What 'darker' storylines and 'character development' are people looking for in SGU?

[PG15]

Like the fight between Ronon and Teal'c? Fishing for Jack? Or the sparring between Teyla and John?

Well, that first one wasn't related to anything traumatic; it was just them butting heads. The other two are more like it, but are more self-contained in that they don't seem to be the result of anything specific. Jack fishes because he likes to; Teyla and John spar because it's good exercise and good training; however, I don't remember them doing it specifically to get their minds off things or for any other reason than to just fish or spar.

A good example of what I want and a touching scene is the end of This Mortal Coil, when McKay buries himself in his work; the work wasn't important; the work was the thing Rodney was doing as a result of the "death" of Elizabeth, a traumatic event. An even better touch was the addition of the Carson mention, which tells us that he's remembered his dear friend all this time, but just doesn't say it very often because he's not that kind of person. I liked that a lot; it instantly made up for any lack of mention of Carson on McKay's part since Sunday. We got to see a new layer of his character; we got to see how he deals with grief and death.

But where are these inconsistencies in character. When has a character in either SG show done something patently uncharacteristic? And are you saying that you want them to be more like you so that you can identify more with them? But wouldn't that not really make sense since you've never been off-world defending a planet and/or galaxy?

Uh...where in that quote did I imply that I wanted them to be like me?

It's not so much specific inconsistencies in character but rather a general "feel" I get that these characters don't have a very solid foundation, but rather they are carried by the plot and their actions are dictated by that, instead of the other way around, where their own characteristics dictate where the plot goes.

Kind of like Daniel changed after his bid to take over the world?

I didn't actually see much change from that singular event besides a lesson learned at the end of the episode. However, when you take a look at the series as a whole, Danny changed a lot, and that was pretty cool.

Do note though that I haven't seen Absolute Power in a while.

So you want something that happens in one episode to have affected them in the next despite much time having passed in the timelines of the shows between episodes?

Well, it depends on how much time is passed, doesn't it? The effects should be parsed out accordingly. Still, even if a lot of time has passed, I would like to see some effects lasting onto the next one to "bridge the gap", as it were. Either way, they shouldn't forget it. Also, continuity refers to more than just character. If the ship is damaged, keep it damaged; if they don't keep it damaged, then allude to the fact that they repaired it. It's the tiny details that makes the continuity strong.

When you are facing the next great disaster ever few days to a week, how long would you realistically dwell on one event?

As long as it takes. I still dwell on events from 10 years ago. Other people may simply forget it; however the case, I want this to be true to their character. Are people who don't dwell on past events different in other aspects than those who do? I think so. Me and my dad dwell on events of the past, but my mom doesn't, and in return she's been the strongest person in my life; she's basically fearless. I imagine that people who do dwell may be afraid of causing that trauma again, and be more fearful.

It's fascinating stuff, and IMHO is really the joy in writing TV shows; you get to burrow into the minds of so many who are different from you.

[Phenom]

As long as it takes. I still dwell on events from 10 years ago. Other people may simply forget it; however the case, I want this to be true to their character. Are people who don't dwell on past events different in other aspects than those who do? I think so. Me and my dad dwell on events of the past, but my mom doesn't, and in return she's been the strongest person in my life; she's basically fearless. I imagine that people who do dwell may be afraid of causing that trauma again, and be more fearful.

It's fascinating stuff, and IMHO is really the joy in writing TV shows; you get to burrow into the minds of so many who are different from you.

Sure there would definately be some (maybe a lot?) characters on SG1/SGA who, like your mum, would not dwell on the bad stuff that happens. However some definately would. I guess the episode titled "Daniel suffers from Post Traumatic Stress" or "Teal'c becomes an alcoholic" aren't really the direction they wanted to take the show

[Myth]

Well, that first one wasn't related to anything traumatic; it was just them butting heads. The other two are more like it, but are more self-contained in that they don't seem to be the result of anything specific. Jack fishes because he likes to; Teyla and John spar because it's good exercise and good training; however, I don't remember them doing it specifically to get their minds off things or for any other reason than to just fish or spar.

It was them butting heads because Ronon was worked up over the IOA. And why would it be the result of something specific? People in high-stress jobs often times use a common stress-relieving activity to deal with all kinds of stress, regardless of the source. Just because fishing is mundane, it doesn't mean that it doesn't foot the bill for Jack. And while it is good exercise and training when Teyla and John spar, that doesn't mean it's not also how they work through things. I know plenty of people that head to the gym when they're dealing with everything from relationship issues to someone dying.

A good example of what I want and a touching scene is the end of This Mortal Coil, when McKay buries himself in his work; the work wasn't important; the work was the thing Rodney was doing as a result of the "death" of Elizabeth, a traumatic event. An even better touch was the addition of the Carson mention, which tells us that he's remembered his dear friend all this time, but just doesn't say it very often because he's not that kind of person. I liked that a lot; it instantly made up for any lack of mention of Carson on McKay's part since Sunday. We got to see a new layer of his character; we got to see how he deals with grief and death.

Thanks for giving even more instances. And McKay was an exceptional character and the main reason I wasn't happy that they cancelled Atlantis. But again, SG already deals with this. They just don't reduce the characters to drivel to do so and they don't make it a cornerstone of the show because it's not. We live so much of our lives without dealing with the little dramas that go on around us (or at least many of us do), why would it be more realistic for the characters on a show where they've had such experiences to be more focused on those little dramas? They still pop in from time to time but I think it would be unrealistic if it were more of a focal point of either SG1 or SGA.

Uh...where in that quote did I imply that I wanted them to be like me?

Your focus was on your ability to understand their intent.

It's not so much specific inconsistencies in character but rather a general "feel" I get that these characters don't have a very solid foundation, but rather they are carried by the plot and their actions are dictated by that, instead of the other way around, where their own characteristics dictate where the plot goes.

Why would you say that the characters don't have a very solid foundation? I can't really think of an episode where a character waivered. They grew over time, but they never betrayed their character. And of course the characters play out the plot as it's not a soap opera. There is a 'bigger picture' to their world than the individual. As there should be considering the subject matter. Anyone who could actually take a look at something like a stargate and think that they are really significant at all to the big picture would basically be a waste of air. All such characters on SG1 and SGA have not fared well and I'd have been disappointed if it had been any other way.

I didn't actually see much change from that singular event besides a lesson learned at the end of the episode. However, when you take a look at the series as a whole, Danny changed a lot, and that was pretty cool.

Do note though that I haven't seen Absolute Power in a while.

I think the events were a pivotal point in the character's development and that the character did change from that. They may not have made it a big focus on the show or had him going to a shrink about it, but why would they?

Well, it depends on how much time is passed, doesn't it? The effects should be parsed out accordingly. Still, even if a lot of time has passed, I would like to see some effects lasting onto the next one to "bridge the gap", as it were. Either way, they shouldn't forget it. Also, continuity refers to more than just character. If the ship is damaged, keep it damaged; if they don't keep it damaged, then allude to the fact that they repaired it. It's the tiny details that makes the continuity strong.

How long does the average person put their lives on hold when someone dies? Not really very long because for most, they can't afford to. You rarely get more than a week before you're expected to be fully back in action and that's with a civilian job. There's a 'real' week between episodes and a year usually passes in a season which means that more than a week's time typically takes place between episodes. If every episode were a consecutive day in a timeline, it would be different. But that's not how it works out.

And continuity is more about keeping true to the characters and the story than in forcing them to come out one way or another. If a ship was damaged badly enough that it couldn't be fixed in the timespan between episodes, it would likely be scrap. They wouldn't be able to maintain ships that they couldn't repair in a relatively short amount of time. To me, that doesn't help continuity, it's just stating the obvious. If they started out every episode recapping everything that went on between the time of the previous episode and the time of the current episode, they'd have like 10 minutes left for new content.

As long as it takes. I still dwell on events from 10 years ago. Other people may simply forget it; however the case, I want this to be true to their character. Are people who don't dwell on past events different in other aspects than those who do? I think so. Me and my dad dwell on events of the past, but my mom doesn't, and in return she's been the strongest person in my life; she's basically fearless. I imagine that people who do dwell may be afraid of causing that trauma again, and be more fearful.

Then your mother would likely be a better candidate to be on such missions than yourself or your dad. And I don't mean anything negative by that, just that if the military were sending a team of people to another world, they would favor the strong ones. Would you rather the fate of the world be in the hands of someone you consider fearless or someone who may get caught up in dwelling on things?

It's fascinating stuff, and IMHO is really the joy in writing TV shows; you get to burrow into the minds of so many who are different from you.

It is fascinating and I really hope they don't screw that up. I won't mind it so much if it's more stuff like some of the later McKay episodes. But if it becomes a big focus of the show it's going to get real boring real quick.

[Myth]

Sure there would definately be some (maybe a lot?) characters on SG1/SGA who, like your mum, would not dwell on the bad stuff that happens. However some definately would. I guess the episode titled "Daniel suffers from Post Traumatic Stress" or "Teal'c becomes an alcoholic" aren't really the direction they wanted to take the show

Daniel lost his wife and made it a big part of his life to try to get her back from the alien who put a symbiote in her and claimed her as his wife. Then he ascended to another plane of existence. Teal'c is an alien whom has a symbiote that probably nullifies the effects of most forms of alcohol and probably doesn't have much interest in it to begin with.

These aren't people whom are going to have the same problems as you or I. They're not going to be affected by the events of this world the same way that you or I would. And they wouldn't have been sent on these missions if they weren't strong enough to handle it. They were supposed to be the best of the best.

[GateFanSamJack]

Even if someone isn't the dwelling type, the recurring nature of the stresses they endure are going to wear on them. They know similar experiences are just around the corner. It's why you can be very tough, but still be worn down.

[Coronach]

How long does the average person put their lives on hold when someone dies? Not really very long because for most, they can't afford to.

No one's really suggesting putting your life on hold. In fact, you're right. In a situation such as those of SG1 and SGA, I'd have thought it odd if they were brooding and completely unable to do their assigned tasks. This is very different from what PG is suggesting though.

You rarely get more than a week before you're expected to be fully back in action and that's with a civilian job.

Indeed, but just because you're able to do your job after doesn't mean there aren't other ways of expressing such complex emotions.

I really think you're trivializing the effect that deaths of close friends and/or family can have on people.

One example is Carson's death. They had the eulogy scene at the end of the episode, and then it wasn't mentioned again for 3-4 episodes (I don't remember exactly...but I had this discussion a while back). You may think this realistic, but (given your comments about time between episodes), I find it strikingly odd that not one character mentioned it in even the episode directly after "Sunday".

Then your mother would likely be a better candidate to be on such missions than yourself or your dad. And I don't mean anything negative by that, just that if the military were sending a team of people to another world, they would favor the strong ones. Would you rather the fate of the world be in the hands of someone you consider fearless or someone who may get caught up in dwelling on things?

I'm assuming you know this already but, just to be sure, this does not apply to SGU as most of these people were not selected for the mission. It further ties in with the following:

It is fascinating and I really hope they don't screw that up. I won't mind it so much if it's more stuff like some of the later McKay episodes. But if it becomes a big focus of the show it's going to get real boring real quick.

Do you think it shouldn't be a big part of the show, given how vastly different the circumstances are for SGU and its characters?

[Myth]

Even if someone isn't the dwelling type, the recurring nature of the stresses they endure are going to wear on them. They know similar experiences are just around the corner. It's why you can be very tough, but still be worn down.

I know many a soldier that defies your logic.

[Myth]

No one's really suggesting putting your life on hold. In fact, you're right. In a situation such as those of SG1 and SGA, I'd have thought it odd if they were brooding and completely unable to do their assigned tasks. This is very different from what PG is suggesting though.

It doesn't seem to be.

Indeed, but just because you're able to do your job after doesn't mean there aren't other ways of expressing such complex emotions.

Including going to the gym.

I really think you're trivializing the effect that deaths of close friends and/or family can have on people.

No, I'm talking about the effects that it has on people whom routinely face it. Particularly highly trained soldiers who routinely face it.

One example is Carson's death. They had the eulogy scene at the end of the episode, and then it wasn't mentioned again for 3-4 episodes (I don't remember exactly...but I had this discussion a while back). You may think this realistic, but (given your comments about time between episodes), I find it strikingly odd that not one character mentioned it in even the episode directly after "Sunday".

Most soldiers won't just bring up a fallen comrade in the middle of other events. There are times reserved for such. The middle of the next mission isn't that time.

I'm assuming you know this already but, just to be sure, this does not apply to SGU as most of these people were not selected for the mission. It further ties in with the following:

I am aware and have admitted to such myself earlier in the thread.

Do you think it shouldn't be a big part of the show, given how vastly different the circumstances are for SGU and its characters?

It may be ok as long as it's limited to the civilian characters. And also that they're dealt with in a realistic fashion. This would mean a military justice system.

[Coronach]

No, I'm talking about the effects that it has on people whom routinely face it. Particularly highly trained soldiers who routinely face it.

I understand this, I'm just not sold on it completely. I mean, I fully admit that soldiers are far more likely to handle stressful and violent situations much better, but I'm not sure I'm sold on this "no showing emotion" idea.

Flying Officer Bennett (a frequent poster here) is a soldier, and he agreed with me in the discussion we had long ago. He'd have liked to have seen more acknowledgment with regards to Carson's death, especially in the episode immediately after "Sunday". There was absolutely no mention of it though

Most soldiers won't just bring up a fallen comrade in the middle of other events. There are times reserved for such. The middle of the next mission isn't that time.

Nah, I agree with you about the middle of the mission thing. There are plenty of scenes around Atlantis where this could have been done though.

It may be ok as long as it's limited to the civilian characters. And also that they're dealt with in a realistic fashion. This would mean a military justice system.

Again, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree here. I'm no soldier, nor do I have much experience with military matters. There are, however, people of the armed forces here on GW that have supported the view I hold with regards to lack of acknowledgment at times.

Also, could you elaborate on your last sentence in the above quote? I'm just curious

[Phenom]

No amount of training can fully prepare a person for facing life threatening situations on an almost daily basis. It can prepare you better than others, but it doesn't make you immune. No matter how resilient a person may appear to outsiders.

The strangest thing, is that it isn't the obvious things that effect a person the worst, but something that in comparison may seem small and insignificant.

Anyone who disputes this fact has no personal experience in dealing with life and death situations daily. Nobody knows the full extent of how a person feels when they are alone, or what their dreams contain. Soldiers and others are very unlikely to spill their deepest fears to their mates, for fear of ridicule and other factors.

[Myth]

I understand this, I'm just not sold on it completely. I mean, I fully admit that soldiers are far more likely to handle stressful and violent situations much better, but I'm not sure I'm sold on this "no showing emotion" idea.

I'm not talking about just soldiers, but highly trained soldiers. You wouldn't actually ever send cadets on a mission to another planet. They're going to be special ops. I know that's been ignored before, but as I recall, it hasn't gone well when it has.

Flying Officer Bennett (a frequent poster here) is a soldier, and he agreed with me in the discussion we had long ago. He'd have liked to have seen more acknowledgment with regards to Carson's death, especially in the episode immediately after "Sunday". There was absolutely no mention of it though

There could also have been other reasons for this as scripts are sometimes written out of order. And shows can even be taped out of order. And Submersion was the next episode and from what I remember of that one, there wasn't really a place that it could have been brought up without it seeming forced.

Nah, I agree with you about the middle of the mission thing. There are plenty of scenes around Atlantis where this could have been done though.

When in Submersion would it really have fit in?

Again, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree here. I'm no soldier, nor do I have much experience with military matters. There are, however, people of the armed forces here on GW that have supported the view I hold with regards to lack of acknowledgment at times.

Again, though, there are different types of soldiers. Someone in special ops isn't going to be the same as someone in the regular military. They receive much more training and are trained to handle things differently. Also, a soldier put into a situation such as going through a wormhole to another planet or galaxy isn't going to be the same as a soldier back here on earth.

Also, could you elaborate on your last sentence in the above quote? I'm just curious

Which part? The military justice system? I mean that infractions wouldn't be taken lightly and dealt with by a slap on the wrists. And because resources would be limited, there wouldn't be much concern for those who would commit a serious offense. Also, there hasn't been any mention of any lawyers in the mix so there won't be anyone getting off on technicalities. If not executed, they would likely be detained indefinitely. Of course, it shouldn't realistically get that out of hand as considering the situation, I doubt there are any serial killers in the mix and they're going to have much bigger issues to contend with.

[Myth]

No amount of training can fully prepare a person for facing life threatening situations on an almost daily basis. It can prepare you better than others, but it doesn't make you immune. No matter how resilient a person may appear to outsiders.

Anyone who disputes this fact has no personal experience in dealing with life and death situations daily.

No, dealing with life and death situations on a routine basis prepares you for dealing with life and death situations on a daily basis.

Genocide occurs in our world. The people on the receiving end routinely continue their lives while dealing with daily life and death situations. The holocaust occurred. The people in the camps routinely dealt with life and death situations and continued their lives. Anyone who thinks that the above is a 'fact' hasn't paid much attention to the world and/or doesn't know history as there have been many times in history in many places where life and death situations were a part of everyday life. Not everyone everywhere has the colonial with a 2 car garage in the suburbs.

[Coronach]

I'm not talking about just soldiers, but highly trained soldiers. You wouldn't actually ever send cadets on a mission to another planet. They're going to be special ops. I know that's been ignored before, but as I recall, it hasn't gone well when it has.

A fair point. Though I'm still going to disagree that even a special ops soldier would never show emotion.

There could also have been other reasons for this as scripts are sometimes written out of order. And shows can even be taped out of order. And Submersion was the next episode and from what I remember of that one, there wasn't really a place that it could have been brought up without it seeming forced.

When in Submersion would it really have fit in?

This is kind of like putting the cart before the horse. Even if it is the case that there is nowhere in Submersion it could have fit (I don't have the episode on-hand), I don't agree with this idea. Of course in retrospect we can say "well it wouldn't have fit anyways". However, there could easily have been a scene written in in any number of ways even briefly.

Again, though, there are different types of soldiers. Someone in special ops isn't going to be the same as someone in the regular military. They receive much more training and are trained to handle things differently. Also, a soldier put into a situation such as going through a wormhole to another planet or galaxy isn't going to be the same as a soldier back here on earth.

Still a fair point. I've just never met anyone who doesn't show the emotions we're describing. The only people I could imagine it applying to are sociopaths and people with Asperger's syndrome.

I've never claimed it should hinder them while in the middle of a crisis situation, but it shouldn't be ignored.

Which part? The military justice system? I mean that infractions wouldn't be taken lightly and dealt with by a slap on the wrists. And because resources would be limited, there wouldn't be much concern for those who would commit a serious offense. Also, there hasn't been any mention of any lawyers in the mix so there won't be anyone getting off on technicalities. If not executed, they would likely be detained indefinitely. Of course, it shouldn't realistically get that out of hand as considering the situation, I doubt there are any serial killers in the mix and they're going to have much bigger issues to contend with.

Ah, okay. This is what I thought you meant, I was just curious. You could argue that characters like Wray and Chloe may act as "lawyer types", though I'm not going to presume that about the show just yet.

It sounds like a very harsh system, but one completely understand given the circumstances. It might provide for some very interesting storytelling if you ask me.

[Phenom]

No, dealing with life and death situations on a routine basis prepares you for dealing with life and death situations on a daily basis.

Genocide occurs in our world. The people on the receiving end routinely continue their lives while dealing with daily life and death situations. The holocaust occurred. The people in the camps routinely dealt with life and death situations and continued their lives. Anyone who thinks that the above is a 'fact' hasn't paid much attention to the world and/or doesn't know history as there have been many times in history in many places where life and death situations were a part of everyday life. Not everyone everywhere has the colonial with a 2 car garage in the suburbs.

Until you have been in a situation at work where you have ran towards danger, when everyone else is running away, you are not qualified to judge on how people deal with life endangering situations.

I never once mentioned Genocide or the holocaust, it isn't even what we are talking about. We are discussing the emotional representation of the characters on SG.

[PG15]

It was them butting heads because Ronon was worked up over the IOA. And why would it be the result of something specific? People in high-stress jobs often times use a common stress-relieving activity to deal with all kinds of stress, regardless of the source. Just because fishing is mundane, it doesn't mean that it doesn't foot the bill for Jack. And while it is good exercise and training when Teyla and John spar, that doesn't mean it's not also how they work through things. I know plenty of people that head to the gym when they're dealing with everything from relationship issues to someone dying.

For me, without that bit of specifity, the scene is less meaningful. Sure, you can say they spar to stave off stress or to forget about a friend's death, but from my POV it looks like they're just sparring for the sake of sparring; a scene designed to add a bit of filler or humor, or to act as a setting for something down the line, like showing how Shep is suddenly awesome, acting as a clue that he's turning into a bug.

Thanks for giving even more instances. And McKay was an exceptional character and the main reason I wasn't happy that they cancelled Atlantis. But again, SG already deals with this. They just don't reduce the characters to drivel to do so and they don't make it a cornerstone of the show because it's not. We live so much of our lives without dealing with the little dramas that go on around us (or at least many of us do), why would it be more realistic for the characters on a show where they've had such experiences to be more focused on those little dramas? They still pop in from time to time but I think it would be unrealistic if it were more of a focal point of either SG1 or SGA.

IMHO, that McKay instance was special and very rare in terms of the past 2 Stargate shows. I don't know what you mean by "little dramas", but like the Mckay thing, I'm talking more about deaths and other "big dramas" inducing more obvious reactions. I don't mean anyone crying because they broke a nail or anything.

Your focus was on your ability to understand their intent.

Oh, I see what you mean now. No, you misunderstand. When a character does things true to his character (or better yet, champion a specific quality of his/her's), then I'm not the only one to get that. It's hard to explain because it's such an emotional response, but suffice it to say, when this happens, a lot of the fans will take notice of it.

Why would you say that the characters don't have a very solid foundation?

Because that's what it felt like sometimes.

I can't really think of an episode where a character waivered. They grew over time, but they never betrayed their character. And of course the characters play out the plot as it's not a soap opera. There is a 'bigger picture' to their world than the individual. As there should be considering the subject matter. Anyone who could actually take a look at something like a stargate and think that they are really significant at all to the big picture would basically be a waste of air. All such characters on SG1 and SGA have not fared well and I'd have been disappointed if it had been any other way.

That's not what I meant. Telling a story based on character rather than plot can be done with any sort of story. In fact, the story of a person realizing their insignificance in the Universe is very much a character-driven story.

How long does the average person put their lives on hold when someone dies? Not really very long because for most, they can't afford to. You rarely get more than a week before you're expected to be fully back in action and that's with a civilian job. There's a 'real' week between episodes and a year usually passes in a season which means that more than a week's time typically takes place between episodes. If every episode were a consecutive day in a timeline, it would be different. But that's not how it works out.

And continuity is more about keeping true to the characters and the story than in forcing them to come out one way or another. If a ship was damaged badly enough that it couldn't be fixed in the timespan between episodes, it would likely be scrap. They wouldn't be able to maintain ships that they couldn't repair in a relatively short amount of time. To me, that doesn't help continuity, it's just stating the obvious. If they started out every episode recapping everything that went on between the time of the previous episode and the time of the current episode, they'd have like 10 minutes left for new content.

Applying reality to something made for entertainment doesn't really work out very well, since reality is rarely entertaining (and reality TV, less so); sometimes it must be bent.

It's not very fulfilling for me to see a character being completely broken at the end of one episode and then cracking jokes at the beginning of the next. I expect them to recover a little, but acting as if nothing happened is jarring, to say the least; so a little continuity there would be nice.

As for the ship, smart writing will take care of that. A big chunk of the ship is taken out by an enemy vessel? Don't make it completely fine the next episode; again, it's more fulfilling for me to see that wound still there, though perhaps fixed a little bit. Don't want the ship scrapped? Well, don't blow up another chunk of it so soon afterwards.

I suppose that, if you don't like serialized TV, then you wouldn't like what I want to see, but that's alright. This is still what I want to see, however.

Then your mother would likely be a better candidate to be on such missions than yourself or your dad. And I don't mean anything negative by that, just that if the military were sending a team of people to another world, they would favor the strong ones. Would you rather the fate of the world be in the hands of someone you consider fearless or someone who may get caught up in dwelling on things?

Whatever's more entertaining.

In terms of SGU, the people flung onto the Destiny wasn't selected for going on the Destiny, so how qualitifed they are at surviving on it is not an issue. That's where the fun is.

[Phenom]

Applying reality to something made for entertainment doesn't really work out very well, since reality is rarely entertaining (and reality TV, less so); sometimes it must be bent.

It's not very fulfilling for me to see a character being completely broken at the end of one episode and then cracking jokes at the beginning of the next. I expect them to recover a little, but acting as if nothing happened is jarring, to say the least; so a little continuity there would be nice.
.

Exactly right. Not much fun seeing Shep waking up crying after another nightmare is it??

It is escapism from reality and although emotions play a big part in why we love Stargate, we don't want to see them at their worst all the time.

[PG15]

Not all the time.

But sometimes.

[Phenom]

Thats right. But as long as people realise that they aren't robots and that they would have a fair few 'downers', but just not all of them reflected on screen.

[PG15]

Sounds about right. Still, for big stuff like deaths or breakups or character revelations, I want to see some aftershocks, so to speak.

Something I forgot to mention: I don't think going to Icarus base is like "regular" off world trips. It seems that for the most part, it's like an Alpha Site, a base off-world that's relatively hidden and secure (until that attack, I guess). All this to say that I don't think they'd put that much emphasize on the quality of the troops stationed there as they would a front line team like SG1. I would expect SG1 to deal with grief and whatnot better than those stationed at Icarus. It's like comparing the US combat units in Iraq with the soldiers stationed in an Airforce Base in one of our ally's countries. Then again, I have no experience with this stuff so what do I know.

[Myth]

A fair point. Though I'm still going to disagree that even a special ops soldier would never show emotion.

But we're not talking about never showing emotion, we're talking about a drawn-out emotional reaction. They have shown emotion on a regular basis.

This is kind of like putting the cart before the horse. Even if it is the case that there is nowhere in Submersion it could have fit (I don't have the episode on-hand), I don't agree with this idea. Of course in retrospect we can say "well it wouldn't have fit anyways". However, there could easily have been a scene written in in any number of ways even briefly.

I disagree. Then it would have seemed forced. It would have been far worse to cut to an unrelated scene and have them talking about Carson when it had nothing to do with the storyline at hand. And again, we're not talking about them sitting around and talking about Carson and not expressing any emotion over him having died. We're talking about the fact that he didn't come up during the course of the episode. But again, a lot HAS to occur off-screen.

Still a fair point. I've just never met anyone who doesn't show the emotions we're describing. The only people I could imagine it applying to are sociopaths and people with Asperger's syndrome.

I have. And I know someone with Aspberger's syndrome and they're actually quite emotional. The emotions just don't work in a 'normal' way. And sociopaths often show emotion, just not an emotional connection to their actions.

I've never claimed it should hinder them while in the middle of a crisis situation, but it shouldn't be ignored.

But that's how it works even in our world. You don't stop in the middle of a firefight and talk about someone who died last week. If you did, you'd be joining them.

Ah, okay. This is what I thought you meant, I was just curious. You could argue that characters like Wray and Chloe may act as "lawyer types", though I'm not going to presume that about the show just yet.

If they do cover the topic, I'm sure that someone will try to play advocate for the defense. But if it becomes a stream of senseless objections without whomever's providing getting pretty PO'ed, I'd be disappointed.

It sounds like a very harsh system, but one completely understand given the circumstances. It might provide for some very interesting storytelling if you ask me.

It is a topic that should be covered considering the circumstances. And it hopefully won't be reduced to "the people's court". If they do something like a 'tribunal', I'll be very disappointed as that's not how it would play out.