doctorscienceknowsfandom:rainewynd:em-kellesvig:thesmilingfish:em-kellesvig:thesmilingfish:dorothyoz

doctorscienceknowsfandom:rainewynd:em-kellesvig:thesmilingfish:em-kellesvig:thesmilingfish:dorothyoz39:thesmilingfish:thesmilingfish:Quite possibly the most unfriendly looking behind the scenes picture ever. I can’t find the link, but I remember reading something about Joe arguing with Mallozzi about Sheppard not knowing there was an all female SG team under his command was disrespectful to his character and that Sheppard would know who were on what teams and that it was a hit to his character all for a stupid joke. Turns out Joe F. was right because the ‘joke’ fell flat and left fans perplexed at Sheppard lack of knowledge.I could be misremembering though, so hello world at large please feel free to correct me.I remember reading exactly the same thing!Reading about Atlantis is a constant reminder of how much Mallozzi and Co screwed up by ignoring Joe. This is just one example, killing Weir is probably the biggest of them…Joe fought them over the killing off Elizabeth and Carson as well. Joe has said at conventions this was about the time that they stopped telling him things - and so probably it’s close to the end of them stopping listening to him as well. It’s frustrating because at that point Joe was a lot more invested in the show than the actual show runners who were already planning out SGU. Another problem Flanigan had with Mallozzi around this time was the issue of behind the scenes photographs. As you can see with this one, it has the MGM watermark. The actors’ contracts clearly stated that only MGM and SciFi had permission to take BTS photos and use them for promo purposes. Mallozzi, however, had started taking photos of his own of the cast and crew and was posting them on his personal blog without their permission, without recompense, for his own benefit and profit, and in direct violation of the actors’ contracts.Naturally, the cast and crew were upset about Mallozzi using these photos to drive traffic to his personal blog but no one really wanted to call him on it given that Mallozzi and Paul Mullie were co-executive producers and had been since Season 2 (during Season 1, they were consulting producers with Michael Greenburg and N. John Smith as Executive producers). So cast and crew quietly asked Flanigan to speak to Mallozzi on their behalf. Whether they asked him because he was the union shop foreman, or the show’s star, or they thought he’d be the most persuasive is open to conjecture. They asked and Flanigan spoke to Mallozzi, who didn’t take it well at all.He did stop taking photos on set without permission — he certainly never took another photo of Joe Flanigan — but when he did, and when he posted said photos to his blog, he made a point of saying (with truculent asides) that he had permission from the actors, that he wasn’t trying to profit from them, and (I’m paraphrasing here) wasn’t it sad that some people had to spoil the fun for everyone.It was all downhill for Flanigan and Sheppard from there.Yes, TPTB stopped listening to Flanigan, and Sheppard was not only disrespected as a character but virtually pushed aside throughout Season 5. Not just because of Universe but because Mallozzi held a grudge. It’s all there on his blog. I read it in real time and was appalled by Mallozzi’s childish behavior. Mallozzi violated the actors’ contracts, got called on it, and took it out on the one person who said something to him, even though Flanigan was speaking for them all. Sad.Well, damn. I’d forgotten about that. Does it make me a bad person that I am gleeful that Mallozzi and co. have, for the most part, found zero work in the entertainment industry since SGU went off the air?This just adds to the pissoffedness I had when I found out that Joe F. had a group of investors and was trying to negotiate with MGM to do SGA. From what I’ve pieced together it was probably around the same time that Devilin and Emmerich were in meetings for their own Stargate movie reboot - and MGM decided to go with two failed producers. (Seriously, they have more misses than hits in their catalog.) So now we’re sitting here with a dilemma. The reboot we never wanted. The reboot we were hoping for - with someone besides the old PTB at the helm. If the movie does badly does that put a kibosh on any more Stargate for the foreseeable future? If the movie does well does that mean we’ll just get more of the movies that completely ignore 17 years worth of television canon?Someone smarter than me, which is pretty much anyone reading this, needs to explain to me what the best course of action is for fandom in general with this. Petitions aren’t going to do shit - I know that much. We’re pretty much guaranteed that MGM didn’t give the exclusive rights to the franchise to D&E - this is one of their biggest franchises and they’re going to hold on to it tightly. But what can we do to show MGM what we really want? It needs to be a concentrated effort and not spread out to include SG-1 and SGU because that’s just too much to ask for off the bat I would think. Specifics would be best I would imagine. But at the end of the day from MGM’s POV it’s all about the bottom line. Will it make money? That’s all they really care about. How do we go about, as a fandom, engaging the studio and revitalizing the fandom?Wow. This reblogging of a picture because I was having private conversations with someone about “Whispers” really took off in a heavy yet delightfully unexpected way. The thing is: it doesn’t matter if an SGA reboots makes money. MGM believes it won’t. Wright and Cooper had no faith in it. Mallozzi and Pullie had no faith in it. They had no faith in the fans. “This is not the demographic we’re looking for.” — Brad Wright, as he canceled SGA to make way for SGU.They wanted the male 18-25 demo, the emo boy gamers in Mom’s basement. What they didn’t realize, what they still don’t realize, is that Mom’s the old school sci fi reader. Mom writes the fanfic. Mom has the money.But they don’t know how to write to our demographic. They never did. They tried to put Amanda Tapping in a push-up bra and a tank top and she refused, thank whatever gods you chose. Because that’s how they write women: for men. For adolescent men. Not for women or people of color. So, no, they won’t listen to us. That’s why the petitions didn’t work. That’s why email campaigns won’t work. We’re not the demographic they want, even though we’re the demographic with the money to spend, with the ability to invest, and the interest to do so. Nearly two decades of time, energy, and money later, and they still don’t get that their fan base is mostly women, 25 and up. If they aren’t willing to hire female writers, listen to professional women storytellers, why the hell would they listen to us?Which is just…ignoring the fact that the best shows, period, appeal to everyone. What makes Star Trek enduring, to me, is that it made you feel like you could dream to be any of the crew (and I’m not counting the reboot here). When SGA killed off Weir, they killed off a lot of my interest in the show because it said they didn’t want that character at all or anyone like her.They don’t want us, because most of that stuff about being motivated by the bottom line and profits is just a cover story. What they really want is to do something that impresses their friends — and by “friends” I mean “powerful white men they *wish* were their friends”. It’s all, *all* about performing masculinity — and because our culture has a subtractive definition of masculinity, any interest by women automatically makes a thing (activity, art, posture, emotion, whatever) less masculine. So it’s *really important* to not just appeal to young men, but to drive away women, especially older women.I have also heard it said that the reason the advertising industry focuses so relentlessly on males, especially younger males, is that they are suckers. They are more influenced by brands and ads than women are, and more likely to impulse buy.Women are taught to shop — by our mothers, peers, and culture. It’s a skill we’re expected to practice and hone, to become canny consumers in a consumer culture. Because shopping skills are gendered feminine, being brand-loyal and impulsive becomes gendered masculine, which makes men even more prone to be suckers as consumers. And that means ads aimed at men are more likely to pay off. -- source link

More pics about