PETITION for SEASON 7

[Hatshepsut]

Just putting a few random snippets of information together and seeing what sort of picture they might paint:

Just recently JM, having, as I understand it, dismissed SDJ campaigners as hormonal women lamenting the loss of their eye-candy, and made (so far as I am aware) unsubstantiated allegations about their forwarding death threats to him - and not apologizing for that aspersion - has been seen on the SDJ discussion board, being pleasant.

A rapprochement between JM and SDJ?

Why, I ask myself, and why now...?

**I understand that, because none of the ratings for the series 6 episodes shown thus far has reached the required level, MGM has scrapped plans for the film, which means everyone's going to be out of a job when the production run finishes in the not too distant future.

**JM has been talking about a potential series 7, saying that it would push the film back by a year. This could be a way of disguising that the film is dead in the water.

**I also understand that RDA will return for the seventh series. (That sounds a bit far-fetched, I must admit.)

**BUT, if the ratings are not as high as MGM requires, there probably won't be either a seventh series or a film unless they can win back the section of fandom that they have so successfully alienated.

**SO-- T.P.T.B. have probably realized, a bit late in the day, that they need the support of SDJ, since if SDJ comes back on side, so will most of the disaffected fans.Â* It is therefore in their interest to send JM out to make nice with them.

**IF this succeeds, and the ratings for the rest of the series improve, this would be a bargaining chip to get approval for a seventh series.

**IFÂ* T.P.T.B. can turn in a successful seventh series, this could rekindle MGM's interest in the film - and keep everyone in work for at least another year, maybe two.

**BUT this is unlikely to happen without *both* Daniel Jackson - alive and kicking - *and* Jack O'Neill.Â* And I don't think Michael Shanks will return unless there is a drastic change in certain attitudes and in the direction the programme has taken over the last few years. In which case, a seventh series could be a real blast!

The next few months *could* prove quite interesting, though in view of all the ifs and buts, probably not.

Can but hope.Â*

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:
--

[Rowan]

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

The next few months *could* prove quite interesting, though in view of all the ifs and buts, probably not.

Can but hope.Â*
--

"Very interesting" may well turn out to be the statement of the day. We can but watch and see.

I do admit it has been interesting following the various Q&A's with Mr. Mallozzi on the 'Solutions' website.

Rowan

[webmouse]

I have been considering a letter to JM and co. from the POV of an adult, intelligent woman (which I am, BTW) explaining how the changes are affecting my view of SG1. Acceptiing all that has happened as a done deal, what they might consider as ways out of the mess they've put themselves in as regards MS, CN, and the overall plot trend presented thus far.

I freely admit that I do not pretend to know what goes on behind the scenes, but I am very much aware of what is going on out here (an area that they do not seem to enter).

Such a letter will probably have little more effect than making ME feel better, like I've made a contribution, but there is an old rule that for every paper letter received there are 100 similar ones that were never sent.

Might be worth a shot.

[gategeek]

Originally posted by Hatshepsut
Just putting a few random snippets of information together and seeing what sort of picture they might paint:

Just recently JM, having, as I understand it, dismissed SDJ campaigners as hormonal women lamenting the loss of their eye-candy, and made (so far as I am aware) unsubstantiated allegations about their forwarding death threats to him - and not apologizing for that aspersion - has been seen on the SDJ discussion board, being pleasant.
--

re the allegations of hate mail, death threats etc. here is an excerpt of comments made by joe mallozi on gateworld re SDJ-

"Hate mail? "Impossible!"you claim. You make it clear that, of the
letters posted on the Guestbook at SDJ, "none of them constitute
hate mail." In which case I have to ask what, exactly, do you
classify as hate mail? Would this be considered hate
mail:
"Precisely HOW far up your ass do you have to have wedged your skull to miss the fact that pursuing the ****-n-`splosions
demographic is a sure-fire recipe to send you show down in flames? It NEVER WORKS, you nitwits. How the hell can you possibly have missed this?"?
Or: "Just wanted to ask Mullie & Mollozzi how it feels to be two of the most hated and despised "people" on the face
of the Earth? Does Hollywood still have a black list? If so your
names should go on the very top. Why don't you crawl back under your rock and give us all a break…"
Or how about "What the HELL?!Your comparing Teal'c to THAT slime?? You've lost it, lost the plot, losing me, jerk."?
Not hate mail? Maybe "intense dislike" mail? Are we walking the fine line here?
People involved in the production aren't reacting to rumours. They're reacting to the very real posts they've read on your site. You refer to "the hoary old spectre of `death threats' for which no proof whatsoever has ever been offered". Okay, how about: "I have just read the last post and I could kill someone, no not just someone Joseph Mallozzi!!!"
You assure us that "We can't take responsibility for what any
individual unknown to us writes in a letter also unknown to us".
Then how about an individual known to you? Maybe even a front and center member of your own SDJ Steering Group. Susan Glasgow of San Dimas, California offers Brad Wright the following well-wishes: "I don't know what sort of petty, ego-feeding issues you are catering to, but get over them (…) I think you are a clueless, lazy SOB & I hope this mess will dog your footsteps for the rest of your unimaginative and mundane career. By the way – this isn't hate mail. This is `I pity your pathetic abilities' mail."

[Hatshepsut]

That's a very clever post by JM, isn't it?

I notice he doesn't actually state that any of those comments, except the last one, originates from the SDJ site.

He first refers to SDJ then poses a question and follows it with some offensive comments for which he, strangely, gives no attribution. The close association of the comments with the mention of SDJ leads the reader to believe that they must have come from SDJ.

I said 'strangely' because normally you have to add your name and e-mail address to any comments you post, so they can't have been anonymous, nor does he say that they were. So why not name and shame the posters?

This suggests that they do not actually derive from the SDJ site, except for the last one to which he gives full attribution, including the comment that it is not 'hate mail'.

A statment from SDJ reads:-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I will have to make do with the odd incoherent rambling death threat passed along to me from the SDJ site." - Joseph Mallozzi, April 13, 2002
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mr. Mallozzi is claiming to have received death threats forwarded from the SDJ site. As concerned internet citizens we are of course appalled by this and wish to extend any help we can in tracking down the author of any such death threats. We are more than willing to cooperate in any investigation of this matter and ask them to please get in touch with us.

We at SDJ would like to make it clear that we have never condoned, forwarded, or in any way encouraged messages, letters, calls or any other form of communication containing death threats toward members of the production or any other staff at MGM, Gekko, SciFi, Showtime or any other entity involved with the series Stargate SG-1.

We have, in fact, urged just the opposite. There is only one impassioned viewer post here (January 31, 2002) that could be even *remotely* construed as a 'death threat' if taken seriously. We have chosen to leave it in place with a strong warning beneath that this sort of thing will not be tolerated even at times of high emotion.

If there are any other posts that Mr. Mallozzi feels are threatening, we ask him or his representative to contact us with the post in question and we will do our utmost to settle things to everyone's satisfaction.

To say the least, we are greatly dismayed and saddened by these unfounded accusations by Mr. Mallozzi that SDJ would knowingly and deliberately participate in, encourage or propagate such behavior.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SDJ: As of today, Joe Mallozzi has still *NOT* contacted us offering *any* proof, nor has he offered any apology for these unwarranted allegations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personally, I have never seen any flames as such on the SDJ site, nor even anything as abrasive as the quote from Susan Glasgow. One wonders how much time he's spent going through all those posts in the Guest Book. <grin> He obviously has a lot more spare time than I have! And they must make very depressing reading unless you have a hide like a rhinoceros...

Here's a random couple:-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think anyone could call me a rabid Daniel Jackson fan, but... I was only an irregular viewer of the series before the sixth season (mainly because I could never get the local market's airing schedule down), and even I was annoyed and affronted by the attempt to slip the Jonas character into the Daniel slot. It's just not working for me! I'm not sayin' that Jonas shouldn't continue to work with SGC, but I think Daniel added more to the team dynamic than Jonas does, or can. Apologies to Corin Nemec, but his character just seems a bit 2-dimensional to me!
I'm just sayin' that I feel the show would benefit from Michael Shank's return!

Fritz Leipold <fritz@wittnet.com>
Newark, Delaware, USA - Sunday, August 18, 2002, 3:00:13 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am devastated by the loss of Daniel's character on Stargate SG-1. The series' success has, in my mind, relied on the interaction of the four main characters of the SG1 team and without Daniel the chemistry is just not there. I hope that Daniel will be brought back to the series and the upcoming movie. Without him, interest in the series and any future movies will die off.

Glenna Mitchener <gmitchener@sympatico.ca>
Oakville, Ontario - Friday, August 16, 2002, 8:28:06 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The questions remain:

Why is JM suddenly being co-operative with these people for whom he appears to have so little respect? And why now?

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:

P.S. If you, too, would like to go through the Guest Book with a fine-toothed comb, the URL is:

http://www.savedanieljackson.com/man.../guestbook.asp

--

[gategeek]

Originally posted by Hatshepsut


I notice he doesn't actually state that any of those comments, except the last one, originates from the SDJ site.

He first refers to SDJ then poses a question and follows it with some offensive comments for which he, strangely, gives no attribution. The close association of the comments with the mention of SDJ leads the reader to believe that they must have come from SDJ.



This suggests that they do not actually derive from the SDJ site, except for the last one to which he gives full attribution, including the comment that it is not 'hate mail'.


--

i find it somewhat bizarre that you would think that jm fabricated these statements with some nefarious purpose.
re the letter from sdj to bw - it was the author of the letter who claimed it was not hate mail, not jm. the entire quote cited was made by the author of the letter -
"I don't know what sort of petty, ego-feeding issues you are catering to, but get over them (…) I think you are a clueless, lazy SOB & I hope this mess will dog your footsteps for the rest of your unimaginative and mundane career. By the way – this isn't hate mail. This is `I pity your pathetic abilities' mail."

[Hatshepsut]

Erm, I'm not sure why you think I think that JM fabricated the unattributed statements. There was no suggestion that he made them up himself. I do not question their authenticity, merely their provenance.

By naming the Guestbook at SDJ in the third sentence of the post, and concluding with a fully attributed message from Susan Glasgow of the SDJ Steering Group, the implication is that all the intervening messages quoted derive from the same source, yet, despite the fact that name and e-mail address are required to post in the Guestbook, JM does not name them.

I can't help wondering why he does not 'name and shame' them?

Nor does he state categorically either that they did come from the Guestbook at SDJ or that they did not. We are left to guess.

Edited from my previous post:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will have to make do with the odd incoherent rambling death threat passed along to me from the SDJ site." - Joseph Mallozzi, April 13, 2002
(...)
SDJ: As of today, Joe Mallozzi has still *NOT* contacted us offering *any* proof, nor has he offered any apology for these unwarranted allegations."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It thus appears to me that JM has already set a precedent for impugning the good name of the SDJ group. Therefore, I think I may be forgiven for wondering if those unattributed messages do not also constitute a slur *if* he is implying that messages which came from an individual or individuals unconnected to SDJ do come from that source, i.e. SDJ. IYSWIM?

With regard to the post quoted from Susan Glasgow, it is abrasive, yes. Rude? Very. But by putting her name to it, she clearly stands by what she says. She also says, "this isn't hate mail." I have no reason to doubt that she is any less sincere in that statement than in the rest of her post, which, by the way, I disapprove of exceedingly. But perhaps that part of her message covered by the ellipsis was a little more conciliating?

Bizarre to question JM's motives? Well, I also write detective fiction, so I don't always accept things at face value. Usually. Not always. Every now and then, I come across something that rings like a cracked bell. Then I begin to consider what may lie beneath the surface - to probe a little deeper - to set the analytical brain to work and see what possibilities turn up. Nothing more.

Does JM have a 'nefarious purpose'? I do not know. That is why I am asking questions. Maybe someone will shed a little light on the matter, one way or the other...? Either way, I don't mind. I just want to know.

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut - in the dark here. :wave:

P.S. Here's another interesting quote from the SDJ Guestbook:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello-Kaixo. Bazeneki ze pozgarria izango litzatekeeen berriro Dniel Jackso doktorea ikustea? Would you know how great it could be watchinhg Dr Daniel Jackson again?

First line is basque, one of the oldest pre-latin languages in Europe. I think without Daniel SG-1 may fall in the same mistakes the original movie fell into. In my opinion one of the most attractive aspects was the fact with dealing with more complex conflicts than a pure sici-fi-shoot-them-up-show so Daniel was the balance, the other way to solve troubles. There were many excuses to involve him in the new arcs of the show. Future societies are societies too and they may be studied. Its terribly sad and unfair for the actor himself.

alicia a <earroab@latinmail.com>

pamplona, spain - Thursday, August 22, 2002, 6:12:30 AM
--

[webmouse]

(I could have sworn I wrote something in reply to this thread last night, but it doesn't seem to be here -- so, I'll give it another go and hope you will forgive me if it appears redundant to something that I may (or may not) have posted somewhere else.)

If Mr. Melozzi is receiving "hate mail" or anything less than mature, constructive criticism from the fanbase, then it is damaging and counter-productive to our interests, which is to have the best hour a week of any TV program.

I have read some wonderful well-considered comments from several writers here (sadly, not all, of course) and it is a pity that TPTB do not also get to hear these voices. Perhaps some letters, which we could pass amongst ourselves via PM first to test reaction and reasonability, then mailed to Melozzi and co. would help TPTB see some different ways to handle audience sensitivities to radical plot shifts and cast changes.

Such letters should not focus on what should have happened a season ago or on unrealistic desires -- yes, I want Daniel back, too, but it has to be handled from what is now. Accepting what's done as done, we could suggest ways to strengthen the currently fragile view of JQ's character and perhaps subtle ways to re-instate DJ without violating the "glow collective's Prime Directive" (pardon the rhyme )

At rock bottom, I think JM and TPTB need to hear from the portion of the audience who cannot be discounted as "hormone-crazed females deprived of eye-candy" or as radical shippers with unrealized fantasies that violate every known U.S. military code or as disgruntled "Jonass" haters.

If a 7th season is being contemplated, but not as yet written, our speaking out now could have an impact.

[Hatshepsut]

Don't know if you've seen Leah Rosenthal's latest cartoon - 'Send Me An Angel' - which is brilliant - naturally

If not, do so now...

http://cartoons.ashtonpress.net/startoons.htm


Now there's a certain plot (in Buffy TVS) which I wouldn't mind if T.P.T.B. 'borrowed' by way of returning Daniel to S.G.C. in the flesh - as it were... <chortle> :lol: :lol: :lol:

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:
--

[Texane]

Originally posted by Rowan
I think that is it, gategeek. I know Farscape has already been funded for S4 & S5 and they did the same 'season fianle' thing on them.

Rowan

Farscape has always had that format - most of the season, a break during the fall, and then a four-part "season finale" in January, with the next season beginning in March.