15 9 / 2014

(Source: -teesa-, via veinteyseis)

15 9 / 2014

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.

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.

(via thealmightyris)

14 9 / 2014


Kiersten White, The Chaos of Stars

Kiersten White, The Chaos of Stars

(Source: aseaofquotes, via meera-reed)

14 9 / 2014

(Source: laaufeyson, via colorofangels)

14 9 / 2014

14 9 / 2014

12 9 / 2014

12 9 / 2014

itsbetterthananal:

im waiting for the day i can use this as a reaction image and confuse everyone for a good 5-30 seconds before they get it

image

(via yolandaash)

12 9 / 2014

ask-america-stuff:

itsstuckyinmyhead:

Cats and Tumblr

I cant stop laughing.

(via daughterofmoonandmars)

12 9 / 2014

"

Children should remain silent, and they are ‘good’ when they’re quiet, but ‘bad’ when they are not, because they are disturbing the adults and causing trouble. This attitude runs through the way people interact with children on every level, and yet, they seem surprised when it turns out that children have been struggling with serious medical problems, or they’ve been assaulted or abused.

The most common response is ‘well why didn’t the child say something?’ or ‘why didn’t the child talk to an adult?’ Adults constantly assure themselves that children know to go to a grownup when they are in trouble, and they even repeat that sentiment to children; you can always come to us, adults tell children, when you need help. Find a trusted adult, a teacher or a doctor or a police officer or a firefighter, and tell that adult what’s going on, and you’ll be helped, and everything will be all right.

The thing is that children do that, and the adults don’t listen. Every time a child tells an adult about something and nothing happens, that child learns that adults are liars, and that they don’t provide the promised help. Children hold up their end of the deal by reporting, sometimes at great personal risk, and they get no concrete action in return. Sometimes, the very adult people tell a child to ‘trust’ is the least reliable person; the teacher is friends with the priest who is molesting a student, the firefighter plays pool with the father who is beating a child, they don’t want to cause a scene.

Or children are accused of lying for attention because they accused the wrong person. They’re told they must be mistaken about what happened, unclear on the specifics, because there’s no way what they’re saying could be true, so and so isn’t that kind of person. A mother would never do that. He’s a respected member of the community! In their haste to close their ears to the child’s voice, adults make sure the child’s experience is utterly denied and debunked. Couldn’t be, can’t be, won’t be. The child knows not to say such things in the future, because no one is listening, because people will actively tell the child to be quiet.

Children are also told that they aren’t experiencing what they’re actually experiencing, or they’re being fussy about nothing. A child reports a pain in her leg after gym class, and she’s told to quit whining. Four months later, everyone is shocked when her metastatic bone cancer becomes unavoidably apparent. Had someone listened to her in the first place when she reported the original bone pain and said it felt different that usual, she would have been evaluated sooner. A child tells a teacher he has trouble seeing the blackboard, and the teacher dismisses it, so the child is never referred for glasses; the child struggles with math until high school, when someone finally acknowledges there’s a problem.

This attitude, that children shouldn’t be believed, puts the burden of proof on children, rather than assuming that there might be something to their statements. Some people seem to think that actually listening to children would result in a generation of hopelessly spoiled brats who know they can say anything for attention, but would that actually be the case? That assumption is rooted in the idea that children are not trustworthy, and cannot be respected. I’m having trouble understanding why adults should be viewed as inherently trustworthy and respectable, especially in light of the way we treat children.

"