An Open Letter to SYFY on the subject of Stargate Universe's cancellation

, , C. David Dent ,

To the Executives at Syfy,

I am a long-time watcher of Syfy (and before that, Sci-Fi) and have considered Syfy one of the main, positive reasons to continue to subscribe to basic cable (in addition to BBCAmerica and Discovery Channel).  I was a fan of the original Stargate TV show for the first few seasons.  I eventually tired of the show because I felt it had explored all of the aspects of the characters it could and I didn't become a fan of the subsequent spin-off of the franchise, Atlantis.  A friend encouraged me to try Stargate Universe because it was a departure from the tone of the previous shows.

I was surprised to find Universe to be a complex human drama set within the Stargate Mythology but isolated and insulated from much of the trappings of that mythology.  Within the crucible of Destiny we could explore both the lighter and very much the darker sides of a group of characters that had deep and subtle characterizations.

It was clear from the premise that a mechanism was in place to be able to introduce new characters as needed to keep things interesting as well as a means (the stones) to provide variations for smaller stories.  And the writers have demonstrated that they are willing to be hard with the crew, abandoning or killing crew as the story demands.  It was a refreshing and welcome addition to my viewing and a real hard-core science-fiction show.

Canceling SGU is a huge mistake.

The Syfy channel is going the route of The Nashville Network (remember them?). Country music fans (myself among them) ceased to watch as the network slowly downplayed the "county" and then eliminated it altogether and re-branded as Spike TV.

Since you've "gone mainstream" you have run the risk of losing the core audience that loved and sustained you when you were Sci-Fi and while we might grumble about "siffy" or puzzle at the wrestling and Friday night schlock horror films as long as you don't forget us we are willing to forgive you. We aren't stupid and we understand that you don't see us as a viable sole audience.  

We want to help you to understand that we love these shows but we aren't willing to change our lives to fit your schedule and so we time-shift and download as a way to allow us to see the programs we love on our terms.  And, unfortunately that isn't reflected in the "traditional ratings" system. But we know where the shows come from and we support the sponsors and buy the swag and perpetuate the fandom as a way to give back to the series creators, studios and networks.

In short, fans are always there and will always be there as long as you don't screw us.  We like Eureka, Sanctuary and Warehouse 13 and will probably like the "American" Being Human.  We'll support them too. But they aren't really "hard-core" Sci-Fi like the Stargate Franchise. SGU was good science fiction. Proper and real. It has great story, acting,... characters and we love the show. AND IT IS SCIENCE FICTION

Without Caprica or SGU you will just be "siffy" to the folks that you set out to create the network for in the first place and we will look elsewhere for our sci-fi entertainment and leave you to your "mainstream" audiences while simultaneously discouraging the fandoms, the online communities, and the other geeks and nerds from even really taking anything you do seriously.

Please reconsider SGU for renewal. It might not be your highest rated show, but it was certainly the one with the most sci-fi "cred" left on your network. And we (the sci-fi fans) would like to keep you in touch with your roots for a little while longer.

You won't find people dressing up as the Ghost Hunters at a convention or buying a Haven action figure.  You aren't going to find a lot of Destination Truth, or Friday Night Smackdown conventions.  Fans continue to spend money on franchises that are dead like Firefly and Star Trek because they love them. You can't go wrong by trusting the there are people out there watching even if the "ratings" don't seem to reflect it.

Listen to the buzz coming from the fans, podcasts, websites, twitter, facebook, and blogs.  This might be a show you can "uncancel" and turn into a win for the Syfy Network.

Sincerely,

C. David Dent

Care to Comment?

Buffy without Whedon isn't a crime or a tragedy

, , C. David Dent ,

It is all over the fan press, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is going to get remade.  The twist (as far as it's been reported) is that Joss Whedon isn't going to be involved. This has a lot of fan-panties in a bunch. And just today I saw a "No Whedon, No Buffy" petition floating around with over 2000 signatures on it.

Frankly the tragedy here isn't that Joss isn't going to be involved it is that some studio is trying to wring another drop of creativity cash from an old idea rather than investing a new one. Lots of screenwriters, moviemakers and stroes from other media could be made into films, but the big studios are still focussed on the Big Movie = Big Profits idea that has served them so poorly in the past. Probably becase when it wins big it wins really big.  But as MGM will tell you it isn't always sound business strategy.

Joss apparently passed on this back in 2009 when his involvement was solicited.I don't know if they had the script from this new writer, Whit Anderson when they approached him or if theywanted him to write it.  Either way, his involvement was sought and he turned them down.  Joss doesn't own the rights to Buffy any more than he owns the rights to Firefly or any of his other projects (with the exception of Dr. Horrible).

Being out of joint because somebody else is having a take on Buffy is like getting put out because somebody other than Stan Lee is writing Spiderman! Heaven forbid that another artist other than Jack Kirby draws the Fantastic Four. The bottom line is that Buffy as a character is owned by a corporate entity.  That entity can do what they want with it.

I, for one, think that it could be interesting to see another take on the character.  Like in the comics whenever a new creative team takes over you sometimes get interesting aspects of a character that may have always been present but less emphasised brought forward. Think of how Christopher Nolan's Batman differs from Tim Burton's or Paul Dini's (Batman the Animated Series). The Coen Brother's Rooster Cogburn will differ significantly from John Wayne's portrayal but it is still the character created by Charles Portis in his novel.

This is still Buffy, and it is still the character that Joss created. If you love the character then let someone else play with it and expose more of the brilliance that is built into it from the beginning.  You can point to Joss and say "look at this great thing that he created" and see how it grows and multiplies as more and more people expand it again in new directions.

The bottom line is that taking the sttitude that the only person who can ever create for Buffy is Joss diminishes the excellent work that others (like Jane Espenson and Christopher Golden just to name two) have and will continue to do with the character.Let somebody else have a go at it and wait until they have finished the attempt to give it a fair chance. Judging it sight unseen or in based on rumours and tabloid journalism is unfair and unproductive.

Once the new Buffy is finished you can then judge it on its individual merits without forgetting the Buffy that Joss created (and you still love). Face it, in this world of multiple media you have to juggle multiple interpretations of a lot of different characters, why not one that is (relatively) new and who has a pretty huge (144 episodes and who knows how many comics+books and 1 movie) continuity with a single creative director.

This new Buffy won't replace the original one.  It is just a new take, and that can't be a bad thing.  Even if its only role may be to make us appreciate what we had more.

Care to Comment?