[Guest Post]: On the Death of Stargate Universe: a TV Industry in Flux

This guest post is brought to you by Matt Herron of TangibleMotion.  If you’re not a reader, then I suggest you become one.  Even follow him on Twitter (@tangiblemotion) if you’re feeling frisky.

With only a single episode left to savor in the second and final season of the SyFy original series Stargate Universe, now is the perfect time to examine the factors that led to the show’s cancellation.

The Sad Tradition

By now sci-fi fans expect it. They groan inwardly when SyFy cancels another awesome show, and yet they are not surprised. They saw Firefly beheaded; Dollhouse was murdered in its youth; Caprica went the same way; and the funeral procession for SGU has already been prepared.

The cancellations are expected. But are they understood?

Multiple theories have been posited to explain away the choice to cancel two of SyFy’s original series’, SGU and Caprica. Most agree (even Scalzi), however, that poor network scheduling is the main culprit, particularly the choice to move these shows from Fridays to Tuesdays. They were shucked aside in favor of the guaranteed revenue brought by WWE SmackDown on Friday Nights, which SyFy acquired rights to in 2010.

TV is a business, so it’s no surprise that the network values SmackDown over SGU. New shows still have to prove their worth, while SmackDown came with a Friday night audience. It’s simply bad business to put your best bet on the back burner.

But SyFy didn’t do that. They cut their losses, and SGU had to go. The fans are heartbroken, but the network will survive.

Could SGU have been saved? We can only speculate. Fans of the Stargate universe are quick to rise to SGU’s defense, and for good reason. It is a marked improvement over it’s predecessors. There are no cheesy alien costumes. The characters are likeable and they actually develop as the show progresses. For example, the scientist Nicholas Rush becomes less insubordinate and less secretive after he is left to die on a strange world.
The show also has a noticeable story arc, as opposed to the pre-boxed cracker-jack episodes that are common in other series’ like SG-1 and BSG. This may make it harder to gain a large audience, since someone joining the show mid-season could get lost without knowledge of the back story. But for someone who is a fan of the show from the beginning, the story is engaging and the progress the characters make in figuring out their situation is captivating (finally gaining access to the main system controls of Destiny; pressure from the homeworld that causes tension among different members of the half-civilian, half-military crew; mistakes they make along the way that cause the death of crew members and friends.)

If the audience for a good original sci-fi show is out there (and it is: SG-1, BSG, Lost, Heroes, Fringe all make further proof unnecessary), then why did SGU get the axe? What did SyFy do wrong?

The Shift to Online Viewing

What I’m going to call the online shift theory is touted around the sci-fi fan geekdom as the main reason for many a show’s cancellation, SGU and Caprica included. It goes like this:

“Sci-fi fans tend to be younger and technologically savvy, and so among the earliest adopters of new technology. We got DVRs first and stopped watching our favorite shows live. We were the first users of Hulu and iTunes, and sci-fi fans were torrenting new episodes illegally before most people even knew such a thing existed.”

And the reason, the theory continues, is that since the ratings systems doesn’t count online and not-live DVR views (when you skip commercials) properly, the ratings are poor for sci-fi shows and eventually the network drops the show.

Craig Engler, GM and senior vice president of Syfy Digital, wrote an article on Nielsen ratings and online viewing for Blastr, an “imagined by SyFy” blog. He writes, “There’s some truth to what’s being said, but there are also lots of misconceptions and things people overlook when the topic comes up.”

He goes on to explain how Nielsen ratings work, why DVRs that allow you to skip ads are a “bigger issue” than online viewing, how online viewing is counted, how sampling works, etc. You can read the article in it’s entirety at Blastr, but this is what it comes down to:

“Overall I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that Nielsens are wildly inaccurate or especially harsh on sci-fi shows. And sci-fi shows are actually canceled no more frequently than other genres. The reality of TV is that most shows fail, in any genre. That’s endemic to all entertainment businesses. Most movies aren’t successful, most books don’t become best-sellers, etc.”

In other words, the Nielsen ratings system isn’t great, but for now it’s good enough for the TV industry because they need some level ground to negotiate with advertisers on.
So the shift to online viewing doesn’t have that much of an impact. But if you factor in the tech savvy audience, the move to Tuesday nights, and the non-cracker-jackness [Note from Beej: Best Phrase Ever, Matt.] of the writing, it is really no surprise that SGU was cancelled after all.

A TV Industry In Flux

Engler does provide a few caveats, or back doors through which to escape from the unpredictability of the TV industry. First, he writes that Nielsen plans to unveil a new ratings system that includes online viewing:

“Later this year Nielsen is going to roll out a new rating that combines TV and online views for shows that run online with the same ads as on air, and that may entice more advertisers to buy their online and on-air ads in sync. Until they do, there is a real business need to track them separately.”

This seems like a good thing from the perspective of the online viewer. But it will only work if SyFy’s online viewing option evolves. Because the current online viewing option that SyFy offers on Hulu is not up to par.

In the case of Stargate Universe, for example, episodes can be streamed on Hulu. But as of now, the week before the final episode is to air, only the twelfth episode is available on Hulu. That leaves multiple episodes that the frequent viewer may wish to see that are unavailable on the only online service that brings SyFy revenue.

The missing episodes can be streamed on alternate streaming services, but they don’t do SyFy any good since they are not paying SyFy for their use.

It seems sensible for SyFy to create their own streaming portal, instead of going through a third party. If what the fans believe is true, then SyFy has a large, tech savvy audience just waiting for a decent online viewing alternative. If SyFy also manages to sell the deal to their advertisers, then they could capture the shift to online viewing before it overtakes on-air TV viewing.

The pattern is laid out, the audience is looking for it… and until SyFy takes advantage of the situation, sci-fi fans will continue to see good shows die young and full of potential.
The second and most important caveat Engler mentions is that online viewing is gaining worth as we speak.

“The TV and online industries are both in massive flux right now, and that will continue for a long while. Five years ago, online revenue for TV shows was counted in pennies, and now it’s counted in nickels. Hopefully it will get to quarters in the next few years, and then online viewing might really start making an impact on the ability of TV networks to renew shows.”

In other words, online viewing has increased in worth to advertisers 500% in the past five years. There is no reason to suggest that this will change.

Indeed, SyFy would be daft not to take advantage of the online viewing market while it’s still affordable.

Perhaps Stargate Universe could have been saved, if the industry were in a different, more tech savvy shape than it currently is. Things are changing, though, and if online viewing (including DVR’s, on-demand, etc.) becomes the norm, it’s a whole different ball game.

Winter Hiatuses and Other TV Gripes

HDTV Winter hiatuses suck.  I’m not quite sure what made TV execs think that having lengthy breaks between halves of seasons is a good idea, but whoever came up with the concept should be, in the immortal words of Garfield the cat, drug out into the street and shot.

I mean, I understand breaking for the holidays. I really do.  No one watches any kind of regular programming when dealing with juggling all the stuff we have to during Christmastime.  But once that’s over, why are our shows not back?

Continue reading

Get thee hence, nerd!

Have you ever started reading a book or watching a TV series and felt an immediate connection with a character only to have the writer(s) destroy Daniel Jackson with a Bookthe main reason you love the work by taking away that character?

A while ago, I posted about intellectual archetypes in SF television, and at the top of my list resides Stargate SG-1’s Daniel Jackson.  While the rest of the show’s ensemble is great, watching Daniel Jackson do his nerd thing was more enjoyable than any other aspect of the show.

And then, he was written out of the series.  At least for a little while.  I know he’s back in Season 7 because I’ve seen the beginning of Stargate Atlantis, but there is still a whole season where my favorite character is replaced by a new nerd guy who was introduced in the episode Daniel leaves.

Daniel Jackson isn’t the alone in this phenomenon.  I get attached to characters, and they are written off or take a hiatus. Why do the writers do this to me?  Is there rhyme or reason to it? I think so, yes.

Continue reading

[TVverdict] Stargate Universe: A Question of Character

SGU TamaraAfter taking a few weeks off because of getting married, I was finally able to get a good post written, edited, and posted over at TVverdict.com.

A lot of people have complained that Stargate Universe started off slowly.  Even I complained that, as much as I enjoyed it, I couldn’t care about the characters to begin with so the plots never resonated heavily with me.  Being relegated to the Friday Night Death slot might have been the best thing to happen to SGU, however, because while only eight episodes have aired so far, the decreased expectation for high ratings for the time slot has allowed the creators to organically create an ensemble that actually fits together rather than having every character fill an archetypal role audiences come to expect.

Click here to head on over to TVverdict and read the whole article.


Intellectual Archetypes in Science Fiction Television

Intellectual

A staple of most science fiction is the smart guy (or girl!). That one person who, in terms of intellect, is leaps and bounds, head and shoulders above the rest of the ensemble.  He or she is always able to find the way out of any given situation, not by brute force or manual dexterity, but by being cool and collected under pressure and thinking through every situation.

Invariably, these types have always topped my lists of favorites literary characters since I was a kid.  Batman has always been my favorite comic hero.  Donatello rocked as a Ninja Turtle, and Egon was the best Ghostbuster.  I gravitate toward the intellectual characters because, possibly, I find them personally relative.

Maybe that’s why they’re such a mainstay in SF to begin with—all the SF fans out there like to have someone who epitomizes their potential and does the things they’ll likely never do.

Thinking about this, I realized that all of the shows I watch regularly are energized (for me, at least) by just this archetype: Stargate SG-1, Stargate Universe, Battlestar Galactica, Fringe, Dollhouse, and LOST. However, each particular series has its own unique interpretation of how the thinker functions within the fictional world of the show.

  • clip_image001[4]Dr. Daniel Jackson from Stargate SG-1 is the ultimate “I want to be that guy” intellectual for me—the nerd’s nerd.  He knows almost every language known to man (and some that aren’t!), runs and guns with the baddest-ass military folks, gets called in to consult whenever the mainstream smarties can’t figure something out, and fills out a tight T-shirt better than Brad Pitt in Snatch. In short, he’s got it all.
  • Gaius Baltar in Battlestar Galactica perfectly fills the role of “character who is too smart for his own good.”  Gaius is a bad person.  But it is because of his inherent flaws that he is interesting to watch.  He has the capacity to do almost anything and solve almost any scientific problem, but instead, he lies about it and comes up with complicated systems to keep from having to do any real work himself.  Baltar regularly sees how self defeating this behavior is, yet cannot stop the compulsion.  His ego craves the attention and his intellect craves the challenge.  The “real” solution would be too easy to come up with, and unfortunately creating this challenge for himself keeps him at odds with those around him who expect/depend on legitimate results.
  • clip_image002[4]If Daniel Jackson is the nerd’s nerd, then Eli Wallace from Stargate Universe is the geek’s geek.  He dropped out of MIT and joined a Stargate expedition because he was the best MMORPG player the government could find.  Eli epitomizes the “slacker called to duty” archetype all of  us computer-savvy SF lovers wish really existed. While he is young and naive to the way the people around him interact, his intelligence and optimism help solve problems that Nicholas Rush’s cynicism speeds past. Eli is the Everyman, an intellectual posterboy for Generation Y.
  • Walter Bishop (Fringe) was locked in a mental institution for seventeen years.  Potentially the greatest scientific mind of the century, his cognition has been addled to the point where his best ideas are comically mixed with his bizarre cravings and inklings.  Sure, he might be able to easily develop a method to communicate with the dead through electrodes and sensory deprivation chambers, but his mind works on such a level that such tasks pale in comparison to the wonders of  automobile seat-warmers and homemade root beer floats. His brilliance is enhanced through his comic relief.
  • Peter Bishop is Walter’s son, and he is his dad’s perfect complement.  Not content to be eccentric and out-there, Peter is the serious thinker who unscrambles whatever his dad says when trying to solve a problem.  Careful, mysterious, and emotionally attached to the few people he lets near him, Peter is the balance point that his father needs to ground himself in reality.  He hides his genius because to flaunt it before it becomes necessary could hurt those around him. He is the polar opposite of Gaius Baltar.
  • clip_image003[4]Topher Brink of my much beloved Dollhouse is egotistical and partially—if not mostly—misanthropic. Topher only cares about seeing how things work and advancing the scientific fields he helped pioneer.  If people get hurt, then so what?  Topher is often cited as having no conscience (though he grew one by the end of Season 2) or regret when dealing with other people, making him one of the most dangerous SF intellectual types.  Whereas BSG’s Baltar was dangerous because he wanted the challenge he got from the appearance of advancement, Topher’s unintentional and objective malice comes from advancement at any cost.
  • Dr. Nicholas Rush from Stargate Universe—the ultimate “I’m smarter than you so I don’t have to explain my actions” intellectual.  He has his own agenda, and often, the series makes the viewers think they know what it is.  Even the characters think they are sometimes coming close to a revelation.  And every time that happens, Rush does something completely unexpected yet brilliant and keeps the entire ensemble scrambling to keep up.  He is always one step ahead of even the cleverest characters, and that makes him dangerous because his moral ambiguity often swings to both sides.
  • clip_image004[4]And last but certainly not least: Benjamin Linus from LOST. Misunderstood to an extreme, Ben always has a plan.  While he may not have a degree in astrophysics or speak ancient languages, and he probably can’t invent a working Cylon detector (but who can, really?), Ben understands people so well that he plays with fate and manipulates circumstance to stay half a dozen steps ahead of anyone and everyone around him.  He might not be the best father, and he may not care for Stephen King (sigh), but he gets what makes people tick, and that’s why his smarts are so frightening.  Ben doesn’t need to invent mechanical doohickeys or conduct experiments to get results; he just has to look at the people around him and say a few words to trigger the right response.  The worst part of it all: they think it’s their idea.

Did I miss anyone?  Who would you add to the list of SF smarty-pants, and why?