You stated numerous time that SG-1 and fanchise is not your cup of tea. Then why make a “off the cuff” remark and critique the show and state that it is a career ender.
Enough of the other posted comments state the facts about career ender comment.
As to the fanchise not being in the same class as BSG and the red headed step child. You are quite correct! Only in that it was a series that launched all “original programming” on a young SFI-FI network (after it was acquired from Showtime) and it never got the promotion or budgets that these new shows recieve. In part because there was always a slow burning battle between the network and the studio (MGM) over control, rights and so on. SFI-FI now is losing it’s core audience because it is following the major networks in producing low budget “reality” dribble and has a habit of cancelling shows it states are poor performers (but they have to pay serious fees for.

*le sigh*

We shall see.

To ewanspotter, I really do respect and appreciate your passion and I honestly didn’t mean to offend. STARGATE is just not my cup of tea. That said, I will now give Universe a try. Perhaps if I start from Day 1, I’ll find a new appreciation for the franchise

I’ve been reading The TV Addict for a while now, so I hope he’s not taken anything too personally. I tried to stick with the facts to make my arguments (well, mostly… emotions do come into play when you’re dealing with something you care about).

Todd, you’ll notice I conveniently left Altantis off my argument (although some of the points are certainly valid for both series). Mostly because I couldn’t honestly defend it against much of what was said. I do think a lot of the previously mentioned shows are probably better, overall.

I’ve watched Atlantis from day one, so I know the show, but my continuing reason to watch has simply been because it was in the SG universe (and crossovers happen). Creatively or emotionally, I was never drawn to it. I liked certain characters, but it took three seasons to develop any sort of team-yness, which was what sucked me into SG-1. It’s those relationships that build a show, and early Atlantis was all about blowing stuff up and shiny, pretty sets.

But…

When comparing the Stargate franchise to BSG, I think Ewanspotter explained it pretty well that Stargate is where you go for fun and enjoyment, a weird blend of humor and intellectual stimulation. BSG is consistently serious almost all the time. It can get a bit depressing. Sometimes you need your dessert.

When comparing Stargate to TNG… One flaw with the Stargate shows is that they haven’t been quite fantastic often enough. But, in the later seasons, they had very few clunkers either (the episode about an alien bug infestation on the new beta site being an obvious example).

Stargate shows were consistently good to very good. Star Trek: TNG, as much as I respect it and was one time practically obsessed with it, the quality of that show is all over the map. Its best episodes are unforgettable classics, but it had a *bunch* of absolute stinkers too, especially in its first two and last two seasons. I even felt that way back then. In retrospect, even more episodes feel lackluster when compared to more recent sci-fi shows with epic story arcs and better character development. Compared to TNG, I’m blown away by Stargate far less often but disappointed just as rarely too.

DS9 fixed this problem quite a bit. It was much more consistent in quality. Because of the “apples & oranges” argument, it’s hard to rank them, but I’d say that DS9 is probably a little bit better than Atlantis and that it’s approximately equal to SG-1 — but in wildly different ways.

“That said, I do think many would agree with my assessment that Stargate is a step down from a network series.”

Um. No. And saying things like THAT make me realize… you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

The production qualities on that show were on par with every “network” shows I’ve watched. The special effects were better than anything Trek ever had, as well as Battlestar (and yes, I’ve watched too much Trek to count and every episode of BSG). Every show has to scrounge for money in some ways, but it’s more obvious in sci-fi (like Todd mentioned above, lots of alien worlds have Vancouver pine trees). But at the end of the day, SG-1 was never half-assed. Ever.

“It’s a low budget, genre show with a very niche audience.”

No. And no. In season eight, the average episode was $1.7 million per episode. (And, yes, larger shows cost more, but they’re having to pay their diva stars half a million dollars an episode, which seriously ups the costs.) The last direct-to-DVD movie (so, basically a really long episode) cost $7 million.

Did it blow up the ratings? For cable, it was decent. But more than that, it was a worldwide success. A couple years back, MGM clocked airings in about 120 countries. (Shows like Gossip Girl will never, ever reach that level of notoriety.) Lastly, it was a show accessible to the entire family. Do I enjoy the hot and dirty sex on BSG? Hell yes. Would I want my ten-year-old cousin to watch the same hot and dirty sex? Not so much. So, niche perhaps, but niche does not necessarily equal small.

I’m going to stop now, because I realize I’m preaching to the wrong choir. I get that you don’t like it, and that’s fine. But (as you’re aware) television is a big, wide world with lots to offer everyone of different tastes. If it’s not your thing, it’s not your thing. Whatever. But the general, sweeping statements bashing a show a bunch of people clearly love? From someone who claims to appreciate and understand the medium of television? Not cool.

But, continuing in Stargate’s defense:
– SG-1 & Atlantis have both been repeated so many countless times on Sci-Fi Channel and in 2nd-run syndication, it’s hard to believe the franchise could go un-noticed
– While it may not earn the acclaim and recognition of BSG, BSG is not a perfect show, Stargate screentime will be almost 4x that of BSG, and Stargate is much, much better than shows like Andromeda, Lexx, and Earth: Final Conflict which fit the red-headed stepchild classification much better. If Stargate is at the bottom of the pack right now (not necessarily true), it’s only because lesser shows have come and gone, and there’s not a lot else out there right now.
– Both Stargate shows have taken themselves less seriously than other sci-fi shows, but I actually like that. Sometimes I think BSG could use a little humor now and then. Babylon 5 was the prime example of a show that blended epic drama with dry wit and humor, and Stargate sometimes reminds me of that.
– While Stargate makes use of artificial gravity technology and breaks the no-sound-in-space rule like everyone else (except Firefly), their stories often involve more realistic or at least more plausible scientific explanations, something that sets it apart from many other sci-fi shows. Even when they use imagenary tech, the uses of that tech are very creative and well thought out in the story and often explained in layman’s terms without the deus ex machina technobabble that the Trek universe depends upon so heavily.

I was being facetious! Obviously it’s not a career ender. I mean Robert Carlyle is going to get years out of this job and no doubt millions.

That said, I do think many would agree with my assessment that Stargate is a step down from a network series, and/or anything BSG related. It’s a low budget, genre show with a very niche audience.

Also, you still haven’t explained why you think that SG is a career ender. I don’t think that what Shanna is saying is correct, since the last years have brought an explosion of SciFi & horror series everywhere. Examples of careers ended would be nice too.

While I can appreciate that you’re all fans of the show, I’ve always found the entire STARGATE series the ugly stepsister of SciFi. Say what you will about it, but it doesn’t have the cache of BSG, and is certainly no TNG or DS9.