CHEVRON NINE: BEATING THE BIG ONE Unlocking the Stargate writing team's neatest death-avoiding techniques BY - David Read From the sarcophagus to androids to ascension, we examine Stargate's history of teasing -- and beating -- death. READ MORE ... |
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
COLUMN: Beating the Big One
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by GateWorld<DIV ALIGN=CENTER><TABLE WIDTH=420 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0><TR><TD><DIV ALIGN=LEFT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2 COLOR="#000000">But have certain instruments been used too often? In the first few seasons the sarcophagus was often front and center, messing with the minds of our heroes. In recent years it was used again to resuscitate Jack, dropping him into the clutches of Baal to die multiple times over. It even brought Teal'c back to Apophis' side ("Enemies").
</A></FONT><BR CLEAR=ALL>
</FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TABLE></DIV>
So I don't believe that the devices <I>Stargate SG-1</I> uses to keep their characters on the doormat of death are over used. As the author stated, they can't kill off any of the foursome (and when they had to remove Daniel the outcry was deafening) without the show losing integrity. They're discovering technology that could very well be out in our Universe somewhere being used by some other race of beings. The show illustrates how we would most likely react to such a discovery. Loyal Gaters also know all too well the feelings that tug at their heart when someone from "their team" goes down for the count. It's just another tool the brilliant writers at <I>Stargate Productions</I> use to draw us back to the show every week for a brand new trip through that big, gray ring, that flushes horizontally.Bander
"LTS" -- Mr. Richard Dean Anderson
"I only understand one percent of what she says half the time." -- Col. Jack O'Neill
Comment
-
Good column. It occurs to me after the comment about the sarcophagus being seen often in earlier seasons that it appears to be almost completely forgotten now. IIRC, we haven't seen it since 'Abyss' and it was only briefly mentioned in one season 7 episode.
It's also interesting that even now after seven years, the SGC have yet to get their hands on one. This is obviously to keep it from being an "easy-out" whenever someone get injured/sick/killed, but with all the Goa'ulds SG-1 have knocked off it would make sense "in-story" that they'd have come across one by now...
Comment
-
All the wonderful concepts and devices listed in the article are why I like science fiction so much. They are the encouragement to hold onto the hope of something better than contemporary reality.
Cheating death is one of the classic themes to solve; symbolically, good overcoming evil. The premise of the "Reclaiming Death" article was a way to rationalize a very bad piece of storytelling and an even worse creative decision. Stargate SG-1 isn't and never has been about ordinary death.
In classic literary terms, only the epic hero/heroine can redeem life from death. The question looms now in Stargate SG-1, even more than it did before: Who is the epic hero/heroine who will be sacrificed to vanquish death? The answer was NOT in "Heroes". There is still a debt to be paid.Last edited by Mar9645; 08 August 2004, 04:26 AM.
Comment
-
I really liked that. It was very enlightening, and for me, it made me rethink just how many times and ways death had been averted or reversed.Urgo: *Wff!*
Daniel: Woof?
Daniel: *muffled* Dis ith da beth pae I'b ever had!
Jack: And Daniel said he wanted you to go with us to make sure this works?
Daniel: I didn't say that.
Nick: Yes!
Jack: Okay!
Daniel: Nick! You're taking advantage of me!
Weir: That's the bright side?
Daniel: More of a slightly less dark side...
Comment
-
On the subject of sarcs...
Originally posted by Ugly PigIt's also interesting that even now after seven years, the SGC have yet to get their hands on one. This is obviously to keep it from being an "easy-out" whenever someone get injured/sick/killed, but with all the Goa'ulds SG-1 have knocked off it would make sense "in-story" that they'd have come across one by now...
Yes, sarc use corrupts the mind... eventually... but Lt. Red Shirt isn't going to go evil just because he was healed in the sarc after one fatal incident. I mean, if he's getting killed on every mission, OK, maybe a sarc isn't the answer (transferring him off the base would be a best bet), but if it's just once or twice, what's the danger?
In terms of the show itself... Well, it's said that having a sarcophagus is too much of an "easy out" for plotting, but since TPTB seem to be using ascension for much the same purpose, then what's the point? Instead of a quick trip through the sarc, Lt. Red Shirt now gets to have a mystical experience on a higher plane of existence before returning to complete his duty here on Earth. Gimme a break. Ascension is, if anything, an even bigger cop-out than the sarc. At least use of the sarc carries some eventual danger.
I'm not saying that once a character dies s/he should stay dead, but the "Get out of death free" card should be used very sparingly or it cheapens death and makes a mockery of the storylines and the characters' sacrifices.
For a long time SG-1 did a very good job of NOT overplaying it, but recently (thanks in large part to Full Circle) I feel that the show has failed to have a proper respect for death. It no longer seems to matter if a character dies. All you have to do is ascend him/her and wait for the proper storyline to bring him/her back. Where's the fun in that? Instead of getting the full impact of Lt. Red Shirt's death, you just shrug and say, "Oh, they'll bring him back later." That isn't good storytelling in my book.
Comment
-
Spoilers for Heroes Part 2 Season 7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think that's probably a big reason for Heroes. I think that killing Janet was a way to show that there isn't always a get out of death free card. It showed that people die in combat and usually they stay dead. I'm with you on Full Circle. I completely agree that it sort of cheapened Ascension. While I miss Janet I'm sort of glad they did an episode like Heroes because it made death...well...death again, if you know what I mean.
It was, is, and always will be GREEN
Comment
-
Originally posted by ShipperahoySpoilers for Heroes Part 2 Season 7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*snip*
While I miss Janet I'm sort of glad they did an episode like Heroes because it made death...well...death again, if you know what I mean.
AU eps carry that danger, too. It's a way to bring someone back without really bringing them back. I didn't mind it with Kawalsky because as much as I liked him, he was only in the first few eps and that was it. Bringing Fraiser back for an AU ep would, IMO, carry an entirely different context.
Which is not to say that if TPTB find a believable way to do it I won't like it, I just highly doubt they'd be able to find a believable way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ShadowMaatI'd like to know why the hell Stargate Command doesn't have a sarc. In terms of the story I should think it would make sense to keep one around.
Comment
-
Good article, but I've just got a couple nitpicks.
Borrowing from Carter's theories regarding stellar drift and planetary shifting, if you were able to travel backward or forward in time there would be a huge chance that you would wind up in outer space, as orbital paths are constantly changing and,
it's believed, the galaxy is constantly revolving around a larger interstellar body.
To do so you would have to crack the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Technicalities aside, time travel used sparingly is a great tool for good story-telling.
Sorry about the nitpicks, but I felt I had to point that out since theoretical physics is the area of my major and such misinterpretations are a pet peeve.
-Bloodaxe
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ugly PigWell, the "in-story" reason is that sarcophagi are hard to come by. They are heavily guarded by the Goa'uld which is why the SGC haven't tried to recover one. (Meridian)The opinions of KorbenDirewolf do not necessrily represent the opinions of other male U.S. residents between the ages of 18 and 25.
Comment
Comment