air_n_darkness: (smile&wave)
air_n_darkness ([personal profile] air_n_darkness) wrote2006-08-22 10:47 am
Entry tags:

Short Post...

Okay, okay...SciFi is canning Stargate:Sg-1. But they're not canning the franchise, for gods sake! Atlantis has been renewed, and all the people behind the franchise have stated that there are plans for Stargate, beyond the end of the TV series! C'mon people, chill! The show's been running for 10 SEASONS, a major accomplishment for a non-mainstream sci-fi franchise. Quality has been slipping over the past two "extra" seasons; it's time to let the show go to a different level. Big screen, mini-series, spin-off's...whatever.

Will I miss it as part of my SciFi Friday line-up? Yeah. But know I will not jump on you "Save Our Show" bandwagon. Just because I'm a member of many Stargate comms does not mean I want to be spammed with petitions and "support icons." So BTFO! It's TV people! Deal!

[identity profile] archmage.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 04:38 pm (UTC)(link)
I love watching people freak out when a show is cancelled. Why do people honestly think that these petitions and the like are going to "save their show?" If the studio thinks it's worth the money to please an audience, they'll make more, if not, then you're S.O.fuckin'L.

The "support icons" are bad enough, but it's the fan-websites (like "Firefly Season 2") that really kill me. Christ, get over iot, it's a TV show, and it's gone. Hey, I love Firefly, too, but let it go. Appreciate that it died before it got bogged down and stupid.

[identity profile] metafrantic.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 06:33 pm (UTC)(link)
To be fair, it has worked once or twice; it was largely fan petitions that got "Family Guy" back on the air, and much the same for "Futurama". It's rare, but studios do occasionally notice when a show still has enough of a fanbase to justify bringing it back.

[identity profile] archmage.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 06:41 pm (UTC)(link)
True. On the other hand, those are both cartoons, not long-story-arc live TV. Much different situations.

[identity profile] metafrantic.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 06:46 pm (UTC)(link)
...how do you figure? I mean sure, they're both cartoons, and neither was on as long as SG1, but they're still all tv shows with fanbases that really want them to stay on the air. If there's any difference, I'd say it's that SG1 was a cable show (which Futurama Redux will be).

[identity profile] archmage.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 07:11 pm (UTC)(link)
...how do you figure?

In that it's a hell of a lot easier to go "OK, why not, we'll make more" and not worry about it when the show in question is animated (meaning you don't have to renegotiate contracts/deal with egos/have actors want to go do other things) and basically silly and episodic (meaning you can keep the taglines and running jokes and writing new shows isn't that hard as opposed to making a whole new 13-episode season/storyline full of intrigue, plot twists, and backstory).

[identity profile] metafrantic.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 07:42 pm (UTC)(link)
meaning you don't have to renegotiate contracts/deal with egos/have actors want to go do other

Yes you do. Contract renegotiations almost broke down and almost caused the Simpsons' run to end a couple times. Animated shows have actors too, and voice actors can be harder to replace than regular actors (Futurama went out and resigned all the original voice actors to reprise their roles *before* announcing the show's return).

I think you're making a few broad generalizations about cartoon shows. Yes, many (not all) are episodic and many (not all) are silly, but I don't think it's fair to assume that it's easier to produce a self-contained story in one episode than it is to drag the story out over a whole season. And since the visual portion of cartoons often have to be produced frame-by-frame, there are difficulties that live-action shows don't ever have to consider.

[identity profile] archmage.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 09:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Quite possibly true. Also possibly true you're taking the rantings of someone annoyed by uber-TV-fanboys WAY too seriously.

[identity profile] metafrantic.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 11:44 pm (UTC)(link)
you're taking the rantings of someone annoyed by uber-TV-fanboys WAY too seriously.

Well, I still stand by what I said. But possible. Likely, even.

Re: my two cents (again)

[identity profile] metafrantic.livejournal.com 2006-08-22 07:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay, I can agree with part of that argument - specifically the difference in the fanbases due to SG1 being more story-driven.

It also draws attention to another big difference; Futurama was only on for four seasons, and was NOT canceled due to lack of ratings; it was more because Fox wanted more control than Matt Groening was willing to give up. That's why it's being resurrected on cable (Cartoon Network? Comedy Central? Not sure). It's done well in cable reruns, and the DVD collections have sold very well. That was the main reason I DID agree with the fan-driven "Get Futurama back" campaign: because it was a good show that still had a lot more good stuff in it, and was even still getting better when it got canned. (I can't say what the deal was with Family Guy, mainly because I thought it was a terrible show and didn't watch it much.)

But there definitely is a point past which a show shouldn't be resurrected. I think that's why there weren't huge uproars when things like X-Files or Buffy were canceled; they'd already jumped the shark.