> Why I think SGU failed is because it was too much about human
>> struggle and tragedy and not enough fun, adventure and excitement
>> like Star Trek and Stargate SG1.
>> I think it took itself way too seriously.
>
> But they pretty much had to change the course did they not? Atlantis
> was like SG-1 and after 5 season people were getting sick of
> Atlantis. Or maybe they were sick of the casting changes.
>

Yeh, probably certain sections of the fanbase might have felt that way. I
guess its really hard to please everyone when you have millions of fans.
I think there would be a lot of possibilities other than going the bitter
human struggle and tragedy route.
I think BSG did it the right way. That series had more interesting plot
twists as far as I'm concerned.
I think all it takes is more creativity. I could be wrong here but I think
maybe the writers or producers were just getting a bit tired and had writers
block or something. Plus maybe they were also worried about financial issues
because of the world economy? I haven't read that much about the
writers/producers thoughts so I don't know.

>
>> When I first saw the trailer for SGU I thought, nup, probably not
>> going to watch that one. Too serious and tragic. But ended up doing
>> so anyway like many others.
>> Throughout the 1st season it was all just bitter arguments, fights
>> and things going wrong. No fun.
>
> SGU was Stargate's BSG and that to me was a good thing.
>

Nod. Some say they did liked it.

>
>> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I find her
>> English accent off putting.
>
> I've only seen parts of the show but I kinda agree, the accent seems
> to be British light
>
>> I think SCI-FI started going down hill when Star Trek Enterprise and
>> Firefly came out.
>
> Well the last 2 seasons of ENT were pretty good and I liked Firefly.
>

Firefly was good for those who like westerns.
I stopped watching Enterprise when the Xindy? showed up and put a big gash
in the earth for seemingly no reason.

Andrew W

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 3:55:16 AM6/13/11

to

"Ryan P." <rdelet...@wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
news:it4860$3o0$1...@dont-email.me

I guess I'm not that much into westerns. I like technology and interesting
spatial anomalies more.
Trek NG and SG1 were my favourites.
I'm more of a cerebral geek.

AC

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 4:19:34 AM6/13/11

to

Andrew W wrote:
> This is my first post in these particular groups and this sentiment may have
> already been covered.
>
> I've been listening to the GateWorld podcast.
>
> Why I think SGU failed is because it was too much about human struggle and
> tragedy and not enough fun, adventure and excitement like Star Trek and
> Stargate SG1.
> I think it took itself way too seriously.
> When I first saw the trailer for SGU I thought, nup, probably not going to
> watch that one. Too serious and tragic. But ended up doing so anyway like
> many others.
> Throughout the 1st season it was all just bitter arguments, fights and
> things going wrong. No fun.

I think it went wrong because the character development didn't drive an
action plot.

>
>
> I hope this doesn't spell the end of SCI-FI because we need SCI-FI for
> creative inspiration.
>
> I don't really think much of the new crop like Eureka, Warehouse 13 and
> Sanctuary.
> Boring, however maybe I just need to watch them from the start to appreciate
> them.
> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I find her English
> accent off putting.

Sanctuary was good when it was web based. Problem is, it still looks
like a web based show.

I used to like Eureka and W13, but they just became samey. Nothing
interesting was happening.

>
> I think SCI-FI started going down hill when Star Trek Enterprise and Firefly
> came out.
>

Never understood what the problem was with Enterprise. I liked it. I
think it got ruined by Trek fans whining on about irrelevancies.

Firefly? What was the problem there? That was a great show.

--
AC

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 12:58:25 PM6/13/11

to

And so it was that in the sacred domain of alt.tv.stargate-universe, Frosty <frostyw...@mymts.net> uttered the following pearls of wisdom:

>> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I find her
>> English accent off putting.
>
> I've only seen parts of the show but I kinda agree, the accent seems to be
> British light

There's no such thing as a "british" accent.
Far too many regions in britain to select a single one to cover the entire
country. Even the accents in scotland are many and varied, even if they have
a similar lilt to them.

Andy K.

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 1:41:54 PM6/13/11

to

That would explain your not liking it. Firefly was not necessarily scifi. I
mean, the wonderful chemistry between the characters could work with only
minor changes also in medieval sea pirate setting (or in any other setting,
really). All the spacey, modern sciencey stuff was not important at all.

I loved it.

--
A.

Andy K.

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 1:45:43 PM6/13/11

to

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:45:36 -0500
"Ryan P." <rdelet...@wi.rr.comm> wrote:

> Agreed. The show has its moments... but the green screen scenes are
> way too obvious, and that throw me out of the story.

Perhaps I'm way too easily pleased, but unless it's really "in your face" bad,
1960s style special effects, it doesn't bother me if the story is good. And
some of the Sanctuary episodes are quite interesting - not all of them, I do
not like the main plot lately.

--
A.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 1:47:09 PM6/13/11

to

"Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
news:4df577f7$0$13393$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:

>
> This is my first post in these particular groups and this
> sentiment may have already been covered.
>
> I've been listening to the GateWorld podcast.
>
> Why I think SGU failed is because it was too much about human
> struggle and tragedy and not enough fun, adventure and
> excitement like Star Trek and Stargate SG1.

It failed largely because they called it Stargate. The franchise
had two shows that centered around characters that were well
trained, experienced, and well equipped for the job they were
doing. They were, in short, the best at what they did. And those
shows built a loyal audience who like that sort of story with that
sort of characters.

Universe was centered on a bunch of pathetic, whiney losers who
were, to all appearanced, too stupid to live. While there is a
market for that sort of stuff, if it's well done, that market is
*not* the fans of the Stargate franchise. They were put off by
unlikable, uninteresting, boring characters doing unlikable,
uninteresting, boring stuff. And the potential market saw
"Stargate," and figured "it'll be like the other Stargate shows,
and I didn't like those" so they didn't even try it.

>
> I hope this doesn't spell the end of SCI-FI because we need
> SCI-FI for creative inspiration.

There's better science fiction coming from the big networks right
now.

>
> I don't really think much of the new crop like Eureka, Warehouse
> 13 and Sanctuary.

All of which are fantasy, not science fiction.

> Boring, however maybe I just need to watch them from the start
> to appreciate them.
> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I find
> her English accent off putting.

She has an English accent? Sounded to me more like she was smoking
dope to work through the pain of having her tongue bifurcated or
something.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 1:49:11 PM6/13/11

to

"Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in

news:4df5bef2$0$13394$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:

> I stopped watching Enterprise when the Xindy? showed up and put
> a big gash in the earth for seemingly no reason.
>

I couldn't get past the pilot, which was a *bad* time travel story
and included a shower scene. (It didn't help any that the casting
call for the Vulcan woman included the phrase "large breasts,"
either.)

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 1:49:54 PM6/13/11

to

spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote in
news:h6shc8-...@librarian.sky.com:

> And so it was that in the sacred domain of
> alt.tv.stargate-universe, Frosty <frostyw...@mymts.net>
> uttered the following pearls of wisdom:
>>> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I
>>> find her English accent off putting.
>>
>> I've only seen parts of the show but I kinda agree, the accent
>> seems to be British light
>
> There's no such thing as a "british" accent.
> Far too many regions in britain to select a single one to cover
> the entire country. Even the accents in scotland are many and
> varied, even if they have a similar lilt to them.
>

And as much as I adore Amanda Tapping, she can't do _any_ of them.

Your Name

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 4:53:30 PM6/13/11

to

In article <4df5bef2$0$13394$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Andrew W"
<remove_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "Frosty" <frostyw...@mymts.net> wrote in message
> news:it45u5$qe7$1...@dont-email.me
> >> Why I think SGU failed is because it was too much about human
> >> struggle and tragedy and not enough fun, adventure and excitement
> >> like Star Trek and Stargate SG1.
> >> I think it took itself way too seriously.
> >
> > But they pretty much had to change the course did they not? Atlantis
> > was like SG-1 and after 5 season people were getting sick of
> > Atlantis. Or maybe they were sick of the casting changes.
> >
>
> Yeh, probably certain sections of the fanbase might have felt that way. I
> guess its really hard to please everyone when you have millions of fans.
> I think there would be a lot of possibilities other than going the bitter
> human struggle and tragedy route.

The problem is that Hollyweird has zero interest in actual fans. They're
sole interest is in over-stuffing their own pockets.

The fans like the franchise the way it is, and when the morons in
Hollyweird come along and make drastic changes (whether that's by "jumping
the shark" or "reboot" / "reimagine" / "remake"), many of those fans
simply give up in disgust at the way they've been slapped in the face.

The morons in Hollyweird make these drastic changes in the hopes that it
will somehow entice more people to watch ... a fallacy since it drives way
many of the existing fans and those who weren't fans are not going to
watch it anyway (why would anyone with more than half a braincell who
knows they don't like "Stargate" watch something with "Stargate" in the
title?? That's why the Beavis & Butthead morons tried to make "Enterprise"
without "Star Trek" in the title).

The simple fact is, that if a franchise is no longer "worth it" to the
morons in Hollyweird, then they should let it die and create something new
... which leads to the second problem in Hollyweird of there being almost
nobody left with any real talent at creating new stuff. The current
generation is SO incredibly talentless that all they can do is steal and
butcher someone else's hard work. X-(

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 7:58:35 PM6/13/11

to

In article <Xns9F036E1108...@69.16.186.7>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Complaints-To: ab...@easynews.com

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 7:59:46 PM6/13/11

to

In article <Xns9F036DB8951...@69.16.186.7>,

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 8:01:18 PM6/13/11

to

In article <Xns9F036E2FA92...@69.16.186.7>,

Frosty

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 8:10:32 PM6/13/11

to

Keyboard not working Mal?

Your Name

unread,

Jun 13, 2011, 8:53:41 PM6/13/11

to

In article <it68tp$urc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Frosty"
<frostyw...@mymts.net> wrote:
>
> Keyboard not working Mal?

Nope, just left them speechless. ;-)

AC

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 4:28:10 AM6/14/11

to

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote in
> news:h6shc8-...@librarian.sky.com:
>
>> And so it was that in the sacred domain of
>> alt.tv.stargate-universe, Frosty<frostyw...@mymts.net>
>> uttered the following pearls of wisdom:
>>>> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I
>>>> find her English accent off putting.
>>>
>>> I've only seen parts of the show but I kinda agree, the accent
>>> seems to be British light
>>
>> There's no such thing as a "british" accent.
>> Far too many regions in britain to select a single one to cover
>> the entire country. Even the accents in scotland are many and
>> varied, even if they have a similar lilt to them.
>>
> And as much as I adore Amanda Tapping, she can't do _any_ of them.
>

I am a Brit, and I have to say, her accent is awful. Most American
actors cant do a credible UK accent. From what I can tell some Brits do
good US accents, but being a Brit its hard to tell. I dont think Brits
are better actors as such, its just a culture thing. We hear more US
accents than Americans hear British ones. Sorta makes sense.

However, we have inflicted Jason Statham on America with his American
accent and, worse still, we tried to lump Cheryl Cole on you guys for
xFactor, with her Newcastle accent, which even many Brits have a problem
with.

So, Tapping is no more than fair pay back. I am just happy that the US
has not seen Statham and Cole as acts or terror, and acted accordingly.

--
AC

AC

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 4:34:33 AM6/14/11

to

Ah, interesting. I often say that my favourite show of all time, Babylon
5, is NOT sci-fi either at its core. Firefly would have been my second
favourite show, had it not been shafted, and I guess that's why.

Its just good stories and characters that could be mapped to any genre.
Like FF could have been a historic pirate show, I think B5 could have
been set in the UN or something.

--
AC

AC

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 4:44:10 AM6/14/11

to

> title?? That's why the Beavis& Butthead morons tried to make "Enterprise"

> without "Star Trek" in the title).
>
> The simple fact is, that if a franchise is no longer "worth it" to the
> morons in Hollyweird, then they should let it die and create something new
> ... which leads to the second problem in Hollyweird of there being almost
> nobody left with any real talent at creating new stuff. The current
> generation is SO incredibly talentless that all they can do is steal and
> butcher someone else's hard work. X-(

Hollywood does care about fans, they have the money. If a show makes no
money, then it dies. Irritating for some of is, and trust me, I am
irritated by many cancellations and shows that do survive, but Hollywood
is not a charity.

I know how Americans hate left wing things, but we Brits have the BBC,
and that has the advantage of not having to worry about raw numbers in
quite the same way. We can let a show find an audience. Many of our old
great shows would have been axed in the US before they gained an
audience. Many shows we have now that are excelent could not exist in
the US. (It is also true that we cant easily do the huge budget Lost
type thing. Horses for courses)

But, since you love your raw right wing extreme capitalist structures,
you can hardly complain at the results. If you want loss making , but
quality shows to exist, then you need a different structure to support
them. No, not replace the existing systems, but a mixture of both.

--
AC

Ryan P.

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 8:05:06 AM6/14/11

to

Depends on my mood... I used to roll my eyes at a lot of the lines of
technobabble spouted by Trek engineers in TNG.

I think the reason I liked Firefly is that the characters were forced
to take care of themselves and NOT rely on anyone else for backup.

Ryan P.

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 8:06:59 AM6/14/11

to

On 6/13/2011 12:41 PM, Andy K. wrote:

> That would explain your not liking it. Firefly was not necessarily scifi. I
> mean, the wonderful chemistry between the characters could work with only
> minor changes also in medieval sea pirate setting (or in any other setting,
> really). All the spacey, modern sciencey stuff was not important at all.

This is true...

Anim8rFSK

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 12:12:06 PM6/14/11

to

In article <SYEJp.2865$Ll1...@newsfe24.ams2>, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote in
> > news:h6shc8-...@librarian.sky.com:
> >
> >> And so it was that in the sacred domain of
> >> alt.tv.stargate-universe, Frosty<frostyw...@mymts.net>
> >> uttered the following pearls of wisdom:
> >>>> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I
> >>>> find her English accent off putting.
> >>>
> >>> I've only seen parts of the show but I kinda agree, the accent
> >>> seems to be British light
> >>
> >> There's no such thing as a "british" accent.
> >> Far too many regions in britain to select a single one to cover
> >> the entire country. Even the accents in scotland are many and
> >> varied, even if they have a similar lilt to them.
> >>
> > And as much as I adore Amanda Tapping, she can't do _any_ of them.
> >
>
> I am a Brit, and I have to say, her accent is awful. Most American
> actors cant do a credible UK accent.

Tapping isn't American. She's British born, Canadian raised.

--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 12:20:37 PM6/14/11

to

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in news:SYEJp.2865$Ll1...@newsfe24.ams2:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote in
>> news:h6shc8-...@librarian.sky.com:
>>
>>> And so it was that in the sacred domain of
>>> alt.tv.stargate-universe, Frosty<frostyw...@mymts.net>
>>> uttered the following pearls of wisdom:
>>>>> I don't think Amanda Tapping looks good as a brunette and I
>>>>> find her English accent off putting.
>>>>
>>>> I've only seen parts of the show but I kinda agree, the
>>>> accent seems to be British light
>>>
>>> There's no such thing as a "british" accent.
>>> Far too many regions in britain to select a single one to
>>> cover the entire country. Even the accents in scotland are
>>> many and varied, even if they have a similar lilt to them.
>>>
>> And as much as I adore Amanda Tapping, she can't do _any_ of
>> them.
>>
>
> I am a Brit, and I have to say, her accent is awful. Most
> American actors cant do a credible UK accent.

A lot of Brit actors can't do any of the various American accents
very well, either. Alfred Molina is a notable exception.

> From what I can
> tell some Brits do good US accents, but being a Brit its hard to
> tell.

Being an American, I can say, on average, Brits are better at
American accents, but a lot of them still sound pretty lame. (Rumor
has it, Hugh Laurie was so good in the audition tape he sent in for
House the producer didn't realize he was a Brit until they met in
person.)

> I dont think Brits are better actors as such, its just a
> culture thing. We hear more US accents than Americans hear
> British ones. Sorta makes sense.

Sorta.

>
> However, we have inflicted Jason Statham on America with his
> American accent and, worse still, we tried to lump Cheryl Cole
> on you guys for xFactor, with her Newcastle accent, which even
> many Brits have a problem with.
>
> So, Tapping is no more than fair pay back. I am just happy that
> the US has not seen Statham and Cole as acts or terror, and
> acted accordingly.
>

Most Americans have more of an issue with the stealthy invasion of
Canucks through American televsion. We'll bomb Canukistan for
William Shatner long before we figure out where Stathom even came
from.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 12:21:12 PM6/14/11

to

Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in
news:ANIM8Rfsk-7B92D...@news.easynews.com:

I had forgotten that. But you're correct. So, in the end, we can
still blame Britain. :)

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 12:23:40 PM6/14/11

to

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in news:S2FJp.2866$Ll1....@newsfe24.ams2:

The format of SG1 was the buddy/adventure genre, with scifi
furniture. Same as the original Star Trek. B5 was mostly political
intrigue, with an overlay of scenery chewing. Universe, I'm not too
sure of, other than whiney bitch angst with an overlay of bad
acting.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 12:27:23 PM6/14/11

to

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in news:SbFJp.2867$Ll1....@newsfe24.ams2:

Er, no. Certainly not for a TV show, anyway. The *advertisers* have
all the money, and while they advertisers, in theory, care about
the fans, they represent an additional opportunity for stupidity.
As evidence by the current trends in commercials, which involve
being as loud and offensive as possible.

But it is an error to believe that viewers are the customer for a
TV show. We aren't.

> But, since you love your raw right wing extreme capitalist
> structures, you can hardly complain at the results. If you want
> loss making , but quality shows to exist, then you need a
> different structure to support them. No, not replace the
> existing systems, but a mixture of both.
>

Actually, most Americans hate American television, too. The reason
crap gets made is that it's more profitable to make reality shows
for basically nothing, and sell advertising cheap to everybody,
than a big budget, high quality show and sell expensive advertising
to no one.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 12:28:38 PM6/14/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:atlas-bugged-AC71...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

> X-Complaints-To: ab...@news.solani.org

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 1:18:59 PM6/14/11

to

In article <Xns9F04607BF48...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 1:50:13 PM6/14/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-E46E...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

> X-Complaints-To: ab...@news.solani.org

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 1:50:24 PM6/14/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-3BE2...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

Your Name

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 4:52:33 PM6/14/11

to

Nope. Hollyweird cares about viewers ... a different animal to fans.
That's why, from Hollyweird's completely brainless management / bean
counter-run perspective, they make idiotic changes - trying to bring in
more viewers, usually at the expense of many of the fans, if not the whole
show / franchise itself. X-(

Your Name

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 5:00:02 PM6/14/11

to

In article <Xns9F046032946...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wrong. Viewers and fans ARE customers, it's just that the morons in charge
are so busy simply trying to fill their own pockets that they always (with
a couple of exceptions) kow-tow to their other customer: the advertiser.

The problem is that the viewers do not pay Hollyweird directly, but
Hollyweird forgets that no viewers = no advertisers. Both customers are
equally important.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 6:36:48 PM6/14/11

to

your...@isp.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:your.name-150...@203-118-185-20.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

You are, yes.

> Viewers and fans ARE customers,

Do you, personally, pay the networks for television? No? Then
you're not a customer. The companies that pay for television are
advertisers, and, to some extent, cable companies.

You are full of shit. Which comes as no surprise.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 14, 2011, 8:26:48 PM6/14/11

to

In article <Xns9F049ED3C23...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

unread,

Jun 15, 2011, 2:59:03 AM6/15/11

to

In article <it92l1$8vt$1...@dont-email.me>, "Ryan P."
<rdelet...@wi.rr.comm> wrote:

What's really weird is that when people sing, their accent often
disappears, even if they're singing ino their own non-English language.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 15, 2011, 7:56:23 PM6/15/11

to

your...@isp.com (Your Name) wrote in

news:your.name-150...@203-118-185-44.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

Precisely. We are, in theory, the customers of the advertisers, but
are manifestly *not* customers of the networks.

Glad you agree.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 15, 2011, 7:58:13 PM6/15/11

to

"Ryan P." <rdelet...@wi.rr.comm> wrote in

news:it92l1$8vt$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> Having a media background, I know that the "favored" accent
> for anyone
> with national exposure is a midwestern accent.

Which is virtually indistinguishable from southern California (though
content is another matter. Dude.)

> Its the most
> easily understood outside of its local area in that basically
> all letters are pronounced most of the time... unlike some areas
> of the East Coast where they seem to have difficulties with the
> letter "R," for example. :)

Or parts of uncle/grandpa country, where it involves phonetic sounds
no human being can make.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 15, 2011, 8:00:18 PM6/15/11

to

your...@isp.com (Your Name) wrote in

news:your.name-150...@203-118-184-115.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

Singing is handled by a different part of the brain than speech.
(Strictly speaking, so is public speaking - Scott Adams, of Dilbert
fame, had some kind of nasty aphasia that kept him from being able
to speak normally, but it didn't interfere with his singing or
public speaking abilities at all.)

And often, where pop music is concerned, even non-English speakers
are as familiar with (American) english versions as with versions
in their own language. You sing what you hear.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 15, 2011, 8:00:49 PM6/15/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-BB2E...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

> X-Complaints-To: ab...@news.solani.org

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 15, 2011, 8:01:04 PM6/15/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-7371...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

Splatterball

unread,

Jun 15, 2011, 9:08:22 PM6/15/11

to

In article <Xns9F05AC528F8...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> your...@isp.com (Your Name) wrote in

> news:your.name-150...@203-118-185-44.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

> >> >
> >> > Wrong.
> >>
> >> You are, yes.
> >>
> >> > Viewers and fans ARE customers,
> >>
> >> Do you, personally, pay the networks for television? No? Then
> >> you're not a customer. The companies that pay for television
> >> are advertisers, and, to some extent, cable companies.
> >>
> >> You are full of shit. Which comes as no surprise.
> >
> > It's extremely simple: we pay the companies who advertise by
> > buying stuff.
>
> Precisely. We are, in theory, the customers of the advertisers, but
> are manifestly *not* customers of the networks.
>
> Glad you agree.

Completely and utterly wrong ... but believe whatever fallacy you like :-\

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 16, 2011, 11:42:54 AM6/16/11

to

splatt...@BOOM.com (Splatterball) wrote in
news:splatterball-1...@203-118-184-115.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.
nz:

You are, yes. Good of you to admit it. Again.

AC

unread,

Jun 17, 2011, 8:38:45 PM6/17/11

to

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 12:54:05 AM6/20/11

to

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:47:28 -0000
Local: Thurs, Jan 31 2008 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: myspace discriminates against atheists

n...@snet.net wrote in news:52dbf279-ee8e-465a-8fb2-ef0662457a80
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> Read it here:

> http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933

Hardly a suprise, given what a fundy loon Rupert is. Their network,
their rules, and all.

I know I can never bother going to their ad-laden, insecure, malware
distributing shitty web site again. (Not that I didn't know that
already.)

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 12:54:18 AM6/20/11

to

Carl Dershem <ders...@cox.net> wrote in
news:Xns9A2094F7167...@69.28.173.184:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9A2079307A7...@216.168.3.64:

>> So, you consider teh *smart* righties to be cockroach parts?
>> You'd prefer all righties be stupid?

> Prefer? No. But it appears to be inevitable. Maybe it has to
> do with all of that blinkered, self-righteous, hypocritical,
> wilful ignorance that is so necessary for a real NeoCon POV.

As opposed to the blinkered, self-righteous, hypocritical, wilful
(sic) ignorance that is so necessary for a real liberal POV?

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 12:55:12 AM6/20/11

to

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
news:6vaao3dmfqjv1bug2...@news.rcn.com:

> I asked Kiri about that, actually; she said she had plenty of
> male students with younger siblings, and hadn't noticed any
> tendency for families to keep going until they got a boy. Her
> classes were pretty much 50/50, so while sex selection is
> certainly a big issue in parts of China, it doesn't seem to have
> been a major factor in Shijiazhuang. Parents just wanted two or
> three kids.

There are reports of tens of millions more men than women in China,
who are now coming of age. Of course, there are also reports of
widespread infanticide of newborn girls, too. One never knows how
much to believe.

> Mostly, though, I was just pointing out that we effectively HAVE
> a system where parents pay fees for the privilege of having
> additional kids.

One never knows how well it's actually enforced, though, a
continent and an ocean away. It's good to hear first hand accounts,
even if they are anecdotal.

So, if I wanted a mail order bride, I'd be better off looking on
web sites that end in .cn than .ru?

> (Off-topic but perhaps of interest: Pudong was largely
> undeveloped until 1991 because it's marshy and prone to typhoons
> and flooding; except for some waterfront industry and some
> farming, there wasn't much there. Then the Chinese government
> declared it a development zone, and now it's got miles of
> brand-new, still-largely-empty skyscrapers, and a huge new
> airport. I find myself wondering what's going to happen when
> one of those big-ass, once-in-fifty-years typhoons hits...)

I recall there used to be a city call New Orleans somewhere in
North America.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 6:14:07 PM6/20/11

to

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in news:IvSKp.4078$NX1....@newsfe18.ams2:

We agree, then.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 6:19:35 PM6/20/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-A736...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

> X-Complaints-To: ab...@news.solani.org

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 6:20:08 PM6/20/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-DFCA...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

> X-Complaints-To: ab...@news.solani.org

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 7:11:20 PM6/20/11

to

In article <Xns9F0A9AFB7ED...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We agree, then.

ROTFLMAO

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 20, 2011, 7:26:13 PM6/20/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-B85F...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

> X-Complaints-To: ab...@news.solani.org

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 23, 2011, 1:34:24 PM6/23/11

to

.
.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 23, 2011, 1:34:48 PM6/23/11

to

..
,,

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 23, 2011, 1:35:38 PM6/23/11

to

`
`

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 23, 2011, 1:56:37 PM6/23/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-ED84...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 27, 2011, 12:46:12 AM6/27/11

to

.
.
.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 27, 2011, 12:22:37 PM6/27/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-4CEE...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

Ridge

unread,

Jun 28, 2011, 12:56:28 PM6/28/11

to

On 11-06-12 11:37 PM, Andrew W wrote:
> This is my first post in these particular groups and this sentiment may have
> already been covered.
> [snippage]

SGU failed for two simple reasons

1) The fans didn't like it
2) Brad Wright didn't listen

I haven't seen the type of arrogance we saw from Brad Wright since well
.. Berman and Braga in the ST series or Moore on Caprica. Maybe George
Lucas deserves a mention as well but back to my point, the fans *liked*
SG1 and the fans *liked* SGA but as soon as SGU came out the fans
clearly said they disliked it.

I compare it to a shoe factory.

A company starts making shoes and people love them. We all clamour to
buy them because they're wonderful shoes. Then the company, seeing an
opportunity makes another type of shoe, a variation of the first and
they get new fans as well as migrating some of the old customers because
the shoes are roughly the same.

After the success of shoe one and shoe two, which are reletively cheap
to produce and loved by the customers the company thinks it'll be a
cleaver plan to build a third shoe, so they throw out everything they
did with the first two and build a new show that's much more expensive
to make and other than name, is very much unique when compared to the
first two shoes.

The customers, dissappointed and just wanting to buy the first shoe
style again are disappointed but instead of listening to them, the
factory owners say "I donï¿½t think if we for any reason go away, it is an
issue necessarily of the quality of the product that weï¿½ve been making,
I think getting moved on the schedule has hurt us. And the fact that
some of the fans that liked SG-1 and Atlantis were so angry that they
have deliberately hurt us, which is unfortunate." - Brad Wright

So, if you're ever going to open a shoe factory remember that the
customers are all that matter, without customers you can't sell shoes so
simply put, give them what they want if you want your product to be a
success.

c.

Your Name

unread,

Jun 28, 2011, 5:01:42 PM6/28/11

to

In article <4e0a07bc$0$1944$9a56...@news.aliant.net>, Ridge
<in...@thisismyurl.com> wrote:

> factory owners say "I don�t think if we for any reason go away, it is an
> issue necessarily of the quality of the product that we�ve been making,

> I think getting moved on the schedule has hurt us. And the fact that
> some of the fans that liked SG-1 and Atlantis were so angry that they
> have deliberately hurt us, which is unfortunate." - Brad Wright
>
> So, if you're ever going to open a shoe factory remember that the
> customers are all that matter, without customers you can't sell shoes so
> simply put, give them what they want if you want your product to be a
> success.

Yep, all true and management morons will never ever understand they are to
blame. It also doesn't help that the idiots in TV scheduling move shows
mid-season, drop shows-mid season, put stupid promos / "ghost" logos /
etc. on screen throughout the show, squash the credits, etc., etc. as well
as a pile of adverts every 10 minutes of less!

Of course, you are going to have some of the brainless fools around here
complaining that viewers / fans are not customers. :-\

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jun 28, 2011, 6:13:43 PM6/28/11

to

your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:yourname-290...@203-118-184-78.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

> Of course, you are going to have some of the brainless fools
> around here complaining that viewers / fans are not customers.
> :-\
>

Which is, in fact, the case. But the actual customers won't pay to
advertise to nobody.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jun 28, 2011, 10:58:54 PM6/28/11

to

In article <Xns9F129AE9E17...@69.16.186.7>,

unread,

Jul 1, 2011, 1:16:14 AM7/1/11

to

your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote in

news:yourname-290...@203-118-185-142.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

> In article <Xns9F129AE9E17...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:yourname-290...@203-118-184-78.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz
>> :
>>
>> > Of course, you are going to have some of the brainless fools
>> > around here complaining that viewers / fans are not
>> > customers.
>> > :-\
>>
>> Which is, in fact, the case. But the actual customers won't pay
>> to advertise to nobody.
>

> See what I mean. :-\

Predicting that someone will explain that you're full of shit does
not make you any less full of shit, it only shows that you know
you're full of shit.

--

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Jul 1, 2011, 12:57:59 PM7/1/11

to

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in

news:atlas-bugged-C965...@aquila.v.weretis.net:

> X-Complaints-To: ab...@news.solani.org

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jul 1, 2011, 11:47:59 PM7/1/11

to

.
.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Jul 2, 2011, 12:12:24 AM7/2/11

to

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in news:CaRNp.186$zd2...@newsfe17.ams2:

> Ryan P. wrote:
>> On 6/21/2011 4:40 AM, AC wrote:
>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>> In article<Xns9F0A9BBAB55...@69.16.186.7>,

>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>> Better yet, get viewers to be clever and entertaining,
>>>> instead of screaming
>>>> assholes
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Sci-fi fans are never ever happy and seem to spend
>>> more time slagging shows off than watching the damn things. I
>>> would not blame TV execs for avoiding sci-fi because of the
>>> sheer grief they get for daring to make sci-fi shows that dont
>>> come up to some geek's ideals.
>>
>> I agree. Sci-fi geeks are the ones that will comb through every
>> episode to see if the continuity passes muster, and if even
>> something minor is off, they create long, obnoxious threads
>> online berating the writers and producers for being so
>> careless, and attempt to whip everyone else up into a frenzy,
>> too.
>
> Tell you what though, I do it myself...
>
> I think it might be because SciFi is suposed to be sort of
> correct and, well, scientific. Maybe that's the point of SciFi,
> on some level.
>
> Perhaps geek types should more discuss than just slag off, if
> you see what I mean.
>
Actually, the networks do not at all object to you watching
episodes to nitpick over every little thing, because that means you
are _watching the show_, and thus, presumably, watching the ads.

What gets shows canceled is not enough people watching at all.

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 10:24:31 PM10/6/11

to

[Default] Thus spake Legend-11 <Lege...@spamless.com>:

You're saying Fox wouldn't know good SF if they fell over it? Well
how about Terra Nova?

Oh, point well taken.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

"You idiots, it's rape, pillage,THEN BURN!!!"
--- chief of the Aggie Vikings