Fan Rebellion

Meta
Title:
Creator:	Leah Rosenthal and other fans
Date(s):	Feb 13, 2002
Medium:	Usenet post
Fandom:	emphasis on Stargate SG-1, other fandoms
Topic:
External Links:	Fan Rebellion; archive link
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Fan Rebellion is a 2000 post by Leah Rosenthal at alt.tv.highlander.

Some Topics Discussed in the Post and Comments

While the topics discussed in this post are MANY, the excerpts below focus on Stargate SG-1 and fan campaigns.

• Stargate SG-1 and differing perceptions by fans regarding cast and other changes
• the ad in an industry publication that was paid for by fans to petition for what they wanted to see in Stargate SG-1
• comments about the effectiveness of such fan campaigns
• what is a fan?
• fans speaking for other fans
• the insular nature of fandom
• fans acting in ways that are immature and naive and how that makes them, and fandom an embarrassing thing
• being a good fan, bad fan

See the post itself for MANY comments about:

• fan demographics and marketing
• hurt/comfort genre and sexual elements

Power Dynamics and This Discussion

The first response to the post is by a fan named Donna. It is very blunt and dismissive.

Donna, was involved in Highlander and went on to a tie-in novel. She spoke with authority, and with perhaps some puffery her involvement appears to have been as a script coordinator for two episodes.

Because Donna was a show "insider" and a PTB, the tone and content of the fan discussion is complicated in a major way. Donna's is that of "expert," and this is mirrored by some fans referring to her as a "god" and deferring to her opinions. Donna was also liberal in her dismissive comments, something Donna herself was aware of. Fans appeared to allow these type of comments to go unchecked, likely unwilling to alienate the show insider in their midst.

This deference, and the careful tip-toeing by other fans is an example of diffused boundaries and crossed alliances. For other examples of fourth wall complexities and power imbalances, see David Gerrold, John Ordover, and J. Michael Straczynski's self-insertion into fan spaces and this effect.

Donna herself addressed this when she responded to this:

I think with me [the conflict with Leah] developed over time, as I realized that everything I ever said was being treated as "of course she's lying, she's one of THEM and she hates the fans." So when I do respond to a post of Leah's, I don't really care if Leah ever reads it. I'm expending the energy to correct misperceptions [sic] and unreality that might infect other readers.

The Post

The fan protest over the writing and cast changes over at Stargate SG-1 are heating up; they've now buried MGM under calls and are running full-page ads in Hollywood Reporter, Dreamwatch, and many more. Basically, back in Season 4 the writing crew were given an all-too-familiar objective to get rid of the current viewer base and attract that "desirable young male demographic with no sales resistance, brand loyalty and lots of disposible [sic] income."

The writers started to dumb down the show and cut back on character-driven stories or threads; they tried to introduce new characters with spray-painted-on costumes; they started to portray the second lead, Daniel Jackson, as a bumbling geek when they chose to put him in the script at all (which is kind of absurd when you consider that Jackson was originally the second lead of the show). Eventually, actor Michael Shanks got so disgusted with the degradation of the character that his complaints prompted MGM to tell him to comply or quit. He called their bluff.

The writers plan to change the series drastically in the 6th season to include perky young cadets who do a lot more shooting and fighting and less character development. Richard Dean Anderson has tacitly informed MGM that he plans to only show up for about half the episodes of the season and the other two leads have expressed intense unhappiness as well. As for the core fans who came to love the show for the first four years: http://salon.com/ent/feature/2002/02/13/stargate_rebellion/index.html

This is not a good thing for MGM, which sold that 6th season to the Sci-Fi channel last year and is trying to market *itself* to another studio at the moment.

Comments to the Post

[Donna Letto]: The fan protest over the writing and cast changes over at Stargate SG-1 are heating up; they've now buried MGM under calls and are running full-page ads in Hollywood Reporter

Oh, yeah, that always works.

There's $4,000 that could've fed the homeless (or sent nearly 12,000 letters to people who actually have something to do with the show), instead of providing half of Hollywood with a jolly laugh at fandoms expense once again.

Actually, it was quite an enjoyable issue that day -- the Once & Again fans also managed to embarrass themselves in the same issue.

What sounds "cute" when you're sharing your ideas on the internet with your fellow fans looks moronic to folks in the real world. Note for the future: show your proposed ad to someone who knows nothing about your show before you waste your money on it.

Basically, back in Season 4 the writing crew were given an all-too-familiar objective to get rid of the current viewer base and attract that "desirable young male demographic with no sales resistance, brand loyalty and lots of disposible [sic] income."

The writers started to dumb down the show and cut back on character-driven stories or threads; they tried to introduce new characters with spray-painted-on costumes

Fascinating. Since season 4 is when I started watching and enjoying the show. Before that I found it boring and inbred (meaning you had to memorize 88 previous episodes to give a shit about the current one on the TV -- sort of the Bab5 effect).

[...]

Eventually, actor Michael Shanks got so disgusted with the degradation of the character that his complaints prompted MGM to tell him to comply or quit. He called their bluff.

He Terry Ferrelled himself out of a job.

Richard Dean Anderson has tacitly informed MGM that he plans to only show up for about half the episodes of the season

Tacitly? It was part of his open contract negotiations that he only wanted to do 13 this season.

This is not a good thing for MGM,

What isn't a good thing for MGM? That you're overworking their mailroom staff? MGM's got a 6-season show with infinite syndication possibilities. Nasty and incomprehensible ads in the Hollywood Reporter are going to affect that how?

and is trying to market *itself* to another studio at the moment.

A studio which will look at the bottom line and go "hey, they've created a 6-year series with infinite syndication possibilities. We want to get into business with *these* guys."

Reality check.

[GinjerB]: This is all news to me, since I thought it had been cancelled...

[Ashton7]:

What sounds "cute" when you're sharing your ideas on the internet with your fellow fans looks moronic to folks in the real world. Note for the future: show your proposed ad to someone who knows nothing about your show before you waste your money on it.

The ad was written by a Hollywood publicist (who is not a Stargate fan) and designed by a professional graphics designer. Get your facts straight before you mouth off, why don't you?

[Donna Letto]: The ad was written by a Hollywood publicist (who is not a Stargate fan) and designed by a professional graphics designer.

Wow, did they waste their money.

Get your facts straight before you mouth off, why don't you?

It just makes me think even less of the ad than I did before, if that's even possible. When I thought it was the work of inept but "well meaning" fans, it was more forgiveable, in that elementary school band concert kind of way. Now it really is just incomprehensible crap.

Donna

(of course, maybe it makes more sense, if it was a hired gun "Hollywood publicist" who'd never seen the show and was given the impossible job of trying to make "sense" of the passionate ramblings of a bunch of fanatic Michael Shanks fans from www.savedrdanieljackson.com)

[John Mosby]: The interesting thing here is that this is yet another example of an (apparent) conflict between what the fans say they want, what the creative contributors of the show want and what the people paying the cheques want. Now, in an ideal world, all those would be the same thing. However we live in a world that is far from perfect and is several light-years away from being even satisfactory on a good day.

Basically:

Have the makers of Stargate SG-1 underestimated the reaction to writing out a main character?

Well, yes, to a point. I think I'm right in saying that someone at MGM did say they received a surprising amount of calls/letters on the subject. For surprising, read 'more than normal'. However, as I think Donna and Gillian have said in the past, it's usually only after a controversial judgement is made/shown that the letters start to 'flood' in. Before that, I'm guessing that letters to Michael Shanks were of a similar number to those to other actors on the show. Popular, yeah. Most popular, hard to tell from post alone. It seems that Michael Shanks was a popular subject for websites. The problem is, most people connected with a show don't spend time on-line seeking out fan reaction - they are too busy making the show and we've already covered the fact that a writer can't be solely guided by fan reactions. (I'm not saying that creators and executives couldn't benefit from looking from time to time, but I understand the logistics and reality of being able to. Interestingly, the creators of Buffy manage to do that...but usually it's to torment fans and answer basic queries! :))

It is fair to say that sometimes those (rightly) worried about profitability (ie: the $millions they put into it hoping to get extra $millions back) make decisions that seem plain silly to those of us who are only involved in watching the creative output. A 'why on earth did they EVER think that would work?' factor. A show like Beauty & the Beast changed its format when Linda Hamilton left. 'It's not a fairy-tale anymore' read the promo sheets as the show became darker and more violent. Ah yes, but that's exactly WHY people watched it. No fairy-tale, no audience. D'oh. It seems obvious to you and me and the millions who turned the 'new' version off, but we don't have $millions to put where our mouths are, so we can only vote with our remotes.. No/Lower audiences and the show dies anyway. The people with the money would rather take a chance changes will help. Their $, their right.

Was losing Michael Shanks the death knell for the show? Possibly, though it's more likely to be a symptom of a show nearing its end and running short of ideas rather than the sole cause of its eventual demise.

Will fan reaction overturn the decision? Not a chance. Letter campaigns have sometimes worked when a show was near cancellation (usually only causing a short stay of execution) but I can't think of any show where a character has been written out (with a degree of acrimony) and then written back in simply to appease the fans who bothered to write in in there hundreds (occasionally thousands). Certainly not for one final season. Letters may influence direction to a point ('gee..that character got a good reaction, let's bring him back') but will not have the strength to overturn a policy choice of this size. Many new episodes have already been written now. Shanks is off to India in a couple of weeks to make a movie. Best case scenario for fans...an agreement is reached (a la Duchovny) for him to briefly appear before the Stargate closes one last syndicated time. I'm sure both sides could benefit from that, especially those with one eye on a possible movie and the $ that might bring in.

Michael Shanks exit from Stargate was badly timed (why not in the climatic season finale an episode later and filmed a week earlier, instead of a speed-bump on the way to the cliff?) sloppily plotted and was a cheap and hurried exit for a liked character. Absolutely. It was a symptom of the way the character had been handled and without doubt the show and the fans deserved better than they got.

Fans are important and all too often they are undervalued. They ARE loyal and spend a hell of a lot of money and time on your product (should you have an outlet that actually supplies what it promises in timely fashion) and they should be more than decimal points on the spreadsheets of big business. Or maybe they are not, but should they ever work that out, you're in trouble! Good stories should always be important, even if constrained by budget. After all, I'd hate to be involved in the creative aspect of creating a show where I know no-one gives a damn about he value of a good creative idea anymore. All we can do as an audience is tell people what we like and why we watch and hope they give a damn...and that their advertisers do too. Usually, we forget that it's *business* and the money men forget it's *show*.

If only the two could be in the same hemisphere more often, we'd all have a chance to enjoy the result.

[Donna Letto]: The interesting thing here is that this is yet another example of an (apparent) conflict between what the fans say they want

No, it's an example of what SOME fans say they want.

SOME.

Not all.

*I* am a fan of Stargate. I watch the Showtime show nearly every week. I watch the syndicated rerun nearly every Saturday afternoon.

I'm sure I don't reach Leah's definition of what makes a "fan" because I don't have a Daniel Jackson doll, I've never bought a fan art picture of Daniel Jackson and I've never written any stories featuring Daniel Jackson and any male or female character on the show in compromising or uncompromising positions. And sometimes -- like right now -- I can't even remember the name of Richard Dean Anderson's character.

But as far as MGM and Showtime and SciFi are concerned, I'm a fan.

And you know what -- I really don't give a sh*t that the character of Daniel Jackson is leaving the show. If I watch the next season and I don't like it anymore, then I might blame that on the loss of the character of Daniel Jackson (but more likely on the fact that Richard Dean is tired and only wants to do half the episodes, and SciFi's budget for the show will probably be $1.50, like most of their shows).

LEAH does not speak for me. www.savedanieljacksonsowedonthavetorewriteourfic.com does not speak for me.

I speak for me. And if I want to be heard regarding the quality of Stargate, I will vote with the most powerful weapon there is -- I will STOP watching the show. Or not -- because, surprise surprise, it might still be enjoyable. Unlike the Michael Shanks fans, I'm not psychic. I won't know until I actually watch the show.

But I am a fan. And I am not arrogant enough to believe that *all* other fans feel the same way I do.

So please, John, if you're creating a "the fans feel like this" and "creative contributors of the show" feel like that analogy, remember that it's "some fans feel like this."

Donna - (willing to bet the Teal'c fans aren't crying in their beers, either)

[John Mosby]: No, it's an example of what SOME fans say they want. SOME. Not all.

Actually I never thought - or meant to indicate that I thought - that ALL fans of Stargate feel/felt that way about MS's departure merely that the ones who chose to write in (somewhat obviously) felt that way (indicating that either others felt the same way and DIDN'T care enough to write in or didn't feel the same way at all, presumably)In the same way that the Clan Denial were a crimson shade of loud on Richie's departure, the Shank-less are probably preparing their emerald attire right now. Which is fine because we should all be passionate about something (especially today!) and I can think of worse things than a tv show (and better).

As for the definition of a fan, well, I'd guess that's a varied and personal thing at best. If I like a show, am I a fan? Does being a fan oblige me to attend conventions? Must I buy merchandise from a Store? Do only true fans write 'compromising' fanfic? I'm not sure that you can or should second-guess Leah as to her personal definition (nor she you). They may well be utterly different, but like the many varied series themselves, there are no limits to the shades of fandom. All are valid - except some that I once saw taking place in a corner at a Buffy convention, but I've since had therapy. Excepting general rules of etiquette to one another, the minute any fandom requires a formal rule-book I'm outta there.

I think I did say that I felt that Michael Shanks's departure was a symptom of a general wind-down, not a cause of the series failure in itself, so we basically agree. We'll see what happens next. I'd guess that most fans probably don't fall into either your or Leah's point of view. Fans of the show would logically fall somewhere half-way between 'I really don't give a sh*t Daniel's leaving' and 'We need to write in now to save this wonderful character/actor from oblivion'. But, again, I'm not trying to speak for everyone, just guessing.

I'll watch and see if it'll be better or worse. The only thing we can assume now is that it'll be different which is - just occasionally - a good thing. I would say that switching off/over is the power of the individual to vote on whether they like a program or not. But if you are truly passionate about a program, I'm guessing that you might consider that as the last solution rather than the first. People switching off in their millions is often a quick route to cancellation rather than change. So I guess it may well be a case of being told to appreciate what you have because its better than nothing?

I DO remember a time, before writing professionally about them, that I simply enjoyed shows for the stories they told. They came and went and, like many, I would grumble that 'all my favourites got cancelled'. Back then I knew nothing of the backroom deals, the financial decisions and the business part of the equation. I thought demographic was something that the Enterprise fought on a bad day and ratings were all about how much leg you could show before 8:00pm. There was a time I believed that these series were created ONLY for the love of telling a good story. Now I realise that, while most strive to do the best creative job they can, the primary reason to have a popular TV drama, is to put more dimes and pennies in the coffers. Again, it's a *business*. It has to be, it's logical in the grand scheme of things and life goes on. I have too many tasks each day to spend time clapping my hands for Tinkerbell, though part of me wishes I didn't. But elsewhere in the world, people are starving...

[Leah Rosenthal]: I presume your presence here, [Donna], is for...what? It certainly isn't for free discussions of critique for anyone in the industry. They seem to be infallible, untouchable icons, about whom fans who make up the *customer base* for their industry have no value or meaning. Spit on the idea of a genuine grass-roots groundswell of support from across the globe. Vent scorn at the concept of a poll. How could *they* know anything?

[...]

The sweet irony of it all. The fact is that I am *not* a Stargate fan. I've seen all the episodes of the show and simply seem to bear the sin of sympathy for the fans, and anger that, yet again, the money people are steering the creative people and destroying or degrading the product out of a lack of understanding.

As for Michael Shanks, his character has more websites devoted to him than Sean Penn. The primary attraction of his character is and always has been the intellectual with a sense of wonder, something James Spader originated beautifully in the movie and Shanks solidified in the series. The writers have had two years worth of trouble trying to script a hero who is better than his brain than a gun, and finally started to shove him into the wallpaper in almost every script. Then they started to try and warp him into the mold of the 'bumbling brainy geek', so commonly used for those of intellectual achievement among the desired demographic. ("Dumb and Dumber" are the heroic archtypes of the day).

Shanks quit because of two years of this, after four years of an award-winning series. Not because he wanted to make a movie in India.

[Donna Letto]: As for Michael Shanks, his character has more websites devoted to him than Sean Penn.

Yes, I had noticed I had to wade through 4 search engine pages of Daniel/Jack hurt/comfort porn to even find the website that had the Hollywood Reporter ad.

That'll look real professional to any Hollywood Reporter reader who actually paid serious attention to the ad and wanted more information.

[Witchfaire]: [Donna], I assume you mean "slash". You might not like it...but it doesn't make it porn.

[GinjerB]: Oh come on -- some of it *is* porn! (very much doesn't think that this is a Bad Thing...<g>)

[Edie]: These exchanges have led me to wonder how often major changes to a show have made it better. How often, after major changes are made is the show cancelled? And if it is cancelled, is this because the show had already lost its audience, or because the changes caused it to lose its audience and it never found a new one? Can a show that has an audience, then makes changes that drive away at least part of that audience, pick up enough of a new audience to be successful?

Some shows like MASH survived many changes in actors and characters and still maintained its quality; but that's because the basic premise/themes/style of the show didn't change much, IMO. It kept its audience. The writing was consistently good and the show managed to stay fresh for a long, long time.

I realize that when talking about shows I liked, the odds of my looking upon major changes as making the show better are low. But I'm curious if people out there have seen many shows that, say, ran for three years at least, then changed significantly, and were better and/or more successful shows for it.

I also admit to feeling frustrated over the perception that I keep getting that the truth: "tv is a business" apparently also translates all too often to: "sf and action adventure is targeted to teenage boys."

Is this so?

And if this is so, is it really true that these shows sell better (both in terms of ratings and advertising sales) than shows designed for adults?

Now, I don't begrudge teenage boys their shows. Or networks from wanting to produce shows for this demographic because they believe that the shows will be successful from a financial standpoint.

But my perception, particularly in the sf action adventure field, is that the idea that sf is kid stuff is alive ans well, and is a self-fulfilling attitude.

Is what Leah is concerned about with SG-1 much different from the concerns expressed here about Andromeda? I am not defending the ad (which I haven't seen) or letter writing campaigns. I think it is pretty clear that these are wasted efforts.

But I also feel the frustration of being utterly powerless in terms of shaking what I see as, and perhaps wrongly, the perception that sf action/adventure is viewed by the folks with the bucks as being kid stuff.

No matter how often I watch a Highlander or a B5, and don't watch shows like SeaQuest, nothing seems to change. I don't think that turning off one's tv set is any more effective a tactic than letter-writing.

It's frustrating to know that you are powerless to change things. And that leads fans who feel strongly to do anything that seems to have even a remote chance of affecting change to act.

It may be futile, it may make them look ridiculous, but at least they can say that they spoke out.

[Ingeborg Denner]:

The interesting thing here is that this is yet another example of an (apparent) conflict between what the fans say they want, what the creative contributors of the show want and what the people paying the cheques want.

Very common. Been there, done that, signed the petition and gave up on the topic myself. It's slightly annoying to have a good thing taken from you because you are of an age, gender or class that marketing people consider useless.

As with politics, the only course of action that spares you an ulcer is, IME, deciding to pay back in kind, ignore them and find something else to do -- they already showed (and said in interviews) that they couldn't care less about the likes of you, so writing letters is pretty useless, unless you can fake being a member of the desired demographic (but 14 yo boys are unlikely to write letters, so that's not really convincing).

For some personal satisfaction you can still blacklist their advertisers...

[Edie]: I agree with your other post that no one was betrayed- according to everyone this seems to be a matter of a show dying and being revived and tailored to its audience by the only cable channel that was willing to continue it. Just business, and who knows - maybe the revived show will have an appeal of its own.

I just feel for the fans who are seeing a favorite show die, and then (in the eyes of some) revived and ruined.

It's the disappointment and frustration I empathise with, not what fans are concluding about it or doing in response to it.

[Donna Letto]: I haven't heard from SciFi or the show's creative team what changes are in store, but I suspect that *is* the gamble they're making. It's an old and perhaps a tired show whose ratings aren't what they once were, but there are things the people with the checkbook believe could make it into a hit for their audience. And rather than let the show die after Season 5 like it was going to anyway, the new owners decided to try an operation -- perhaps a risky one -- that could revive the patient.

But, ironically, *none* of this is what the savedanieljackson campaign and its attendant "advert" campaign (the "Hollywood publicist" is apparently from Hollywood, Sussex) is about, contrary to the spin that Leah's putting on it here.

The Hollywood Reporter ad is all "Michael Shanks we're your biggest fans who love you and support you and we know you were screwed by MGM" (which, were I Michael Shanks would be embarrassing in front of my peers) and, my favorite part, the plea to get the 25,000 business trade paper readers of the Hollywood Reporter -- people like Michael Eisner, Steven Spielberg, the heads of Paramount and Sony -- to: "CONTACT MGM AND THE SCI-FI CHANNEL NOW Tell them we want Daniel Jackson returned to his rightful place on the SG-1 team we love. Tell MGM and Sci-Fi we want Daniel to play a leading role at the heart of the Stargate SG-1 feature film his fans will avidly anticipate."

Yeah, I'm just sure Francis Ford Coppola ran write [sic] to the phone.

There's not a word in the ad about changes to the show or concerns for its future -- other than the fact that their beloved Michael won't be there.

And that's what I find an embarrassment both to Michael Shanks (and his career), and to fandom in general. Because that's *exactly* the behavior fans complain that Hollywood expects of them. Thanks for living down to the stereotype, guys.

[Edie]: I'm all for consumer activism. What I don't think is smart is the "Jane, you ignorant slut" approach to the problem.

I think that this protest by SG-1 fans is tantamount to closing the barn door after the horse has gone. Nevertheless, it could affect future decisions on future shows, *if* fans approach the problem in such a way that resonates with execs and their goals. That means proving that SG-1 fans are a player in that they reflect the particular audience as a whole, (not an easy task, IMO) and are not just an obsessive minority that can be ignored in the bottom line.

And if fans succeed in becoming a player, that brings up other problems. I remember hearing that Star Trek execs were worried about fan reaction to having a woman as captain of Voyager. (Voyager had problems, but not because of having a female captain, IMO.) It would have been a huge mistake to have followed through on that worry, IMO. Having creative decisions being based on what TPTB think fans want may be worse than having them ignore fans altogether. We should be careful what we wish for.

[...]

I am honestly in sympathy with how upset fans feel about what happened to SG-1.

I've been a fan for a very long time and have often felt disappointed by executive decisions that have affected shows I enjoy.

But I also find myself reacting very negatively to the idea that we're owed something because we're fans, that changes to shows are insults to fans, that somehow TPTB should base their decisions on what direction a show should take from what fans want to see.

Whether or not these ideas are part of this thread, (as they appeared to be to me) my buttons got pushed anyway. :-)

[John]: I think what fans are 'owed' is probably a modicum of respect for intelligence because they are expected to be a consumer and therefore should be treated as one. I'm not talking specific shows here, but I am wonderfully (if temporarily) enthused when someone produces a show that demands my attention, my concentration and makes me work a little.

I don't think every show has to be a West Wing or a Buffy. VIP and Mutant X have their place and are just as valid for those who want less demanding TV. But I'd like to see a better mixture and, if wishes were not quite dead equines, a longer stay of execution so that some shows can get up to pace (that's happened this year - because of September 11th - and shows like 24 have survived when they might not have).

But I'd like to think that executives occasionally realise what it is that gets a fan base passionate and doesn't rely on a list of numbers.

But again, in the world of business I can see why they have to.

[Edie]: Everyone wants more shows to be what they want to see. I know I do. But IMO, what we're asking for is hard to pull off. I'm guessing that creating these great shows that we want to love isn't as easy as we think it is. I'm thinking that when TPTB fail, they're not doing so because they underestimate our intelligence or are insulting us, but because it's *hard* to make the right decisions.

How many shows finish their runs without making changes? In all of the numerous decisions that are made during the course of a show's run, how many work and how many don't? And which ones are dissing the fans and which ones aren't? And which fans are we talking about anyway?

I'm all for pushing for quality shows and speaking out when one is disappointed with the industry and its attitudes and decisions. I just object to this idea that changes made to shows are insults to fans. I object to the idea that the producers of TV shows owe it to the fans to put their own judgment aside and make decisions based on what they think the fans want.

About what it is that gets a fan base passionatem- Ginjer in another post mentioned New Coke. Would it have helped the Coca Cola Company to be really in touch with why New Coke was loved by thousands when what was necessary was that it would be loved by millions?

Let's face it - we fans (a relatively small percentage of a show's viewing audience) simply aren't as important as we think we are to a show's success.

[Edie]: what about the fans who loved Methos the way he was (just as Daniel Jackson fans loved him the way he was) and thought that he was ruined by introducing his terrible past? Were they betrayed by TPTB because they weren't consulted on on whether or not he should be changed? And if they hadn't changed him, what about the rest of us who would have been deprived of a character we think is more interesting than before?

What about the SG-1 fans who think that Daniel Jackson was a sweet but rather boring character? Just which fans should TPTB listen to?

[...]

Not all change is good, but neither is it always bad. The argument is that whether a change is good or bad has nothing to do with whether one group of fans likes it or not, because there will always be another group of fans with the opposite opinion. The argument is that if HL had listened to the fans who liked the Methos character the way he was, he never would have changed for the better.

A change is good for two reasons IMO: it attracts a larger audience, and the change makes for a better show. The first can be quantified, the second is subjective.

Here we have one group of fans who hate the changes and another group that wants change. Just which group should TPTB consult? If both, which group should they listen to, and what about all of the rest of the show's audience that hasn't been consulted? Should they feel betrayed when changes are made that they weren't consulted about?

[...]

As I see it TPTB do get feedback from the audience as a whole and don't seek to consult a small subset of that audience to help it make business and creative decisions. And I'm okay with that.

I'm all for fans expressing their disappointments regarding changes to TPTB, if done in a courteous, professional manner. If TPTB owe fans anything, it's a courteous and informative responses to polite questions and concerns.

I just don't think that fans should feel betrayed or insulted if TPTB don't take their advice.

... thinking that what we say does matter to us, and that our opinions are often interesting for their diversity and views. I think they matter on a personal level. But do they matter in the grand scheme of things when it's time for TPTB to make creative and business decisions? Not much, IMHO.

I don't want baseball managers to pick their lineups based on who baseball talk show fans would choose, even if I'm one of those fans. Because not only would the talk show fans be a small subset of the team's fans anyway, but it isn't the job of baseball fans to make up the lineup, even though they are the audience and they pay money to go to a baseball game. It's the job of the professionals based on their knowledge and expertise.

[GinjerB]: Isn't that one of the problems with the notion of relying too heavily on fan feedback--it's not at all monolithic, and it is frequently those with gripes who are the most vocal. MHO is that, in instances where there is a single creative mind behind a property, that creative mind shouldn't let their work be influenced by either the fans *or* those who write the checks. (altho it's harder to ignore them, I admit!)