MovieChat Forums > Stargate Universe (2009) Discussion > Why SGU failed - the writing, the charac...

Why SGU failed - the writing, the characters, and the plots

posted 8 years ago by warrenf_peace
7 replies | jump to latest

I loved Stargate Universe up until the end. I must say, as great as the concept was, and the execution, the biggest problem was the fatigue. I got tired of the predictable plot structure (some near-death defying problem to solve amidst the personal failings of the crew, as the characters reveal parts of themselves during corny MTV-lite sequences, only to either resolve the problem, or leave with a cliffhanger until the next show. As soon as the Neo-Folk grunge started, I knew there was about 8 - 10 minutes left to the show, and I'd have to suffer 4 minutes of the irritating music, and the sullen (or sultry) looks of the GenR twengles as they have an emotional, heartfelt moment as the crisis resolved itself...

AAAAAAHHHHHH!!

The best moment was when Rush revealed the discovery of Destiny's mission - Man, I was psyched for season three, except in the back of my mind, I had a feeling it wouldn't last. I mean, every week the million-year-old starship is getting it's ass handed to itself by some enemy (and all of Season Two they really beat the drone idea to death).. there was never any fun, never any R & R; it was a stressful, all hands pray not to die every week, for 2 years, and that burned me out more than anything.

Now, let's talk about the characters! Aside from Matthew Scott, who was the only likable character on the show, every other lead was either a prick (Simian, Greer, Young), an arrogant ahole (Rush, Eli), incompetent (Volker), emotionally damaged (TJ, Chloe somewhat, although she was OK). They didn't have any comic relief that Richy Anderson, or "Tealc" provided in SG1, or as Rodney McKay did in SG Atlantis. They under-utilized Vanessa (Lt.) James and Dr. Park (and WHY the F*&K did they give TJ Lou Gehrig's Disease?) - it's like the writers wanted to take their hatred of people out on their characters and beat them to near-death each week, instead of having them grow as people. And, well, sure, they grew a little, but not enough to be likable or evolved - except Dr. Rush, who was a real douchebag until the very end.

I could go on, but I'll get too pissy. I REALLY wanted this show to work, because the concept of signal, or sign of an intelligence in the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) was a GREAT concept, and made for so many thrilling possibilities. I have to admit, though, the initial premise was a bit retarded; how would Destiny be anywhere in the galaxy next door after a million years of travel? Then, to have such an old ship flying unmanned for so long (and while being attacked on occasion - how did it repair itself??). So then the humans arrive in the nick of time, and immediately it becomes a struggle to survive to the next day. This logic flaw was one of the show's downfalls - it strained even the realms of fantasy credibility - all these last minute saves - the idea just became silly in the end, providing unnecessary frustration on the part of the fans (ME!). If they got some new writers (Me again), well, it's now been 3 years, so I'd like to see where they are now. I mean, if Destiny had to enter a sun every few months to re-fuel, then going three years while the crew was in stasis is RIDICULOUS! Oh, wait! Eli is gonna stretch a month of food for the crew into three years while everyone sleeps? RIDICULOUS! They should have fired the executive producer after Season One....

I can only hope the Stargate Revival being planned by Rolo Emmerich & Dee Devlin find a way to re-capture the magic of the first film, while not repeating it like ID Resurgence did, and not being too derivative of it. They'll need to pretend the first film & 15 years of TV episodes NEVER HAPPENED. "It was all a Dream; a Virtual Reality; a Parallel dimension; an adjacent Universe/ Hyperverse; a mental fantasy of a schizoid... all of the above - you know - a TV series or three!!

Elementary penguin singing Hari Krishna

[–] mariakelly-04164 8 years ago

I just read your posts and you make some valid points. Here's what drove me nuts when I watched SGU.

1)With the exception of Scott and Chloe, I kept wanting to shove all the other cast members out of the airlocks without suits.
2)It seemed like one week, the military people were dumping the civilians on a planet, and the next week, vise-versa.
3)I think the producers didn't want to talk down to the audience, but I think they went to far in the other direction.
4)Could you please explain how the communication stones worked? I think that the Asgard's and/or the Ancients created them, but after that the whole thing gave me migraines.

I am not afraid of the car, Captain. I am afraid of YOU driving the car.

[–] Xaeden 8 years ago

4)Could you please explain how the communication stones worked? I think that the Asgard's and/or the Ancients created them, but after that the whole thing gave me migraines.

It's originally Ancient technology that was developed all the way back when they were still living in the Ori galaxy. Basically, when used in conjure with with a communication device, (the box shaped device with the light up surface that the communication stones are placed on top of is an Earth built version of the original Ancient device) the stones allow for two parties to swap consciousnesses with one another. One person touches a stone from one location, another person touches a stone from another location and when both stones are placed on the communication device, the conscious swap occurs. It's that simple so I'm not sure what there is to be confused about. Is there some specific aspect of its operation that you didn't get? For example, was there a time where the connection between the communication stones was broken and you were unsure why?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] She-Ra42 7 years ago

I think there's a formula that's not as overly simplistic as people make it out to be, but for this one, it would've had to be universally popular (i.e., far more popular than SG-1 or SGA) to stay afloat because they factor in cost of production compared to ratings / how much the show is making.

And the reason a show isn't as popular as it needs to be isn't always as simple as the writing. Often there are things like them changing the schedule, failing to advertise properly and a whole bunch of other things. As well as this being out during a "watch online" transitional year during which they didn't factor in online watching into show ratings.

Basically if this had been a low production value show like the older stargates or especially like old doctor who or red dwarf, it would've been easily popular enough to stay afloat. However, given the type of cast they had and production values they needed, it had to be BSG level popular, and it wasn't. I don't think given some of the issues above with scheduling that even perfect writing would have changed that.

I mean, Firefly is a good example of a series that died with amazing writing - but Fox can manage to kill just about any series no matter how good it is.

"Jack go to the liquor store and findeth the Jack of Daniels so that ye may be sh*tfaced!"

[–] moviemonki 7 years ago

SGU was such a tonal break from the previous Stargate properties, I wonder if that wasn't a big part of the problem. People who weren't inclined to watch a Stargate show didn't tune in, and those who just wanted a continuation of the previous fun adventures tuned out. Plot-wise, SGU had more in common with Space 1999 than SG-1. Reluctant travelers from earth hurling through unknown space, constantly on a timer for how long they would be in range of a planet or what-not, unsure if they would survive and unable to end the mission. Maybe the producers should've taken a chance and broken the show out of the SG universe, so to speak, and just made it its own thing, Andromeda rather than Star Trek.

[–] Xaeden 7 years ago

Often there are things like them changing the schedule, failing to advertise properly and a whole bunch of other things. As well as this being out during a "watch online" transitional year during which they didn't factor in online watching into show ratings.

SGU largely aired alone, in the fall, against heavy competition. At one point they paired it with the always low rated "Caprica" and they gave it reruns of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" as a lead-in. Regardless of quality or tone or anything else it was destined to fail based on that alone.

Back in the day, the Sci Fi channel had tremendous success (for a cable network) with its Friday night summer (and winter) block, consisting of Sg-1, Atlantis, and BSG from 8-11, in that order. With this they created a solid event night for people to tune into and they attracted both casual viewers, fans of light action adventures, and fans of gritty drama all under the same roof. There were BSG fans who would go online and complain bitterly about the tone of SG-1 and there were fans of Stargate who would do the same with BSG but, nevertheless, a good chunk of BSG people, who otherwise might not have tuned into Stargate, watched the Stargate shows while waiting for their show to air and the same kind of Stargate fans stayed late and watched BSG.

Then the Sci fi channel came up with a scheme to have year round programming despite not having enough programming to support this. So what they did was take their top three shows and break them up, initially leaving Sg-1 and Atlantis in that Friday night summer block, moving BSG by itself to the fall months, and giving a six month mid-season break to the Stargate shows so they could pick up immediately after BSG. What happened? All three shows experienced a decline in ratings. As the oldest and most expensive show Sg-1 was first to go, then BSG followed as its ratings were in line with SGU's, After that, did they learn their lesson? No, they moved Atlantis to that same competitive fall programming slot. Again without a proper and consistent programming block. So after two of their previous top hit shows died by themselves in the fall, they decided to try again with SGU, a show that combined elements of both the shows that couldn't survive under such conditions. It was incredibly stupid.

What they should have done, at that point, was keep Atlantis for another season, move it back to the Friday night summer months, pair it with SGU, and then round it out with a third show, maybe "Sanctuary," (which briefly shared the Friday fall slot) or maybe a new show. They wouldn't have alienated Stargate fans that way, they would have attracted new viewers to Atlantis, and a good number of fans of Stargate's traditional tone would have tuned into SGU after Atlantis because it was Stargate and they'd want to know what was going on and if anything would tie into what was happening on the show they were actively watching. The transition to people just watching SGU also would have been smoother when Atlantis finally did go off the air, ideally with a proper ending.

That's the only chance they had for success. Their year round programming scheme was moronic; they should have left the fall months to wrestling and cheaper to produce reality shows and maybe, eventually, move in hour long dramas.... when they have enough to make a proper programming block and even then as an experiment only. In the case, of the breakup of those previously mentioned three shows, there's no reason they shouldn't have been aware that the move was the problem as soon as the ratings came in and recognized that they had an opportunity to salvage things by putting them back together in their winning time slots.

Those were the faces of the Sci fi channel; their broad popularity whether in syndication, as was the case for Sg-1, or in mainstream acceptance, as was the case for BSG, attracted viewers not just to those shows but to the channel as a whole. What do they have now? There's been an explosion in popularity of fantasy and science fiction on cable but have they capitalized on that? Not even remotely; they made a commitment to refocus on science fiction a few years back but the shows they have now are only marginally on the larger TV viewing audience's radar and the last I checked they all have worse ratings than even "Caprica" had.

[–] warrenf_peace 7 years ago

She-Ra42, you are very correct. Indeed, I worked in Hollylollyland during the 90's in TV, and your point is quite accurate. As a fan, it's easy to forget how stupid tv execs can be - like music A&R execs - vain, arrogant, and chasing the data (read: the $$ above all else), looking for the next big thing. Thanks for pointing that out!

I am the eggman, we are the eggmen, I am the walrus - koo koo, ka-choob