I can't pretend to be a regular on these forums (as my post count clearly reflects) but having spent plenty of time reading the kinds of opinions and topics bouncing around these boards, I find myself really, really perplexed by the attitude of some fans. Never before have I encountered a show where the fans seem to want it both ways. I shall attempt to explain before I run the risk of getting "flamed" (not sure if that's the correct use of the term but I'll throw it out there regardless).
The timing of this post comes after reading the initial reaction to Whispers. Phrases like "standalone", "bottle show", and "contributed nothing" seem to be flying around a fair bit. Now, the fact that I disagree is one thing, but for me, this is symptomatic of a larger issue, one that I'm sure others have touched upon (my argument here isn't admittedly very original you see, but I present it anyway because I feel very passionately about this).
I don't really know what qualifies as an "arc" or "major story" episode these days, but it seems as though no episode is “decent” or "worth watching" if it doesn't advance the Atlantis story in leaps and bounds. I guess it comes down to the fact that I have no problem with episodes like "The Seed" and "Whispers" just because they don't necessarily deal with or advance all the major story threads being dangled. I really don't think there's anything wrong with the Atlantis producers and writers pacing the season and padding them out by telling different kinds of stories.
It just amazes me that an episode like "Broken Ties" receives a generally average reception from fans when the parts of it that, in my mind, are crucial to making episodic television successful, regardless of the genre (quality of writing, pacing, and most importantly, the acting) were fantastic. Surely this cannot be disputed in the case of “Broken Ties”? What’s wrong with just being entertained by an episode of the show when it features these elements in obvious abundance?
Other standalone episodes, like “Whispers”, were tightly written (some nice exchanges between Carson and Porter, Dusty was pleasantly irreverent), well paced (nice gradual introduction of the bad guys, and in terms of canon, were not just random angry zombies prancing around for the sake of throwing them into a story, but instead, an earlier form of Michael’s hybrids.. “canon” I believe is the correct phrase), and well acted (good bunch of actresses making up the squad, Nicole De Boer was awesome as always, and Carson and Sheppard were a nice double act). Writing, pacing, and good acting. I ask the question again: What’s wrong with just being entertained by an episode of the show when it features these elements in obvious abundance?
And to be perfectly honest, I've never understood this generalisation with "standalone" episodes that they are never as good as the so called "arc" episodes. A criticism of them that leaves me the most confused is when people say things like "contributed nothing to the overall story". In the case of both "The Seed" and "Whispers", not only did the stories both involve the Wraith in a big way (the series' primary bad guy, or have I not been paying attention since The Pilot?), but provided useful information that has significantly broadened our knowledge and understanding of them. In the case of the former, that they use human hosts to grow Hive ships. In the case of the latter, that even Michael couldn't control the earliest forms of his hybrid experiments.
Now, you present that kind of information within the framework of episodes that are either visually distinctive (“Whispers” certainly hits the mark here), contain high drama and difficult choices (Woolsey in “The Seed” without a doubt), are well paced (“The Shrine” was fantastic in this regard), cleverly written (“Ghost in the Machine” managed to believably present the Weir character without the need for Torri to be involved) and impressive and believable acting (“Jason Momoa” in Broken Ties surely?!) and you've got, in my mind, a successful episode, "standalone" or not, of Stargate Atlantis, or (if you want to view this in the broader context), episodic television.
Or am I completely alone in these views and share nothing with the critical consensus of Stargate fandom?
The timing of this post comes after reading the initial reaction to Whispers. Phrases like "standalone", "bottle show", and "contributed nothing" seem to be flying around a fair bit. Now, the fact that I disagree is one thing, but for me, this is symptomatic of a larger issue, one that I'm sure others have touched upon (my argument here isn't admittedly very original you see, but I present it anyway because I feel very passionately about this).
I don't really know what qualifies as an "arc" or "major story" episode these days, but it seems as though no episode is “decent” or "worth watching" if it doesn't advance the Atlantis story in leaps and bounds. I guess it comes down to the fact that I have no problem with episodes like "The Seed" and "Whispers" just because they don't necessarily deal with or advance all the major story threads being dangled. I really don't think there's anything wrong with the Atlantis producers and writers pacing the season and padding them out by telling different kinds of stories.
It just amazes me that an episode like "Broken Ties" receives a generally average reception from fans when the parts of it that, in my mind, are crucial to making episodic television successful, regardless of the genre (quality of writing, pacing, and most importantly, the acting) were fantastic. Surely this cannot be disputed in the case of “Broken Ties”? What’s wrong with just being entertained by an episode of the show when it features these elements in obvious abundance?
Other standalone episodes, like “Whispers”, were tightly written (some nice exchanges between Carson and Porter, Dusty was pleasantly irreverent), well paced (nice gradual introduction of the bad guys, and in terms of canon, were not just random angry zombies prancing around for the sake of throwing them into a story, but instead, an earlier form of Michael’s hybrids.. “canon” I believe is the correct phrase), and well acted (good bunch of actresses making up the squad, Nicole De Boer was awesome as always, and Carson and Sheppard were a nice double act). Writing, pacing, and good acting. I ask the question again: What’s wrong with just being entertained by an episode of the show when it features these elements in obvious abundance?
And to be perfectly honest, I've never understood this generalisation with "standalone" episodes that they are never as good as the so called "arc" episodes. A criticism of them that leaves me the most confused is when people say things like "contributed nothing to the overall story". In the case of both "The Seed" and "Whispers", not only did the stories both involve the Wraith in a big way (the series' primary bad guy, or have I not been paying attention since The Pilot?), but provided useful information that has significantly broadened our knowledge and understanding of them. In the case of the former, that they use human hosts to grow Hive ships. In the case of the latter, that even Michael couldn't control the earliest forms of his hybrid experiments.
Now, you present that kind of information within the framework of episodes that are either visually distinctive (“Whispers” certainly hits the mark here), contain high drama and difficult choices (Woolsey in “The Seed” without a doubt), are well paced (“The Shrine” was fantastic in this regard), cleverly written (“Ghost in the Machine” managed to believably present the Weir character without the need for Torri to be involved) and impressive and believable acting (“Jason Momoa” in Broken Ties surely?!) and you've got, in my mind, a successful episode, "standalone" or not, of Stargate Atlantis, or (if you want to view this in the broader context), episodic television.
Or am I completely alone in these views and share nothing with the critical consensus of Stargate fandom?
Comment