In October, I published my review of "Stargate Universe," and subsequently on Twitter, I also expressed my disappointment with the Syfy show. In my recent review of "V," I mentioned a couple of prominent genre shows that had premiered this fall, including "FlashForward" and "Stargate Universe." My comments about the latter show weren't complimentary.

That prompted "Stargate Universe" executive producer Brad Wright to leave the following comment on my "V" review: 

"Maureen,
I find people who write 'I have no axe to grind' are often the ones
most likely to grind axes. Taking the time to slam 'SGU' in your review
for 'V' is not politically tinged, it's just petty. I really wish you
hadn't given up on our show so quickly. I was surprised, considering
your past (occasional) support of the franchise. You can't have seen a
finished version of 'Darkness' or 'Light' because the weren't even
closed to being finished at the time of your review. I don't know what
the network sent you. 'SGU' seems to be a love it or hate it sort of
show. You obviously fall in the latter camp, but fortunately there are
enough viewers and reviewers who think 'SGU' is neither boring, poorly
plotted, or sexist to keep us on the air long after 'V' is just a
letter in the alphabet again."

Brad, given that you posted your reactions to my comments in a public forum, I thought I'd respond in a public way. Online discussions about "Stargate Universe" have been getting pretty heated, and this is my chance to set things straight on where I stand.

First and foremost, I can't think of anyone in the mainstream media who, before "Stargate Universe" premiered, was more predisposed to give it a chance.

I've watched every episode of "Stargate SG-1" and probably about half of "Stargate Atlantis," and I've done multiple features and reviews on both shows. And I've watched and championed many dark, multilayered, complicated dramas such as "The Wire," "Battlestar Galactica" and "The Shield," among others. I wish I had a dime for every time I've used the word "gritty" or "ambiguous" in a review.

So the idea of a show that combined elements of the "Stargate" franchise with the kind of morally complex storytelling we saw on those shows certainly sounded good to me on paper.

After I watched the first three hours of "SGU," well, you could say I had reservations. At that point, I asked Syfy for additional episodes. So before I wrote my review, I'd seen a total five hours of the show ("Air," Parts 1-3, "Darkness" and "Earth"). In other words, I went out of my way to see as much of the show as I could before writing about it.

I remain a fan of the performances of David Blue and Robert Carlyle. As for my response to the rest of "Stargate Universe," well, my thoughts are in my review. I also agree with quite a few of the people posting comments on that review, with many of the commenters at Television Without Pity's "SGU" board and with Dan Owen's rundown of what doesn't work for him about the show.

If I seem passionate in my disappointment in "Stargate Universe," that's only because, in my experience, people are more intensely disappointed by things they had high hopes for. I'm not demanding that "SGU" to be a clone of past "Stargate" shows nor am I secretly expecting it to be another "Battlestar." I just wanted "SGU's" characters and stories to emotionally or intellectually engage me. That's all I ask of any show. That hasn't happened.

You are of course entitled to your opinion of my "Stargate Universe" review and my comments about the show in the "V" piece. But people who have seen the show are also entitled to their opinions. I wish I got the sense that those who who have problems with the show were being truly heard by the "Stargate" writer/producers.

In talking to and emailing with other people who've seen "Stargate Universe," and in looking at comments about the show on my site and on other online forums, the overall sense I get is that there are a number of people — a significant number — who eagerly tuned into "Stargate Universe" and were let down by it. Some people like it, of course, and I have no problem with someone sitting down to watch a TV show and feeling as though their time has not been wasted.

But I keep seeing comment after comment along the lines of "I've given the show a lot of chances, but now I just have to give up."

Many of the people sharing disappointed critiques of the show come off as smart, thoughtful, open-minded and perceptive viewers (and I don't pay much attention to the ones who can't express themselves in a rational and calm way). Sure, snarkiness might creep into some comments, but that's the nature of the online beast and sarcasm is often a vehicle for feelings of disappointment and dismay.

If there's anything I have a problem with, it's an idea promulgated by some of the show's defenders — that people who don't like "Stargate Universe" just don't get it. I am stunned by some of the condescending attitudes I've seen. It's frankly laughable to me, this idea that people who have issues with "SGU" just aren't smart enough to appreciate qualities such as complexity and ambiguity.

I and many other viewers get what the show is going for. We're not failing to understand its intentions. We think "SGU" is, in many key respects, falling short of its own goals. 

I'm not expecting "flawless people, square-jawed heroes, and stories that set up and deliver all the answers over the course of a forty-five minute episode," to use executive producer Joseph Mallozzi's recent warning to fans. I'm expecting an hour of TV that pulls me in and entertains me and makes me think. I'm hoping for complicated characters responding to compelling situations. I'm expecting suspense and surprises.

Occasional flashes of sharp dialogue on "SGU" have
reminded me why I stuck with previous "Stargate" shows
through many ups and downs. But I eventually gave up on "Stargate Atlantis" (I grew tired of the same plots being recycled again and again), and regarding "SGU," I'm really not seeing many reasons to stick around. If "SGU" is supposed to be a character drama, so far the characters aren't doing much for me. Eli's wisecracks and Rush's intensity don't make up for the fact that the rest of the characters are vaguely defined and bland. 

If you think the fact that the show has gotten decent ratings makes my opinion and the opinions of other disappointed viewers invalid, well, you're welcome to that belief. The show is pulling in around 2 million live viewers on a weekly basis lately, which in my book means "SGU" is doing about average or above average at best (as evidenced by these charts from TV By the Numbers, Syfy's "Destination Truth" is pulling in substantially higher numbers, and "Sanctuary," which got a tiny fraction of "SGU's" promotion, is not far behind "SGU" in the ratings).

Personally, I believe the ratings would be higher if the show delivered more consistently on the potential of its premise. And I admit that this is purely anecdotal, but it seems to me that the show is turning off a pretty significant number of female viewers.

Ah, now we've gotten to the much-discussed issue of whether "SGU" is sexist. In my opinion, it is. The other day, Mallozzi wrote a "rant" about fans who had been making what he considered offensive remarks about the actors and/or characters. One of the sentences from that piece hit home for me: "Sometimes, you can be offensive without even meaning to." Yep.

I don't think "Stargate Universe" set out to be sexist, though given the track record of past "Stargate" shows, my hopes in that arena weren't terribly high. And I have to preface these comments by saying that many of the male characters are a disappointment to me as well.

But the female characters are even bigger disappointments than the men, given that the women have been consistently shoved to the sidelines since the show debuted. They generally get far less to do (Ming-Na's character in particular is underused). Overall, they've been less important to the stories and have had less prominence.

The female characters, if we see them at all, are largely defined by their relationships or interactions with the male characters. Or they're defined by their anatomy.

Let me briefly mention the infamous hallway scene featuring Lt. James. I almost turned off the TV and stopped watching the show for good when that came along. If the scene was meant to be a comment on Eli's voyeurism, well, we already knew he had voyeuristic tendencies. So that scene was completely gratuitous. And there's a fine line between depicting a character's actions or attitudes and endorsing them. Given the amount of time that the scene focused intently on the character's body, the Lt. James scene crossed that line.

If the "SGU" creative team can't understand why many viewers found that scene exploitative and gratuitous, I think that's proof that we shouldn't expect much in the way of subtlety on this show. All I can say is, if that moment had come amid wonderfully nuanced storytelling and prominent story lines for the female characters, I am betting there would have been far less of an outcry about it.

Of course, the two previous "Stargate" series frequently had trouble giving female characters consistent depth or compelling material. I suppose I should not have been surprised by more of the same. (I must add that I remain a fan of Amanda Tapping from "Stargate SG-1," who made watching Samantha Carter a pleasure for years.)

In my view, most of the people critiquing "Stargate Universe" are not trolls, idiots or prudes. They're not small-minded "Stargate" fans who wanted a replica of "SG-1" or dismissive TV viewers who just don't like sci-fi. They're like this commenter. They are, like me, people who very much wanted to like your show.

In closing, let me quote Mary Ratliff, an io9 contributor and commenter:

"I have no problem with movies, books, or television shows that genuinely explore human sexuality. However, I feel that 'SGU' is more often than not falling into old stereotypes and common tropes regarding sexuality, and has indeed fallen into common sexist traps as well. To say that simply portraying sex is enough isn't true for me. I need the sex and sexuality to be portrayed well."

Exactly. I would expand on Mary's point: I don't have a problem with sex or complexity or ambiguity or open-ended stories. I just want to see those kinds of things done well. I don't think that's too much to ask.

If you and the show's creative team truly think all those things are being done well, we'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, I think I've given "Stargate Universe" a fair shot. Don't worry about me mentioning the show anymore. Unless I hear that it's taken a big step forward in quality, I think I am, like many other potential viewers, pretty much done giving it a chance.

Photos: The "SGU" cast; Alaina Huffman, Ming-Na, Elyse Levesque.

Visit Source