SGU, by far the most underrated series.

[jeri]

Or else it wasn't well executed. That isn't entirely a subjective opinion, it's an analytical one. Enjoyment can be seperated from quality, if you know what you're looking. SGU, irrespective of subjective likes and dislikes, had pretty damn poor scripting for a serial program. It's dependence on Deus Ex Machina was counterproductive to the 'mature' program they wanted to present. The stereotypical, occasionally 2 dimensional, melodramaic characters counters that, as did the wishy, washy undeveloped storylines.

If you take a look at the definitions :

subjective |s?b?jektiv|
adjective
1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: his views are highly subjective | there is always the danger of making a subjective judgment. Contrasted with objective.
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

analyze |?anl??z|(Brit. analyse )
verb [ with obj. ]
examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, esp. information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation: we need to analyze our results more clearly.

You may see why I think your position is suspect. You just didn't like the show. There's nothing scientific about it. Your opinion is subjective and my liking of SGU is also subjective. Perception and interpretation here is key!

You seem to think my analysis of the show is based on the fact I didn't love it. It's not, I analyse the shows I love and hate by the same standards and quality wise a number of shows I love fall short... Thankfully entertainment and tight programming don't have to go hand in hand.

Don't we all? A show is good if you like it, or bad if you don't. It's subjective: it works for you, or it doesn't.

[KEK]

A HUGE example of Deus Ex Machina is the reliance on the stones to offer assistance from Earth so thy don't have to muddle through and solve their own problems.

That's not a deus ex machina. A deux ex machina is a plot device that's introduced out of the blue that conveniently resolves an issue in some contrived or illogical manner. The stones by contrast were first established in the Stargate mythology in Stargate SG-1, used later in Atlantis, and given that the Icarus gate can't receive incoming wormholes, they were the perfect communication device for the base to use, and it makes all the sense in the world that they would have them.

If you mean the characters themselves who appear, then what examples are there? The only issue I can think of that was resolved by a random character being brought in was Amanda Perry and the FTL drive, but even then that fleshed out Rush, completed one character arc and started another, while also feeding into a later plot. Even then, that wasn't the main resolution of the episode.

As for 2 dimensional, cliche characters - Young is by far one of the worse. We've seen this melodramatic character in a number of shows and movies; Jack in 24, nearly every character Bruce Willis has played etc. Rush is the perfect, cliched mad genius who will seemingly to everything in science. Eli is the cliche 'nerd' who learns everything in 2.5 seconds, is young, good and excitable. Greer is the angry soldier. Their characters were nothing new, fresh and they didn't really grow or change in any meaningful way.

Simply not true. Young went from complete distrust of Rush (which made him a poor leader), desperately clinging on to what he had on Earth, to a mental breakdown, he then rebuilt himself with a new purpose - the mission. He was a stronger character and better leader for it. This is the man that went from trying to murder Rush, to being one of the few to stand by him in opting to complete the mission. He had absolutely loads of growth.

Rush began as nothing more than a pragmatist, beyond that even callous, only driven by the mission. Throughout the seasons you see him more and more on a human level, developing connections to other people and somewhat losing his single-mindedness, to the point that he'd risk everything to avenge someone he loved. He also went from a man that wouldn't trust anyone to touch anything but himself, to someone who had enough faith in Eli that he let him navigate Destiny through a blue super giant that could have ended everything for him.

Eli started out as a kid that wouldn't even get out of bed to find a job for himself while his mother struggled with a terminal illness to support them both, and ended up being the man that volunteered to stay out of the pods for the sake of everyone and try and solve the problem, risking his own life in the process. He went from almost zero self belief and total dependence on Rush, to fully acknowledging that he is the more brilliant.

The above are choices I'm surprised you would pick. Their growth, for me, was probably some of the most overt. Greer I can understand a little more. Beyond his trust issues being gradually eroded as the season went on, he stayed quite consistent, right up until Alliances and The Hunt, where he outgrew his perception of civilians and people like Wray, and confronted his own mortality, and the fear he didn't think he had. The growth was there, but it did probably take a lot longer to come up than it should have done.

Any character can be reduced to an archetype if you ignore their growth.

[Deevil]

Actually Jeri - I will quite happily state many shows, and movies, I watch and enjoy are horribly put together clap-trap with terrible storylines and beyond cliched characters. My liking a show, or disliking it, doesn't change whether or not a show is, technically, a well put together show.

The truth is though, if you like a show most people won't care if it's put together well. Most people only notice it if they don't like it. I don't much like the movie Australia, but it's cinematography is to die for... Just like the cinematography for SGU is pretty gorgeous at times. I love the use of light and colour, but most people don't care about that nerdification so I don't mention it.

But hell, if you want to discount what I've said simply because you, incorrectly, believe the criticism is simply born from not being a fan of the quality of the show - go for it. It wont change the narrative and character issues of he show, nor will it change the show never living up to the premise that the producers - not the trailers - had hyped us for. And really, none of the above will change the fact you *do* like the show, and it shouldn't. I'm not posing to take away your ienjoyment of the show. My point in posting here was simple, for the issues the show has in its character and narrative I can't find it 'underrated' in the least.

[Zombies Rise from the Sea]

The truth is though, if you like a show most people won't care if it's put together well. Most people only notice it if they don't like it. I don't much like the movie Australia, but it's cinematography is to die for... Just like the cinematography for SGU is pretty gorgeous at times. I love the use of light and colour, but most people don't care about that nerdification so I don't mention it.

I care; in fact many of my Babar reviews go in-depth regarding the animation, the lighting, the color, the shadowing and even at some times, the proportion; I even cut up various stills and include them into one image just to show the specific examples which are good. (though for a live action show, it'd be harder since 16x9 takes up more space then 4:3, especially when placing them together.) don't assume that it's going to be worthless to place up something because few people like it, if you like it then place it up; serve that small niche of nerdification.

[kmiller1610]

This show certainly has the best DVD extras. Just watched the Blue interview with the writers. The Kino files are funny. I am really enjoying owning the DVDs... and the extras.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Deevil,

It's not Deux Ex Machina unless it's use is unexpected. The only Deax Ex Machina I can really see is Franklin and the Chair in "Sabotage". Neither Young, Rush, nor Eli were cliched Characters. They were very well fleshed out in my opinion.

Your dislike does not make something objectively bad.

[Deevil]

LOL, guys if you think I'm being tough on SGU, you have NEVER heard what I've said about SG1 and I adore that show, poor writing quality, dies ex Machina, character missteps and assassinations and all. By if it really makes you feel better I'm saying it all because I don't love the show, have at it.

[psl1]

A HUGE example of Deus Ex Machina is the reliance on the stones to offer assistance from Earth so thy don't have to muddle through and solve their own problems.

The truth is a lot of SciFi doesn't rely heavily on the last minute save from a randomly appearing character or weapon or machine.


Storylines were glossed over, like the rebellion. Consequences were cheap, unrefined and lacked any actual depth.

I thought the 'stones' where part of the SG . Maybe you could list all the syfi that doesn't include Deus Ex Machina, so we can determine how frequent they are employed.

As for 2 dimensional, cliche characters - Young is by far one of the worse. We've seen this melodramatic character in a number of shows and movies; Jack in 24, nearly every character Bruce Willis has played etc. Rush is the perfect, cliched mad genius who will seemingly to everything in science. Eli is the cliche 'nerd' who learns everything in 2.5 seconds, is young, good and excitable. Greer is the angry soldier. Their characters were nothing new, fresh and they didn't really grow or change in any meaningful way.

Wow that whole paragraph was a cliche. My son is just like Eli and he is none of what you describe. My old man is a retired scientist and like Rush in many ways. Passionate about ideas to the point where his inability to communicate that, frustrates him to anger. Arrogant and intollerant of people who can't understand. But never mad or cliche, just like rush. I have no problem with Greer from the start and liked his character opening up. Young is fine in his role as a commander and the personal side.

I would like to have seen Rebellion episode examined more, but it did result in a direction change in the show. Don't think it was cheap solution. It was what they had to do to function as a team. I actually thought that episode was a courageous effort.

[Zombies Rise from the Sea]

It's not Deus Ex Machina unless it's use is unexpected.

I have to somewhat disagree, based on your description. Rush and Eli, Scott, Chloe coming back was completely unexpected because it was thought they'd be lost in space forever, unable to return to the Destiny unless chanced intervened (while it may have contributed to the plot, those characters returning is a pure Deus Ex Machina.

[KEK]

I have to somewhat disagree, based on your description. Rush and Eli, Scott, Chloe coming back was completely unexpected because it was thought they'd be lost in space forever, unable to return to the Destiny unless chanced intervened (while it may have contributed to the plot, those characters returning is a pure Deus Ex Machina.

It was never a case of chance. The plot thread of the aliens tracking Destiny was starting in the pilot, when one of the alien shuttles undocks from Destiny as the crew go back into FTL at the end of the episode. In fact, it was probably the same ship that they discovered on the planet Rush was left on. It's not even far fetched that they would return to investigate their crashed ship, let alone a deus ex machina. Then with Rush as their captive, they gained knowledge of where the Destiny would drop out, and also a communication stone, which sets up how Destiny was sabotaged, and thus how and why Chloe, Scott and Eli were able to make it back.

It's all connected.

[psl1]

can you be more specific about the cases.

[Gatefan1976]

Hang on hang on.
The SGU fans want specific cases where an individual sees a problem, yet wont accept when someone calls out a specific case as enough??

Stargate *AS a WHOLE* suffered from many, many flaws, and I *Still* love stargate. What you folks need to realise is that *just because* someone raises a point, especially when that point is from a *structural POV* does NOT mean they actually dislike the series, merely that they are aware of the flaws in something they enjoy. Conversely, someone can see the "good" in something that they personaly may not enjoy as well.

[jeri]

Hang on hang on.
The SGU fans want specific cases where an individual sees a problem, yet wont accept when someone calls out a specific case as enough??

Stargate *AS a WHOLE* suffered from many, many flaws, and I *Still* love stargate. What you folks need to realise is that *just because* someone raises a point, especially when that point is from a *structural POV* does NOT mean they actually dislike the series, merely that they are aware of the flaws in something they enjoy. Conversely, someone can see the "good" in something that they personaly may not enjoy as well.

But still, isn't it a matter of individual perception and interpretation? My argument is that all these opinions, pro and con, are subjective.

[jeri]

Wow that whole paragraph was a cliche. My son is just like Eli and he is none of what you describe. My old man is a retired scientist and like Rush in many ways. Passionate about ideas to the point where his inability to communicate that, frustrates him to anger. Arrogant and intollerant of people who can't understand. But never mad or cliche, just like rush. I have no problem with Greer from the start and liked his character opening up. Young is fine in his role as a commander and the personal side.

Haha! I gotta agree with you there! My brother is a cross between Eli and Rush and sometimes he's a real Mckay!

[psl1]

Haha! I gotta argue with you there! My brother is a cross between Eli and Rush and sometimes he's a real Mckay!

No worries , the point is they are clearly not cliche. They represent people you meet all the time.

[Gatefan1976]

But still, isn't it a matter of individual perception and interpretation? My argument is that all these opinions, pro and con, are subjective.

Content, what a viewer may or may not like, Characterization, story arcs, all things like this do indeed come down to personal perception.
What does not however is *Structure*, it's far easier to critique and such in writing (such as essays etc) because you can see the grammatical structures etc, but it can be done with pretty much anything.

"I don't like X character because I did not relate to them" = Subjective opinion.
"I don't like X character because their personality changes from week to week displaying a lack of continuity in writing for X character". This is more a structural fault.
See what I am saying?

[psl1]

Content, what a viewer may or may not like, Characterization, story arcs, all things like this do indeed come down to personal perception.
What does not however is *Structure*, it's far easier to critique and such in writing (such as essays etc) because you can see the grammatical structures etc, but it can be done with pretty much anything.

"I don't like X character because I did not relate to them" = Subjective opinion.
"I don't like X character because their personality changes from week to week displaying a lack of continuity in writing for X character". This is more a structural fault.
See what I am saying?

Unless that change in character is part of the character. Me I'm forced to tollerate critics and find their contribution only occationally helpful. Could probably do without them or alteast wish they keep there input down to a sentence or two. No one can ever claim to know why an artist does one thing or another. Often not even the artist themselves.

[Deevil]

Unless that change in character is part of the character. Me I'm forced to tollerate critics and find their contribution only occationally helpful. Could probably do without them or alteast wish they keep there input down to a sentence or two. No one can ever claim to know why an artist does one thing or another. Often not even the artist themselves.

But film is structured. There are rules, because film*is* a language. It has a grammar, syntax, punctuation. When these are circumvented, without knowledge or reason it's noticed. When characters are cliche it's noticed, just like stereotypes are. Cliche CAN be good in writing and film, if the cliche is understood and used with purpose. Boardwalk Empire plays on cliches very well as does Game of Thrones. SGU doesn't.

This isn't about being an art critic or knowing exactly what an artist is thinking. It's simply about understand film language and writing and commenting on that. It's not anything personal, or even an attack, it's observation.

[psl1]

Sorry there are no rules in art. Whatever works, works. It’s that simple and that complicated.

Everything else you are referring to is related to the rules of the business of film or TV. Nothing to do with art. It may be of importance to those who perpetuate the industry, but of no concern to us.

[Gatefan1976]

Sorry there are no rules in art. Whatever works, works. It’s that simple and that complicated.

Everything else you are referring to is related to the rules of the business of film or TV. Nothing to do with art. It may be of importance to those who perpetuate the industry, but of no concern to us.

Umm, Have you ever attended an English class?
Both Dee and I are talking about *scriptwriting*, nothing else.