PDA

View Full Version : The Tower Review - The Prime Directive?



Scyld
February 9th, 2006, 01:11 PM
This post is directed at the review of The Tower posted on the main site.

(spoilers)


Teyla and Ronon incite revolution. Did they skip their lessons on the Prime Directive?

Although I thought the episode in question was very silly, I just had to comment on this, as it struck me as very, very odd. It may have been meant as a joke, but on the off chance that it wasn't, I just have to point out the following:

- The Prime Directive doesn't exist in Stargate
- Even if it did, Teyla and Ronon are under no obligation to uphold it
- Even if they were, the Prime Directive still isn't a particularly good idea. As an principle, it is intellectually bankrupt. The best that can be said of it is that it functions as an effective plot device to create drama and tension in certain episodes of Star Trek. O_o

ShadowMaat
February 9th, 2006, 01:30 PM
- Even if they were, the Prime Directive still isn't a particularly good idea. As an principle, it is intellectually bankrupt. The best that can be said of it is that it functions as an effective plot device to create drama and tension in certain episodes of Star Trek. O_o
And since you say it then it must be true? :rolleyes: Sorry, but I can think of quite a few instances and more than a few reasons why interfering with lesser-developed cultures is a bad idea. Does that make me intellectually bankrupt, too? Gosh, wouldn't my teachers be surprised. ;)

I don't think the reviewer was literally saying that the characters have to follow Trek's Prime Directive. However, if Teyla and Ronon are part of the Atlantis crew, then they are expected to uphold Atlantis's laws and policies. If Atlantis did have the equivalent of a Prime Directive, then Teyla and Ronon would be expected to adhere to it. Whatever else they are, they're also members of the premiere expeditionary force of Atlantis and they have to obey orders just like everyone else (usually).

Tower Personally, I think that inciting the revolution was, in that instance, a bad idea. Not only because it's sharp sticks vs. Ancient drones, but because I'm not confident that those people would be able to fend for themselves without a lot of outside help... from Atlantis. I'm not saying they should continue to live under a dictatorship, but they didn't seem like a very intelligent bunch and while they were willing to fight once Teyla and Ronon backed them into a corner, I doubt they could have won on their own and I doubt they have the fortitude to carry forth and make their own decisions and choose their own form of government. Atlantis would have to stick around to wipe their noses for them and protect them from the other neighborhood bullies or they'd just collapse back to what they know best. *shrug*

I agree whole-heartedly with the review. Every point made struck a chord with me and it's nice to know that the reviewers aren't going to sit there and pretend they liked something when they didn't. And it's also good to know that some people have limits about what they'll accept. ;)

Scyld
February 9th, 2006, 02:02 PM
And since you say it then it must be true? :rolleyes: Sorry, but I can think of quite a few instances and more than a few reasons why interfering with lesser-developed cultures is a bad idea. Does that make me intellectually bankrupt, too? Gosh, wouldn't my teachers be surprised.

The difficulty arises in the question of what is meant by 'lesser-developed.' People are people, be it in the 24th century, the 20th century, or the 12th. We're further along technologically today than we were a thousand years ago, certainly... and already the problem of what is meant by 'further along' comes up. Further along towards what? Have we made great progress? Progressing towards what? Are we suggesting that there is some cosmic plan whereby races get better and better until they're finally perfect?

The Prime Directive (and philosophies like it) presupposes that we are all naturally progressing towards... something. And that to 'interfere' in a race's progress towards that whatever it is would be wrong, because it might get them there before... what? Before the divine plan mandates that they should arrive there? Surely if it were a divine plan, it would have taken the outside interference into account from the beginning.


I don't think the reviewer was literally saying that the characters have to follow Trek's Prime Directive. However, if Teyla and Ronon are part of the Atlantis crew, then they are expected to uphold Atlantis's laws and policies. If Atlantis did have the equivalent of a Prime Directive, then Teyla and Ronon would be expected to adhere to it. Whatever else they are, they're also members of the premiere expeditionary force of Atlantis and they have to obey orders just like everyone else (usually).

Sure. But what orders did they violate? And how is what they did in the village different from what SG-1 did on a hundred different Goa'uld controlled worlds?


Tower Personally, I think that inciting the revolution was, in that instance, a bad idea. Not only because it's sharp sticks vs. Ancient drones, but because I'm not confident that those people would be able to fend for themselves without a lot of outside help... from Atlantis. I'm not saying they should continue to live under a dictatorship, but they didn't seem like a very intelligent bunch and while they were willing to fight once Teyla and Ronon backed them into a corner, I doubt they could have won on their own and I doubt they have the fortitude to carry forth and make their own decisions and choose their own form of government. Atlantis would have to stick around to wipe their noses for them and protect them from the other neighborhood bullies or they'd just collapse back to what they know best. *shrug*

Yeah, probably.


I agree whole-heartedly with the review. Every point made struck a chord with me and it's nice to know that the reviewers aren't going to sit there and pretend they liked something when they didn't. And it's also good to know that some people have limits about what they'll accept. ;)

My own reaction to the episode was less severe than the reviewers. As I said, I thought it was very silly. I was a little annoyed by John Sheppard's rampant Kirkishness, but I didn't hate the episode (I didn't like it either, but I didn't hate it). It felt like the writers really weren't trying very hard, and certainly I had hoped for better, but that's about as far as it went for me.

BackStageJim
February 9th, 2006, 02:57 PM
No disrespect to the writers, but this was a bottle show. Redress Atlantis set, new dirt for farming community from SG-1 show where Cam is captured by Jaffa (Babylon), some Ren-Fair clothing.

I fear that like many shows spawning copies of it (CSI), that the writers are being worn-out by the production schedule.

But I’ll still watch it just to fill the void that is TV today.

ShadowMaat
February 9th, 2006, 04:52 PM
While I understand that just by writing a review folks open themselves up to all sorts of criticism from people who disagree, I still don't understand why, exactly, some people feel compelled to personally attack the reviewers. They're voicing their opinions about the show, same as you voice your opinions.

And is it worth pointing out that this is just a review of a TV show? A piece of fiction? Criticize the viewpoint, by all means; good debate is the lifeblood of the forum. But if you (generally speaking) are slagging REAL PEOPLE over a disagreement about a bunch of imaginary characters, well... Maybe it's time to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

Skydiver
February 9th, 2006, 05:08 PM
You know guys, we have yet to have a reviewer who has not been on the receiving end of 's/he's biased and predjudice and i wonder what show they were watching' or something along that line

No one will EVER write a review that everyone agrees with

but hey, they were willing to make the commitment to put thier opinion out there and take the time to do so. Quite voluntarily i may add.

Agree or disagree with it, I would ask you to please respect their opinion. and if you (the general you) feel strongly enough about it, maybe when darren is recruiting folks to write reviews, you might want to consider volunteering yourself

prion
February 9th, 2006, 05:30 PM
This post is directed at the review of The Tower posted on the main site.

(spoilers)



Although I thought the episode in question was very silly, I just had to comment on this, as it struck me as very, very odd. It may have been meant as a joke, but on the off chance that it wasn't, I just have to point out the following:

- The Prime Directive doesn't exist in Stargate
- Even if it did, Teyla and Ronon are under no obligation to uphold it
- Even if they were, the Prime Directive still isn't a particularly good idea. As an principle, it is intellectually bankrupt. The best that can be said of it is that it functions as an effective plot device to create drama and tension in certain episodes of Star Trek. O_o

Definitely agree. The Prime Directive is a creatoin of Star Trek, which although it's pop culture, it's not real. Both Teyla and Ronon have lived their entire lives under the constant threat of death by Wraith. Dying of natural causes appears to be a rarity, so you do what you need to in order to survive.

My quibble with the review

Sadly, there is also the Ugly: Ronon's decapitation of the soldier, the triteness of a medieval / feudal society existing in the Pegasus Galaxy, and the astonishing parallel development of lacy shirts, velvet jackets, brocades and the like.

Ronon slit the guy's throat, didn't decapitate him, which requires the complete removal of the head... However, slit throat, decapitation, whatever, should have been some good spurts of blood, or at least some blood spatter. When they took away the body (head still attached) there was barely any blood...

Do agree on the ugly. Velvet jackets are just plain ugh. ;)

ShadowMaat
February 9th, 2006, 07:05 PM
The difficulty arises in the question of what is meant by 'lesser-developed.' People are people, be it in the 24th century, the 20th century, or the 12th. We're further along technologically today than we were a thousand years ago, certainly... and already the problem of what is meant by 'further along' comes up. Further along towards what? Have we made great progress? Progressing towards what? Are we suggesting that there is some cosmic plan whereby races get better and better until they're finally perfect?
The people of that world were less developed in terms of technology, sociology, economics, education, etc. Particularly the "peasant class" running the farms and whatnot. They haven't devloped through experience, they've been thrust into the middle of something they probably can't even put into context.

Of course, arguments could probably be made that most cultures experience sudden leaps forward and that the situation at the end of The Tower is just another example of that. But generally speaking, when a culture encounters a group from a higher tech/social base, that culture tends to be decimated. Aztecs, Incas, Indians, etc. Things tend to go very poorly for the "lesser developed" people- even if those people are more sophisticated than their counterparts in certain areas of knowledge.

Fascinating subject, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to a discussion about the review of The Tower. ;) Except maybe that Teyla and Ronon should have thought a bit more about whether or not the people were ready and able to lead themselves and I think that may be the point the reviewer was trying to make. At the very least, that's what I thought about the ep, myself.



Sure. But what orders did they violate? And how is what they did in the village different from what SG-1 did on a hundred different Goa'uld controlled worlds?
It wasn't a question of whether or not they obeyed orders. You had said that they were "under no obligation to uphold [Atlantis's Prime Directive]" and I was refuting that statement. Unless I missed the original point of it. Which, given my scattered attention this week, is entirely possible. ;)

Atlanis
February 9th, 2006, 08:23 PM
I think our reivewer friend was having a few sleepless nights

1. The drones and Jumpers were treaded for gene tec

2. They got an IDC, our if assistance if the wrath ever came back

the things I liked

1. every one in the city was a pig they may as well eat out of a troff

2. when mara is naked that whole seen was just funny
(espacly when she throughes John on the bed)

3. Rodney's village guide doesn't seam half as doppey as the rest of them

4. john said "if you think I am going to sit here and let you wip him" (he was standing)

5. Ortho, I never seen thought he was as bad as the rest of them, well at least until we found out (a testament to the actors skill)

6. Tavious burping and fixing his teeth after his father fell ill at the super table

7. when john replied to Tavious after he said "the villagers are mindless brutes" I think he should have said "it takes one to know one"

Erised
February 9th, 2006, 09:38 PM
that review had me rolling in the floor! Best review for the worst episode in Stargate history

Scyld
February 9th, 2006, 09:52 PM
While I understand that just by writing a review folks open themselves up to all sorts of criticism from people who disagree, I still don't understand why, exactly, some people feel compelled to personally attack the reviewers. They're voicing their opinions about the show, same as you voice your opinions.

And is it worth pointing out that this is just a review of a TV show? A piece of fiction? Criticize the viewpoint, by all means; good debate is the lifeblood of the forum. But if you (generally speaking) are slagging REAL PEOPLE over a disagreement about a bunch of imaginary characters, well... Maybe it's time to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

Which part of my post was an attack? O_o
Shall I create a summary of my position? Here it is:

"While I don't disagree that it was an uninspired episode, I thought the reviewer was a bit overly harsh, and (assuming they weren't joking) I didn't understand why on Earth they thought that the Atlantis expedition should hold to the Prime Directive."

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 03:30 AM
Not you, Scyld. The post in question was deleted by the mods. ;) But just in general it seems like a good idea to remind folks of the "ground rules" since certain people seem to think that someone saying "This ep sucked" means that it's perfectly OK to retaliate with, "No, YOU'RE the one who sucks!" and comments of a similar and very personal nature.

It's a TV show, people, not a member of your immediate family. Get over it.


1. The drones and Jumpers were treaded for gene tec
And that's supposed to make it OK? Given what we've seen of Tower society and of the Oppressed Villagers from Central Casting, do you really think the gene tech is going to do them any good? Or that it'll be used properly? Without supervision?

I'm sure the villagers will sleep much better at night knowing that when they wake up to find the Wraith culling their village, all they have to do is go running to the stargate and call for help. Oh but wait, we already know that the Wraith like to keep the stargates active so folks can't escape, so... *shrug* Guess it's a good thing they don't know that part. ;)

AndyStargateUK
February 10th, 2006, 04:11 AM
Not you, Scyld. The post in question was deleted by the mods. ;) But just in general it seems like a good idea to remind folks of the "ground rules" since certain people seem to think that someone saying "This ep sucked" means that it's perfectly OK to retaliate with, "No, YOU'RE the one who sucks!" and comments of a similar and very personal nature.

It's a TV show, people, not a member of your immediate family. Get over it.


And that's supposed to make it OK? Given what we've seen of Tower society and of the Oppressed Villagers from Central Casting, do you really think the gene tech is going to do them any good? Or that it'll be used properly? Without supervision?

I'm sure the villagers will sleep much better at night knowing that when they wake up to find the Wraith culling their village, all they have to do is go running to the stargate and call for help. Oh but wait, we already know that the Wraith like to keep the stargates active so folks can't escape, so... *shrug* Guess it's a good thing they don't know that part. ;)


Looking at the episode do you think there is a link between it and the Iraq war?

What right did Atlantis have to supress the leaders who had control over superior/equal weapons to Atlantis who opressed the local population.

In the end Atlantis agreed to help out the population if the Wraith ever came in return for Drones and the population were no longer under threat from those who lived in the tower.

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 04:24 AM
Looking at the episode do you think there is a link between it and the Iraq war?
I'd rather not bring current politics into this discussion. That would only fan the flames higher.



In the end Atlantis agreed to help out the population if the Wraith ever came in return for Drones and the population were no longer under threat from those who lived in the tower.
Given a choice between an Oppressive Leader and a impartial race of Genocidal Monsters, I'll take the Oppressive Leader. ;) It may be more of a constant interference in my life, but at least I and my friends and family won't wind up as someone's dinner.

Plus, as I said, the chances of the Atlantis crew being able to do anything useful to save the planet from a Wraith culling are pretty slim. Assuming the locals can even manage to get out a plea for help (see above re: Wraith tactics), the attack will already be happening when they do. It'll take even MORE time to get a force together to try and repel the Wraith. Plus there's the fact that technically, Atlantis isn't supposed to exist anymore, so if they DO go riding to the rescue, they'd better make damn sure they get every single wraith out there and pray that the ships didn't send off a signal to the others saying, "Hey, those jumped-up horny toads occupying Atlantis are still around!" ;)

AGateFan
February 10th, 2006, 05:30 AM
Nice reveiw.

AndyStargateUK
February 10th, 2006, 05:45 AM
I'd rather not bring current politics into this discussion. That would only fan the flames higher.



Given a choice between an Oppressive Leader and a impartial race of Genocidal Monsters, I'll take the Oppressive Leader. ;) It may be more of a constant interference in my life, but at least I and my friends and family won't wind up as someone's dinner.

Plus, as I said, the chances of the Atlantis crew being able to do anything useful to save the planet from a Wraith culling are pretty slim. Assuming the locals can even manage to get out a plea for help (see above re: Wraith tactics), the attack will already be happening when they do. It'll take even MORE time to get a force together to try and repel the Wraith. Plus there's the fact that technically, Atlantis isn't supposed to exist anymore, so if they DO go riding to the rescue, they'd better make damn sure they get every single wraith out there and pray that the ships didn't send off a signal to the others saying, "Hey, those jumped-up horny toads occupying Atlantis are still around!" ;)


Perhaps a follow up episode is needed for Season Three.

Basic Plot outline: Having endured a Wraith attack (the wraith dialed in) the people of the village from the tower dial into Atlantis under the pretense they are still under attack and storm the control room holding Atlantis workers hostage while demanding compensation of the Atlantis ZPM for Atlantis effectivly leaving them without any defense saying if none is given they will use the tower to inform the Wraith of the exsistance of Atlantis before the hiveships jump into hyperspace.

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 08:19 AM
Basic Plot outline: Having endured a Wraith attack (the wraith dialed in) the people of the village from the tower dial into Atlantis under the pretense they are still under attack and storm the control room holding Atlantis workers hostage while demanding compensation of the Atlantis ZPM for Atlantis effectivly leaving them without any defense saying if none is given they will use the tower to inform the Wraith of the exsistance of Atlantis before the hiveships jump into hyperspace.
And then Sharon can write another review saying that there's FINALLY an ep that is even worse than The Tower. ;)

timdalton007
February 10th, 2006, 08:21 AM
What really bugged me about this episode wasn't the whole "prime directive" thing. What really bugged me was the plot all together. Soemhow it didn't seem to back too much sense.

timdalton007

AndyStargateUK
February 10th, 2006, 09:14 AM
And then Sharon can write another review saying that there's FINALLY an ep that is even worse than The Tower. ;)

Oi! ;) Lol , I like your sig btw.

:mckayanime18:

Vuen
February 10th, 2006, 10:38 AM
Teyla and Ronon incite revolution. Did they skip their lessons on the Prime Directive?

It's reviews like these that make me feel like the reviewers don't know anything about the show. Do you even watch Stargate? If you did, you'd know that the very act of stepping through the gate is a violation of the Prime Directive.

How many "pre-warp" civilizations have they turned upside down? How many wars have they started on "pre-warp" civilizations, such Kelowna, or the planet from Icon?

There have been episodes where SG1 has gone out of their way to intentionally destroy the civilization just because they don't like the way they do things. Take Beneath the Surface for example. SG1 had the opportunity to establish trade relations with an advanced civilization, but they discovered they were enslaving a labour force underground. Instead of establishing trade, they freed the slaves through the gate; the civilization collapsed due to the total loss of its labour force.

Memento is another example of the show's blatant contempt for the Prime Directive. Prometheus shows up in orbit above a pre-warp civilization, detonates its hyperdrive emitting an EMP pulse that shuts down a continent, lands on the planet, and asks to borrow their Stargate. Does that sound like they care about the Prime Directive?

This lone statement invalidates your entire review, because it shows that you don't even know the first thing about Stargate. Of course, that's not going to stop me from shooting holes through it:




Were I a villager, I would see Sheppard and his team as people who are violent beyond need (Ronon), destructive (no government, no defenses), and thieves (they took the Puddle Jumpers and drones, and maybe even the Z.P.M.).

What? They DRAINED the ZPM! Did you even watch the episode?!?

It was already almost out of power anyway, so it was basically useless. As it was, it could probably only fend off one or two more Wraith attacks. It wouldn't take much of attack on the Wraith's part to drain it.

Even if the ZPM was full, everyone seems to be forgetting the critical fact that the royal family's bloodline was failing. They could no longer control the chair. A few more generations, maybe 50 years or so, and it would be useless.

The planet was already virtually defenseless. Nearly depleted ZPM, and nearly unuseable chair. As it was, it was only useful as a means to enslave the population. They're much better off now than they were before, because they're establishing a democracy and they have Atlantis and the Deadalus to help defend them.




If the tower was so close, why didn't anyone see it from the Puddle Jumper as they flew in? It's a hard place to miss.

Don't you think the tower would have noticed a puddle jumper flying through the gate? The king knew right away that they had come through the gate, yet they never mentioned a jumper.

The team came on foot. I thought that was obvious.




And how cliché, Ronon to the rescue of the threatened village woman. Wouldn't it have been bold if Teyla, who is a warrior, had been the one to wade into battle? And then there was Ronon's totally uncalled for decapitation of the soldier. After that, why would these people believe he was any different than the man he killed?

You're not making any sense. It would have been okay if it was Teyla, but not Ronon?

That soldier meant to rape that girl. How was killing him uncalled for? He should have given him a slap on the wrist? I think it was very much right for the team to teach these people that this is not a way to live, and that they should stand up for themselves and fight.




He's a military man, leader of the Atlantis defense forces, chief field operative and in this episode, the most naïve he's ever been. No 13-year-old would trust anyone in the tower society, let alone simply hand over the gene therapy without sufficient protocol to ensure it is used properly.

20/20 hindsight. Succession of the throne was falling to Tavius; something had to be done immediately. They didn't have time to wait for protocol. At the time, Otho was the best person to give it to, because near as we could tell he had been acting for the benefit of the people. He even went so far as to encourage Sheppard to marry Mara, even though he loved her himself, because it was the best way to ensure that the chair could be used.

It's easy for the viewers to distrust Otho because we got to see his arrangement with Tavius long before the characters did. That was the whole point of those scenes. It's called "dramatic irony".



In conclusion, please try to actually understand an episode before you write a review about it. Oh, and actually knowing something about the Stargate universe is probably a good idea too. Good luck on your next review.

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 10:57 AM
Remind me never to review an ep for Gateworld. It draws in trolls like a MAGNET. :P

Sorry, where was I? Oh yes, discussing the REVIEW, not the REVIEWER.

I hope Sharon writes more reviews. I think I like her attitude. :)

PG15
February 10th, 2006, 11:54 AM
Barring the insults, I agree with Vuen completely.

Just because someone is a little rude doesn't make them a troll.

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 12:14 PM
Just because someone is a little rude doesn't make them a troll.
Someone whose first post goes out of its way to bash someone? Close enough to a troll for me.

PG15
February 10th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Still, a troll and someone who has a strong opinion is very different.

I wouldn't go around labeling anyone who is a little over the top a troll. It's like what they did with "Traitor" in the US a few years ago.

Besides, I've seen plenty of people signing up to a forum because they want to respond to a single post, which usually means they have a very strong opinion about it.

Vuen
February 10th, 2006, 12:24 PM
Someone whose first post goes out of its way to bash someone? Close enough to a troll for me.

Oh, how did I know that the very first thing you would do was look at my post count? I'm not allowed to have an opinion until I've spent a thousand hours in the roleplay forums?

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 12:34 PM
Oh, how did I know that the very first thing you would do was look at my post count? I'm not allowed to have an opinion until I've spent a thousand hours in the roleplay forums?
You're allowed to have an opinion. So is Sharon, the author of the review in question. What I take exception to is that you went out of your way to piss all over HER rather than debating what she had to say. It wasn't enough to say, "I don't think this is a valid point and here's why..." No, you had to ridicule her, question her abilities, degrade her review and otherwise have a really nasty attitude towards her on a personal level. And I don't care if you have one post or ten thousand, I don't like people who feel compelled to attack other people just because they disagree with that person's opinions. Debate the opinion, NOT the opinion holder. However, the fact that your very first post on Gateworld happens to be of a personally vindictive nature does not speak well of you. Not to me, anyway.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when that opinion comes at another's expense, it's time to step back and cool off.

PG15- I'll reserve judgement until I see some more posts from this person, but "strongly opinionated" still doesn't mean "free to personally ridicule someone whose opinion you dislike."

Scyld
February 10th, 2006, 12:39 PM
This lone statement invalidates your entire review, because it shows that you don't even know the first thing about Stargate. Of course, that's not going to stop me from shooting holes through it.

Woah there. You're overreacting. Some off-hand remark about the Prime Directive surely does not invalidate a review, nor does it in any way suggest the reviewer to be a fool. Take a deep breath and think of flowers and butterflies.


Even if the ZPM was full, everyone seems to be forgetting the critical fact that the royal family's bloodline was failing. They could no longer control the chair. A few more generations, maybe 50 years or so, and it would be useless.

I don't think anyone is forgetting this. 50 years of a solid defense against the Wraith is nothing to sneeze at.


The planet was already virtually defenseless. Nearly depleted ZPM, and nearly unuseable chair.

You mean it would have been virtually defenseless in 50 years?


As it was, it was only useful as a means to enslave the population. They're much better off now than they were before, because they're establishing a democracy and they have Atlantis and the Deadalus to help defend them.

Uh... yeah. What do you suppose are the chances of the Atlantis folks *ever* visiting that planet again, either through the Stargate or with Daedalus?


You're not making any sense. It would have been okay if it was Teyla, but not Ronon?

I think the reviewer's complaint had more to do with the fact that Ronon (big strong man) wading into battle to save the 'helpless female' was intensely yawnworthy and cliched. If Teyla had done the same thing, although the denotation would have been the same, it would have brought with it an entirely different set of (and more interesting) connotations.


That soldier meant to rape that girl. How was killing him uncalled for? He should have given him a slap on the wrist? I think it was very much right for the team to teach these people that this is not a way to live, and that they should stand up for themselves and fight.

Aye, of course the good folks of Atlantis must 'save these backwards savages from themselves,' for truth, justice, and kittens.

Seriously though, although I don't find fault with Ronon's actions (best to say that he did the right thing in an incredibly politically inconvenient way), I do find fault with the writers for creating such an uninspired situation and then not even bothering to find the potential for a more interesting situation in the aftermath.


20/20 hindsight. Succession of the throne was falling to Tavius; something had to be done immediately. They didn't have time to wait for protocol. At the time, Otho was the best person to give it to, because near as we could tell he had been acting for the benefit of the people. He even went so far as to encourage Sheppard to marry Mara, even though he loved her himself, because it was the best way to ensure that the chair could be used.

If the Atlantis team had taken the time to understand the situation instead of taking everything on blind trust, the whole situation would have been resolved without such unneeded drama. I was surprised that Weir didn't verbally tear into Shepphard when he got back to Atlantis for his James T. Kirk way of doing things.


In conclusion, please try to actually understand an episode before you write a review about it. Oh, and actually knowing something about the Stargate universe is probably a good idea too. Good luck on your next review.

I understand that you disagree with the review that was posted, but there is no need to attack the reviewer. Criticise the review all you want, but leave the insults out of it, please. There's no need to be anything but civil to each other here.

Vuen
February 10th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when that opinion comes at another's expense, it's time to step back and cool off.

It's very hypocritical of you to support her review, and then tell me not to attack her personally. Maybe you should read the review again:


Note to the writers: There are universities with anthropologists and sociologists in Vancouver. For a free meal or two, there must be some who would help you create viable societies that have been left alone for 10,000 years in a galaxy far, far away.

Seems to me you have no problem with attacking the writers personally. You like her attitude, right?

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 12:43 PM
Actually, I see that as a bit of advice. Just as, if someone had me beta a story wherein I knew certain scientific details were wrong or could be made stronger, I'd tell the person to go to such-and-such website to find out more about it or say, "You should talk to my friend Billy, he knows a thing or two about this."

You, on the other hand, flat-out call the reviewer a fool and other nasty little comments which are not at all advice-like and are definitely meant to insult.

Vuen
February 10th, 2006, 01:06 PM
Woah there. You're overreacting. Some off-hand remark about the Prime Directive surely does not invalidate a review [...]

Oh, I think it does. She gave off the impression that inciting a revolution on an alien world is automatically a bad thing, like we shouldn't interfere. Newsflash, inciting revolution is what they do. Ever heard of a Jaffa? Seriously, name a single off-world exploration episode where they don't violate the prime directive.




I don't think anyone is forgetting this. 50 years of a solid defense against the Wraith is nothing to sneeze at. [...] You mean it would have been virtually defenseless in 50 years?

50 years, assuming the Wraith don't attack. They attack, the ZPM gets drained, bye bye society. They don't attack, and they get to enslave the people for 50 years.

This is what I'm getting at. It's not 50 years of protection, it's 50 years of enslavement.




Uh... yeah. What do you suppose are the chances of the Atlantis folks *ever* visiting that planet again, either through the Stargate or with Daedalus?

If they say they'll help, they do it. If something is their fault, they take responsibility for it to protect the civilization.

The perfect example is Red Sky. They doomed the planet, like you claim Atlantis just did in The Tower. Did they just leave and never come back? No, they came back and built a hundred million dollar rocket. Think about that for a moment. As General Hammond says, "Rockets don't grow on trees."

Atlantis is not just going to sit around. They'll do everything in their power to help.




If the Atlantis team had taken the time to understand the situation instead of taking everything on blind trust, the whole situation would have been resolved without such unneeded drama. I was surprised that Weir didn't verbally tear into Shepphard when he got back to Atlantis for his James T. Kirk way of doing things.

That's the thing, there was no time. Tavius would have succeeded to the throne. Sheppard had to do something. What else could he do?



Actually, I see that as a bit of advice. Just as, if someone had me beta a story wherein I knew certain scientific details were wrong or could be made stronger, I'd tell the person to go to such-and-such website to find out more about it or say, "You should talk to my friend Billy, he knows a thing or two about this."

Bahahahahha! She was giving the writers advice. That's awesome.

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 01:12 PM
You still seem to be vastly confused on the difference between an opinion and a fact. I see no point in trying to continue a discussion with you.

Scyld- if there are any additional points you'd wish to discuss, I'd be happy to continue our somewhat more civil debate. ;)

Vuen
February 10th, 2006, 01:26 PM
You still seem to be vastly confused on the difference between an opinion and a fact. I see no point in trying to continue a discussion with you.

Oh really? Please tell me, where in my posts did I state my opinion about the episode?

That's right, nowhere. I'm arguing only the facts. The fact is the team did not leave that society defenseless; they already were. That's the whole reason anything happened in that episode. They needed someone to control the chair. The fact is the team had no way of knowing Otho was going to steal the gene therapy, and they had no other choice. The fact is Atlantis did not run away with their drones, they traded them for medicines and help that they will provide. The fact is that inciting revolution is fundamental to Stargate.

Everything I've said has relied on facts, and specific examples from a host of previous Stargate episodes. I don't argue opinions. You didn't like it? Fine, that's your opinion. But I'm not going to sit around and listen to a reviewer bash an episode based on completely false information.

Scyld
February 10th, 2006, 03:16 PM
The fact is the team did not leave that society defenseless; they already were. That's the whole reason anything happened in that episode. They needed someone to control the chair.

I would point out that we have no way of knowing how long the ZPM would have lasted had Rodney not powered up the engines of the city. Certainly there was more than enough power to launch a full scale drone attack on the village that Teyla and Ronon had incited to revolution. Remember, the Stardrive is the single biggest drain on the city's power - compared to that, the firing of drones is very probably negligable.

Scyld
February 10th, 2006, 03:24 PM
I hope Sharon writes more reviews. I think I like her attitude. :)

Me too, actually. Although I do think she got a little carried away in blasting the episode, it was nothing if not an interesting read.


The people of that world were less developed in terms of technology, sociology, economics, education, etc. Particularly the "peasant class" running the farms and whatnot. They haven't devloped through experience, they've been thrust into the middle of something they probably can't even put into context.

True enough, but again, I'm not sure what we mean by 'less developed.' Do we have a higher level of technology because we have guns and nukes? Is technology a thing of levels and an ascending towards perfection? If it is, I suppose it's worth pointing out that the entire purpose of the SGC is to take shortcuts in order to acquire new technologies as quickly as possible. This is also arguably the purpose of the Atlantis expedition.


Of course, arguments could probably be made that most cultures experience sudden leaps forward and that the situation at the end of The Tower is just another example of that. But generally speaking, when a culture encounters a group from a higher tech/social base, that culture tends to be decimated. Aztecs, Incas, Indians, etc. Things tend to go very poorly for the "lesser developed" people- even if those people are more sophisticated than their counterparts in certain areas of knowledge.

The Japanese did fairly well for themselves when they were brought out of their medieval period by the arrival of American warships in their harbours, as did the people of earth when we first encountered the Goa'uld.

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 03:50 PM
True enough, but again, I'm not sure what we mean by 'less developed.' Do we have a higher level of technology because we have guns and nukes? Is technology a thing of levels and an ascending towards perfection? If it is, I suppose it's worth pointing out that the entire purpose of the SGC is to take shortcuts in order to acquire new technologies as quickly as possible. This is also arguably the purpose of the Atlantis expedition.
Good point. But I think that we Earthers have a slightly better grasp on the fundamentals of the alien technology we're trying to acquire. And when we don't, bad things tend to happen. ;) Tangent, Red Sky, Meridian (bad for Langara), Fallout (Langara again), Trinity (Atlantis), etc, just for starters. We survived 'em all and I suppose you could say some important lessons were learned. But any of those situations could have gone a lot worse, especially if the point wasn't to wrap things up and hit the reset button after 40-something minutes. ;)

And I'm not implying that it's a race towards perfection (though some could see it was that). It's more of an attempt to make yourself and your people "better" (which is another wonderfully ambiguous term).

But to be honest, I don't have enough background in this kind of stuff to make a workable argument. I'd probably just contradict myself and wind up proving YOUR point. :P



The Japanese did fairly well for themselves when they were brought out of their medieval period by the arrival of American warships in their harbours, as did the people of earth when we first encountered the Goa'uld.
You mean the "people of Earth" as represented by Stargate Command? ;) Dunno how things are in S9, but in seasons 1-8, the common masses didn't have any inkling about what was Out There. But yeah, we manage to live in spite of the culture shock. Mostly because we were on the defensive against Goa'uld incursions and the like. Eventually we took bigger steps and went on the offensive.

I'd actually be curious to see how people in the Stargate universe would react to everything that has been uncovered by the SGC (and the Russians) over the past nine years. Although given the quality of the writing these days, I think I'd prefer to keep it within my own imaginings. :P

Scyld
February 10th, 2006, 07:01 PM
You mean the "people of Earth" as represented by Stargate Command? ;)

Ahehehe, yes, that's what I mean. :jack: :daniel: :sam: :hammond: :cameron: :sheppard: :mckay: :weir: :ford: :beckett:


I'd actually be curious to see how people in the Stargate universe would react to everything that has been uncovered by the SGC (and the Russians) over the past nine years. Although given the quality of the writing these days, I think I'd prefer to keep it within my own imaginings. :P

The writing's not so bad. It only really seems to take a dive in the 'bubble' episodes.

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 07:07 PM
The writing's not so bad. It only really seems to take a dive in the 'bubble' episodes.
Says you. :P As far as I'm concerned, they're all bubble eps. Which is why I stopped watching regularly after S6.

Is it just me or do people only ever talk about the "controversial" reviews? When folks agree with what the reviewers are saying, no one ever bothers to start a thread saying, "Rock on! This was SO RIGHT! You should, like, totally work for the show 'cause you're awesome!" Nope, it's always, "You suck! You weren't watching the same show we were! You should have your writing license revoked because you don't know what you're doing!"

Pfft. What-everrrr. Just goes to show you that without a bit of contention now and then, this board would be dead from boredom. http://www.pushupstairs.com/images/emoticon/neptune/Animated/Saucy/saucy015.gif

PG15
February 10th, 2006, 08:24 PM
PG15- I'll reserve judgement until I see some more posts from this person, but "strongly opinionated" still doesn't mean "free to personally ridicule someone whose opinion you dislike."

Fine by me. :D

Amanda Eros
February 10th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Still, a troll and someone who has a strong opinion is very different.

I wouldn't go around labeling anyone who is a little over the top a troll. It's like what they did with "Traitor" in the US a few years ago.

Besides, I've seen plenty of people signing up to a forum because they want to respond to a single post, which usually means they have a very strong opinion about it.


It could also mean that they are signing up on another computer or using another e-mail address to sign up with a different name. They may not want to get negative reps. Or have other people know who they are. Ya never know. lol

ShadowMaat
February 10th, 2006, 08:31 PM
It could also mean that they are signing up on another computer or using another e-mail address to sign up with a different name. They may not want to get negative reps. Or have other people know who they are. Ya never know. lol
Sock puppets aren't any better than trolls. They're just cowards who don't have the balls to post their hate under their own name. Probably because they know what they're doing is wrong.

Seriously, though, has anyone ever started a thread to praise a reviewer?

Madeleine
February 10th, 2006, 08:50 PM
Yes, ___ once got a thread that was started to praise one of her reviews. It was nice.

And immediately a troll arrived to say that ___ is a bad bad stargate fan who likes [character X] far too much, and anyone liking her reviews should bear in mind that she's a bad bad stargate fan who...

But I suppose it's no different from "the reviewer didn't watch the show" or "The reviewer doesn't know what Stargate's about" and other such rudely-written opinions presented as 'fact'.

I used to write reviews for a website myself. I'd go to a lot of trouble to make the reviews readable and interesting. Even when I didn't think the ep in question was watchable or interesting. It sometimes meant I'd write something a bit toungue in cheek, a bit flippant, a bit exaggerated to get a point across in a fun way. So it's easy for me to understand why another reviewer might do something similar.

ShadowMaat
February 11th, 2006, 05:56 AM
May I express my complete disgust and bitter disappointment over the decision to retract the review? I don't recall seeing anything bad in that review, certainly not enough to warrant its removal and while speculation about the decision is forbidden, I will say that the choice has left me... wary.

golfbooy
February 11th, 2006, 10:46 AM
I don't really want to get involved in this, but I do feel the need to express my own diappointment with the decision to retract the review of The Tower. If it was taken down by the request of the reviewer, that's one thing. I can certainly understand someone who does this stuff in their free time not wanting to subject themselves to the berating and ranting that Ms. Fetter has had to endure over her opinions regarding The Tower. However, if the review was retracted simply because it offended the delicate sensibilities of some fans, then I'd be remiss not to say something. I'm sure no one wants to use the big "C" word, but this is quite a large step in the direction of censorship. I don't recall reading anything even remotely offensive or out of line in Ms. Fetter's reiview. For my part, I thought the review was well written and quite fair to the episode. I hope this experience doesn't incline Ms. Fetter to stop writing episode reviews. And I certainly hope that future episode reviews won't shy away from honest critcism whenever the reviewer sees fit to include it.

Scyld
February 11th, 2006, 10:50 AM
I shall also chime in here. Why was the review taken down? It was a perfectly good review!

ShadowMaat
February 11th, 2006, 11:28 AM
After a number of concerns were e-mailed to us, I went back and reviewed the review of "The Tower," and made the decision to retract it. More about this decision may be forthcoming, but till then I would encourage everyone not to speculate on it.

Thanks!
So. NOT Sharon's decision, obviously.

Vuen
February 11th, 2006, 05:57 PM
I can certainly understand someone who does this stuff in their free time not wanting to subject themselves to the berating and ranting that Ms. Fetter has had to endure over her opinions regarding The Tower.

This is the part I don't get about you guys. A review is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. It shouldn't be her opinion in the first place. The only reason you seem to think it's fair for her to write about her opinion is because you share it.

Even if that were the case, most if not all of what I posted had nothing to do with her opinion. I didn't quote her opinions, I quoted stuff she got flat out wrong. For example, she complained that the team didn't see the tower from the puddle jumper, when they very obviously didn't even come in a puddle jumper. That has nothing to do with opinion.

Some of my favorite episodes have been given very bad reviews on Gateworld, and yet I still agree with these reviews. That's just because my opinion about what I find important and unimportant, or entertaining and not entertaining, is different than the reviewer; I agree completely with their complaints, but I don't find them as detrimental to the episode. She can write a bad review if she likes, but she needs to get her facts straight.

Darren
February 11th, 2006, 07:25 PM
This is the part I don't get about you guys. A review is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. It shouldn't be her opinion in the first place.
To clarify, this is not the case with episode reviews at GateWorld. They are quite expliticly opinion pieces, and as such are as "partial" and "biased" as the average human being.

They are to be written fairly, but without opinion there would be nothing to say beyond the summary that we already publish elsewhere on the site.

Cory Holmes
February 11th, 2006, 08:20 PM
I was surprised that Weir didn't verbally tear into Shepphard when he got back to Atlantis for his James T. Kirk way of doing things.
That's because Weir is obviously Sheppard's obligatory het-ship-to-be. Weir has always allowed Sheppard to get away with virtually anything in S2, and it's really grating on my nerves. Hot Zone is a perfect example of what should be happening on the show: people making decisions and then living with the consequences. Trinity also dabbled in this, but that has never been touched on since then.

I really miss the inter-personal conflict that was sprinkled throughout the first season: Sumner vs Sheppard, Kavanaugh vs Weir, Teyla vs Bates... it all struck me as people reacting to being under tremendous stress and accidentally losing it, as people are wont to do.

Season 2 has seen the arrival of Caldwell, who has added to that dynamic nicely... but that's it. For the rest of the season there has been very, very little else of that. Bates is gone, Kavanaugh was brought back for one episode, and Seppard/Weir is being clobbered into our skulls on almost every turn.

Anyone here remember The Lowdown that was on before Atlantis premiered? Pierre Bernard called it right from the start when he asked if Weir was ever going to battle Telya to the death over Sheppard. He knew that Shep/Weir was the expected pairing and that nobody could avoid the cliche. Unfortunatly both Stargates are very unoriginal when it comes to things like this and it only makes the shows harder to watch.

Madeleine
February 11th, 2006, 10:32 PM
This is the part I don't get about you guys. A review is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. It shouldn't be her opinion in the first place.

A thing which is impartial and unbiased is called a 'synopsis'. A 'review' is supposed to be opinion-based.

AGateFan
February 12th, 2006, 03:34 AM
This is the part I don't get about you guys. A review is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. It shouldn't be her opinion in the first place. The only reason you seem to think it's fair for her to write about her opinion is because you share it.

Even if that were the case, most if not all of what I posted had nothing to do with her opinion. I didn't quote her opinions, I quoted stuff she got flat out wrong. For example, she complained that the team didn't see the tower from the puddle jumper, when they very obviously didn't even come in a puddle jumper. That has nothing to do with opinion.

Some of my favorite episodes have been given very bad reviews on Gateworld, and yet I still agree with these reviews. That's just because my opinion about what I find important and unimportant, or entertaining and not entertaining, is different than the reviewer; I agree completely with their complaints, but I don't find them as detrimental to the episode. She can write a bad review if she likes, but she needs to get her facts straight.

All review is opinion. And if this one can be retracted because some people didn’t like it. Well then I guess we can just start e-mailing getting all of the reviews retracted. Weren't a lot of people upset over the RE review or was that CD... were those retracted. How about a review where 4 stars are given for no other reason then a Stargate fan did the review.

Reviews are opinion pieces as Madeleine_W said an complete objective outline of the story is a synopsis.

ShadowMaat
February 12th, 2006, 05:11 AM
This whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. Today the reviews, tomorrow the board? Not gonna be much room left for me if negative, "unfair" opinions aren't allowed.

Commander Ivanova
February 12th, 2006, 05:40 AM
This whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. Today the reviews, tomorrow the board? Not gonna be much room left for me if negative, "unfair" opinions aren't allowed.

Quite, what happened to rational, intelligent debate? Shouting down people who don't share your views is not what these forums should be about. :(

Piratejenna
February 12th, 2006, 07:19 AM
This whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. Today the reviews, tomorrow the board? Not gonna be much room left for me if negative, "unfair" opinions aren't allowed.
I'm no fan of negativity, but I have to agree with you. I haven't seen the episode, but I looked at the review to see what all the fuss was about, and I thought it was well-written and amusing, which is exactly what a review should be. It's understood in showbiz that reviews are opinion, and often strongly stated in order to provoke discussion. That's what a good reviewer should be doing! The only 'bad review' is a boring review (or maybe an illiterate one).

buzlighty1
February 12th, 2006, 07:20 AM
The tower i have to say was perhaps the worst episode of Atlantis to date. The review was pretty good considering the episode was very bad.

ShadowMaat
February 12th, 2006, 08:00 AM
If you ask me, the review was better than the ep itself. ;)

Vuen
February 12th, 2006, 08:52 AM
A thing which is impartial and unbiased is called a 'synopsis'. A 'review' is supposed to be opinion-based.

Okay, granted. But as Darren said they should be written fairly; they should above all be factually correct. I often don't agree with episode reviews, but that's just it, I can disagree. With Sharon's review my reaction was not "I disagree", it was "That's just plain not true."

Regardless of whether or not you guys agree with the review, doesn't it bother you the amount of stuff she wrote, like the ZPM thing or the jumper thing, that was just outright false?

Mattathias2.0
February 12th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Prime Directive?

Well... There were dozens of times where SG-1 interacted with lesser-developed cultures (Abydonians (movie and pilot!), Tribes of Unas, Caledonians, Rand, etc).

Was every instance a success? No.

Was every instance a failure? No.

The ultimate truth is that you will definately meet up with atleast one lesser-advanced culture at some point regardless of what galaxy you are in.

So what does this mean? The Prime Directive is meaningless and useless in Stargate... Infact, the basis of the series is completely against it to begin with (Abydonians).

Mattathias

AGateFan
February 12th, 2006, 11:49 AM
Prime Directive?

Well... There were dozens of times where SG-1 interacted with lesser-developed cultures (Abydonians (movie and pilot!), Tribes of Unas, Caledonians, Rand, etc).

Was every instance a success? No.

Was every instance a failure? No.

The ultimate truth is that you will definately meet up with atleast one lesser-advanced culture at some point regardless of what galaxy you are in.

So what does this mean? The Prime Directive is meaningless and useless in Stargate... Infact, the basis of the series is completely against it to begin with (Abydonians).

Mattathias
Other more advanced races use it with us.... maybe thats a clue we should implement it ourselves.

ShadowMaat
February 12th, 2006, 11:52 AM
The Tollans had a Prime Directive of sorts, didn't they? They wouldn't hand over their tech to us. The Asgard have similar inhibition rules as well. In fact, they impersonated gods on some worlds because they knew those cultures couldn't cope with the truth. The Ascended Ancients have a strict non-interference policy, too.

ToasterOnFire
February 12th, 2006, 11:58 AM
I can only hope that the review was pulled only to change any "factual" inconsistencies and that it returns with the same snarky, thumbs DOWN review. Tower fully deserved it, IMO. :)

ShadowMaat
February 12th, 2006, 12:07 PM
I can only hope that the review was pulled only to change any "factual" inconsistencies and that it returns with the same snarky, thumbs DOWN review. Tower fully deserved it, IMO. :)
One would certainly HOPE that was the reason it got pulled and not because it was simply "too negative."

Mattathias2.0
February 12th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Other more advanced races use it with us.... maybe thats a clue we should implement it ourselves.

Yes... The Nox, The Asgard and Tollans had such rules...

But as far as I can see... We haven't given people technology that could destroy themselves thus far. In all instances we have interacted with lesser-advanced cultures... We have either tried to sort it out correctly, or completely the mission to do so (Abydonians, Tegulans, etc).

I'm open for critisism.

Mattathias.

Darren
February 12th, 2006, 08:53 PM
The review of "The Tower" was not retracted because people complained about it, but because I decided that it should not have been published as it was. I edit material every week for publication, and sometimes a piece will go through multiple drafts before GateWorld readers ever see it. Sometimes, for one reason or another, it won't ever see the light of day. That's not censorship; that's the editorial process. On very, very rare occasions, something will get published that shouldn't have been, or should have been differently edited. That's my responsibility as an editor, to make sure that all material -- from episode summaries to reviews to news articles to interviews -- meets the editorial standards I have set for the site.

The review was not retracted because it was too negative. It was not retracted for giving the episode a one-star rating. It was not retracted because I (or anyone else) simply disagreed with the author's opinions.

Please, give me more credit than that. This is the first time in over six years that something has been removed from the site. We go out of our way on both the site and the forum to not censor any points of view and to make sure everyone gets a fair shake-down and is treated with respect -- and we take heat for it. I have no problem whatsoever getting screamed at by a hundred people for an editorial we run.

I'm not comfortable discussing the specifics of this particular piece at this time, out of respect for the author.

Uber
February 12th, 2006, 10:47 PM
This post is directed at the review of The Tower posted on the main site.

(spoilers)

Although I thought the episode in question was very silly, I just had to comment on this, as it struck me as very, very odd. It may have been meant as a joke, but on the off chance that it wasn't, I just have to point out the following:

- The Prime Directive doesn't exist in Stargate
- Even if it did, Teyla and Ronon are under no obligation to uphold it
- Even if they were, the Prime Directive still isn't a particularly good idea. As an principle, it is intellectually bankrupt. The best that can be said of it is that it functions as an effective plot device to create drama and tension in certain episodes of Star Trek. O_oThe only group of beings that have shown any propensity towards following the Prime Directive (or at least the model of non-interference) are the ascended.

I remember the conversation from Ascension between Sam and Orlin where he's talking about what happened on the planet...how he tried to help them defeat the Goa'uld. Sam told him that he was right to try and he states emphatically that he wasn't because his interference caused those same people to plan to use the technology he shared with them for diabolical purposes. Sam responded that it wasn't his fault because he couldn't have known...and Orlin replied that this is why the rule exists.

However, these same ascended beings had no problem wiping out the entire planet...and Orlin's explanation that they felt it was essentially for the greater good didn't fly well with me. They played judge, jury and executioner and broke their own law of non-interference to "correct" what Orlin had done. What about the innocents on the planet or was every man, woman and child bent on galactic domination?

I'm of the mindset that you do what you can to help people as best you can, acknowledging that it doesn't always work out the way you hope. But the idea to abandon those in need because you don't know what might happen later is off-putting to me and goes against what I think are some of the basic principles our heroes stand for...freedom and justice.

In The Tower, we have a people who were being oppressed. I had absolutely no problem with our team starting a rebellion and encouraging them to stand up for themselves because they were living in an unjust system and deserved the right to live freely without fear of oppression.

I hope I never see any of the Stargate teams...from either show...refuse to stand up for basic human rights for fear that things might not go as planned.

Vuen
February 13th, 2006, 02:39 AM
However, these same ascended beings had no problem wiping out the entire planet...and Orlin's explanation that they felt it was essentially for the greater good didn't fly well with me. They played judge, jury and executioner and broke their own law of non-interference to "correct" what Orlin had done. What about the innocents on the planet or was every man, woman and child bent on galactic domination?

I agree with your post entirely, except here. The reason the Ancients wiped out the planet is because that's what was supposed to have happened. They were under attack from the Goa'uld; Orlin's interference was saving them. Leaving everyone alive would have been violating their Prime Directive.

I understand you want to save the innocents, and I agree, but the reasoning of the Ancients was that these innocents were supposed to be dead. I don't think it's right, but no, they did not break their own law of non-interference.

ShadowMaat
February 13th, 2006, 03:15 AM
Thank you for the explanation, Darren. That helps to settle some of my concerns.

prion
February 13th, 2006, 04:58 AM
Okay, granted. But as Darren said they should be written fairly; they should above all be factually correct. I often don't agree with episode reviews, but that's just it, I can disagree. With Sharon's review my reaction was not "I disagree", it was "That's just plain not true."

Regardless of whether or not you guys agree with the review, doesn't it bother you the amount of stuff she wrote, like the ZPM thing or the jumper thing, that was just outright false?

The only thing that stuck out in my mind was the mention of Ronon decapitating someone when in fact he slit their throat; he did not decapitate them. Yes, opinion is fine, no matter how dreadful it may be (and "The Tower" was hardly a stellar episode, cough cough) but let's get the facts straight.

Uber
February 13th, 2006, 12:53 PM
I agree with your post entirely, except here. The reason the Ancients wiped out the planet is because that's what was supposed to have happened. They were under attack from the Goa'uld; Orlin's interference was saving them. Leaving everyone alive would have been violating their Prime Directive.

I understand you want to save the innocents, and I agree, but the reasoning of the Ancients was that these innocents were supposed to be dead. I don't think it's right, but no, they did not break their own law of non-interference.See I'm not sure about this either. We know that being ascended does not equal being omniscient. Ascended beings do not know the future for instance (Abyss is a good example of this because Daniel would have had no reason to offer ascension to Jack if he had known he would be rescued at some point). Granted they know a lot...but not everything.

So how could they be sure that the planet was "meant" to be destroyed by the Goa'uld? What if the planet had been "meant" to be rescued by Orlin? And further in this little exercise, what if one of the worlds the planet attacked was "meant" to have responded and destroyed them? Or simply conquered them? Or what if a rebellion was "meant" to have started on that world instead? I can come up with 100 what-if scenarios that could have played out on our plane of existence and without them breaking their tenuous non-interference policy. What if one of those was the "right" one? The one that was meant to be...but with their interference they ended what could have been an important chain of events before they even got off the ground. For instance, what if, in exacting their absolutist judgment on that entire planet for the actions of a few (more than likely the leadership and not the population), amongst the millions of people they killed, they exterminated the one person who could rid the galaxy of the Ori or the Pegasus galaxy of the Wraith?

Either they have a policy of non-interference on lower planes of existence, then that should mean they have a policy of non-interference on lower planes of existence...and not jump in with their elitist attitudes to supposedly "fix things" by breaking the rule they are supposedly reinforcing.

Further, their policy continued to be stretched in Threads. They weren't going to interfere to rescue the galaxy from Anubis, who had used the knowledge and powers he obtained as a half-ascended being to rise to power after all (how is that worse than what Orlin did btw? Using his knowledge or power to interfere in the lower planes as it were? Especially since Orlin's motivations were pure and Anubis's were malevolent)...and then they did because of Oma's sacrifice. So were they wrong to save the galaxy or were they wrong when they originally refused to do so? Either way, they were wrong at some point, proving that they are not perfect beings.

Not omniscient, not perfect...but they enact judgment against a planet as though they were gods and had the right to do so with a sense of entitlement not dissimilar to the Ori, who enact judgment upon those who displease them...each with their own agendas...albeit the motivation of the Ori seems to be more self-serving and malicious on its face. And then they condemn the Ori for playing gods but refuse to interfere to protect the lower planes of existence because...why? They protected this galaxy so that the Ori would not know of us (which I think could be deemed as interference) and then won't step up to the plate to do anything to defend us because of their non-interference policy. How do they know we weren't supposed to be destroyed by the Ori ages ago? They originally shielded us on our lowly plane of existence because they wanted to. Period. Where was their non-interference policy then?

My point with all of the above, is that they're not very consistent with their policy. They pick and choose to apply it or not to apply it and their reasons for doing either are ambiguous at best.

AndyStargateUK
February 13th, 2006, 02:11 PM
It's quite possible that the people of the planet have been left with a defense against the wraith, a mark-II naquadah generator is enough to power a chair for enough time to provide defense with the drones.
The people now have the gene technology given by Atlantis and they could have easily have been given a mark-II naquadah generator to power the chair for defense and training in what to do in the event of an attack in return for giving some of the drones to Atlantis and in compensation for draining the ZPM.
Further to that Atlantis then gave them the means to contact them for help in a mop up operation like killing any Wraith that land on the planet after the inital attack is stopped by the drones and the remaining Wraith leave.

ShadowMaat
February 15th, 2006, 02:19 PM
I don't suppose anyone has a copy of the review floating around somewhere, huh? Might be nice to read it again, even if Gateworld "disapproves" of it. :P

Vuen
February 16th, 2006, 01:58 AM
I have a copy, grabbed from my cache after the review was pulled. I'd rather not spread it around without Darren's permission. If he says it's okay, then sure, I'll send it along.

FoolishPleasure
February 17th, 2006, 10:22 AM
That was a terrible episode and the review just said what a lot of people felt. Sorry to see it was pulled.

ShadowMaat
February 17th, 2006, 11:09 AM
That was a terrible episode and the review just said what a lot of people felt. Sorry to see it was pulled.
Me too. And I finally managed to find a copy and read it again. I still don't see what was so grossly inaccurate as to warrant it being yanked. Just the one bit about decapitation and that wasn't a HUGELY wrong thing. Not like, ya know, saying that Ronon was the one to drain the ZPM while McKay was going Highlander on some would-be rapist assaulting Teyla. THAT would be inaccurate. ;) ...Although, ya know, it might have been more interesting that way. At least the bit about McKay with a sword managing not to cut off his own fingers. :P

AndyStargateUK
February 17th, 2006, 12:41 PM
Me too. And I finally managed to find a copy and read it again. I still don't see what was so grossly inaccurate as to warrant it being yanked. P

What about Voyager and the fact Janeway kinda ripped up the rule book to save Voyager a few decades of travel.
Trying to compare the show with rules that aren't in the show are unfair at the least.

prion
February 17th, 2006, 12:42 PM
Is it possible to clarify WHY the review is no longer there?

People saying "it was pulled" sounds like the author of the review had no say in it, that the webmaster did it.

ShadowMaat
February 17th, 2006, 12:50 PM
What about Voyager and the fact Janeway kinda ripped up the rule book to save Voyager a few decades of travel.
Trying to compare the show with rules that aren't in the show are unfair at the least.
And how about the fact that I don't think the author was implying that the Prime Directive LITERALLY needed to be obeyed? It's like someone complaining that the Cylons don't obey the Three Laws of Robotics. It doesn't mean RDM has to incorporate Asimov's Laws, only that they're usually pretty good things to have in an AI. But as with there being loopholes in the Prime Directive, there are instances where the Laws wouldn't be handy, either. I think Sharon was just saying that The Tower might have been a good example of when to follow ANY non-interference policy, be it an actual Prime Directive or just common sense. :P

AndyStargateUK
February 17th, 2006, 01:03 PM
I think Sharon was just saying that The Tower might have been a good example of when to follow ANY non-interference policy, be it an actual Prime Directive or just common sense. :P

You could argue (as in another thread) that Atlantis shouldn't interfere with the Wraith on the grounds sucking the life out of humans seems to be the only way they can survive.

Whereas the actions of those in the tower against the non tower folk was plain dictatorial and so Atantis could intervene,also it was never there intention to drain the ZPM, Rodney only did it to stop a masacre and for all we know they may have given a mark II naq generator in return.

ShadowMaat
February 17th, 2006, 01:08 PM
Teyla and Ronon were trying to incite a revolution long before the drones were launched and I got the impression that the peasants only went along with it because they had no other choice- Ronon had killed one of the Tower representatives and had brought the anger of the Tower society down upon them all.

YOU can argue that it was the only "right" way to do things, but I think there were some much less all-or-nothing tactics that could have been tried that would not have led to the potential massacre of an entire village. Diplomacy. Politics. COMMON SENSE. Sometimes slow change does a lot less damage than abrupt and irreversible change.

AndyStargateUK
February 17th, 2006, 01:20 PM
Sometimes slow change does a lot less damage than abrupt and irreversible change.

It would be a bit boring if they spent 40 minutes around the Atlantis conference table talking over things though. Things spiralled out of control , actions that were taken in defence of what Ronan did were only to stop things getting further out of control (draining the ZPM to stop the attack)
If you look at the situation the leaders in the tower were willing to do a great deal of damage to the general population in retalitation for the actions of an outsider, it's not really something the Atlantis team are going to allow to happen.

ShadowMaat
February 17th, 2006, 07:21 PM
Would it have been boring? Maybe. Maybe not. I can think of a few ways to give it interesting twists. Regardless of that, at least it wouldn't have been as trite and ridiculous as what we DID get. ;) In my opinion, of course.

Darren
February 21st, 2006, 02:18 PM
Is it possible to clarify WHY the review is no longer there?

People saying "it was pulled" sounds like the author of the review had no say in it, that the webmaster did it.
There's more on this up the page, in post #63 (http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=4923496&postcount=63) of this thread. It was my decision, not Sharon's, but she understood it completely.

Trialia
February 27th, 2006, 07:29 AM
That was a terrible episode and the review just said what a lot of people felt. Sorry to see it was pulled.
ITA. I hope that if the factual inconsistencies are rectified it'll be posted again at a later date, if only so that there's a chance someone involved with the episode will see it and realise what a mistake they made in actually airing something that abysmal in quality and consistency with the show. *sighs*

ShadowMaat
February 27th, 2006, 07:37 AM
Gateworld isn't doing reviews anymore, so we'll never see The Tower review again- factually corrected or otherwise.

mentalmichael
February 27th, 2006, 08:15 AM
Gateworld isn't doing reviews anymore, so we'll never see The Tower review again- factually corrected or otherwise.
Wait wait wait, it's not doing them at all? Why the **** not!?!?!?!?!?

Trialia
February 27th, 2006, 08:35 AM
Wait wait wait, it's not doing them at all? Why the **** not!?!?!?!?!?
Seconded less vehemently.

Any reason given?

KatG
February 27th, 2006, 08:38 AM
Seconded less vehemently.

Any reason given?

Read Darren's blog on the Gateworld Home Page.

Trialia
February 27th, 2006, 08:45 AM
Read Darren's blog on the Gateworld Home Page.
Thank you.

Took me a few minutes to find the page, but I can live with that.

Carl
March 29th, 2006, 04:44 AM
It's a shame that the review was removed because I enjoyed it. It was well-written, witty, informative and had bits of light-hearted comedy too. I say well done to a talented writer with a strong opinion.