PDA

View Full Version : Martin Gero and Carl Binder's role for season 4(possible spoilers for seasons 3 & 4)



Shonaille
December 31st, 2006, 08:40 AM
I was just reading the latest interview with David and I was shocked to see that Joe and Paul will be taking the reigns next year for SGA. I don't know what that means for Martin Gero and his role in what direction SGA takes next year. I'm hoping that means he at least is still writing or at least having input in how the characters are written because he understands them the best. Does anyone have anymore information on this?

Alipeeps
December 31st, 2006, 09:08 AM
I was just reading the latest interview with David and I was shocked to see that Joe and Paul will be taking the reigns next year for SGA. I don't know what that means for Martin Gero and his role in what direction SGA takes next year. I'm hoping that means he at least is still writing or at least having input in how the characters are written because he understands them the best. Does anyone have anymore information on this?

I believe that Joe and Paul are "taking the reins" as in taking over the executive producer functions currently performed by Brad Wright and Robert Cooper - as those two will be focusing more on the SG1 movies. I am assuming that Martin and Carl will continue to contribute as they have done.. I think they are moving some of the SG1 writing team over to SGA (*sigh*) as Ken Cuperus has said he will most likely now not be involved in Season 4 as he's one of the newer writers and there isn't room for everybody so it's kinda "last in, first out".

Shonaille
December 31st, 2006, 09:21 AM
I believe that Joe and Paul are "taking the reins" as in taking over the executive producer functions currently performed by Brad Wright and Robert Cooper - as those two will be focusing more on the SG1 movies. I am assuming that Martin and Carl will continue to contribute as they have done.. I think they are moving some of the SG1 writing team over to SGA (*sigh*) as Ken Cuperus has said he will most likely now not be involved in Season 4 as he's one of the newer writers and there isn't room for everybody so it's kinda "last in, first out".

Gah, that sucks so much, I love Ken's writing, especially how he writes Shep. I'm happy to hear about Gero and Binder and I do enjoy Damian Kindler's work but otherwise, not so much. I suppose this explains why Carter will be involved even though I'm hoping it's a guest spot kind of thing as I am still hoping for Atlantis to be cut off from Earth again. Thanks for the info Alipeeps, it is greatly appreciated.

Night Spring
December 31st, 2006, 09:48 AM
Weren't Joseph Mallozzi & Paul Mullie Exec Producers during Season 2? Seems to me we survived that, so I'm hoping we'd be okay. I do agree it sucks they aren't keeping Ken, and I'd prefer to have someone other than M&M in charge, but, oh well...

prion
December 31st, 2006, 09:58 AM
I believe that Joe and Paul are "taking the reins" as in taking over the executive producer functions currently performed by Brad Wright and Robert Cooper - as those two will be focusing more on the SG1 movies. I am assuming that Martin and Carl will continue to contribute as they have done.. I think they are moving some of the SG1 writing team over to SGA (*sigh*) as Ken Cuperus has said he will most likely now not be involved in Season 4 as he's one of the newer writers and there isn't room for everybody so it's kinda "last in, first out".

yeah, that's how it seems. I must admit that M&M have done some good work, but they've also written some of the worst episodes of both shows :( I'd rather that Wright and Cooper stay on SGA, and let M&M go do the movies, but that's just not happening, so we'll lose out on writers like Ken C who actually wrote one of the best episodes of SGA, and get stuck with teh folks who retreaded their own SG1 script into "irrresponsible." BLECH.

FallenAngelII
January 1st, 2007, 04:47 AM
Joseph Mallozzi and Paul Mullie were responsible for "The Tower", voted worst episode in Stargate Atlantis history. Carl Binder also had a hand in "Irresistible". Joseph and Paul wrote "Irresponsible".

No matter what you think of these episodes, you have to admit they've been responsible for some of the most controversial episodes in Atlantis-history.

Let's just hope they don't dish out a lot more episodes where women are just nice props or objects of sex per season than they already do.

Reaceania
January 1st, 2007, 04:48 AM
I'd love to see Martin Gero and Carl Binder write a story together. That could be awesome (assuming they'd like to work together).

I'm saddened to hear that they're losing Ken Cuperus. That's a loss to the series in my opinion.

I sending good wishes to Mallozzi and Mullie and hope they step up to the plate. Best of luck guys and wishing the creative gods shine upon you. I hope they get to enjoy the role. It's a lot of pressure taking the reins of a show like this. Even one so heavily produced. I do have a reservation but that is solely because of one event in Irresponsible. I can handle "not so great eps" like The Tower, and Irresponsible, because they've also written some of the best ones, Window of Opportunity, Siege 2 (though I think more people were involved in the Siege Triology but who didn't get into the credits, right?). And seriously, Irresponsible would've been much better for me if it lacked one particular scene (that one scene marred the whole ep for me). There are also plenty of other eps from SG1 that I've liked that they've written, Scorced Earth, Prodigy come to mind right now and then there's some I'm ambivalent about. I can handle that. Not every episode is going to be great and many other factors are involved in making the final product.

It's just that one event in Irresponsible that has me reserved (those of you that have seen it will know what I mean). I mean, someone had to sit down and say, lets do this, and someone had to approve it (surely). It is the only moment in 12+ years worth of stargate that has me saying, WTF over and over again. I can't believe they did it. To me it showed a lack of foresight and that has me somewhat concerned, but maybe it wasn't their decision. I don't believe whom ever is responsible for that seriously thought about future storylines. What a waste. *Was not impressed with that guys* But maybe that's just me that thought it was a waste. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who are ambivalent about the event.

Indiana
January 1st, 2007, 10:41 AM
I've always had a disliking for Mallozzi and Mullie. I felt the show changed in Season Four, which was the year they joined Stargate and Jonathan Glassner left. I also felt that Mallozzi, Mullie and Gero come across as quite arrogant in interviews they like talking about themselves too much. I don't get this impression from other people, i.e. Robert C. Cooper, Jonathan Glassner, Brad Wright and Martin Wood.

Ouroboros
January 1st, 2007, 08:09 PM
Gero wrote quite a few good episodes. When I'd see his name in the credits before the episodes aired I'd have higher hopes that they would be quality episodes as a result.

Binder I could go either way on. Sometimes he's ok but he's tossed out a few real stinkers to and I'm not jsut talking about irresistable here.

Mallozzi and Mullie seem to be the primary driving forces behind "clowngate Atlantis and clowngate SG1" where you can never seem to stuff enough cheep immature humour under the bigtop. I'd trade them both for Ken Cuperus in a heartbeat.

I'd also like to get back those two people who wrote Instinct. It was the only episode they ever wrote I think and, assuming the ending really did come as the result of some higher up "creative" input I'd love to have them back to. Either way 80% of instinct was still a hell of a lot better than what we typically get.

Mitchell82
January 1st, 2007, 08:36 PM
Joseph Mallozzi and Paul Mullie were responsible for "The Tower", voted worst episode in Stargate Atlantis history. Carl Binder also had a hand in "Irresistible". Joseph and Paul wrote "Irresponsible".

No matter what you think of these episodes, you have to admit they've been responsible for some of the most controversial episodes in Atlantis-history.

Let's just hope they don't dish out a lot more episodes where women are just nice props or objects of sex per season than they already do.

Controversial, sure but I still love their eps. Havent found one I don't.

Franklyn Blaze
January 2nd, 2007, 12:26 AM
Joseph Mallozzi and Paul Mullie were responsible for "The Tower", voted worst episode in Stargate Atlantis history. Carl Binder also had a hand in "Irresistible". Joseph and Paul wrote "Irresponsible".

No matter what you think of these episodes, you have to admit they've been responsible for some of the most controversial episodes in Atlantis-history.

Let's just hope they don't dish out a lot more episodes where women are just nice props or objects of sex per season than they already do.


Controversial, sure but I still love their eps. Havent found one I don't.

Congrats Mitchell82, you are part of a very small exclusive club! :D

FallenAngelII
January 2nd, 2007, 09:19 AM
Not to be rude, but:
You loved "The Tower", "Irresistible" and "Irresponsible"?

silence
January 2nd, 2007, 09:26 AM
Bad news... i wish they kept Ken, he did some of the best SGA eps...

I won't even comment on M&M "masterpieces" FAII mentioned...
/still disgusted

Dromag67
January 2nd, 2007, 10:55 AM
well it cant really get much worse can it?

Wait, I better shut my mouth.

PG15
January 2nd, 2007, 11:16 AM
Not to be rude, but:
You loved "The Tower", "Irresistible" and "Irresponsible"?

If they did...do you have a problem with it?

Because you know, it's their opinion and all that...

FallenAngelII
January 2nd, 2007, 11:17 AM
No, but I'm just curious as to what it was that they loved about it.

Alipeeps
January 2nd, 2007, 11:21 AM
Not to be rude, but:
You loved "The Tower", "Irresistible" and "Irresponsible"?


No, but I'm just curious as to what it was that they loved about it.

Really? Cos your post above seemed to imply a certain measure of disbelief, as if you found it incredulous or shocking that the poster you quoted should hold such an opinion...? You didn't ask why they feel that or what they loved about those eps...

FallenAngelII
January 2nd, 2007, 11:30 AM
Really? Cos your post above seemed to imply a certain measure of disbelief, as if you found it incredulous or shocking that the poster you quoted should hold such an opinion...? You didn't ask why they feel that or what they loved about those eps...
And this translates into having a problem how? Being in disbelief does not mean being derogatory.

I'm in disbelief that anyone would love "The Tower". Does this mean I can't be curious as to why they love it as well?

Fine, I didn't ask it then, but I'm asking it now:
What did you, Mitchell82 love about the episodes?

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't enter every single thread I post in and pick apart every single one of my posts that can be interpreted as the least hostile and point out the perceived hostility of them.

Franklyn Blaze
January 2nd, 2007, 11:32 AM
Really? Cos your post above seemed to imply a certain measure of disbelief, as if you found it incredulous or shocking that the poster you quoted should hold such an opinion...? You didn't ask why they feel that or what they loved about those eps...

Well I'd like to know what was it they enjoyed!
Seriously, of the episodes that M&M made, what about them did you like Mitchell82? (Or anyone else that enjoyed them)

PG15
January 2nd, 2007, 11:39 AM
For me, even the worst episode has cast interactions that I love, and that usually balances out the bad stuff.

FallenAngelII
January 2nd, 2007, 11:46 AM
For me, even the worst episode has cast interactions that I love, and that usually balances out the bad stuff.
The problem is that the bad stuff is still there. Sure, there are no perfect episodes where everyone's great. There'll always be less-than-good things. However, when an episode has tons of bad stuff, you can't redeem it by focusing on the few good things it has. There's so much suck it doesn't balance out >_>'.

Alipeeps
January 2nd, 2007, 11:49 AM
And this translates into having a problem how? Being in disbelief does not mean being derogatory.

I'm in disbelief that anyone would love "The Tower". Does this mean I can't be curious as to why they love it as well?

Fine, I didn't ask it then, but I'm asking it now:
What did you, Mitchell82 love about the episodes?

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't enter every single thread I post in and pick apart every single one of my posts that can be interpreted as the least hostile and point out the perceived hostility of them.

*boggles*

I'm sorry, where did I say or even suggest that your post was derogatory? Mind you, that said, if you feel you have to preface a question with "Not to be rude but" then...

PG15 certainly interpreted your post as being somewhat hostile as he/she (sorry PG, which are you? :lol:) asked if you had a problem with the opinion they had posted.

I was merely entering into the general discussion and, I guess, asking you to clarify your original post because it didnt actually pose any questions about what elements of the eps in question someone might enjoy. It just seemed to express a feeling that the concept of someone enjoying those eps was, I dunno, somewhat incredulous or unbelievable. Perhaps that was not your intent?

Either way, I was not aware that this was your personal forum and that I'm not allowed to participate in threads in which you post? I happen to read and post in a lot of forums and enjoy a good discussion as much as the next man - or woman.. :)

ETA that, technically, I posted in this thread first so actually, you are the one "entering threads that i post in" :D *is five* :D

Alipeeps
January 2nd, 2007, 11:51 AM
For me, even the worst episode has cast interactions that I love, and that usually balances out the bad stuff.

Agreed. Some eps are better than others, obviously, but there are none that I hate and every ep has elements to it that I enjoy and even love. The Tower, for example, is certainly not one of the episodes I regularly rewatch but I do still enjoy it and have re-watched it on more than one occasion.

PG15
January 2nd, 2007, 12:25 PM
The problem is that the bad stuff is still there. Sure, there are no perfect episodes where everyone's great. There'll always be less-than-good things. However, when an episode has tons of bad stuff, you can't redeem it by focusing on the few good things it has. There's so much suck it doesn't balance out >_>'.

For me, it always balance out. Of course, the good ones don't since the balance is tipped in favor of the good stuff.




PG15 certainly interpreted your post as being somewhat hostile as he/she (sorry PG, which are you? :lol:) asked if you had a problem with the opinion they had posted.
I'm a "he". :cool:

Alipeeps
January 2nd, 2007, 12:30 PM
For me, it always balance out. Of course, the good ones don't since the balance is tipped in favor of the good stuff.

Indeed. There are no episodes, for me personally, where the "not so good" stuff outweighs the good stuff.



I'm a "he". :cool:

Ya see, I had a funny feeling you might be but I didn't want to assume and possibly offend you! :lol:

FallenAngelII
January 2nd, 2007, 12:30 PM
For me, it always balance out. Of course, the good ones don't since the balance is tipped in favor of the good stuff.
Then you're the eternal optimist. To you, a Stargate episode can never be truly bad... unless there's nothing at all good about it (let's pray we never have one of those).

PG15
January 2nd, 2007, 12:33 PM
Indeed.

silence
January 2nd, 2007, 12:52 PM
Agreed. Some eps are better than others, obviously, but there are none that I hate and every ep has elements to it that I enjoy and even love. The Tower, for example, is certainly not one of the episodes I regularly rewatch but I do still enjoy it and have re-watched it on more than one occasion.

Well... compared to Lucius eps Tower is masterpiece (IMO). I just can't stand whole L character... not to mention they killed off best villain of Pegasus in one of those eps...

Anyway... let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best... i know i will. :)

Twinchy
January 2nd, 2007, 11:15 PM
Well I'd like to know what was it they enjoyed!
Seriously, of the episodes that M&M made, what about them did you like Mitchell82? (Or anyone else that enjoyed them)

Acutally I liked ’Irresistable’ and ‘The Tower’ too (haven’t watched ‘Irresponsible’ yet, though). These two were in no way accounted among the best episodes up to now but they surely didn’t suck entirely.

Spoiler for ‘The Tower’:For one, I liked about ‘The Tower’ that Otho reminded me a lot of Imhoteb (Arnold Vosloo) from “The Mummy”. ;) *turns ashamed into corner*
The B plot had great moments too, with Rodney and Ronon (sort of) holding hands for prayer; Ronon telling the tower guards to leave the woman alone and the fight thereafter (even though I think he should not have killed the men); Teyla, Ronon and Rodney looking proudly at the sky with the villagers, waiting for their punishment / destruction, for example.
Also the scene when Mara visited John in his quarters and he agreed to what she said while kissing her, hardly listening at all, was funny indeed (note that the word “marriage” got home to him instantly, though!). It showed nicely that men, having two areas to think with, are absolutely unable to use both at the same time!
In addition, I much liked poor Carson being walked in to John at knife-point and later complaining he won’t do house calls ever again.

Admitedly ‘Irresistable’ started quite annoying, although Lucious’ “How do you get your hair to go like this”-comment to John was funny. The first half had one or two nice scenes all in all but I don’t really like it myself. Yet, after John’s return from Lucious’ home world with the potion for Rodney to analyse and finding him WITH Lucious, it truly hit its stride!
I almost choked on my tea when Lucious said that Elizabeth was out, making him something to eat. And Rodney telling John about Carson’s away-mission, pointing out the man’s artistic talents was outright hillarious!
From then on the episode got better and better. John, out of options, kidnapping Carson and their follwing conversation in the puddle jumper were great, especially with Carson starting to cry (you wanted to give the guy a hug so badly). By the way, bless your heart, Carson! Nobody but him would have followed John into the lonely corridor. There was an imaginary ‘Trap’ sign blinking above John the size of a Stargate!!!
Carson’s “In the meantime rest easy, dear friend.” later on to Lucious all but had me throw up my lunch. Then, when Lucious proposed to Elizabeth, her expression was priceless, too. And I really enjoyed the ‘back to teasing everyone’-mode in the final scene.
Even whereas I agree with numerous others that Lucious’ punishment was way too mild in the end, I strongly believe it was right to turn him over to his own people. The Atlantis team got away quite well, they wouldn’t have had the right to be judge and jury!


For me, even the worst episode has cast interactions that I love, and that usually balances out the bad stuff.

I more than second that! *thumps up*


Then you're the eternal optimist. To you, a Stargate episode can never be truly bad... unless there's nothing at all good about it (let's pray we never have one of those).

Count me in! *standing in line with PG15*
I guess it really will take a LOT to make me don't like an episode at all.I'm still quite hopeful about what the new leadership will bring to the show for the new (hopefully many) season(s).
Only I wish they keep the cast as it is and don't mess around with it! Spoiler up to 'Sunday' or 'Vengance' Keep Carson Beckett!!! and perhaps get rid of the team's black combat uniforms after all!

Happy New Year to you all!

Alipeeps
January 3rd, 2007, 12:24 AM
perhaps get rid of the team's black combat uniforms after all!


Noooonononononooo! You can't get rid of Teh Black Leather Jacket of Hawtness! :D :D

Twinchy
January 3rd, 2007, 01:12 AM
Noooonononononooo! You can't get rid of Teh Black Leather Jacket of Hawtness! :D :D

I'm a reasonable girl ;) surely we can make some sort of deal.

John can keep his Leather Jacket, even wear it occasionally ( :p ) but they get rid of the black pants and the ugly combat boots (of course in a totally not-rated-R way)!

These terms are non-negotiable...

Alipeeps
January 3rd, 2007, 01:19 AM
I'm a reasonable girl ;) surely we can make some sort of deal.

John can keep his Leather Jacket, even wear it occasionally ( :p ) but they get rid of the black pants and the ugly combat boots (of course in a totally not-rated-R way)!

These terms are non-negotiable...

My terms are thus:

John keeps his Leather Jacket of Hawtness and the ubiquitous Black T-Shirt of Yum and his black pants and combat boots; or

The only item of clothing he is allowed is a pair of pants (and obviously, the Boxers of Peekage to go underneath) and nothing else (colour irrelevant).

Your choice. :D

Twinchy
January 3rd, 2007, 01:26 AM
My terms are thus:

John keeps his Leather Jacket of Hawtness and the ubiquitous Black T-Shirt of Yum and his black pants and combat boots; or

The only item of clothing he is allowed is a pair of pants (and obviously, the Boxers of Peekage to go underneath) and nothing else (colour irrelevant).

Your choice. :D

Since I'm not reputed to give in easily, I have another offer to make (my last for good will), Ali:

He can keep his Leather Jacket of Hawtness, the T-Shirt and the boots but there's no way he keeps the pants!!! You know what I mean... :D

Up to you now...

Alipeeps
January 3rd, 2007, 01:31 AM
Since I'm not reputed to give in easily, I have another offer to make (my last for good will), Ali:

He can keep his Leather Jacket of Hawtness, the T-Shirt and the boots but there's no way he keeps the pants!!! You know what I mean... :D

Up to you now...

Hmmmmm. I can live with those terms... :D :D :D :D

Twinchy
January 3rd, 2007, 01:40 AM
Hmmmmm. I can live with those terms... :D :D :D :D

Done!!!

Ali, you've been a hard nut to crack, I give you that.

Though the result is really worth it, I'd say. :D :D :D

It's a pleasure doing business with you, gladly again. *offers handshake*

obsessed1
January 3rd, 2007, 12:16 PM
I believe that Joe and Paul are "taking the reins" as in taking over the executive producer functions currently performed by Brad Wright and Robert Cooper - as those two will be focusing more on the SG1 movies. I am assuming that Martin and Carl will continue to contribute as they have done.. I think they are moving some of the SG1 writing team over to SGA (*sigh*) as Ken Cuperus has said he will most likely now not be involved in Season 4 as he's one of the newer writers and there isn't room for everybody so it's kinda "last in, first out".
I personally cant see much good coming out of this move. Atlantis needs fresh writers like KEN!!!


BRING BACK KEN!!!!!:D

obsessed1
January 3rd, 2007, 12:19 PM
Done!!!

Ali, you've been a hard nut to crack, I give you that.

Though the result is really worth it, I'd say. :D :D :D

It's a pleasure doing business with you, gladly again. *offers handshake*
You two cracked me up :D

Alipeeps
January 3rd, 2007, 12:54 PM
Done!!!

Ali, you've been a hard nut to crack, I give you that.

Though the result is really worth it, I'd say. :D :D :D

It's a pleasure doing business with you, gladly again. *offers handshake*

Likewise. *shakes hands*

*removes Sheppard's pants*

:D


I personally cant see much good coming out of this move. Atlantis needs fresh writers like KEN!!!


BRING BACK KEN!!!!!:D

Yeah! Ken C for Season 4 ! Woooot!

Brad Wright
January 3rd, 2007, 11:56 PM
I've clearly had too much time on my hands this holiday season... But before I get back to work, I have to speak up:

Of course Carl and Martin will be writing and producing next season. They have been the engines driving Atlantis.

Paul and Joe will be running the show. They've earned it, and they will do themselves proud.

Rob and I will be there too, supporting Paul, Joe, Carl, Martin and Alan. We created this show, and have no intention of walking away. I think the last ten years should prove our dedication to Stargate.

As to a few other points raised in this and other threads...

The "written by" credit can be very deceiving. It is common for showrunners to polish, or even completely rewrite entire scripts, even those of staff writers. For example "Instinct" was some of Paul's best work, and "Tao of Rodney" was nicely turned around by Robert, and I'm rather proud of "Common Ground" myself. I'll leave it at that.

We do care about making the best show we can. We don't deliberately "rehash" old episodes, nor would we ever sabotage our show...

Every one of the writers currently working on our show is a result of our search for "new blood" for stargate. I am proud of every one of them.

Brad Wright

FallenAngelII
January 4th, 2007, 12:13 AM
What a pleasant surprise to see first thing in the morning. Welcome to the forums, Brad.

You're proud of "Common Ground"? Did you have a hand in its creation (directing, writing, etc.?) or is it just a generic proudness over having such a wonderful episode in the franchise?

kiwigater
January 4th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Hi Brad :D
Welcome to Gateworld Forums.

Just so everyone is aware, Darren has preliminary confirmation this is indeed Brad Wright.
I'm sure Brad will talk with us as he wishes. (ie, if he doesn't respond don't take it personally! He's got our favourite shows to keep on the rails! :D ).

Also, as always, respecting your fellow posters (including those affiliated with the shows) is our number ONE rule, rude and offensive behaviour will not be tolerated, please report any such behaviour to the mods and we will deal with it :)

PS, this is NOT a "Ask Brad" thread - keep on topic or your post will be deleted..... *mod glare*

TJuk
January 4th, 2007, 04:59 AM
I'd love to see Binder write more, Phantoms was a great ep, one of the best this season. I loved the tone and feel of it. The darker more dramatic and gritty edge that I'd hoped SGA would have developed and stuck to from the start. Especially considering it villians. It was also great to see the old 'emsemble' style ep with most characters weaved into the episode, though I found the Sheppard parts a little stagnant and overly long. Tightened up a bit it would have been truely excellent.

However I think [mod snip]. Season 1 he was head and shoulders above the rest, he's written a good chunk of my fav eps (most being from season 1). But I've become tied of his ego trips and constantly disappointed by his efforts. He's gone from Mr Cool to Mr Unoriginal over the last two season. I know the old line 'there are no original' ideas, but I see so many old film and SG1 episodes not even cleverly rehashed in his scripts. The whole paid 'homage' to (aka ripped off) doesn't cut it and any pretense it was just 'coincedence' doesn't float anymore. I want to see more of the old s1 Gero, he needs to either buck up or get out.

I'd also like to see more of Ken C, Damien Kindler and see if JM & PM can find more of the old magic that brought us eps like 'The Seige' and my all time fav SG1 ep 'Window of Opportunity' and less of the cheesy crap like 'The Tower' (such a prime example of nice idea, shame about the execution). I also hope Rob Cooper finds time to write an ep or two, Seteda was a bloody fantastic, well rounded episode and easily one of the best of the series in writing alone without even getting into the great production values. We got more of a bead on Sheppard in one small scene then half a season and it fit just right. Shows you dont need big FX or flashbacks to learn more about our heroes!

prion
January 4th, 2007, 09:05 AM
...

Every one of the writers currently working on our show is a result of our search for "new blood" for stargate. I am proud of every one of them.

Brad Wright

Well..... many of us quite enjoyed Ken C's (one of the 'new blood') work on "Common ground" - perhaps one of the best episodes of the series. He'd mentioned a possible sequel to that episode, so I'd like to see that happen (with the original writer(s) of that episode, please)

As for wish list, well, said it once, say it again: no more homages, no ripped-off scripts, be it from the latest movie or worse, an old SG episode. So that's where the search for new blood would come in handy. I think folks who aren't so jaded in the writing department will have more original ideas.

And get back to the wraith. "Common Ground" gave us some great new insight into this villain. Ditch the Asurans. Sick to death of replicators in any form.

prion
January 4th, 2007, 09:12 AM
For me, even the worst episode has cast interactions that I love, and that usually balances out the bad stuff.

Well, the good doesn't necessarily negate the bad, but it prevents me from erasing the videotape... ;)

TJuk
January 4th, 2007, 09:38 AM
Well..... many of us quite enjoyed Ken C's (one of the 'new blood') work on "Common ground" - perhaps one of the best episodes of the series. He'd mentioned a possible sequel to that episode, so I'd like to see that happen (with the original writer(s) of that episode, please)

As for wish list, well, said it once, say it again: no more homages, no ripped-off scripts, be it from the latest movie or worse, an old SG episode. So that's where the search for new blood would come in handy. I think folks who aren't so jaded in the writing department will have more original ideas.

And get back to the wraith. "Common Ground" gave us some great new insight into this villain. Ditch the Asurans. Sick to death of replicators in any form.


Well said Prion! Sheppard is not my fav but I enjoyed 'Common Ground' and would love to see more insight into his character. The Wriath in this ep was truely the sort of multi-dimentional 'bad guy' (like Michael) this show should be capitalising on.

I also agree about the writing staff. Maybe they should ditch a few rather then the characters/actors. If they cant keep their original villians going and resort to rehashing from SG1. AND more importantly their lead characters interesting and the dramatic sense of jealpody alive and kicking without resort to killing someone off only 3 season in (and in Beckett case, before we've even properly developed him or his associated stories line), then maybe they shouldn't be writing or producing.

PG15
January 4th, 2007, 12:02 PM
Ha! I knew it! :D Welcome to the forum Mr. Wright.

nonniemous
January 4th, 2007, 12:48 PM
I
We do care about making the best show we can. We don't deliberately "rehash" old episodes, nor would we ever sabotage our show...
Brad Wright

I honestly find this hard to believe, given that Paul McGillion as Carson Beckett is being dropped from the show in favor of yet another female character who, as the past ten years has amply proved, will be underdeveloped and poorly written--unless, in addition to being a female Doogie Howser, she's going to be a sex kitten a la Vala? Shades of seaQuest, DSV and other "brilliant" Sci Fi shows there, Mr. Wright, dropping compelling and complex characters in favor of sexing/prettying things up. Bravo.

For all that I loved most of his Season 1 episodes, I'll echo the comments about Mr. Gero. [mod snip].

SG1 and Atlantis have been, hands down, some of mine and my family's favorite TV ever. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on most issues when it comes to production and writing, and I'm willing to accept that what is intended on paper and in planning sessions doesn't always translate well on screen, a la Epiphany and Irresponsible. We loved Irresistable. But when a great character is ignored and then dropped in favor of just another pretty face above a set of boobs, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the writing or production rooms have the best interests of the show in mind. We are huge Firefly fans in my house; of the four guys aged 14 - 42 here? Not one of them is interested in Ms. Staite on Atlantis; they all prefer Carson.

Honestly, Mr. Wright? You've lost our entire family. We buy the books; we buy the DVDs. We buy a lot of other merchandise. We even downloaded the eps from iTunes in order to have legal copies until the actual DVDs come out. But we don't tune in to watch the Rodney McKay hour, nor are we interested in the Rodney and Sam or the Rodney and John show, or Pegasus Doogie Howser. We want to see Stargate:Atlantis, the show we fell in love with and have been watching for three years now. You've done a great job building a wonderful cast and compelling characters, even if it has been in spite of yourselves at times. While your story and villain choices haven't always been stellar, we've always had faith that for every Tower,you'd come up with The Inferno (even with its Barbie!Babe-of-the-Week), or a Phantoms or the three Sieges or even Sateda.

No longer. No one in my house is interested in a show that from all current appearances has little or no respect for either its characters or its fans. There are far better ways to spend both our time and our money.

PG15
January 4th, 2007, 01:02 PM
^I seriously do not see how that has anything to do with what Brad said...you're just ranting about Carson. From what I read, TPTB make the show they like to watch, and just so happens a few million people share their point of view. Just because they kicked out Beckett for whatever reason (which we don't know yet), doesn't make what they do wrong or bad or anything. They just did something that you don't agree with.

And of course, Jewel, being female, is automatically a pretty face with a set of boobs. Gosh, I wonder how many times I'm gonna get smacked upside the head for saying that in public.

Night Spring
January 4th, 2007, 01:05 PM
Well, the good doesn't necessarily negate the bad, but it prevents me from erasing the videotape... ;)
Good way to put it! *g*

I accept that in an on-going TV series, there're always going to be a few episodes here and there that suffers in execution, or starts with a premise I dislike for personal reasons regardless of the quality of execution. However, if the ratio of "good" to "bad" episodes decrease beyond a certain point, then obviously, I'm going to stop watching. No show is so absolutely great that I'll watch it no matter what -- it has to retain enough of the elements that attracted me to it in order for me to continue watching.

Night Spring
January 4th, 2007, 01:24 PM
And of course, Jewel, being female, is automatically a pretty face with a set of boobs.
I certainly hope that the new doctor turns out to be as complex and compelling a character as Carson -- but the track record of the Stargate franchise doesn't bode well for this, especially with the new character being female. We already have two major female characters on Atlantis, and they are both woefully underused. I've already been disappointed by the development of Sam in SG-1 -- things like having her get overly emotional in front of subordinates when Jack went missing in Paradise Lost, and seeing the subordinates lose respect for her, well it caused *me* to lose respect for Sam, also. The past record doesn't give me much confidence in the ability of the production/writing team behind Stargate to create and develop compelling female characters. The one complex and compelling female character they did have, Janet Fraiser, they killed off!

So, I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised if the new doctor turns out to be a character I can like and respect, who brings her own unique contributions to the show. But until then -- can I just say I have a very bad feeling about this change.

nonniemous
January 4th, 2007, 01:28 PM
^I seriously do not see how that has anything to do with what Brad said...you're just ranting about Carson. From what I read, TPTB make the show they like to watch, and just so happens a few million people share their point of view. Just because they kicked out Beckett for whatever reason (which we don't know yet), doesn't make what they do wrong or bad or anything. They just did something that you don't agree with.

And of course, Jewel, being female, is automatically a pretty face with a set of boobs. Gosh, I wonder how many times I'm gonna get smacked upside the head for saying that in public.

And because I don't agree with what they've done, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion here? He posted in defense of their decisions as we know them to be so far; I'm posting to disagree with his defense. As for the boob issue, until they come up with some kind of official, valid reason for replacing Beckett, I can only go with the evidence before me and of the shows' records thus far.

As for the reasons why they've kicked out Beckett, I would love to hear Mr. Wright respond on that front. Gee, maybe that's why I posted to begin with?

Trialia
January 4th, 2007, 01:52 PM
Well, Jewel is pretty and she does have a nice rack, but I am hoping for some character development beyond that. What I really want for S4, though, is further development of not just Elizabeth (though that would be VERY welcome), but Teyla. We've barely seen the Athosians except for Critical Mass, how are we meant to believe she's still taking an active role in her own original capacity as their leader, or even that she is? TBH, I'd rather have Teyla not 'shipped with anyone if it is to the detriment of her personal character development as it seems to have been this last season.

Anyway. I'd like to see more Binder scripts, from the commentaries and Mission Directives it seems that the ones where he's had the most input are the ones I've enjoyed the most, with the very notable exception of "Irresistible" (which I find myself having less than no trouble resisting, cough).

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about Paul's leaving - Beckett is the one character of the main ensemble who really irks me, in several ways, so I won't really be sorry to see him go. No offence to Paul, but I really don't like that character.

TJuk
January 4th, 2007, 01:53 PM
I'll echo the sentiments of the posts above. The moment Brad stepped into this forum, as long as the posts within the thread he was posting on had some relation to the original thread subject or the subsequent discussion they are valid. He was talking about the writing staff and their futures on SGA and their 'artistic' decisions for season 3 as well as their writing. Carson and the actors obviously unpopular removal from the cast is part of that and therefore a valid issue. nonniemous wasn't 'ranting', she was presenting a well written opinion on an issue they feel will affect the show and future writing.

As for Jewel, we have 2 already popular but severely under-developed female characters on the show. Whats the point in adding another (unless the more recent rumours are correct) and having 3 under-developed and poorly wrtitten female characters. She may get good stuff to begin with, but if their established history is anythng to go by, she will quickly become wallpaper. Why would she be any different? Unless of course they get new blood on the writing staff and ditch some of the dead weight. Not forgetting a 4th who has suffered inconsistent writing for 10 years, Carter. Its been admitted in PRINT they struggle to write for her. A very poorly advised decision in my eye because in my opion, adding 'Carter' is possible the worst thing they could do, Is it simply to keep 'SG1' alive in the minds of the fans in the hopes of having a base audience for the movies? I hate the idea of them adding ANY SG1 character most of all Carter (no offence to AT). It will severe unbalance the SGA casts dynamic, affect the writing of the characters relationships and seeing as they are already McKay-centric (once again admitted in print) give them yet more excuses to push his character and ignore the rest.

The whole thing is ludicrous. Jewel is not even old enough to be practicing medicine on living patients, she would still be in medical school. Doesn't matter how much of a genius she might be, she would not be allowed outside of the confines of med school, or possibly a large teaching hospital where she can be properly suprervised by other EXPERIENCED doctors. Doesn't matter how its spun, the reason such a young actress has been brought in is obviously for 'boobs' as you put it. Seeing as the entertainment business finds it hard to acknowledge 35+ females as legimate 'sex appeal'. I feel sorry for Jewel, she's a great actress who deserves to have good material to work with and I can only imagine how disappointed Paul must be. I'm sure she has her own doubts about what is or rather is't in store for her character.

I certain cant see Martin 'Marty-Sue McKay' Gero writing anything of substance for her.

david2708
January 4th, 2007, 02:00 PM
I've clearly had too much time on my hands this holiday season... But before I get back to work, I have to speak up.

Paul and Joe will be running the show. They've earned it, and they will do themselves proud.

Every one of the writers currently working on our show is a result of our search for "new blood" for stargate. I am proud of every one of them.

Brad Wright
The.. 'we're all so wonderful, what are you all complaining about'... is one of the big reasons why I'll be tuning out as have many others if you judge the ratings.
"New blood" is hardly that with the same lot staying on year after year after year. They maybe new blood to begin with but years later?
And TPTB wonder why viewers are leaving?

Alipeeps
January 4th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Can I respectfully suggest that we consider using some spoiler tags in this thread? Although this is the Season 3 forum, this thread is not even labelled in the title as containing spoilers and there is a lot of unspoiler-tagged discussion of major upcoming plot points being posted here.

I for one have to say I am pleased Martin will continue to be involved in the show - for the most part I do enjoy his writing, although I do chafe somewhat at his overt love for McKay. I like McKay, I really do.. but there can be too much of a good thing and I'd like to see other characters developed, not just Rodney. Having said that, Gero's McKay episodes this year (thinking particularly here of course of M&MM and Tao) have proven to be wonderful episodes for the team and have, I think, gotten the balance pretty good. Although the storyline has been centred around McKay, Gero has used it to highlight aspects of the team's relationships and to show us some lovely moments of team interaction and friendships. I've have loved this aspect of Season 3 and certainly hope to see that portrayal of the close friendships between the team members continue into Season 4.

Michelle05
January 4th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Having said that, Gero's McKay episodes this year (thinking particularly here of course of M&MM and Tao) have proven to be wonderful episodes for the team and have, I think, gotten the balance pretty good. Although the storyline has been centred around McKay, Gero has used it to highlight aspects of the team's relationships and to show us some lovely moments of team interaction and friendships.

Damian Kindler wrote Tao of Rodney, not Martin Gero. And apparently RCC did a big rewrite on it if you read BW's "turnaround" comment to mean that.

I love McKay-centered eps because I think David is a great actor; he elicits the best from everyone else, IMO.

I think RCC and BW are both great writers and have found S3 to be very well written overall, like you said, with great team moments. It's the bigger show arc and casting/culling decisions that have often mystified me.

prion
January 4th, 2007, 03:27 PM
Can I respectfully suggest that we consider using some spoiler tags in this thread? Although this is the Season 3 forum, this thread is not even labelled in the title as containing spoilers and there is a lot of unspoiler-tagged discussion of major upcoming plot points being posted here.


The thread title has POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR SEASONS 3/4 so, spoiler tags are a bit redundant....


I'll echo the sentiments of the posts above. The moment Brad stepped into this forum, as long as the posts within the thread he was posting on had some relation to the original thread subject or the subsequent discussion they are valid. He was talking about the writing staff and their futures on SGA and their 'artistic' decisions for season 3 as well as their writing. Carson and the actors obviously unpopular removal from the cast is part of that and therefore a valid issue. nonniemous wasn't 'ranting', she was presenting a well written opinion on an issue they feel will affect the show and future writing.

As for Jewel, we have 2 already popular but severely under-developed female characters on the show. Whats the point in adding another (unless the more recent rumours are correct) and having 3 under-developed and poorly wrtitten female characters. She may get good stuff to begin with, but if their established history is anythng to go by, she will quickly become wallpaper. Why would she be any different? Unless of course they get new blood on the writing staff and ditch some of the dead weight. Not forgetting a 4th who has suffered inconsistent writing for 10 years, Carter. Its been admitted in PRINT they struggle to write for her. A very poorly advised decision in my eye because in my opion, adding 'Carter' is possible the worst thing they could do, Is it simply to keep 'SG1' alive in the minds of the fans in the hopes of having a base audience for the movies? I hate the idea of them adding ANY SG1 character most of all Carter (no offence to AT). It will severe unbalance the SGA casts dynamic, affect the writing of the characters relationships and seeing as they are already McKay-centric (once again admitted in print) give them yet more excuses to push his character and ignore the rest.



This gets back to MG and CB's role for season 4. Just what is planned for season 4? It's only SG left now, and I hate to see ANYTHING from SG1 translate over. Please, no more Ori. No Gou'ald. We're in another galaxy for pity's sake. Let's work on fleshing out the Wraith, on fleshing out the characters we already have, before tossing more 'fresh' characters into the mix becuase the writers have, basically, written themselves into a corner with a character or two. I'd like to see, yes, some female writers on the show (but good ones) as heck, perhaps they can get a spin on Teyla or Weir. Or give Carl Binder more freedom to do stuff like "Letters from Pegasus," instead of foisting sitcom humor of "irresponsible" on the audience.

Carter? Well, there's aleady a massively large thread squabbling about her in the news section, so won't say anything here except she'd better have a darn good reason to be on Atlantis and not just be there to reduce McKay's IQ.


I certainly hope that the new doctor turns out to be as complex and compelling a character as Carson -- but the track record of the Stargate franchise doesn't bode well for this, especially with the new character being female. We already have two major female characters on Atlantis, and they are both woefully underused.

Unfortunately that's very true. McKay (who I do like) has gotten the lion's share of character development, even more than Sheppard who I do consider the lead of the show. For pete's sake, I'd love to at least have one episode where we find out about his father who, according to the ancient Skiffy bio, was a colonel himself. Is he alive? If so, what's his opinion of his son with the black mark? It would be interesting to see that.

Both Teyla and Weir need more development, and I'm not talking in the push-up bra area either ;) Teyla was the leader of her people. I'd like to see her LEAD in one episode.

Trialia
January 4th, 2007, 03:28 PM
TBH... I'm bored with McKay, even though I like him.

Alipeeps
January 4th, 2007, 03:33 PM
The thread title has POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR SEASONS 3/4 so, spoiler tags are a bit redundant....


It didn't previously - I assume the mods have altered it because of the high spoilery content of the posts within...

TameFarrar
January 4th, 2007, 03:37 PM
As Per GW rules please use spoiler tags if you are discussing any episode of SG-1 or SGA that is not yet in USA syndication. Regardless of the fact that the title expresses there may be spoilers does not negate that spoiler tags are expected in any thread except the Official Episode threads

Also please keep in mind the topic of this thread. If you take issue with the way another poster expresses themselves personally please do so in private, that is what we have a PM system for. Bear in mind that the *respect fellow members* rule applies even in PM.

Thank You
TameFarrar
GateWorld Moderator

PG15
January 4th, 2007, 03:51 PM
And because I don't agree with what they've done, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion here? He posted in defense of their decisions as we know them to be so far; I'm posting to disagree with his defense.

Of course you're allowed to voice your opinion (so was I), but the way you did it seemed to me to indicate that it's "factually" bad what they did, instead of just your personal opinion.


As for the reasons why they've kicked out Beckett, I would love to hear Mr. Wright respond on that front. Gee, maybe that's why I posted to begin with?

Now why didn't you just ask that one question? ;)


The.. 'we're all so wonderful, what are you all complaining about'... is one of the big reasons why I'll be tuning out as have many others if you judge the ratings.
"New blood" is hardly that with the same lot staying on year after year after year. They maybe new blood to begin with but years later?
And TPTB wonder why viewers are leaving?

They do add new blood (Ken, Alan, Carl Binder, etc.). I think your problem is that they're not getting rid of the "old blood". ;)

xfkirsten
January 4th, 2007, 10:47 PM
This gets back to MG and CB's role for season 4. Just what is planned for season 4? It's only SG left now, and I hate to see ANYTHING from SG1 translate over. Please, no more Ori. No Gou'ald. We're in another galaxy for pity's sake. Let's work on fleshing out the Wraith, on fleshing out the characters we already have, before tossing more 'fresh' characters into the mix becuase the writers have, basically, written themselves into a corner with a character or two. I'd like to see, yes, some female writers on the show (but good ones) as heck, perhaps they can get a spin on Teyla or Weir. Or give Carl Binder more freedom to do stuff like "Letters from Pegasus," instead of foisting sitcom humor of "irresponsible" on the audience.

Carter? Well, there's aleady a massively large thread squabbling about her in the news section, so won't say anything here except she'd better have a darn good reason to be on Atlantis and not just be there to reduce McKay's IQ.



Unfortunately that's very true. McKay (who I do like) has gotten the lion's share of character development, even more than Sheppard who I do consider the lead of the show. For pete's sake, I'd love to at least have one episode where we find out about his father who, according to the ancient Skiffy bio, was a colonel himself. Is he alive? If so, what's his opinion of his son with the black mark? It would be interesting to see that.

Both Teyla and Weir need more development, and I'm not talking in the push-up bra area either ;) Teyla was the leader of her people. I'd like to see her LEAD in one episode.

I gotta give a big "amen" to everything you said just there.

It feels like the Pegasus races aren't really getting explored well. I don't want to watch SG-1's mythology take over the show. If I wanted that, I'd watch SG-1. I think that's why I preferred Atlantis being isolated - there was far less crossover in plots, leaving the Atlantis free to develop its own, unique characters, storylines, and races.

That's really why I'm such a Carl Binder fan, too. I won't say every show he's done was superb, but I find that he does a fantastic job of developing characters that the other writers seem to leave behind - particularly Weir.

david2708
January 4th, 2007, 10:53 PM
Brads post implied to me that nothing will change with the direction of the show. The same clique will do what they like and what the fans think doesn't matter, nor count.
The old blood, M&M, will now be the show runners for season 4 because "they deserved it" apparently.
One is left speechless, really.

BJX
January 5th, 2007, 05:26 AM
Seriously what is with all the *****ing and moaning? Brad Wright was good enough to come on to a fan forum and make a post for us(how many showrunners do that?) and look at the reaction. I'm not saying you should get down on your knees and say everything he and the show has done is fantastic but how about a bit of respect and appreciation.

I don't know why anybody would think Brad and the other producers have anything but the best of intentions for the Stargate franchise. If you think certain decisions and creative directions are unwise, then fine, but why be so presumptuous to know what the producers motives were for doing so when you're clearly not in receipt of all the facts. Take McGillion's departure for istance, we have no idea why he's leaving, maybe it's nothing to do with the writers, yet there are loads of people moaning about them getting rid of him just so they can bring in a nice set of tits. Come on.

As for Joe and Paul running the show, I would be lying if I said I was jumping for joy when I heard the news but I'm sure Brad is right when he said they deserve it. They have been working in the franchise for what, seven years, and I think I'm right in saying there's more to being a showrunner then just the ability to write a good script. Both Martin Gero and Carl Binder have both said that they have difficulty coming up with ideas for episodes. They can both certainly write amazing episodes but as a showrunner, you've gotta be constantly coming up with story ideas and new areas to push a show into and Joe and Paul are probably better suited to that then Martin and Carl. I look forward, with a hint of trepedation, to what is to come in Season 4, but the show is so strong at the moment that I can't see Joe and Paul destroying it.

I think Common Ground is without doubt one of the best episodes of either of the stargate series' so I can understand alot of the love for Ken Cuperus but he has only written one episode and we now know most of it was actually written by Brad. I too would like to see more episodes from him but again to slag off Brad and the other producers for not keeping him on is ridiculous. Maybe the script he presented was terrible and the other ideas he came up with not very good so they decided to stick with their established writers who've proven themselves on more then one occasion. However, maybe they've let a potentially brilliant writer slip through their fingers, if so their bad, but the point is we don't know. After Brad and co. doing such a good job with SG-1 and Atlantis for the last decade, I reckon they deserve a tiny bit of faith or loyalty or turst or whatever you wanna call it from the fans.

Maybe the end result of decisions taken will be disastrous and if so criticism is just and proper but criticism based on preconcieved notions and ideas born on nothing but ones own ideas of what motivated them is stupid and totally unfair to the producers.

FoolishPleasure
January 5th, 2007, 05:32 AM
Keep Ken C. on staff. Let Ken, Martin, and Carl handle the writing.

Take the keyboards away from M & M.

Dump the Asuran storyline. I'm not interested in even watching these episodes. The writing staff sorely misjudged the audience when they dredged up the exhausted SG1 Replicator storyline.

NO "ship"/romance between characters. It is ruining BSG this season and even the actress involved said in an interview two weeks ago that it sucks and is nothing but soap opera fodder now. Go with teamwork and friendship and that's IT!

Keep Beckett. Carson and Teyla have been sort of the heart and moral compass for this show. . .when the writers bother to give them lines. They don't use Teyla for much other than eye candy anymore, and Carson is going. Bad, bad, bad.

The addition of Amanda Tapping and Jewel Staite smacks of boob-o-rama for the guys, but neither my husband or teen son are interested in seeing either of them on this show. Sam belongs with SG1, period.

I'm betting the ladies on this show (old and new) will continue to be the weakest characters and wear the skimpiest of clothing. Its disgraceful.

Alipeeps
January 5th, 2007, 05:53 AM
Seriously what is with all the *****ing and moaning? Brad Wright was good enough to come on to a fan forum and make a post for us(how many showrunners do that?) and look at the reaction. I'm not saying you should get down on your knees and say everything he and the show has done is fantastic but how about a bit of respect and appreciation.

I don't know why anybody would think Brad and the other producers have anything but the best of intentions for the Stargate franchise. If you think certain decisions and creative directions are unwise, then fine, but why be so presumptuous to know what the producers motives were for doing so when you're clearly not in receipt of all the facts. Take McGillion's departure for istance, we have no idea why he's leaving, maybe it's nothing to do with the writers, yet there are loads of people moaning about them getting rid of him just so they can bring in a nice set of tits. Come on.

As for Joe and Paul running the show, I would be lying if I said I was jumping for joy when I heard the news but I'm sure Brad is right when he said they deserve it. They have been working in the franchise for what, seven years, and I think I'm right in saying there's more to being a showrunner then just the ability to write a good script. Both Martin Gero and Carl Binder have both said that they have difficulty coming up with ideas for episodes. They can both certainly write amazing episodes but as a showrunner, you've gotta be constantly coming up with story ideas and new areas to push a show into and Joe and Paul are probably better suited to that then Martin and Carl. I look forward, with a hint of trepedation, to what is to come in Season 4, but the show is so strong at the moment that I can't see Joe and Paul destroying it.

I think Common Ground is without doubt one of the best episodes of either of the stargate series' so I can understand alot of the love for Ken Cuperus but he has only written one episode and we now know most of it was actually written by Brad. I too would like to see more episodes from him but again to slag off Brad and the other producers for not keeping him on is ridiculous. Maybe the script he presented was terrible and the other ideas he came up with not very good so they decided to stick with their established writers who've proven themselves on more then one occasion. However, maybe they've let a potentially brilliant writer slip through their fingers, if so their bad, but the point is we don't know. After Brad and co. doing such a good job with SG-1 and Atlantis for the last decade, I reckon they deserve a tiny bit of faith or loyalty or turst or whatever you wanna call it from the fans.

Maybe the end result of decisions taken will be disastrous and if so criticism is just and proper but criticism based on preconcieved notions and ideas born on nothing but ones own ideas of what motivated them is stupid and totally unfair to the producers.

Firstly - whilst we obviously can't presume to know TPTB's reasoning behind the choices they make and where they are planning to take the show etc, the fan's reaction to the loss of Beckett is partly due to the fact that we know Paul did not want to leave (I'm sure people would still be upset if that were the case but would respect his choice) and it is therefore "to do" with the writers.. for reasons we do not yet know, they have chosen to write him out of the show. I am sure Brad is an experienced enough producer and writer to understand the fan reaction to this - after all, there was a similar reaction in the fandom when Rainbow was written out.

Secondly - I don't think anyone has "slagged off" Brad and co for not keeping Ken C around... I think we have simply stated that we enjoyed his writing and that we think it is a shame to lose him... particularly as it would appear that the decision is mostly due to reasons connected to the cancellation of SG1, rather than any issues over the quality of his work. For your info, Ken has written two other episodes in season 3 which have yet to air (The Ark and Submersion) so it's not a case that his other script ideas were bad. And whilst Brad has stated that he also did quite a bit of work on CG too (as I believe is the case on most episodes; it is part of the role of the showrunners to polish the scripts and have the final say on things etc), that is a far cry from saying that "most of [CG] was written by Brad".

Unfortunately, I think that all the proposed changes that are happening to the show at the moment - the loss of a regular cast member, the addition of new cast members, transplanting SG1 cast, moving writers and producers etc over from SG1 to SGA - is just too much all at once and has left people very concerned for the future of the show and sadly, rather lacking in that faith which you feel we should show in TPTB.

I'm certainly hoping for the best for Season 4 because I love the show.. but the amount of changes being made do give me serious cause for concern.

prion
January 5th, 2007, 09:16 AM
Seriously what is with all the *****ing and moaning? Brad Wright was good enough to come on to a fan forum and make a post for us(how many showrunners do that?) and look at the reaction. I'm not saying you should get down on your knees and say everything he and the show has done is fantastic but how about a bit of respect and appreciation.

I don't know why anybody would think Brad and the other producers have anything but the best of intentions for the Stargate franchise. If you think certain decisions and creative directions are unwise, then fine, but why be so presumptuous to know what the producers motives were for doing so when you're clearly not in receipt of all the facts. Take McGillion's departure for istance, we have no idea why he's leaving, maybe it's nothing to do with the writers, yet there are loads of people moaning about them getting rid of him just so they can bring in a nice set of tits. Come on.

The *****ing and moaning has been on this board since its inception. A requirement of fandom is to do those two things (and that happens in any online forum - you want to see real rancor? - visit the Yahoo boards for news items - no wait, they removed them due to too much vitriolic posts....). Anyway, most of us would not criticize the show, etc. if we did not care. If I don't care for a show, I wouldn't waste the time to type "it sucks" (okay, I might type that much). Those of us who do 'kevetch' do so because we like what we have and are tired of inane scripts, retreaded scripts, characters deep-sixed, etc.

I dare say that Brad has a good idea of the kinds of posts that exist no this board as the production office has lurked/posted here for years. I haven't seen any 'slagging' toward BW as of yet. I'd hope he's done a lot of lurking though to see that SGA fans are just content to sit back on their butts and watch the TV. Hope he sees what we like and don't like.

But we're basically in this thread to discuss the contribution of the writers in season 4... so we will dissect previous seasons' episodes.

BJX
January 5th, 2007, 10:44 AM
Firstly - whilst we obviously can't presume to know TPTB's reasoning behind the choices they make and where they are planning to take the show etc, the fan's reaction to the loss of Beckett is partly due to the fact that we know Paul did not want to leave (I'm sure people would still be upset if that were the case but would respect his choice) and it is therefore "to do" with the writers.. for reasons we do not yet know, they have chosen to write him out of the show. I am sure Brad is an experienced enough producer and writer to understand the fan reaction to this - after all, there was a similar reaction in the fandom when Rainbow was written out.

I wasn't trying to suggest you shouldn't voice your dissapointment, by all means do. I am very dissapointed with his departure too but that's the way it is. I'm sure the writers had a good reason for it rather then just so as they could bring in a pretty face as has been suggested. That's all I was addressing. I think it's foolish and unfair to presume to know why the decision was made and to assume it will be a bad thing for the show. The truth is, until we know for sure why the decision was made and where this leads the show, there's no sense in b***ing about it.


Secondly - I don't think anyone has "slagged off" Brad and co for not keeping Ken C around... I think we have simply stated that we enjoyed his writing and that we think it is a shame to lose him... particularly as it would appear that the decision is mostly due to reasons connected to the cancellation of SG1, rather than any issues over the quality of his work.

To me, some of the post following Brad's seemed quite personal.


For your info, Ken has written two other episodes in season 3 which have yet to air (The Ark and Submersion) so it's not a case that his other script ideas were bad.

So they are. The last time I checked the episode guides, The Ark was said to have been storied by the same people as The Game with Carl Binder doing the teleplay and Submersion did not have a writer. I can't wait to see what these episodes turn out like and if they are brilliant then it will be shame to lose him.


And whilst Brad has stated that he also did quite a bit of work on CG too (as I believe is the case on most episodes; it is part of the role of the showrunners to polish the scripts and have the final say on things etc), that is a far cry from saying that "most of [CG] was written by Brad".

True but the way Brad worded his post it gave (me at least) the impression that he had a significant hand in creating the final product, more so then just "polishing" the script.


Unfortunately, I think that all the proposed changes that are happening to the show at the moment - the loss of a regular cast member, the addition of new cast members, transplanting SG1 cast, moving writers and producers etc over from SG1 to SGA - is just too much all at once and has left people very concerned for the future of the show and sadly, rather lacking in that faith which you feel we should show in TPTB.

I'm certainly hoping for the best for Season 4 because I love the show.. but the amount of changes being made do give me serious cause for concern.

Fair enough, the only point I was trying to make is that writing something off before you had a chance to see it just doesn't make sense.

BJX
January 5th, 2007, 10:47 AM
Anyway, most of us would not criticize the show, etc. if we did not care. If I don't care for a show, I wouldn't waste the time to type "it sucks" (okay, I might type that much). Those of us who do 'kevetch' do so because we like what we have and are tired of inane scripts, retreaded scripts, characters deep-sixed, etc.

I never meant to imply you shouldn't criticise, that's the last thing I'd ever advocate. Constructive critiscism is essential, criticism based on nothing but personal expectation is not valid.

prion
January 5th, 2007, 12:55 PM
I never meant to imply you shouldn't criticise, that's the last thing I'd ever advocate. Constructive critiscism is essential, criticism based on nothing but personal expectation is not valid.

Oh, I guess I should have tossed in the word 'constructive'. ;) Yes, constructive is fine. Griping for no reason except to hear your own voice is another :S

ken_is_here
January 5th, 2007, 02:14 PM
I've clearly had too much time on my hands this holiday season... But before I get back to work, I have to speak up:

Of course Carl and Martin will be writing and producing next season. They have been the engines driving Atlantis.

Paul and Joe will be running the show. They've earned it, and they will do themselves proud.

Rob and I will be there too, supporting Paul, Joe, Carl, Martin and Alan. We created this show, and have no intention of walking away. I think the last ten years should prove our dedication to Stargate.

As to a few other points raised in this and other threads...

The "written by" credit can be very deceiving. It is common for showrunners to polish, or even completely rewrite entire scripts, even those of staff writers. For example "Instinct" was some of Paul's best work, and "Tao of Rodney" was nicely turned around by Robert, and I'm rather proud of "Common Ground" myself. I'll leave it at that.

We do care about making the best show we can. We don't deliberately "rehash" old episodes, nor would we ever sabotage our show...

Every one of the writers currently working on our show is a result of our search for "new blood" for stargate. I am proud of every one of them.

Brad Wright


What Brad is very diplomatically saying is that he indeed did a very significant polish of Common Ground - adding a lot of the flair in the dialog. Don't forget, this was my very first episode, and I didn't know the characters as well as Brad (of course) so it was essential that he make them sound as they should.

If you want specific examples of Brad's involvment in the Common Ground script, listen to the DVD commentary when season three is released. I couldn't help but gush over some of Brad's dialog.

Brad also did a lot of work on The Ark (over his summer vacation to boot!). It wasn't until Submersion when I really got the hang of all the characters. That is the episode I am most proud of!

Thanks for making me look so good Brad!! :)

Ken

Mister Oragahn
January 5th, 2007, 02:20 PM
I don't know, I wish Gero and Binder still play an active role in the writing atm.
It's sad that Ken is out.
I mean, even the simple premises/spoilers of his episodes just sound infinitely more neat than most of SGA's stuff to me.

I don't know where Ken's going right now, but the next show he's going to be working on may be something to look for just for the sheer sake of knowing that the story could be really nice, even if the show won't be your style in terms of genre.

Alipeeps
January 5th, 2007, 03:40 PM
What Brad is very diplomatically saying is that he indeed did a very significant polish of Common Ground - adding a lot of the flair in the dialog. Don't forget, this was my very first episode, and I didn't know the characters as well as Brad (of course) so it was essential that he make them sound as they should.

If you want specific examples of Brad's involvment in the Common Ground script, listen to the DVD commentary when season three is released. I couldn't help but gush over some of Brad's dialog.

Brad also did a lot of work on The Ark (over his summer vacation to boot!). It wasn't until Submersion when I really got the hang of all the characters. That is the episode I am most proud of!

Thanks for making me look so good Brad!! :)

Ken

Oooh, you the commentary for CG on the DVDs? Really?!! Ack! Okay, that's not fair cos you've made me so excited about that and it'll MONTHS (or more) before it gets released! :lol: Can I ask, did you do the commentary alone or with someone else?

Thanks again for providing such interesting insights into the behind the scenes processes - it's interesting to hear about Brad's involvement. i think he has a wonderful grasp of dialogue and I know Martin Gero has referred to that in some of his commentaries - mentioning that often when people tell him of a line they loved in one of his eps, he has to admit "Actually, Brad wrote that one!" :lol:

I'm really looking forward to Submersion now, given that you're so proud of it... :D

BJX
January 5th, 2007, 04:34 PM
What Brad is very diplomatically saying is that he indeed did a very significant polish of Common Ground - adding a lot of the flair in the dialog. Don't forget, this was my very first episode, and I didn't know the characters as well as Brad (of course) so it was essential that he make them sound as they should.

If you want specific examples of Brad's involvment in the Common Ground script, listen to the DVD commentary when season three is released. I couldn't help but gush over some of Brad's dialog.

Brad also did a lot of work on The Ark (over his summer vacation to boot!). It wasn't until Submersion when I really got the hang of all the characters. That is the episode I am most proud of!

Thanks for making me look so good Brad!! :)

Ken


Hey Ken, if that's really you that's cool. I can't wait to see Submersion now, if you're more proud of it then Common Ground, then it should be one hell of an episode. Looking forward to The Ark next week too!

And if you're not working on Season 4 then hopefully we'll see you during season 5.

prion
January 5th, 2007, 04:46 PM
What Brad is very diplomatically saying is that he indeed did a very significant polish of Common Ground - adding a lot of the flair in the dialog. Don't forget, this was my very first episode, and I didn't know the characters as well as Brad (of course) so it was essential that he make them sound as they should.

If you want specific examples of Brad's involvment in the Common Ground script, listen to the DVD commentary when season three is released. I couldn't help but gush over some of Brad's dialog.

Brad also did a lot of work on The Ark (over his summer vacation to boot!). It wasn't until Submersion when I really got the hang of all the characters. That is the episode I am most proud of!

Thanks for making me look so good Brad!! :)

Ken

Season 3? We're still waiting for season 2 DVDs!!! ;)

Thanks for the details. However, the groundwork you laid for COMMON GROUND was very good, as was Brad's polishing. I'd like to think you could both collaborate on a season 4 epsiode.

david2708
January 5th, 2007, 05:04 PM
.
Maybe the end result of decisions taken will be disastrous and if so criticism is just and proper but criticism based on preconcieved notions and ideas born on nothing but ones own ideas of what motivated them is stupid and totally unfair to the producers.
My 'preconceived notions' are based on 'previous form'. Bad scripts, flagship show cancellation, and spin off ratings in decline. A pattern kind of develops and you can see the writing on the wall.Something is obviously wrong.
I'd rather voice concerns now than whinge after the fact when the show is cancelled and nothing can then be done about it.
I don't ascribe to the bended knee, wait and see approach to everything TPTB do and say.

nonniemous
January 5th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Of course you're allowed to voice your opinion (so was I), but the way you did it seemed to me to indicate that it's "factually" bad what they did, instead of just your personal opinion.

Considering that it's my post under my name, I would have thought that people would understand that it's my opinion--except for the parts that are backed up by the shows' records and the things the writers and production staff have said in interviews.



Now why didn't you just ask that one question? ;)

Because asking that one question without telling him the rationale behind why I felt the way I did, and what the results of the action they're taking are for me and my family wouldn't have accomplished anything.

Willow'sCat
January 5th, 2007, 06:00 PM
Season 3? We're still waiting for season 2 DVDs!!!Hey the world is not the US :cool: Australia has had the Boxset for over a month and the UK has had the single volumes for over 6mths. ;)

Anyway, I fear for SGA with Joe M and Paul M at he helm, not just because their recent offerings have left me cold or really pissed off :cool: but because this is SGA and you know what? I think Joe and the gang don't get that, you can create a spin-off and still not get that show or how it ticks *imho*

Point in case
spoilers for season 3RDA in The Return 1 / 2 imho it didn't really work, trying to write a character in SGA as if it didn't matter that all his nuances were formed/molded by a different show was just asking for RDA to look a little out of place (sorry but I think he was). And Sheppard is not Jack, he can't be expected to deliver the same lines or jokes or be, well... Jack. That is what I get from Joe & Paul when they write him, that he is being written as some kind of faux Jack. If Joe & Paul want Sheppard to be a cross between Jack and Kirk (remember the naked girl in The Tower?! *groan*)then they are selling Sheppard short, so will they come up with ideas that are Sheppard based or Faux Jack based?

I am also not surprised Brad has to take some control of the scripts most EPs seem to, Joss Whedon certainly did. ;) That is what a lot of shows do, especially if the EPs are writers themselves and if they have characters that need to be kept in character NOT that it always works :cool: when Brad writes his own scripts...

McKay is not SG-1 McKay anymore *imho* but when he appeared in

spoilers season 10 TPP *written by Brad* McKay seemed to be like he was in 48 hours or Redemption...'cause gee SG-1 fans don't watch SGA apparently they wouldn't get that McKay has come a hell of a long way since he called Sam a bimbo? :S

I know many fans who never watched SG-1 and they were actually shocked by the way McKay was treated in SG-1s TPP, from Shepard's off-hand "I can shoot him" to the lemon thing and my personal groan making moment... when McKay was sexually harassing Carter! :rolleyes: any way having some fans not get McKay being written like that tells me it isn't just in my mind, he has changed. It is a pity tptb don't even realise when they make that happen, and are quite happy to revert him with no reason at all back to his former SG-1 characterisations *or is the reason just for laughs* :rolleyes: :cool:

And as many have said none of the current writers are really good with female characterisations, or development, or maybe the females are just not important enough to bother with, this is scifi who cares about women unless they are half naked or naked! :rolleyes: They only make up half the population of the fraking world *or more even* why bother pandering to them? Why bother trying to write something that doesn't involve juvenile humour aimed at 15 year old boys?

Brad how about *I know radical idea for 2007!!!!* hiring a staff writer who is female? ;) :)

Anyway I think Martin Gero is a bright note for the most part on SGA, I don't like every word he writes *I now hope some of the worse lines and moments were actually written by Brad or someone else* :P I think Martin has gone in some very interesting directions, I would love for him to tackle Sheppard and the none McKay characters with as much gustso as he applies to writing Rodney.

Carl never really worked for me, Critical Mass was a pantomime! *Listen dramatic music! Cue shocked, startled faces* ho hum... what more can I say? :S This isn't the 1980s? You are not Stephen J. Cannell! No one is like Stephen J. Cannell. Those were the days...:D *I know I am getting slapped for that one* :P

*sorry I like smilies*

jerkface
January 5th, 2007, 06:36 PM
Hmm, well, if the writing credits don't always reflect who put what into an episode, maybe I'm shooting in the dark, but...

I'd have to say that even liking a lot of what MG and CB have been credited with writing (Grace Under Pressure, Critical Mass, The Real World, McKay and Mrs. Miller), I do hope there's someone on board with a stronger sense of plotting (especially in science fiction) than those two.

From what I can tell, Gero and Binder seem very good at writing character development. The former perhaps primarily for McKay (so far anyway), but the latter has done some nice work with Weir and Teyla (though yeah, being no fan of singing montages, the end of Critical Mass was...unpleasant, for me).

But, like them though I did, those episodes in which G and B shone

Either used technology as a prop to move the story along i.e.:

It didn't matter how GUP's jumper should/shouldn't work, the point was to get McKay alone and more honest than usual.

M&MM's alternate power source dingus was an excuse to get Jeannie and alternate Rod there to develop our McKay's character.

The nano-infection in TRW did tie into Progeny, but seemed more an excuse to develop Weir's character than a genuine development of the Asurans' capabilities/status as a menace.


Or had what I would consider major plot problems, i.e.


Critical Mass's torture decision on Weir's part (which they've all decided to ignore since?!)


which I think has fed into the tone problems SGA has had post Season 1.

i.e. Are we to take characters like Lucius seriously or not? Are Weir, Sheppard, Beckett responsible for their decisions with Kavanagh, the humanized wraith, and Michael...or are we dropping those plotlines in favor of solely developing characters?

So, I don't feel like I really know if having M&M be Exec. Producers will help or not. If they can ground the major plotlines/story arcs, maybe that'll balance with the good character development B & G can do (my hopeful answer). If all M&M bring is further awkward shifts in tone, and B & G can't do story...then Season 4 could have big problems (my pessimistic answer).

PG15
January 5th, 2007, 10:52 PM
I'd rather voice concerns now than whinge after the fact when the show is cancelled and nothing can then be done about it.


Neither of those approaches accomplish anything except for the voicing of opinions. You think complaining about stuff here and now is going to make TPTB change anything?



Because asking that one question without telling him the rationale behind why I felt the way I did, and what the results of the action they're taking are for me and my family wouldn't have accomplished anything.

What do you think you accomplished with that post?

TJuk
January 6th, 2007, 03:44 AM
Neither of those approaches accomplish anything except for the voicing of opinions. You think complaining about stuff here and now is going to make TPTB change anything?

What do you think you accomplished with that post?

Why do you have to be so vemently hostile? I've seen you post strong OPINIONS on matters yourself, so thats hypocritical. Besides this is a DISCUSSION forum, people come here to discuss and share opinions.

I dont think TPTB would come to these boards if they weren't interested in the OPINIONS of the fans. At the end of the day they are not making the show for themselves, they are making it for the fans, their CUSTOMERS...paying customers. And no matter how impartial we try to be with our analysis of the episodes, writing, acting etc, it will still in some way be coloured by personal preference and perception. Last time I checked thats called an 'opinion'.

So david2708's post IS valid, its already been said in the past a million times that TPTB listen to the fans (if you believe it or not), whether they choose to act on it is their choice. Good writers look for feedback, SMART writers look for the constructive critism. And that includes opinions, rants and some and just plain old opinion stating.

And its not a case of actually changing the way the show is written by posting on here, its the TRYING that counts. The offering up of opinions, ideas, feedback and much more as long as its reasonable constructive and hell sometimes a rant has interesting elements to it. If you dont like that then maybe you shouldn't be coming to this forum.

Diesel Vanilla
January 6th, 2007, 05:15 AM
Haven't lurked in here for a few days... so firstly I'd like to take my hat off in appreciation to Brad Wright and Ken Cuperus (was that him?!) for posting. Whatever my opinions on what's happening with SGA, I think coming in here and commenting shows a great deal of respect for the fans. So thank you. :)



This gets back to MG and CB's role for season 4. Just what is planned for season 4? It's only SG left now, and I hate to see ANYTHING from SG1 translate over. Please, no more Ori. No Gou'ald. We're in another galaxy for pity's sake. Let's work on fleshing out the Wraith, on fleshing out the characters we already have, before tossing more 'fresh' characters into the mix becuase the writers have, basically, written themselves into a corner with a character or two.

Fleshing out! Yes, that's the word I've been looking for! Totally agree with Prion there! IMO the writers for the earlier seasons of SG1 excelled at 'fleshing out' the characters and especially the Gou'ld! I was hoping to see that happen in season 3 and 4 of SGA, especially in terms of fleshing out the Wraith! On the whole I think the character dynamic has been going in a great direction and the show certainly stands on its own two feet.

I understand that Brad and all the writers wouldn't want to hurt the show, it's obviously in their best interests not too... however, I feel the opportunity to flesh out the characters and storylines will be made all the more difficult by the dramatic changes that are afoot. For me it already feels that there are 'fingers in too many pies' in terms of storylines and as a consequence there is a loss of focus on the very necessary development of the leading characters and most definitely the Wraith. Leaving my feelings about Beckett aside for a moment (grrrr :S ), I would love to see the writing for season 4 take on the specific elements of development that early SG1 had (without turning it into SG1 I might add), ie drive home the background of the enemy, continue to build on the spirit of the team, and above all keep the continuity and familiarity of what is already growing.

That turned into more of a personal wishlist, so feel free to stick it in another thread!

Another interesting point from Prion...


I'd like to see, yes, some female writers on the show (but good ones) as heck, perhaps they can get a spin on Teyla or Weir. Or give Carl Binder more freedom to do stuff like "Letters from Pegasus," instead of foisting sitcom humor of "irresponsible" on the audience.


Erm, you'll have to excuse my ignorance and lack of research... have there ever been any female writers for the show (ie for the odd episode which the main writers weren't primarily involved in)? I don't think so for SGA, but not sure for SG1. If that is the case I'm shocked... and don't know why I didn't consider that before... but maybe it would be great for Teyla and Weir if some female writers were involved.

Mister Oragahn
January 6th, 2007, 07:07 AM
We do care about making the best show we can. We don't deliberately "rehash" old episodes, nor would we ever sabotage our show...

Not intentionally I would add.


Every one of the writers currently working on our show is a result of our search for "new blood" for stargate. I am proud of every one of them.

Brad Wright

But why not keep Ken? Not enough room in the scripting lounge?

Of course, if it's to maintain him and, well, temper his ideas down to make them fit with the rest of the show's standards, I'm not even sure it would be a good decision, and more a waste of a good talent.

Right now, what baffles me about Common Ground is certainly the fact that you let such an episode get done.
Mind you, I consider it to be one of the best along season 1's gems.
But the tone, oh my, I never thought it could make it pass the cutting room!

I understand how light hearted episodes need to exist. But this has gone waaaay too far.

Let's draw an analogy.

There's Star Wars' ROTJ and TPM being the very light ends of the saga, too childish at some point (I loved the Ewoks as a kid, but for sure, the Wookies could have been great and hollywoodish enough to keep the censorship away, and there's been Jar Jar Clown which was way too forced with his feces based jokes), but overall enjoyable (I even happen to consider TMP as the best film of the prequels, but that has more to do with the choice of actors and the lines they were given).
Now, if you dig a bit, the darker and subtle elements are clearly there as well (all the people of Naboo being parked into detention camps for example).

Then the middle tone episodes, like ANH and AOTC. Anakin's mum dies, he kills the tuskens. Luke's house is torched, his uncle and aunt along.

And then, the darker ones, ROTS and TESB. Much drama, focused on the character's dilemna. Which is why they feel more profound, more complex and important in terms of content.

But those Stargate clownesque scripts! What happened?
Sometimes, it's not even a problem with the script's quality. Irresistible was quite good as a sitcom episode, but it's the tone that is completely out of the damn place in the Stargate franchise (not to mention the whole affair about rape, sexism and all that).

Not everybody can praise your entire work by the way, and that's, of course, an obvious pint of negative criticism you'll get from me.

Well, anyway, there are many other things I could criticize, but let's just focus on the future of the show and the "fresh blood". I don't see that happening that much.

What about actually bringing people who are not particularily SF fans, but who have a good record at character development?

Another example:
See Lois McMaster Bujold's work on the Vorkosigan saga? The SF aspect is almost a mere excuse to the background, but she has written compelling stories with excellent characters, especially the part with Miles' clone.
When you read her books, it really feels like she thought about characters first, and only used the SF part to get some action from time to time, and above all to further the plot where other genres may have limited her.

We, of course, don't get any of that technobabble that saves the day. We barely get any SF terms used in fact.

PG15
January 6th, 2007, 12:13 PM
Why do you have to be so vemently hostile? I've seen you post strong OPINIONS on matters yourself, so thats hypocritical. Besides this is a DISCUSSION forum, people come here to discuss and share opinions.

You call THAT hostile? I've been much much worse. :p

Seriously though, IMHO this case is different. You're not talking to some random poster, but the guy who's reponsible for the very show we're talking about right here and now. I know you're pissed about certain developments, but I think a little more respect is in order.

Actually, that's the problem I had with your post.


So david2708's post IS valid, its already been said in the past a million times that TPTB listen to the fans (if you believe it or not), whether they choose to act on it is their choice. Good writers look for feedback, SMART writers look for the constructive critism. And that includes opinions, rants and some and just plain old opinion stating.

And I've heard the TPTB say themselves that they only look online to see the results, and write the stories they want to tell.

And not all opinions are regarded as contructive critisism. A rant (not yours, you at least had good spelling and it was well written) with a bunch of grammer mistakes, exclaimation points, and insults sprinkled within (which I've seen many MANY examples of) is not going to be noticed. Also, if you really want to change things, then saying "the writers are being lazy!" or "they should write better", or other vague stuff like that is completely useless.

Again, you didn't do that; it's more of a general thing.

TJuk
January 6th, 2007, 01:14 PM
You call THAT hostile? I've been much much worse. :p

Seriously though, IMHO this case is different. You're not talking to some random poster, but the guy who's reponsible for the very show we're talking about right here and now. I know you're pissed about certain developments, but I think a little more respect is in order.

Actually, that's the problem I had with your post.

Yes but Mr Wright ventured into the lion's den as it were and therefore opened himself up to such comments and critism. He and his fellow PTB's have yet to make a public statement about the multiple cast changes even though its confirmed. IMO that shows a complete lack of respect for the very people who keep him in business. Respect goes both ways and has to be earned and maintained. I'm sure Mr Wright would have been fully aware his appearence would give fans who are pissed off, upset and genuinely concerned for both the show AND the actor a sounding board.

I do not agree with rude or hostile posting towards ANY poster, but rants and strong opinions are within the rules of this forum as long as they stay within the boundries of civilised behaviour.


And I've heard the TPTB say themselves that they only look online to see the results, and write the stories they want to tell.

Yes, but when the writing isn't working then that has to change. If it were working then there would be critical acclaim and more importnatly decent and consistent ratings. This show has had neither recently, the critics are becoming increasingly negative, this needs to be addressed. If you cant even keep the majority of your core audience satified, then you're in trouble. I feel the writers/PTB have losts their objectivity and the show is suffering as a result. Just writing 'what you want' does not a successful show make unless the 'masses' happen to agree with you.


And not all opinions are regarded as contructive critisism. A rant (not yours, you at least had good spelling and it was well written) with a bunch of grammer mistakes, exclaimation points, and insults sprinkled within (which I've seen many MANY examples of) is not going to be noticed. Also, if you really want to change things, then saying "the writers are being lazy!" or "they should write better", or other vague stuff like that is completely useless.

Again, you didn't do that; it's more of a general thing.

I can appreciate where you're coming from and I agree statements like 'the writers are lazy' without back up examples is as you say, not constructive. However I disagree on the spelling and grammar, just because someone cant spell or has poor grammar does not negate their opinion. Its the sentiments of their posts which are important.

I really dont want to see this show end, I'd love to see it go as long if not longer then its parent show. At the moment I feel with all the changes, the reuse of SG1 scripts, villians and now cast, its like SGA may as well have been cancelled as its taken over by salvagable pieces of SG1, sacrificing important parts of what made it a SEPERATE show. And yes, that includes Beckett who is undoubably part of what made this show a success to being with.

I want to watch SGA not SG1: Atlantis.

PG15
January 6th, 2007, 01:34 PM
He and his fellow PTB's have yet to make a public statement about the multiple cast changes even though its confirmed. IMO that shows a complete lack of respect for the very people who keep him in business.

Perhaps we're missing a piece of the puzzle? I mean, even Paul McGillion himself won't say why or how; why would the writers spill the beans on the developments? It's not a lack of respect, but creative and professional integrity.



Yes, but when the writing isn't working then that has to change. If it were working then there would be critical acclaim and more importnatly decent and consistent ratings. This show has had neither recently, the critics are becoming increasingly negative, this needs to be addressed. If you cant even keep the majority of your core audience satified, then you're in trouble. I feel the writers/PTB have losts their objectivity and the show is suffering as a result. Just writing 'what you want' does not a successful show make unless the 'masses' happen to agree with you.

See, I just don't see that. The critics will always been negative; that's why they're called critics. As for the rest, I can't decide either way; this board is too small to make any kind of statements as to the "mood" of fandom, especially since we're not even a fair cross-section; we're more the rabid branch of fandom.


I really dont want to see this show end, I'd love to see it go as long if not longer then its parent show. At the moment I feel with all the changes, the reuse of SG1 scripts, villians and now cast, its like SGA may as well have been cancelled as its taken over by salvagable pieces of SG1, sacrificing important parts of what made it a SEPERATE show. And yes, that includes Beckett who is undoubably part of what made this show a success to being with.

I want to watch SGA not SG1: Atlantis.

I think this is slightly unaffair. IMHO there aren't original stories, just original execution of the same ideas. I mean, when you have a 200+ episode show that came before it, almost every one of those ideas and executions would've been used already; it's not the writer's fault that some episode kinda looks like past SG1 episodes; give me any television show that's similar and I'll give you a SG1 episode that they apparently "ripped off". Not to mention that a fair share of SG1 episodes aren't really "original" in their own right.

Diesel Vanilla
January 6th, 2007, 02:16 PM
I'm fence-sitting in regard to the comments made by TJuk and PG15. I definitely see both sides of your opinions... sorry, can't say more than that - hehe, I'd be here all day if I were to agree/disagree on individual things. You do both make for very interesting reading though. You're far more eloquent than I'll ever be. :)

But I would maintain that for Brad and Ken to acknowledge their presence in here is respectful in that they want us to know that they consider our opinions in the first place. Also, as much as I am TOTALLY frustrated up to the eyeballs by the coming changes to the show, I don't think they can make a full statement about it until this season is over. For those who aren't part of the "rabid branch of fandom" (*lmao* PG15 :D) and are still in the dark about it all, it may mess considerably with their 'spoiler free desires'. That's equally unfair on them.


I think this is slightly unaffair. IMHO there aren't original stories, just original execution of the same ideas. I mean, when you have a 200+ episode show that came before it, almost every one of those ideas and executions would've been used already; it's not the writer's fault that some episode kinda looks like past SG1 episodes; give me any television show that's similar and I'll give you a SG1 episode that they apparently "ripped off". Not to mention that a fair share of SG1 episodes aren't really "original" in their own right.

Well, here's one for the writers... maybe they should save one episode this coming season... whatever happens... not for the "Get in the Gate" competition as they normally run, but for "Get Writing in the Gate". Take a fresh, stand alone story from anyone who cares to suggest something and see how it goes! Logistically probably not possible as it would involve too much reading on the part of the writers/producers... but it would be fun. :D May turn up something very original too. :)

Night Spring
January 6th, 2007, 02:50 PM
Perhaps we're missing a piece of the puzzle? I mean, even Paul McGillion himself won't say why or how; why would the writers spill the beans on the developments? It's not a lack of respect, but creative and professional integrity.
I don't think those who want a statement from TPTB regarding Paul/Carson's departure are asking for them to reveal upcoming plot details. They want an explanation for why this decision was made. Now, I'm fairly certain TPTB's plans are to point to the plot developments after the relevant episode(s) have aired and claim it was for creative reasons. I, for one, will forever remain skeptical of "creative decisions" that involve removing one of the main cast from the show. I've already been burned by SG-1's Heroes, and while I enjoy Ronon, Ford's storyline went MIA after The Hive along with the man himself.


The critics will always been negative; that's why they're called critics.
This is a common misconception, but no, critics' jobs are not always to be negative. It is to analyze a work and state what worked and what didn't, and why. Epert and his partner (I can't remember the name of the guy who replaced Roger) give movies thumbs up as well as thumbs down. They sometimes even disagree on whether to give a movie thumbs up or down. Then they tell us why. It's the "why" part that constitutes criticism.

TJuk
January 6th, 2007, 03:01 PM
Perhaps we're missing a piece of the puzzle? I mean, even Paul McGillion himself won't say why or how; why would the writers spill the beans on the developments? It's not a lack of respect, but creative and professional integrity.

Brad is the boss, he's the 'show runner' and therefore its HIS responsibility to comment on any situation from the writing to the cast changes. The fans are upset, we want and need an explantion as to why they chose to REPLACE a popular character for no apparent justifiable reason. Keeping quite just makes them look bad or at least uncaring IMO. And from Joe Mallozzi's blog it seems Paul is not allowed to comment, both as pertains to spoilers and anything that might have gone into the decision to write out his character. Paul's been asked multiple times at cons and said 'I can't comment' aka 'not allowed to comment'. Its not his place to say what the motivations were for the decision. They ARE Brad Wright's or Robert Cooper's. As show runners they had input into every aspect of the decision.


See, I just don't see that. The critics will always been negative; that's why they're called critics. As for the rest, I can't decide either way; this board is too small to make any kind of statements as to the "mood" of fandom, especially since we're not even a fair cross-section; we're more the rabid branch of fandom.

As Night Spring said, the critics job is to analyse, not necessarily be negative. People often misinterupt reviews that highlight good AND bad aspects as negative just because its not all praise. Its rare and hard to write a balanced review without highlighting some negative aspect. BSG and other shows have had plenty of 'cricial acclaim'. And its not just the critics, I constantly pick up genre magazines and see PROFESSIONAL reviewers comments becoming more negative and disappointed.

As for fans online. We're a 'sample' of the viewership. Fans make up a small percentage but unlike the adverage viewer are vocal about their viewing habits and preferences. The views expressed on this board are more involved yes, but that also means we're more likely to stick around when the going gets tough. The adverage viewer is not. So if you cant keep your loyal CORE audience happy, you're pretty much stuffed. Core audiences are important, we help keep the numbers consistent, and consistency is the key to good writing, good ratings and therefore this shows continued survival.


I think this is slightly unaffair. IMHO there aren't original stories, just original execution of the same ideas. I mean, when you have a 200+ episode show that came before it, almost every one of those ideas and executions would've been used already; it's not the writer's fault that some episode kinda looks like past SG1 episodes; give me any television show that's similar and I'll give you a SG1 episode that they apparently "ripped off". Not to mention that a fair share of SG1 episodes aren't really "original" in their own right.

There may not be 'original' stories, however there is a big difference between re-using archetypes for villians and just rehashing completely down to the way they disintegrate villians from its parent series. The Assurans are just one example, they ARE replicators in everything but name. More and more elements of SG1 are popping up in SGA when they do not need to. We already had great villians far from fully utilised and explored. The nanovirus originators could have turned out to be any number of weird and wonderful possibilities. Instead they directly copied SG1...some might say that was a 'lazy decision' with the excuse of tying the two shows together. To paraphrase several end of year reviewers attitudes to the series, scripting has become formulatic and predicatable.

Another more positive example, 'Phantoms' was a very typical dramatic concept story perfectly at home in any genre, scifi or not. However the concept was given a good 'fresh execution', largely down to the writing for the characters and their experiences. Its the CHARACTERS that give the story its 'fresheness'. The episode gave us incite, character development as well as excellent drama. It wasn't perfect but it was a solid episode and showed what this show is capable of and SHOULD be doing consistently.

Night Spring
January 6th, 2007, 03:48 PM
Its the CHARACTERS that make the show make it unique.
Very good point, and I think it explains perfectly why so many of us are upset at Carson leaving.

To be honest, I started the poll on "Which main cast member will you cut" (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=39147) because while thinking about Carson being cut out from the show, I thought, "If they had to cut someone, why not Teyla?" Not that I have anything against Teyla, but as has been often pointed out, she's arguably the most under-utilized character on the show, and my gut reaction was that if someone had to leave, then she would be a character I missed the least.

But once I'd posted the poll, and did what it asked -- look at the issue from a producer's perspective -- then I suddenly realized that without Teyla, there would be nothing connecting the expedition to the rest of the Pegasus galaxy. While Ronon is also a native of Pegasus, his people have been all but wiped out by the Wraith, and he doesn't seem to have kept in touch with the survivors of Sateda shown in Trinity. Although it's been a while since we've seen any Athosians (when was the last time we saw them, anyway?), we know that Teyla keeps in regular contact with them, and more importantly, she is in Atlantis as a representative of her people. Although that role is rarely used, much less explored to its full potential, I felt that it was nevertheless a crucial element to keep in the Atlantis universe.

So having talked myself out of cutting Teyla, whom to cut? Well, not McKay or Sheppard, those two are the reason why I watch Atlantis! *g* Ronon, maybe, but if I were the producers, I would be reluctant to do that, because after going through all that trouble introducing this character and angering the Ford fans -- just, no.

So that leaves Weir and Beckett. And while in my personal fantasy, I'd love to replace Weir with Jack O'Neill or General Hammond :p, I do believe the outcry from Weir fans would be greater than that of Beckett fans. (Though this assumption may be wrong, seeing how Weir is getting more votes in my poll than Beckett.) Also, as we've seen actually happen, Beckett's role can be replaced with a recurring role. If any budget concerns are actually involved, that would be a factor in making this decision, because a recurring guest actor is presumably less expensive than a regular. Weir may not have a lot of screen time, but the expedition leader does need to appear in almost every episode, so replacing her means replacing her with another regular.

Thus, I've reluctantly concluded that cutting Carson actually makes sense, *if the reason for it is budget-related*. And no, I have no idea if combining the fees for Amanda Tapping and Jewel Strife(sp?)'s guest appearances would result in an amount greater or lesser than PM's salary as a regular. Plus, if they really had to cut a regular cast member because of budget reasons, couldn't they have asked Paul to go back to recurring status?

So, those are my thoughts on the subject. Whether or not we'll ever get confirmation one way or other, who knows...

Twinchy
January 6th, 2007, 07:18 PM
And not all opinions are regarded as contructive critisism. A rant (not yours, you at least had good spelling and it was well written) with a bunch of grammer mistakes, exclaimation points, and insults sprinkled within (which I've seen many MANY examples of) is not going to be noticed. Also, if you really want to change things, then saying "the writers are being lazy!" or "they should write better", or other vague stuff like that is completely useless.

Again, you didn't do that; it's more of a general thing.

Talking of misspelling...
The word grammar is spelt with "ar" at then end and I'm not even a native speaker, PG.
Frankly, many who post in here aren't. So give them and me a break with critisising misspelling and grammar mistakes, please. :mad:

This is by no means an offence, I was just wondering if you are aware of that...

I agree with you on the insults not being constructive critisism point, though.


I can appreciate where you're coming from and I agree statements like 'the writers are lazy' without back up examples is as you say, not constructive. However I disagree on the spelling and grammar, just because someone cant spell or has poor grammar does not negate their opinion. Its the sentiments of their posts which are important.


Amen to that, TJuk!


Well, here's one for the writers... maybe they should save one episode this coming season... whatever happens... not for the "Get in the Gate" competition as they normally run, but for "Get Writing in the Gate". Take a fresh, stand alone story from anyone who cares to suggest something and see how it goes! Logistically probably not possible as it would involve too much reading on the part of the writers/producers... but it would be fun. :D May turn up something very original too. :)

I'd like to see that, too. Very interesting suggestion. :)

Although I'm sure it would be even more to it than just too much work reading through the scripts for that competition.
I bet the question of the rights for the stories are too difficult a matter in itself. Even if they have a legal agreement with the writer of the one story they consider taking, they would have read through a lot of stuff they won't take. And - just in case - they come up with something similar to any of the sent scripts sometime later (even if it's not intended), they might still get into serious trouble if the respective writer sued them for using his/her idea on the show without any permission.
TPTB won't take that risk. It might well become a fatal threat for the whole show.

PG15
January 6th, 2007, 07:39 PM
[FONT="Tahoma"]Talking of misspelling...
The word grammar is spelt with "ar" at then end and I'm not even a native speaker, PG.
Frankly, many who post in here aren't. So give them and me a break with critisising misspelling and grammar mistakes, please. :mad:


Well, I guess I should be happy, since you assumed that I was a native speaker. I'm not, English is my second language after Mandarin. :D

And TJuk and Night Spring, I respect your opinions, but I still disagree. Yes, Brad Wright and Rob Cooper do know the true reason for Carson's departure, but if there's anything I know about businesses, is that they won't show what's up their sleaves unless it's absolutely necessary, and I'm not gonna put TPTB on the spot and ask them when it's very much possible that they're not supposed to answer for whatever reason unknown to me.

I knew it was a mistake the minute I wrote that about the critics. I take it back. :o

As for us being the core audience...that's very likely, but with only 20000 or so members, we're only a small portion of that. After all, if this show only has 20000 core viewers, then it's already in big trouble.

About originalily; I agree completely, it's about the characters. That's why I don't see the problems you guys are seeing; for me, every episode is like "Phantoms" in a sense, since our beloved characters appear in every episode and puts a unique Atlantis-spin to it.

Lastly, the Asurans are different from the Replicators in another very important area: motivation. Instead of wanting to replicate, they have a grudge against their creators and are very much mechanical Ancients.

twinchaosblade
January 6th, 2007, 08:04 PM
Very good point, and I think it explains perfectly why so many of us are upset at Carson leaving.

Thus, I've reluctantly concluded that cutting Carson actually makes sense, *if the reason for it is budget-related*. And no, I have no idea if combining the fees for Amanda Tapping and Jewel Strife(sp?)'s guest appearances would result in an amount greater or lesser than PM's salary as a regular. Plus, if they really had to cut a regular cast member because of budget reasons, couldn't they have asked Paul to go back to recurring status?

So, those are my thoughts on the subject. Whether or not we'll ever get confirmation one way or other, who knows...

Although this should rather be discussed in another thread, I still think my direct reply to Night Spring is a valid reason to post it here.

I see why you felt Beckett was less integral for the show than maybe Teyla, Ronon or Weir but IMHO that exactly is the problem. Most people just see Carson as his function of being the CMO and otherwise believe he's relatively unimportant. But I say Beckett is very crucial for the team dynamic, for the team feeling of the show because he is frankly the heart and moral core around which the expedition turns. Not even Weir, who really is the leader of the expedition and is sort of supposed to draw the line between right and doubtful decisions, which she failed to do properly in numerous episodes (e.g. Critical Mass, Coup d'État to name a few), succeeds in filling this spot. It's always been Beckett who had the strongest ethical opinion and will to act according to it.

Furthermore, TPTB created a wonderful and lovely character, one you don't come across very often, especially in an action scifi show. He of all is a male character that is not afraid of openly showing his feelings. (Female characters openly showing their emotions are certainly not the same.) *All* other male characters on the show are somewhat emotionally crippled, carry a sort of trauma, don't express their feelings, try to hide their more vulnerable sides, are boastful or what else. Also, the whole expedition consists of geniuses, which is not surprising in a way, but they all are kind of self-centred and very convinced of their above average abilities. While I don't doubt Beckett is quite a genius in his medical field as well, he is very normal and emotional in his behaviour and attitude, always giving more than taking and often enough completely exhausting himself for the benefit or survival of that matter of his friends and collegues. Carson offers a unique perspective and is so different from the usual main characters on shows like Atlantis. I think that is predominantly the reason why he is such a fan favourite. Beckett is really unique.


With Carson Beckett leaving, the show will be poorer, fullstop!

Night Spring
January 7th, 2007, 12:08 AM
I see why you felt Beckett was less integral for the show than maybe Teyla, Ronon or Weir but IMHO that exactly is the problem. Most people just see Carson as his function of being the CMO and otherwise believe he's relatively unimportant. But I say Beckett is very crucial for the team dynamic, for the team feeling of the show because he is frankly the heart and moral core around which the expedition turns. [snip]

Furthermore, TPTB created a wonderful and lovely character, one you don't come across very often, especially in an action scifi show. He of all is a male character that is not afraid of openly showing his feelings. (Female characters openly showing their emotions are certainly not the same.) *All* other male characters on the show are somewhat emotionally crippled... [snip]

Trying to keep my response within the scope of this thread, which is discussing TPTB and the future direction the show could be heading... ;)

First of all, I'd like to say that while I speculated in my earlier post about what the thinking might have been behind TPTB's decision to take Carson out of the show, I don't necessarily think that the decision is *right*. And while I don't consider Carson to be the heart and soul of the show, or it's moral center (I don't think any one character qualifies for that status on Atlantis, and I like it that way), I do think twinchaosblade is right in that Carson brings unique contributions to the show not provided by any other character, and unlikely to be replicated by any new character(s). And if I may expand on twinchaosblade's point, not only is Carson the only *male* character to be unafraid to openly express his feelings, he is in general more expressive of his feelings than Elizabeth and Teyla. And I think that openess and humility will be sorely missed. As TJuk said, "Its the CHARACTERS that make the show make it unique."

A CMO is indispensable in a show like Atlantis and SG-1, because people get injured, they get sick, and someone has to put them together. And in watching that process, the audience often develops a sense of personal closeness to the doctor character, that once established, is difficult to transfer to another character.

So, you know, if this was really a "creative decision," I fear that TPTB has lost sight of the human elements that affect and influence the show and its audience. OTOH, if this was due to outside circumstance, such as budget concerns or network pressure, then I fear that such outside concerns and pressures would affect the show in other aspects as well.

So no matter how I look at it, the decision to cut Carson leaves me unhappy and concerned. Replacing a main cast member is always a risky proposition. I believe TPTB got lucky with Ronon. For the sake of the show, I wish their gamble will work out this time also.

TJuk
January 7th, 2007, 03:26 AM
Why does ANYONE have to go? If they had simply decided to write the character out for 'budget' then they wouldn't be replacing him with a new character already slated to have a good chunk if not the same amount of episodes. The difference in salaries will be negligiable in regards to any budgetary saving. However, AT after 10+ years on the show will probably cost in a hand-full of guest appearences the same as the regs for a season (they get paid per episode not hours on set).

I know Paul was a regular but he was still only getting approximately 15 episodes a year, EXACTLY the same number as he was recurring. The ONLY thing that changed was his status on the show (and maybe his cost per ep but I doubt to such a great extent). They made him main cast no doubt because the contract would mean they didn't have to worry about scheduling conflicts as it would have prevented him doing other work. Same reason they contracted AT for 2 seasons knowing she might only get 1 with SG1, because it GARANTEED her availablity.

Once again I could understand if it were a 'story arc' issue and he were gone for a few episodes. But that WOULD NOT explain why he is no longer main cast, because there is now NO garantee he will return PERIOD. As NJS said, 'maybe' and maybe's are euphemistic for 'probably not'. And if they're REPLACING him for no valid reason (if it were valid, they would have said somethng by now) then that to me says they are struggling to write for him. Plus his associated 'retrovirus' story arc which to be frank, they've only marginal utlised the character in anyway. And now with these 'Assuran' who I had hoped would tie into the Wraith's history...Well I think its pretty obvious with the panning the retrovirus story arc has taken and the terrible moral ambiguity then its a 'sweep that fubar under the carpet' tactic. It seems at the very least they want to ditch the retrovirus arc and in their minds Beckett is assoicated with it, so its the easy option to write him out and take it with him.

But there is no need to be replacing ANY of the characters, AT will be brought on the show as a guest actor regardless. I also worry about Carter's inclusion and her affect on the dynamic as the character has aspects too simliar to Sheppard, Weir and McKay...makes me wonder if Beckett is't the only character we will be loosing. Though for the one he's the golden boy and of course, they want more Carter/McKay banter, but how long can that last before it gets OLD?


And TJuk and Night Spring, I respect your opinions, but I still disagree. Yes, Brad Wright and Rob Cooper do know the true reason for Carson's departure, but if there's anything I know about businesses, is that they won't show what's up their sleaves unless it's absolutely necessary, and I'm not gonna put TPTB on the spot and ask them when it's very much possible that they're not supposed to answer for whatever reason unknown to me.

It is necessary. The 'not supposed to answer' is a mute arguement as THEY ARE THE BOSS. Scifi is the distributor, even if they had something to do with the decision, like 'we want to appeal to a new demographic', it would still ultimately be theirs as to how to accomplish it. Smart business men first and formost keep their customers happy. NJS showed the TPB are devided over this decision or at least appear to be because he spoke out. Joe Mallozzi made comments on his blog suggesting NJS wasn't supposed to. YOU may not want to put them on the spot but frankly, they put themselves on the spot by leaving it so long to explain. We see all the happenstances around it but they're leaving the fans in the dark in the most important factor. That to me says either they're regretting the decision or they made a mistake and wont admit to it. I work in this industry, I've seen it happen time and time again.


As for us being the core audience...that's very likely, but with only 20000 or so members, we're only a small portion of that. After all, if this show only has 20000 core viewers, then it's already in big trouble.

Um, tell me how you're going to collate and get results from 2million+ viewers? Thats the point of any 'opinion' survey, you dont ask every single person, but a percentage of them. This board is a reflection of the general audience views, therefore its majority rule is valid and useful.


About originalily; I agree completely, it's about the characters. That's why I don't see the problems you guys are seeing; for me, every episode is like "Phantoms" in a sense, since our beloved characters appear in every episode and puts a unique Atlantis-spin to it.

Yes and by getting rid of Carson and bringing in Carter you're taking away 1/6th of what made it unique, what set it apart from SG1. ANy new character will take time to develope and time is not what this show has.


Lastly, the Asurans are different from the Replicators in another very important area: motivation. Instead of wanting to replicate, they have a grudge against their creators and are very much mechanical Ancients.

Motivation???? Oh come on, you know I admire your blind faith but that is just so.....BLEEP. They are STILL replicators, people's motivations change but they dont stop being human. Just as these 'Assurans' motivations are different, but that doesn't mean they're not replicators. They just decided to use them because it made the writing easy, they had props and effects to reuse and...the list goes on...


So no matter how I look at it, the decision to cut Carson leaves me unhappy and concerned. Replacing a main cast member is always a risky proposition. I believe TPTB got lucky with Ronon. For the sake of the show, I wish their gamble will work out this time also.

You know I liked Ford, but he wasn't working. Its all down to the cast dynamic and Ford was a tag on rather then an important ingredient. You could see they desperately struggled to write for Ford partly because I think Rainbow wasn't an experienced enough actor, so they didn't want to take the risk. He also wasn't able to take what was given and make it his own. Thats why Paul/Carson has survived and florished despite the lack of writing, he has the expeirence to take any tiny aspect and make it work. Plus Ronon filled a hole in the dynamic that was missing, that edge of unpredictability and feral danger being hugely important. This is my problem, the dynamic was really working and if it aint broke dont fix it!

Mister Oragahn
January 7th, 2007, 03:43 AM
Let's insist, again, on how too young Staite's character would be as the chief medic on Atlantis.

TJuk
January 7th, 2007, 03:58 AM
Let's insist, again, on how too young Staite's character would be as the chief medic on Atlantis.

How about just a doctor, nevermind CMO. In any other scientific field they could have conceivably got away with writing her as a 'genius' but when it comes to practical medicine, its experience that is one of the most important factors. She's not even old enough to be out of medical school nevermind practicing on living patients. And before anyone says 'its fantasy', yeah well how come they feel the need to 'keep it real' by killing someone? Then turn round and do something completely unrealistic like casting a 24 year old (who looks 16) to not only play a role 10+ years too old for her, but also replace one of the most popular characters at a time when the show can barely afford to loose ANY viewers! PLEASE. It insults my intelligence, especially if they try to pass it off as anything but wanting more boobs and pimping firefly fans. We all saw how effective that was on SG1.

Once again, let me say no offence is meant to Jewel Stait, she's a great actress and I think she has unwittingly got drawn into a very bad situation.

Trialia
January 7th, 2007, 09:38 AM
Night Spring - that might be because too few of the devoted Weir fans - and you might be surprised just how many of us there actually are (about half the people I know who are fans of her aren't even active and/or registered on GW) - have seen your poll. This is being corrected as we speak by a posting in her fan thread. ;)

I for one would not watch the show without her, pure and simple. Torri's the reason I started watching Atlantis in the first place.

Having said which, I wouldn't want to lose Rachel either, so the fan rivalry in certain quarters raises my blood pressure enough that my ignore list is about 25 people, now. :P TBH, Carson's the only main character in this show that I can stand losing without detriment to the dynamic of the rest of them.

PG15
January 7th, 2007, 12:51 PM
It is necessary. The 'not supposed to answer' is a mute arguement as THEY ARE THE BOSS. Scifi is the distributor, even if they had something to do with the decision, like 'we want to appeal to a new demographic', it would still ultimately be theirs as to how to accomplish it. Smart business men first and formost keep their customers happy. NJS showed the TPB are devided over this decision or at least appear to be because he spoke out. Joe Mallozzi made comments on his blog suggesting NJS wasn't supposed to. YOU may not want to put them on the spot but frankly, they put themselves on the spot by leaving it so long to explain. We see all the happenstances around it but they're leaving the fans in the dark in the most important factor. That to me says either they're regretting the decision or they made a mistake and wont admit to it. I work in this industry, I've seen it happen time and time again.

Well, I just don't agree. Brad and Rob still has MGM and various other execs to answer to, of that I'm sure. The point is, there is just too many unknowns here, hell, we're not even sure of what episode Carson is going in.



Um, tell me how you're going to collate and get results from 2million+ viewers? Thats the point of any 'opinion' survey, you dont ask every single person, but a percentage of them. This board is a reflection of the general audience views, therefore its majority rule is valid and useful.

A very biased reflection, IMHO. We're still THE most rabid part of fandom, and you can't get a good readout from the extremes of any group of people.




Yes and by getting rid of Carson and bringing in Carter you're taking away 1/6th of what made it unique, what set it apart from SG1. ANy new character will take time to develope and time is not what this show has.


Once again, there are unknowns. How many episodes is Carter going to be in? Will she be the star of any one episode? Etc. etc. I remeber hearing all of this before Season 3 premiered when news was released that said Carter was going to guest star. Some posters feared that she was going to be in 10 episodes and unfounded fear-mongering like that.

The result? A small cameo in McKay and Mrs. Miller. ZOMG!!

Seriously, this is why I never give in to all this "Oh noes! X is coming and he/she'll ruin everything!!!" or "this tiny snippet of spoilers of a future episode doesn't sound good!! It's gonna suck!!" when the end result is no where near as dreadful as some of the fans made it out to be.



Motivation???? Oh come on, you know I admire your blind faith but that is just so.....BLEEP. They are STILL replicators, people's motivations change but they dont stop being human. Just as these 'Assurans' motivations are different, but that doesn't mean they're not replicators. They just decided to use them because it made the writing easy, they had props and effects to reuse and...the list goes on...

So WHAT?! They're replicators, fine. The Genii and Aschen/NID/Trust/Off-world bad guys of the week are humans!! OMG! More copying from SG1!

And they're using a Stargate!! This show's doomed!!!

Motivation is all there is! Who cares what they are, it's what they want to achieve that moves the plot forward and shapes their character.

Everyone on Atlantis base is human, does that mean they're just copies of each other? NO!

Anise76
January 7th, 2007, 03:05 PM
Motivation is all there is! Who cares what they are, it's what they want to achieve that moves the plot forward and shapes their character.

Everyone on Atlantis base is human, does that mean they're just copies of each other? NO!

I would have to disagree. What good is current motivation without the character background behind it? What point is there in the character/writer wanting to achieve something if you write something that's totally OUT of character?

The whole point has been that Carson is DIFFERENT - he's one of the only truly emotional characters on Atlantis, and, in being emotional, it brings a dimension to the show that is often lacking in popular entertainment today. Stripping Carson away, without first having developed the emotional aspects of other characters - which, IMHO, has been largely ignored since season 1 - will take away a dimension of the show that a lot of people can tap into.

Personally, I'm not a general sci-fi fan. I like shows where I can tap into something and get intellectually AND emotionally challenged. I feel that Atlantis will lose a lot of its appeal to me if - WHEN - Carson is written out. I am sure that I am not the only one who is feeling this way. They can't suddenly credibly write Sheppard, or Rodney, or, god forbid, Ronon as an emotion-driven character without it being totally unrealistic and out of line.

The writers have admitted that they write for McKay and Sheppard because it's who they are and who they would like to be - that's why they find women incredibly hard to write for, and why Carson, as an emotional, ethical and complex character has ended up with them writing themselves into a tight little corner.

Sure, the writers can write what they want - they can write their little male-orientated fantasies, throwing in a few sets of T&A for the boys, and a pretty-boy or two for the girls - but they need to think about how much of their viewer base they risk alienating. Much of the Atlantis fanbase is female, over 25, and pretty damn intelligent. I, for one, don't like being treated as though I am a 15 year old girl for whom swooning over the lead is enough. I like TV to challenge me, to grab my attention and hold it hostage for the hour that it airs. I don't want to be left feeling as though the only thing I watch a show for is to have a girly drool-fest. If I wanted that, I'd go buy a copy of Playgirl and be done with it - much cheaper than my cable subscription!

That cable subscription pays for the development of the shows I love - and hate. And if the writers, producers and crew can't answer to the people who pay their wages, who CAN they answer to? And if that's NOT a valid reason for expecting TPTB - and, more specifically, Mr Wright - to comment, what is?

PG15
January 7th, 2007, 03:09 PM
^I was talking about the Asurans...

FoolishPleasure
January 7th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Brad also did a lot of work on The Ark (over his summer vacation to boot!). It wasn't until Submersion when I really got the hang of all the characters. That is the episode I am most proud of!

Funny. Brad also wrote "Lifeboat", the SG1 episode that "The Ark" is already being compared to. :rolleyes:

Trialia
January 7th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Anise, please try to be a little less generalising with the blanket statements? I for one seriously resent the implication that those of us under 25 actually welcome all this eye candy casting. The only thing that has me relatively serene about bringing Jewel Staite into the cast is that she's proven herself a damn good actress. I'm still none too happy about it, though.

I want Atlantis to keep the qualities it had when I first got hooked into it - a funny, smart sci-fi show with plots that I enjoy and that make me think. Not like a certain episode that upset me so much it made me vomit, or like another couple of episodes that I won't watch because of the sheer two-dimensionality (is that right?) of the featured sub-characters (I can't remember what term is usually used to refer to them, so sue me). I don't want the urge to drown a character in a bucket because she's too pathetic to stand (as with Teer). Why can't we have the show's male characters not behaving like Marty Stus and its female characters not being neglected? :(

Night Spring
January 7th, 2007, 03:52 PM
^I was talking about the Asurans...
LOL.

With regards to whether Asurans and Replicators are different because their motivations are different, well, yes, giving the Asurans a different motivation strikes me as a desperate attempt by TPTB to differentiate them from the Replicators.

However, saying that all humans are human but they are different, and therefore the same applies to Replicators/Asurans -- well, that doesn't work, in terms of discussing originality (or lack thereof) in a SciFi show. Yes, the characters are important, they are what draws us to the show, witness all the AU fanfic that dumps the characters into different settings and scenarios where they are still recognizably our favorite characters. But none of those AUs are Stargate: Atlantis -- not without the Stargate, Atlantis, and a major villain/threat to overcome. Switching villains is in fact a little like dumping the characters into an AU -- you change the environment, you change the possible courses of action open to the characters, and villains are a key part of that environments. And while motivation is one aspect of a villain's characteristic, in the case of an alien race, their physical attributes are, I think, much more crucial, because that determines what kind of threat they are, what we need to defeat/repell them, etc.

And now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure the Asuran's motivations differ all that much from the Replicator's. The Asurans seem to have a weird combination of revenge/envy toward humans -- they resent humans/Ancients for enslaving them, but they also want to *be* human. I'm not too clear about the human-form Replicators in SG-1, since that's about when I stopped following that show closely, but I seem to recall that at least some of them also wanted to be human? And there was surely resentment there for being trapped in the time-dilation field?

So, yes, I think reusing an alien race with same physical characteristics = reusing same setup. And while it's true that there is no totally original story concept in the world, grabbing something wholesale out of one show and dropping it into another -- well, if the two shows didn't belong to the same people, that'd be called plagarism.

FallenAngelII
January 7th, 2007, 03:52 PM
About the underdeveloped female characters and the PTB's less-than-stellar abilities at writing female characters:
I don't understand why you guys att least bring in some "female consultants".

OK, so we're not all the same. Men and female are different in some aspects. But are the PTB so detached from the opposite sex you can't come up with "female storylines" on your own? Do you have to have female writers on the show in order to write good storylines for the female characters?

Why not just do what you do with the male ones: Try to come up with in-character and interesting storylines. Then have the "female consultants" help you with questions like "Would it be reasonable for Teyla/Elizabeth to do this", etc.?

prion
January 7th, 2007, 04:23 PM
About the underdeveloped female characters and the PTB's less-than-stellar abilities at writing female characters:
I don't understand why you guys att least bring in some "female consultants".

OK, so we're not all the same. Men and female are different in some aspects. But are the PTB so detached from the opposite sex you can't come up with "female storylines" on your own? Do you have to have female writers on the show in order to write good storylines for the female characters?

Why not just do what you do with the male ones: Try to come up with in-character and interesting storylines. Then have the "female consultants" help you with questions like "Would it be reasonable for Teyla/Elizabeth to do this", etc.?

Heck, I'd think most of the writers could probably just pass a script by a wife/significant female other and go "what do you think?" And TPTB and writers should realize that females DO comprise a large amoutn of viewers - the show's audience are just geeky males looking for aliens or ship explosions. How about character development (which is not jumping into bed with another person)?

Pegasus_SGA
January 7th, 2007, 11:06 PM
Before I start, i'm being long-winded again. :o Sorry. I have to say that i've thoroughly enjoyed the majority of S3, the characters (some of them) have been developed. We've had some great story lines and I think (IMO) that this year SGA has prooved that it is able to stand on its own two feet without its big sister.

Would I like to see more character development? Absolutely. I personally think there does need to be a balance to the characters. The nice thing i've seen in S3 is that each character (so far..apart from Teyla) has had the opportunity to shine in their respective episodes. And TPTB recognised in S2 that the fans wanted to see who the characters were and that it had been lacking, but personally I think they've remedied that substantially in S3 (apart from the odd exception) But we still have several more episodes to go before S3 finishes and my understanding for those that haven't had their 'character episode' if you will, will get that opportunity. The story lines have all been of very high quality this season...apart from the occasional blip (and i'm not getting into that debate, this isn't the thread for it). People know my feelings on that ep! Enough said.

What concerns me is the changes that are going to happen in S4 with the writers. I personally think the quality of writing is going to suffer next season and that's what i'm afraid of. My personal opinion is that the writing staff don't change, just as the cast should not change. It works as is, please don't change it because of SG1 finishing. Allow those writers who work on SG1 to continue in the capacity and they do/and have done a fantastic job over there, but their place isn't in SGA. They have their own style that works with SG1, but those skills are not necessarily transferable...just my opinion. Let them deal with the movies and keep those that work on SGA in SGA, and vice versa that includes KC.

I was more than disappointed to hear it is unlikely he won't be writing for S4...and believe me I do understand the whole concept of last in, first out. But I personally think he has shown a very real grasps of the characters and imo CG was the best ep in SGA so far. KC took a risk of writing that ep (and yes I know there were some script changes, but that's inevitable whenever you beta a script). SGA is darker than SG1...always has been, but that particular ep personifies how Atlantis writing should be and to not be afraid to go down that dark route now and again. I personally think it would be a waste of talent to let him go for the sake of other writers coming on board, but again it's just my opinion.


I personally cant see much good coming out of this move. Atlantis needs fresh writers like KEN!!! BRING BACK KEN!!!!!:D

Spot on! And in writing terms, it means tptb have found a diamond in the rough with Ken. :) and they should treasure it. Okay, maybe that was a little too sappy, lol.


I've clearly had too much time on my hands this holiday season... But before I get back to work, I have to speak up:

Of course Carl and Martin will be writing and producing next season. They have been the engines driving Atlantis.


Welcome Brad, thanks for stopping by, and please don't feel offended by my opinions, i'm extreemly pleased that you have taken an interest in what we feel as a fanbase. And it shows what a good listener you are :) I'm very pleased that Carl and Martin will still be writing and producing next season.


Paul and Joe will be running the show. They've earned it, and they will do themselves proud.

Rob and I will be there too, supporting Paul, Joe, Carl, Martin and Alan. We created this show, and have no intention of walking away. I think the last ten years should prove our dedication to Stargate.


I have no qualms about Paul and Joe's writing talents on SG1, they have done an excellent job and I agree that they could probably run it standing on their heads, but what concerns me what is the writing they've done for SGA. The scripts we have seen so far have not shown us (and I use the term royally from what people have said) that they have a full grasp of the characters and my concern is that we will see a repeat of the caliber of episodes they have written for SGA. I'm all for humour in eps, and haven't outright hated any of the storylines in S3, but there is a lot of disappointment in the way some of the stories has been handled that were written by them.


As to a few other points raised in this and other threads...

The "written by" credit can be very deceiving. It is common for showrunners to polish, or even completely rewrite entire scripts, even those of staff writers. For example "Instinct" was some of Paul's best work, and "Tao of Rodney" was nicely turned around by Robert, and I'm rather proud of "Common Ground" myself. I'll leave it at that.

We do care about making the best show we can. We don't deliberately "rehash" old episodes, nor would we ever sabotage our show...

I agree with you 100% that all those eps were of a great quality, and for all my disappointment with a few of the eps, we would like to continue to see writing of that quality in all eps. What can I say, not everyone is going to like every ep, that's par for the course. But some of the writing (from the credits given), were not exactly their best work...again in my opinion, and it just feels as if they are suited more to SG1 than to SGA. And i'm sorry if it feels as if i'm picking on Paul and Joe, I didn't mean to.

We know you care otherwise you wouldn't have made the effort to come and see us, and it's appreciated :) I know a few people who believe that SGA is just rehashing old eps of SG1, but SGA is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet. Personally I feel that SGA should not be compared to SG1 it's a totally different show. And maybe if they did that, they would start appreciating SGA more.


Every one of the writers currently working on our show is a result of our search for "new blood" for stargate. I am proud of every one of them.

Brad Wright

That's always nice to hear, but will they be kept on for S4?


I do chafe somewhat at his overt love for McKay.

*passes Alipeeps some talcum powder and vaseline ;) *


I like McKay, I really do.. but there can be too much of a good thing and I'd like to see other characters developed. Gero has used it to highlight aspects of the team's relationships and to show us some lovely moments of team interaction and friendships.

Well said hon, I agree with you completely. You can definately see how much the personal aspects between the team have grown and i'd like to see that to continue to develop. I'm also pleased that we have gotten back this season the Shep/McKay banter that got a little lost along the way in S2.


Seriously what is with all the *****ing and moaning?

People aren't moaning. They're just concerned about the show that they love. Brad has kindly agreed to come in and give us his twopence worth on his position, and people feel that they have a window of opportunity to express how they feel, becaude they know the execs do listen to our points of view. I'm sorry if you feel people are moaning just for the sake of it. :(


I don't know why anybody would think Brad and the other producers have anything but the best of intentions for the Stargate franchise. If you think certain decisions and creative directions are unwise, then fine, but why be so presumptuous to know what the producers motives were for doing so when you're clearly not in receipt of all the facts.

No one has said that they don't have the best of intentions, the fact that they've graciously given up their time to come speak to us, shows volumes that they do care. But you're right we don't know why cast changes were made. But since you didn't ask the question, I will. Brad, why is PM leaving? Was it a personal choice? Executive choice, plot choice, or is it not any of our business? :)


What Brad is very diplomatically saying is that he indeed did a very significant polish of Common Ground - adding a lot of the flair in the dialog. Don't forget, this was my very first episode, and I didn't know the characters as well as Brad (of course) so it was essential that he make them sound as they should.

If you want specific examples of Brad's involvment in the Common Ground script, listen to the DVD commentary when season three is released. I couldn't help but gush over some of Brad's dialog.

Brad also did a lot of work on The Ark (over his summer vacation to boot!). It wasn't until Submersion when I really got the hang of all the characters. That is the episode I am most proud of!

Thanks for making me look so good Brad!! :)

Ken

Hi Ken *waves* thanks for playing again. You must be a glutton for punishment, lol, but we appreciate it :) While you are here, I just want to say how well CG was produced and while Brad did the polishing, you came up with a very original story idea that is one of the best SGA eps of all time...so far *g*. I look forward to seeing more of your work in the ARK :) And I honestly hope that we see you writing in S4, it would be a real shame to lose you. *sends hugs*


Season 3? We're still waiting for season 2 DVDs!!! ;)

Thanks for the details. However, the groundwork you laid for COMMON GROUND was very good, as was Brad's polishing. I'd like to think you could both collaborate on a season 4 epsiode.

I know, it sucks... *sigh* Surely there must be a way so that eveyone gets them at the same time.




Point in case
spoilers for season 3RDA in The Return 1 / 2 imho it didn't really work, trying to write a character in SGA as if it didn't matter that all his nuances were formed/molded by a different show was just asking for RDA to look a little out of place (sorry but I think he was).


I think i'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I personally think that Jack seemed perfectly settled in SGA, more so than some of his later appearances in SG1...just a gut feeling though. I think maybe (again jmo) that the dynamic as it was originally in SG1 worked so well, that the characters were modelled similarly (and no not copied before anyone says anything, lol). I think their characters suit their personalities and makes for good viewing.


McKay is not SG-1 McKay anymore

I can understand what you're saying, but that's McKay, that's his personality. He's just as snarky as he was in 48 hours, but Sam has been able to look past that side of him, and hopefully other people can to. And, lol he still calls her blondie and stuff, lol. So he's still got a way to go. Sam knows he's teasing, but that's his nature and she will give as good as she gets. Underneath though McKay respects her and vise versa and that's all that counts.


And as many have said none of the current writers are really good with female characterisations, or development, or maybe the females are just not important enough to bother with, this is scifi who cares about women unless they are half naked or naked!

Brad how about *I know radical idea for 2007!!!!* hiring a staff writer who is female? ;) :)

ROFL, I agree with you to a point on this, there definately needs to be more of a women's touch on SGA for the sake of balance :) I'm sure that there have been a few women that have written for SGA though...maybe completely wrong here, so feel free to slap me down :)

I had intended to answer a few more quotes, but I ran out of space. You know me and long-winded, lol.

Anise76
January 7th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Anise, please try to be a little less generalising with the blanket statements? I for one seriously resent the implication that those of us under 25 actually welcome all this eye candy casting.

Firstly, at NO POINT did I state or even imply that women under 25 welcome the pretty-boy casting. I am speaking from the viewpoint of one of those women OVER 25 who does need something a little more stimulating than just a Mr Plastic Fantastic with an over-preponderance of product in his hair. I figured the under-25s could speak for themselves! ;)

And secondly, please try not to take every little comment as a personal slight or attack. Yes, sure, we all know you don't like Beckett. Fine. Maybe I don't like Weir much, but I don't take the opportunity to shout someone down every time they make a pro-Weir post. Just because I didn't name specific under-25 women who love the Ken-dolls (and yes, lots of them DO exist, many of them on this board - along with a few over-25 women of the same persuasion!), doesn't mean I was referring to you. On many an occasion, you have chosen to jump on someone by taking something they have written out of context, and made a mountain out of a molehill. Just for the record, Trialia, I'll be sure to give you advance warning if I want to have a go at you. ;)

Night Spring
January 7th, 2007, 11:46 PM
On many an occasion, you have chosen to....
As a fellow participant in this discussion, may I ask that everyone please leave what people has done/said outside this thread... outside this thread?

Ouroboros
January 8th, 2007, 01:13 AM
What Brad is very diplomatically saying is that he indeed did a very significant polish of Common Ground - adding a lot of the flair in the dialog. Don't forget, this was my very first episode, and I didn't know the characters as well as Brad (of course) so it was essential that he make them sound as they should.

If you want specific examples of Brad's involvment in the Common Ground script, listen to the DVD commentary when season three is released. I couldn't help but gush over some of Brad's dialog.

Common ground wasn't really the best episode of season 3 because of the dialog in my view though. It was the best episode of season 3 because after 3 years it was the episode that finally had the courage to depict the Wraith as something other than mindless drooling "evil" aliens who the "heros" can blow away by the bucketload before going to lunch.

Instinct came close to doing this last year but the forced "gotta kill 'em all" ending pretty much ruined what, for me, was developing into quite the moral conundrum over Ellia's future. I really wanted to see that resolved without the easy-out that shooting up with completely unknown drugs introduced at the begining of that episode provided.

Common ground showed us what I felt was a more realistic, less inherently "pro Earth" view of the Wraith. It's almost like what one could view as the difference between reality and propoganda in a real conflict. Up until this point the show had done little more (excepting instinct) than try to tell us how "they're evil and we're good so we can kill them all" which is not exactly the most sophisticated, intelligent or deep way to look at an issue like an inter-species war for survival. A lot of people who watch the show grow tired of the very slanted pro-human human-centric way the universe is treated. This as opposed to shows like B5, StarTrek or even Battlestar Galactica, which while they center on humans, also tend to flesh out humanity's rivals as something other than "evil faceless armies of darkness who need to be destroyed".

In other words what I'm trying to say is if it was your idea that Common Ground should depict a Wraith as something other than a hissing "evil" moving target who can't be shot fast enough by Earth's wisecracking heros, then the kudos are yours Mr. Cuperus.

As a first episode it was certainly a home run accomplishment in any case.

TJuk
January 8th, 2007, 01:50 AM
Heck, I'd think most of the writers could probably just pass a script by a wife/significant female other and go "what do you think?"

Or the actresses! I'm sure Torri and Rachel being women AND obviously knowing their characters would be the best to ask for such advise! And I totally agree with whoever said that they should just write them as they write the boys in the sense of episode participation. Teyla at least is capable of doing everything the boys do without the need for token 'warrior princess' moments and what makes a good leader has no gender specifics, girl or boy its the same qualities. Doesn't necessarily mean they need a female writer though especially as one of the poorest eps IMO in season 2 (Instinct) came from 2 female writers, though in all fairness it eas probably re-written a hell of a lot so they're not the only ones to blame. But most of the fan fiction writers are female and some of the fic out there is easily comparible to the episodes and some of it blows half of them out of the water in terms of character development and well rounded story telling for ALL the characters (granted they're not under the same time, budget and production constraints).

The attitude towards the female characters and getting out of the 'boys club' mindset is the problem here. Ok now I'm having visions of the writers all sat in a tree house with a 'no girls allowed' on the door! :p

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 02:00 AM
Common ground wasn't really the best episode of season 3 because of the dialog in my view though. It was the best episode of season 3 because after 3 years it was the episode that finally had the courage to depict the Wraith as something other than mindless drooling "evil" aliens who the "heros" can blow away by the bucketload before going to lunch.

Instinct came close to doing this last year but the forced "gotta kill 'em all" ending pretty much ruined what, for me, was developing into quite the moral conundrum over Ellia's future. I really wanted to see that resolved without the easy-out that shooting up with completely unknown drugs introduced at the begining of that episode provided.
In addition to Instinct, the Michael-related episodes at the end of S2 to the beginning of S3 also flirted with this concept. But while Michael seemed to be at least potentially willing to deal honorably with humans, the humans chose not to return that courtesy. In Common Ground, if I recall correctly, it is John who proposes collaboration, and John who honors the bargain he made with the Wraith. This difference in John's attitude toward the Wraith, as well as the consequences, of betraying Michael on the one hand and honoring the bargain with the wraith in Common Ground on the other hand, is something I've been looking forward to having expanded and developed. Unfortunately, spoilers seem to indicate this won't be happening this season, although, who knows, TPTB could surprise us yet -- but if in fact, this season ends without any more forwarding of the Wraith storyline, then despite the high caliber of the majority of the episodes so far, the season as a whole will, I'm afraid, be weaker for it.

Alipeeps
January 8th, 2007, 03:53 AM
Funny. Brad also wrote "Lifeboat", the SG1 episode that "The Ark" is already being compared to. :rolleyes:

And Ken has already responded to this comparison quite some time ago and assured us that the episodes are quite different. Just because the one-line summary of the plot that is all we have so far sound vaguely similar to some of the concepts explored in another episode does not mean the plots are remotely the same. That's like saying Echoes is a rip-off of GUP because they both involve taking a jumper underwater.

On the whole issue of PM leabing/being replaced. Firstly, Jewel has stated in her blog that her character is not replacing Carson. What precisely her character will be and how she will integrate into the show etc i guess we will just have to wait and see. And as for why they have taken the decision to lose Carson... again, we can't know at the moment and TPTB obviously don't want to make any kind of public announcement right now... and in amongst all the upset and theories being espoused as to why they are getting rid of him, the one that hasn't been mentioned - and that could perhaps explain the lack of announcement from TPTB - is that perhaps it is for dramatic reasons?

Much as I hate the idea of losing Carson and wish it were not so... it is a not uncommon practice in television to kill off characters for dramatic/emotional effect (see Peter Grodin, Janet Fraser etc etc). We have no idea how this plotline is going to play out but if this is the case then TPTB making a big announcement as to the details of Paul leaving would kinda spoil the drama of that plotline for everyone...

TJuk
January 8th, 2007, 04:26 AM
On the whole issue of PM leabing/being replaced. Firstly, Jewel has stated in her blog that her character is not replacing Carson. What precisely her character will be and how she will integrate into the show etc i guess we will just have to wait and see.

IMO Jewel was being rather foolish in making that 'not replacing' statement. I have no ill will towards her and wish her the best for the role. But at the end of the day the doctor on the show is being killed off, and she is coming in to play (in her own words) a new 'smarty pants MD'. So she is playing a 'doctor character' in the generic sense, no two characters are the same its the role in which they reside. So regardless of 'gender differences' to more politely paraphrase her quote, Jewel's character IS replacing Carson no matter how its spun because she will be playing the featured doctor as a recurring character, that in its basic sense, is the role Paul has been removed from.


And as for why they have taken the decision to lose Carson... again, we can't know at the moment and TPTB obviously don't want to make any kind of public announcement right now... and in amongst all the upset and theories being espoused as to why they are getting rid of him, the one that hasn't been mentioned - and that could perhaps explain the lack of announcement from TPTB - is that perhaps it is for dramatic reasons?

TBH I dont want to know the storyline behind his departure. I want to know WHY they chose to write out an extremely popular character, played by an actor who they have only just promoted in public recognition of that popularity. It makes no sense. This show NEEDS to maintain its ratings and build on them, not throw them away by writing out popular characters and alienating a percentage of their viewers in the process. As many others have said, any writer worth their salt should be able to writer dramatic, gripping television without resulting to the 'kill someone off' tactic. SG rarely kills off MAIN CAST (the only two reasons so far are because they wanted to move on and because they thought the show was finishing), its something I enjoy about the show, it was part of its charm. If I want unpredictable (but at least justifiable) death and loss I'd watch BSG.

So its the decision to remove the actor, not the plot especially as I personally feel his removal will be very detremental to the show and its continued survival. THATS why I feel Brad & TPTB owe we, the fans, an explanation as show runners and the people in control of that decision.

As for the drama or plotline, well...

...seeing as the general consensus is it happens in 'Sunday' and Martin Gero has already said it has no 'bad guys' and is essentially a stand alone episode, that concerns me even more. I have no doubt it will be extremely dramatic, how could it not be with the death of such a beloved character? However the high (no doubt for ratings) of that single episode will NEVER outweigh the potential highs the character could have brought in future episodes.

And if nothing else the change to the cast dynamic is a huge factor. So many changes so quickly? I suspect for many normal viewers it will be the final nail in the coffin that sees them switch channel and the ratings plummet to unsalvagable depths. Its alright promising we MIGHT/MAYBE (aka most likely not) see Carson again in future but the character needs a show to return to.


Much as I hate the idea of losing Carson and wish it were not so... it is a not uncommon practice in television to kill off characters for dramatic/emotional effect (see Peter Grodin, Janet Fraser etc etc). We have no idea how this plotline is going to play out but if this is the case then TPTB making a big announcement as to the details of Paul leaving would kinda spoil the drama of that plotline for everyone...

Very true, but Grodin and Fraser were not MAIN cast. Janet granted was as close as you get, and her death was not taken well. And irregardless of how the plotline plays out, Paul McGillion as NJS informed us, is not longer main cast. That means he is no longer (as far as I understand it) under contract to the show and we have NO garantee he will EVER return. He is the ONLY main cast member to EARN his status supposedly in response to fan support. To turn around and kill off his character is a slap in the face to the fans, especially after less then 2 seasons, having been pretty much neglected and seeing his role reduced bit by bit.

'Sunday' airs a week today in Canada, so I guess we'll get over the 'plot line being spoiled' barrier in just over a week.

Skydiver
January 8th, 2007, 05:06 AM
I have very serious reservations about JOe and Paul showrunning. Sure, they've been there for a long time. I have people in my company that have been here for a while...but longevity does not = management potential.

Paul's stuff is to my tastes, but i've found that Joe revisits the silliness of Anime and comic books too much. He's a bit too 'american pie' for my tastes and, over the past couple of years, i've discovered if he goes online and tells us how super and stellar and fantastic an episode is....it's not to my taste. his definition of 'good' is not inline with mine. So if he's gonna make Atlantis 'good' i have to wonder if I'll even enjoy it. Time will tell of course.

As to the ladies on the show....well something needs to be done. Atlantis IS the shep and rod hour. Shep hero's, rod rants and everyone else just stands around (wtih the exception of episodes like sateda)

weir and teyla???? Weir and Teyla are why i've never really gotten into the show. Weir is the permissive maternal figure that enables Shep and never seems to mind when he thumbs his nose at her and ignores her directives and Teyla is there for scenery. Ronon has had more development in one season than teyla has in 2.5, and given the general weakness Bridge studios has for writing females as anything but a cliche, i don't hold out much hope for them.

Maybe they'll surprise me and Teyla will get a little depth and be something more than the sexy alien. Maybe someone other than shep and mckay will get the spotlight and maybe Weir will be more than the rubber stamping administrator.

But then episodes like irresponsible and irresistable come along and any hopes i have get a punch in the gut. :)

prion
January 8th, 2007, 05:07 AM
On the whole issue of PM leabing/being replaced. Firstly, Jewel has stated in her blog that her character is not replacing Carson. What precisely her character will be and how she will integrate into the show etc i guess we will just have to wait and see. And as for why they have taken the decision to lose Carson... again, we can't know at the moment and TPTB obviously don't want to make any kind of public announcement right now... and in amongst all the upset and theories being espoused as to why they are getting rid of him, the one that hasn't been mentioned - and that could perhaps explain the lack of announcement from TPTB - is that perhaps it is for dramatic reasons?

Much as I hate the idea of losing Carson and wish it were not so... it is a not uncommon practice in television to kill off characters for dramatic/emotional effect (see Peter Grodin, Janet Fraser etc etc). We have no idea how this plotline is going to play out but if this is the case then TPTB making a big announcement as to the details of Paul leaving would kinda spoil the drama of that plotline for everyone...

Well, as for what Jewel said, in a way, she is replacing paul's character as in, one character who is a doctor is leaving and they're bringing in another character who is a doctor. No, she's not replacing Beckett (after all, this isn't a soap where one day one person plays character A and they replace him with another actor the next day). But I don't fault Jewel for her comments.

Anyway, as for the "kill off characters for dramatic/emotional effect".... they bumped off Frasier as they (once again) thought, oh this is the last season, let's go out with a bang and honor the men and women in service (don't see how killing one is an honor).

But these are really another topic. I just hope this whole fiasco didn't come about as nobody knew how to write beckett anymore, or felt they'd written him 'into a corner' with the retrovirus theme.

Linzi
January 8th, 2007, 06:04 AM
Oooh, you the commentary for CG on the DVDs? Really?!! Ack! Okay, that's not fair cos you've made me so excited about that and it'll MONTHS (or more) before it gets released! :lol: Can I ask, did you do the commentary alone or with someone else?

Thanks again for providing such interesting insights into the behind the scenes processes - it's interesting to hear about Brad's involvement. i think he has a wonderful grasp of dialogue and I know Martin Gero has referred to that in some of his commentaries - mentioning that often when people tell him of a line they loved in one of his eps, he has to admit "Actually, Brad wrote that one!" :lol:

I'm really looking forward to Submersion now, given that you're so proud of it... :D

I was aware Brad Wright had done a huge polish on CG, because Joe Flanigan has mentioned it several times in passing. I have to say I'm a huge fan of Brad Wright's writing. From his SG1 episodes to one of my favourite all time SGA episodes - 38 Minutes - boy, I love that episode!! So, if JM&PM taking over the reins of SGA season 4 means BW and RCC have less input in polishing scripts and writing, (I adore Sateda too,) then that alone concerns and disappoints me. :(
Ken's idea alone for CG was so good that it makes me disappointed that he won't be contributing to season 4. Just because the idea of an episode which actually gave Joe something meaty to get his teeth into is so nice for a Sheppard/Joe fan!!!! I look forward immensely to Ark and Submersion!!!! I believe Ken has shown great potential so far, but unfortunately it seems we won't get the chance to see that potential realised in season 4 :(



Season 3? We're still waiting for season 2 DVDs!!! ;)

Thanks for the details. However, the groundwork you laid for COMMON GROUND was very good, as was Brad's polishing. I'd like to think you could both collaborate on a season 4 epsiode.
Agreed! :)

I have to say I generally like Carl Binders writing, well all of his episodes have been excellent or solid, IMO, except for TRW, which was a weak episode in my eyes. I'm happy he's going to continue to write for season 4.
As for Martin Gero. Well, he's written some of my most favourite episodes of SGA, so I'm also pleased he's continuing to write for the show. However, I do think his adoration of all things McKay and Hewlett have coloured his writing sometimes, and this has certainly detracted from several of his episodes in my opinion. Perhaps he could write a few episodes that feature another character heavily? Just for a change. His general episodes are excellent, I think.
I am concerned about all the changes that are happening in season 4. There are just so many, and it's very much a case of venturing into the unkown for me. I pray my favourite character, Sheppard, gets some proper backstory, some meaty stuff, more dialogue and more character development. I want to see more Teyla too. She's a lovely character with the potential to be so much more. I dont want to see characters going on missions for the sake of it, I want their inclusion on the mission to be for a reason! I want to see slightly less McKay. He is such a powerful character that he tends to dominate, and sometimes that does take away screen time, dialogue and good storylines from other characters who deserve as much, if not more attention.
Most of all, I want the family feel of the team to continue. That, for me, has been the saving grace of season 3. I don't care who writes any of this, to be honest, and as long as I get a little of what I want, ie: some cracking stories, shared around good character moments and development, well, then I'lll be one happy bunny and one satisfied viewer. I don't expect perfection, just to be entertained :)

FallenAngelII
January 8th, 2007, 06:28 AM
I have no qualms about Paul and Joe's writing talents on SG1, they have done an excellent job and I agree that they could probably run it standing on their heads, but what concerns me what si the writing they've done for SGA. The scripts we have seen so far have not shown us (and I use the term royally from what people have said) that they have a full grasp of the characters and my concern is that we will see a repeat of the caliber of episodes they have written for SG1. I'm all for humour in eps, and haven't outright hated any of the storylines in S3, but there is a lot of disappointment in the way some of the stories has been handled that were written by them.
My opinion exactly. All of the great SG-1 episodes people keep bringing up to show off Paul's and Joe's writing talents were mostly humourous episodes. And sure, those episode really were great.

However, some of their SGA scripts have been horrible attempts at humour. SGA is darker and that's probably part of why humour episodes work less well. But not only that, the "humourous" (in my opinion) episodes of SGA that Paul and Joe have written/co-written/whatevered have just, well, sucked for whatever reason.


Firstly, at NO POINT did I state or even imply that women under 25 welcome the pretty-boy casting. I am speaking from the viewpoint of one of those women OVER 25 who does need something a little more stimulating than just a Mr Plastic Fantastic with an over-preponderance of product in his hair. I figured the under-25s could speak for themselves! ;)
What pretty boy casting? We, the women and gay guys get almost no pretty boys at all compared to the pretty girls. A pretty boy once every four full moons does not count.

Ouroboros: You forgot "Condemned". The Wraith there was pretty civilized. Not to mention "Michael" and Michael's interaction with Teyla in "Allies".


Much as I hate the idea of losing Carson and wish it were not so... it is a not uncommon practice in television to kill off characters for dramatic/emotional effect (see Peter Grodin, Janet Fraser etc etc).
Peter Grodin was far from being as big a character as Carson. Was he even in 10 episodes? And did he do much other than interact with the others? I mean, we never got much character development for him. All we know is that he was a really, really nice guy.

As for the death's for dramatic effect on Stargate SG-1. In all cases, they thought the show was being cancelled. In season 5, they believed the show was getting canned, so they "killed" off Daniel. In season 6, they were pretty certain it was being canned (they were planning to have "Lost City" be a TV movie), so they killed off all of Abydos. In season 7, they were almost certain they were getting canned, so they killed off Janet. In season 8, Sci-Fi had told them with absolute certainty they were getting canned, so they killed off Jacob/Selmak.

However, in season 9, they did kill off Pendergast, but he was a very minor recurring character.

Not in one of those instance did they know they were getting renewed before they killed someone off (the one in season 9 was written and filmed before they were told they were getting renewed).

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 06:37 AM
What pretty boy casting? We, the women and gay guys get almost no pretty boys at all compared to the pretty girls. A pretty boy once every four full moons does not count.
You don't find Joe Flanigan pretty? Or what about Jason Momoa?

TJuk
January 8th, 2007, 06:39 AM
You don't find Joe Flanigan pretty? Or what about Jason Momoa?

You can add Paul McGillion (baby blues and dimples...) and Kavan Smith to that list for me!

FallenAngelII
January 8th, 2007, 06:46 AM
You don't find Joe Flanigan pretty? Or what about Jason Momoa?
You named two guys. Compared to the infinite number of women (regulars, recurring and guest stars) we've had over the past 2.5 years.

Joe Flanigan is a pretty boy. Jason Momoa with all of that facial hair and the rastafari look, not so much. He's a "ruggedly handsome" one.


You can add Paul McGillion (baby blues and dimples...) and Kavan Smith to that list for me!
While Paul qualifies for "pretty boy", IMO, Kavan's face is too angular and his features are too hard to qualify for "pretty". Again, "ruggedly handsome" (yes, I do find him handsome).

Don't make me go through the episodes to mention all of the "pretty girls" to compare the ratio. The number of pretty boys we've gotten in comparison to the pretty girls is so miniscule they don't even compare, which is why I find it weird some people are actually arguing about it.

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 06:53 AM
Joe Flanigan is a pretty boy. Jason Momoa with all of that facial hair and the rastafari look, not so much. He's a "ruggedly handsome" one.

While Paul qualifies for "pretty boy", IMO, Kavan's face is too angular and his features are too hard to qualify for "pretty". Again, "ruggedly handsome" (yes, I do find him handsome).
Well... to me, pretty boy and handsome are both eye candy. But it's not for you? Could you indulge my curiousity and possibly explain why not?

Oh, and you ask why we're arguing about this? Well, becuase I watch SGA partly for the male eye candy, so I was surprised to hear you say there isn't any.

TJuk
January 8th, 2007, 06:56 AM
While Paul qualifies for "pretty boy", IMO, Kavan's face is too angular and his features are too hard to qualify for "pretty". Again, "ruggedly handsome" (yes, I do find him handsome).

Don't make me go through the episodes to mention all of the "pretty girls" to compare the ratio. The number of pretty boys we've gotten in comparison to the pretty girls is so miniscule they don't even compare, which is why I find it weird some people are actually arguing about it.

Yeah but I'd rather see the same 'pretty boy faces' over and over, then an assortment of random titilation every week. I'd put Paul somewhere between 'pretty and ruggedly handsome' as he's a bit of both. Even DH has his own charm for some female (and no doubt male) fans. I dont find JF attractive but I can certainly see why other women do. In fact I remember laughing hard at a comment that popped up in one of the first reviews of SGA where the female writer was plugging the views of the 'pretty cast' (she was very thrilled with all the boys and listed eaches 'virtues'). Something which has popped up repeatedly.

At the end of the day its the 'characters personality' and the stories they bring to life I'm watching, but it doesn't hurt they're also nice to look at!

I think we're going OT here though I would like to keep *MY* favourite eyecandy on the show. :(

FallenAngelII
January 8th, 2007, 07:08 AM
Well... to me, pretty boy and handsome are both eye candy. But it's not for you? Could you indulge my curiousity and possibly explain why not?

Oh, and you ask why we're arguing about this? Well, becuase I watch SGA partly for the male eye candy, so I was surprised to hear you say there isn't any.
The difference is that pretty boys are generically pretty. Everyone can see their prettiness. Ruggedly handsome men are handsome in the eyes of the beholder. For one thing, while Jason Momoa still has pretty eyes, I'm not at all impressed by the whole Hairy Ruggedly Handsome routine because I personally dislike that look.

The male eye candy? Almost non-existence in both screen-time and numbers when compared to the female eye candy. I don't understand how we're arguing about the male eye candy and not arguing about the female eye candy (at the least we should be arguing about them both simoultaneously).

Alipeeps
January 8th, 2007, 07:21 AM
The difference is that pretty boys are generically pretty. Everyone can see their prettiness. Ruggedly handsome men are handsome in the eyes of the beholder. For one thing, while Jason Momoa still has pretty eyes, I'm not at all impressed by the whole Hairy Ruggedly Handsome routine because I personally dislike that look.

The male eye candy? Almost non-existence in both screen-time and numbers when compared to the female eye candy. I don't understand how we're arguing about the male eye candy and not arguing about the female eye candy (at the least we should be arguing about them both simoultaneously).

I think the issue there though is a simple fact of the nature of the US TV industry. The female recurring characters and extras on just about any US TV show are more likely to be "pretty" or attractive than the male ones... because the entertainment industry is shallow that way and because actresses and wannabe actresses are expected, if not required, to be slim and pretty if they want to succeed. There is less pressure/requirement for male actors (aside from those aiming for the traditional "male lead" role, and sometimes not even in that case) to be handsome or "pretty".

FallenAngelII
January 8th, 2007, 07:22 AM
I think the issue there though is a simple fact of the nature of the US TV industry. The female recurring characters and extras on just about any US TV show are more likely to be "pretty" or attractive than the male ones... because the entertainment industry is shallow that way and because actresses and wannabe actresses are expected, if not required, to be slim and pretty if they want to succeed. There is less pressure/requirement for male actors (aside from those aiming for the traditional "male lead" role, and sometimes not even in that case) to be handsome or "pretty".
Which is my point exactly. Why are people even arguing about it when it's not an actual problematic aspect of the show?

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 07:29 AM
Which is my point exactly. Why are people even arguing about it when it's not an actual problematic aspect of the show?
Because TPTB is apparently replacing Paul/Carson with an actress who is considered by some to be a pretty eye candy, presumably because they think female eye candy attracts more audience, without taking into account that perhaps male eye candy (whatever that might be) might also be a factor in attracting audience.

(See? ON TOPIC! Heh. :p)

Alipeeps
January 8th, 2007, 07:30 AM
Which is my point exactly. Why are people even arguing about it when it's not an actual problematic aspect of the show?

Eh? Sorry? I thought you were the one who brought it up, saying that there were less "pretty boys" for the girls and gay guys to enjoy than there are pretty girls for the guys to enjoy. :)

Ack. I've lost track completely now! :lol:

TJuk
January 8th, 2007, 07:37 AM
I think the issue there though is a simple fact of the nature of the US TV industry. The female recurring characters and extras on just about any US TV show are more likely to be "pretty" or attractive than the male ones... because the entertainment industry is shallow that way and because actresses and wannabe actresses are expected, if not required, to be slim and pretty if they want to succeed. There is less pressure/requirement for male actors (aside from those aiming for the traditional "male lead" role, and sometimes not even in that case) to be handsome or "pretty".

This is why a 24-year old has been cast as a doctor when realistically (no matter how much of a 'genius' the character is) she is far too young for the role. An actress who is of a suitable age is simply not accepted by the industry as suitable for what is no doubt a 'sex appeal' casting. I have no problem with the characters being handsome/pretty/attractive, there is the element of it being 'fantasy' but that only goes so far.

psychofilly
January 8th, 2007, 08:01 AM
Wow, Atlantis is full of pretty men, of all types. Of course I find Caldwell handsome as all heck, and Teh Hewlett, and Teh Flan then teh Moma. Also, they have some pretty guest stars from time to time, like Ladon Radim, aka Viggo light.

However, I share everyones concern about the quantity and quality of writing for the female cast, and the guest females as bimbos/eye candy, or at the very least all the aliens being criminally stupid, as in Irresponsible. (Though don't get me wrong, the McShep show is what drew and continues to draw me into the show. There is not enough words for the happy squeefullness they make me feel when I watch the show, despite any flaws it may have-- the writers have it totally right with their big gay lovefriendship). Still, more meat for the ladies would be welcome.

If I had a wish list, it would be to do away with the sci-fi trope of having the Heroes succeed or the plot driven through the sheer stupidity of the villians/townspeople of the week. I like both sides to be smart, and our side to win by being smarter. SGA, doesn't always deliver that. But it always delivers the pretty (from my straight, female perspective).

FallenAngelII
January 8th, 2007, 08:12 AM
Because TPTB is apparently replacing Paul/Carson with an actress who is considered by some to be a pretty eye candy, presumably because they think female eye candy attracts more audience, without taking into account that perhaps male eye candy (whatever that might be) might also be a factor in attracting audience.

(See? ON TOPIC! Heh. :p)

Eh? Sorry? I thought you were the one who brought it up, saying that there were less "pretty boys" for the girls and gay guys to enjoy than there are pretty girls for the guys to enjoy. :)

Ack. I've lost track completely now! :lol:
The person who brought it up complained about the amount of male eye candy on the show.

FoolishPleasure
January 8th, 2007, 08:15 AM
What SGA is truly lacking is a wise old soul, like SG1's Bra'tac, or Jacob, or Catherine. New characters to SGA are getting younger and younger until now it has reached the point where no one is going to take Jewel seriously as a real doctor. Kaylee was the character who hooked me on Firefly, but Kaylee was the baby of the group and Jewel fit the part.

Why can't we meet a crusty old Athosian with some Ancient knowledge . . . Teyla's long-lost father or uncle, for example. A recurring character who can bridge the generations like Bra'tac has done on SG1. I love Jewel as an actress, but SGA needs to go OLDER, and not younger.

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 08:26 AM
The person who brought it up complained about the amount of male eye candy on the show.
Well, as far as I can tell, she seems to have said she's not interested in male eye candy, which is somewhat different than complaining about it, but, whatever. In response to that, you said that the amount of male eye candy in the show is so miniscule as to be insignificant. And I just got curious because I'm just in general curious about opinions that differ from mine, and hey, this is a discussion forum, we are here to discuss opinions, right? You stated an opinion, I figured that made it open for discussion, especially since, as I see it, it does relate to the main topic of this thread.

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 08:31 AM
What SGA is truly lacking is a wise old soul, like SG1's Bra'tac, or Jacob, or Catherine. [snip] I love Jewel as an actress, but SGA needs to go OLDER, and not younger.
GREAT IDEA! I say bring on RDA! *g* Have General O'Neill hop over to Pegasus for a visit, then something happens to cut off Atlantis from earth, leaving him stranded along with the rest of the expedition. :D

psychofilly
January 8th, 2007, 08:32 AM
GREAT IDEA! I say bring on RDA! *g* Have General O'Neill hop over to Pegasus for a visit, then something happens to cut off Atlantis from earth, leaving him stranded along with the rest of the expedition. :D

*cough* Keep Caldwell *cough*

FallenAngelII
January 8th, 2007, 08:32 AM
Well, as far as I can tell, she seems to have said she's not interested in male eye candy, which is somewhat different than complaining about it, but, whatever. In response to that, you said that the amount of male eye candy in the show is so miniscule as to be insignificant. And I just got curious because I'm just in general curious about opinions that differ from mine, and hey, this is a discussion forum, we are here to discuss opinions, right? You stated an opinion, I figured that made it open for discussion, especially since, as I see it, it does relate to the main topic of this thread.
People just misunderstood that I was talking about the female eye candy, which was what I was opposing.

prion
January 8th, 2007, 08:34 AM
As for the death's for dramatic effect on Stargate SG-1. In all cases, they thought the show was being cancelled. In season 5, they believed the show was getting canned, so they "killed" off Daniel. In season 6, they were pretty certain it was being canned (they were planning to have "Lost City" be a TV movie), so they killed off all of Abydos. In season 7, they were almost certain they were getting canned, so they killed off Janet. In season 8, Sci-Fi had told them with absolute certainty they were getting canned, so they killed off Jacob/Selmak.

Anyway, I believe they already knew that SG1 had been sold to SciFi when they offed Daniel. The actor had declined to renew for a sixth season, hence his being killed (well, ascended - the writers know better than to kill one of the most popular characters). Alas, Janet, Selmac... just bumped off. And the fans knew (at least with Janet) before the actors did. Scary, ain't it?

prion
January 8th, 2007, 08:36 AM
GREAT IDEA! I say bring on RDA! *g* Have General O'Neill hop over to Pegasus for a visit, then something happens to cut off Atlantis from earth, leaving him stranded along with the rest of the expedition. :D

Uh, no offense, but another season of Jack cracking lame jokes would drive me insane. I'd rather he not visit Atlantis again. (dodging flaming arrows). I wouldn't mind though if the writers would cut the base off, if even for a short time period, as when they were alone, it was more a survival situation. They couldn't count on anyone for resupplies, etc.

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 08:47 AM
Uh, no offense, but another season of Jack cracking lame jokes would drive me insane.
Oh, yeah. I forgot to qualify my suggestion with the stipulation that THE WRITERS SHALL NOT WRITE ANY JOKES FOR JACK TO CRACK. Just write him totally straight lines, and RDA will find a way to twist them so the viewers are rolling on the floor. The other day I was rewatching The Game, and I cracked myself up imagining what would happen if RDA were to say Weir's lines in the aborted mediation scene.

Pegasus_SGA
January 8th, 2007, 08:55 AM
This is why a 24-year old has been cast as a doctor when realistically (no matter how much of a 'genius' the character is) she is far too young for the role. An actress who is of a suitable age is simply not accepted by the industry as suitable for what is no doubt a 'sex appeal' casting. I have no problem with the characters being handsome/pretty/attractive, there is the element of it being 'fantasy' but that only goes so far.

I agree i'd rather go with realism as opposed to eye candy (not that i'm saying I don't love the eye candy), far from it. Sure there are lots of young docs around in real life, but there is definately something to be said for having an older person being the main doc for the show, whether that person is or isn't replacing a main character. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Scully_album/crying.gif Part of the realism of why I watch is SGA is not just for the actors, it allows me to escape from the crap that is RL and sit back and wach a very entertaining programme that has an air of fact and fantasy inbuilt. But more than that it allows us as viewers to imagine the possibilities of what is out there and discuss the hypotheticals of certain decisions and if we (in their shoes) would do the same or handle things differently....what was my point again? Oh yeah, young docs. They don't work for me because it's not realistic that someone as young as that could cope with the demands of a job as important as being the CMO of Atlantis (if she is being that). It's not just about 'smarts' for want of a better phrase, it's all about experience, imo. And i'm not saying young people haven't got the experience, i'm just saying that at such a young age a lot of people haven't had life experience, and there is a difference.


What SGA is truly lacking is a wise old soul, like SG1's Bra'tac, or Jacob, or Catherine. New characters to SGA are getting younger and younger until now it has reached the point where no one is going to take Jewel seriously as a real doctor. Kaylee was the character who hooked me on Firefly, but Kaylee was the baby of the group and Jewel fit the part.

Why can't we meet a crusty old Athosian with some Ancient knowledge . . . Teyla's long-lost father or uncle, for example. A recurring character who can bridge the generations like Bra'tac has done on SG1. I love Jewel as an actress, but SGA needs to go OLDER, and not younger.

That's a very good point, and while I don't think SGA is lacking as a result of not having a wiser or older individual I definately agree that having someone like Bratac or Jacob *sniff* would enhance some of the storylines. Surely there must be someone in Pegasus that is of an age where they have the knowledge that could help them move forward (even if it's just background information). Charin (sp?) was a good opportunity to show that side of Pegasus, but again...killed off. Maybe this could be explored in S4?

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 08:55 AM
People just misunderstood that I was talking about the female eye candy, which was what I was opposing.
You opposed female eye candy by complaining there was hardly any male eye candy? Doesn't strike me as a particularly effective line of argument, but it did raise some interesting issues, such as, what exactly constitutes male eye candy? How is the role of male eye candy in a TV show different from or similar to that of female eye candy? Hm, might even be worth a thread of its own, if I can figure out how to formulate it. ;)

FallenAngelII
January 8th, 2007, 09:01 AM
Anyway, I believe they already knew that SG1 had been sold to SciFi when they offed Daniel. The actor had declined to renew for a sixth season, hence his being killed (well, ascended - the writers know better than to kill one of the most popular characters). Alas, Janet, Selmac... just bumped off. And the fans knew (at least with Janet) before the actors did. Scary, ain't it?
Yeah, I knew that Shanks' wish to leave was also part of the reason, but I also forgot that the airing schedules (and thus writing and shooting schedules) were probably different on Showtime. Well, whatever.

All of Abydos, Janet and Selmac were all killed before we knew the shows were being renewed. Because on Sci-Fi, the seasons finish shooting sometime in October/November.

ToasterOnFire
January 8th, 2007, 11:15 AM
What SGA is truly lacking is a wise old soul, like SG1's Bra'tac, or Jacob, or Catherine.
Good idea! Caldwell could have filled this role (giving military advice to Shep and/or Weir for example) but instead TPTB painted him as the baddie who dares to challenge Weir and co. Meh.

A PG native could work here. I'd prefer a matriarch over a wise male character to balance out all the young women hotties we've seen so far. Too bad Teyla's gran didn't make it - she would have been a great choice.

Trialia
January 8th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Firstly, at NO POINT did I state or even imply that women under 25 welcome the pretty-boy casting. I am speaking from the viewpoint of one of those women OVER 25 who does need something a little more stimulating than just a Mr Plastic Fantastic with an over-preponderance of product in his hair. I figured the under-25s could speak for themselves! ;)

And secondly, please try not to take every little comment as a personal slight or attack. Yes, sure, we all know you don't like Beckett. Fine. Maybe I don't like Weir much, but I don't take the opportunity to shout someone down every time they make a pro-Weir post. Just because I didn't name specific under-25 women who love the Ken-dolls (and yes, lots of them DO exist, many of them on this board - along with a few over-25 women of the same persuasion!), doesn't mean I was referring to you. On many an occasion, you have chosen to jump on someone by taking something they have written out of context, and made a mountain out of a molehill. Just for the record, Trialia, I'll be sure to give you advance warning if I want to have a go at you. ;)
I'm not taking it as personally as you seem to think. I just thought that some of the other female under-25s on this thread might be offended by it, is all, and wanted to warn you on that. And none of that post was related to whether I like Beckett or not.

You say I take things out of context, but you've just made of yourself a prime example of taking things differently than they were meant. I wasn't trying to patronise you, I was trying to help.

Trialia
January 8th, 2007, 11:46 AM
You opposed female eye candy by complaining there was hardly any male eye candy? Doesn't strike me as a particularly effective line of argument, but it did raise some interesting issues, such as, what exactly constitutes male eye candy? How is the role of male eye candy in a TV show different from or similar to that of female eye candy? Hm, might even be worth a thread of its own, if I can figure out how to formulate it. ;)
I like it, NS. ;) Your comment, that is!

TBH, the "girl-of-the-week" nature of most of what FA is referring to as "female eye candy" never really interested me. If a woman doesn't have a personality, I'm not hooked, even for an episode, hence my earlier reference to wanting to drown Epiphany's Teer because she was so 2D.

I - and I'm sure many other people! - would far prefer that "eye candy" weren't something taken into so much consideration as it does appear to be on this show. All the main cast, male and female, are pretty in their own way. Can't we keep them and not be picking sub-characters for their looks or the possible flirtations they might have with the rest of the cast? It gets boring.

Skydiver
January 8th, 2007, 01:05 PM
Good idea! Caldwell could have filled this role (giving military advice to Shep and/or Weir for example) but instead TPTB painted him as the baddie who dares to challenge Weir and co. Meh.

A PG native could work here. I'd prefer a matriarch over a wise male character to balance out all the young women hotties we've seen so far. Too bad Teyla's gran didn't make it - she would have been a great choice.
i would have loved to have seen caldwell take command of the city. and weir being demoted in a way and going on more missions with the guys.

and then there is his undercurrent of rebellion...that isn't quite that, cause caldwell being pure baddie would be cliche. but there'd be some tension and growing pains as everyone adjusts.

but that wasn't done so who knows what they'll do in s4.

I do think it'll make or break the series though.

no pressure :)

Willow'sCat
January 8th, 2007, 01:11 PM
This is why a 24-year old has been cast as a doctor when realistically (no matter how much of a 'genius' the character is) she is far too young for the role. An actress who is of a suitable age is simply not accepted by the industry as suitable for what is no doubt a 'sex appeal' casting. I have no problem with the characters being handsome/pretty/attractive, there is the element of it being 'fantasy' but that only goes so far.I don't agree; I am not a huge fan of medical shows but I did watch ER for a while and Chicago Hope and I am dam sure a few of the cast members playing Doctors were what I would have called, a bit on the young side, but they made up for it by having great chemistry with the other actors, and yes a good character to play (regardless of age).

Yes Jewel the actress is young but she is an actress, if she can't pull off playing someone 3-4 years older then herself she should stop acting. :S If she is not meant to be playing someone older then fine it is just more of a challenge for her and the writers to make her believable.

Personally I think she can do it, I think she has the potential to be the best female character on the show, even if it turns out to be for a brief time (we still have no real idea how many eps she will be in, I think it is 10-14). Also where is the information she will be from Earth? I think I did read genius, but then this is SGA the BEST & BRIGHTEST remember? (yeah I know it hasn't worked out that way with the stupid decisions of Sheppard and Weir and yeah McKay but still B&B)

I do seriously think some are just wanting to find fault as she is seen to be replacing Carson. :cool: :rolleyes:

On this at least ;) as we haven't seen Jewels character (unlike Carter's), I am willing to wait and see.

On too much or too little eye candy? I guess for me they can look good or not as long as they can act, I see very few females being cast on SGA who can act. That bothers me, it tells me they are only there for their appearance. Of course given most of the females don't get many lines anyway it is hard to tell if it is just bad acting or lack of a character to play. :cool:

xfkirsten
January 8th, 2007, 01:34 PM
i would have loved to have seen caldwell take command of the city. and weir being demoted in a way and going on more missions with the guys.

and then there is his undercurrent of rebellion...that isn't quite that, cause caldwell being pure baddie would be cliche. but there'd be some tension and growing pains as everyone adjusts.

but that wasn't done so who knows what they'll do in s4.

I do think it'll make or break the series though.

no pressure :)

I hadn't really considered that before, but speaking as a Weir fan, I actually really like that idea - it would have gotten her much more involved in the show. It's incredibly frustrating to see so many episodes where she just sort of waves goodbye, and sends a few seconds of advice through the wormhole later, and that's her whole role for the episode. It's even more frustrating, considering that TPTB said at the start that they didn't want that to be all she did. If she were demoted and put on the team, she's get in on the action more, and I think it'd be fun to see her getting to make first contact with cultures more often, since that's sort of her area of expertise. :)

TJuk
January 8th, 2007, 01:36 PM
I don't agree; I am not a huge fan of medical shows but I did watch ER for a while and Chicago Hope and I am dam sure a few of the cast members playing Doctors were what I would have called, a bit on the young side, but they made up for it by having great chemistry with the other actors, and yes a good character to play (regardless of age).

Most of those 'young actors' are playing interns, resisdents etc. 'Doctors' who are still in the process of becoming fully qualified which IS realistic. The medical training systems between the US and UK work slightly differently but she is basically JUST be old enough to be out of 'school' but she IS NOT old enough to be practicing unsurpervised. Besides, the people on ER & Chicago Hope etc (two excellent shows I also love) are playing roles with a much suitable such as 'Carter' started on ER as a intern (someone just finished medical school and into the first year of there basic training). To be a fully qualified doctor especially within a specialist field takes a person well beyond the age of 30.

Yes I will admit I am slightly biased here because I am extremely upset by Carson's killing off especially with no logical explanation, it seems that the writing staff are taking the easy way out because they have painted themselves into a corner with the character and struggle to take him 'out of the box'. However one of the aspects I loved about SG1 was its melding of fantasy and reality. They worked hard to at least generally adhere to real USAF protocol etc (hence the USAF support) and melding it with the fantastical elements. It really IMO helped to make the show successful, it gave some part of the audiences a base to work from. SGA didn't have that, but it did have it within the character of Carson Beckett. An 'everyman' who brought some sembelence of normality and reality to the show and drew in the viewers who needed that.

But anyone can see 'Jewel' has been cast for testerone factor which has been flippantly dealt with by tauting her as a 'genuis'. Any other science, no bother, but a doctor who deals with the lives of others so directly. And as others have also said practicing MEDICINE requires a certain amount of 'experience'. So the replacement is not only unrealistic its daft. I liked this show when it had a bit more brains and walked the line a little better between fantasy and believability.

Willow'sCat
January 8th, 2007, 01:53 PM
But anyone can see 'Jewel' has been cast for testerone factor which has been flippantly dealt with by tauting her as a 'genuis'. Any other science, no bother, but a doctor who deals with the lives of others so directly. And as others have also said practicing MEDICINE requires a certain amount of 'experience'. So the replacement is not only unrealistic its daft. I liked this show when it had a bit more brains and walked the line a little better between fantasy and believability.
Sorry TJ I just don't feel like buying that argument at the moment, if she appears and she is Sheppard's thing on the side fine I will eat my words ;) but I think Jewel is a smart cookie I don't think she needs to play resident bimbo on SGA, they may not be knocking her door down offering roles *I don't know* but I still think she is above letting herself be cast for her looks solely. Of course we do have to consider tptb in this and they have a terrible track record :cool: but I am still wait and see girl.

Also I don't care how many times tptb think they are writing regulation USAF *support or not* as long as Sheppard keeps that hair I ain't buying any of it. :cool:

I hadn't really considered that before, but speaking as a Weir fan, I actually really like that idea - it would have gotten her much more involved in the show. It's incredibly frustrating to see so many episodes where she just sort of waves goodbye, and sends a few seconds of advice through the wormhole later, and that's her whole role for the episode. It's even more frustrating, considering that TPTB said at the start that they didn't want that to be all she did. If she were demoted and put on the team, she's get in on the action more, and I think it'd be fun to see her getting to make first contact with cultures more often, since that's sort of her area of expertise. :)Well as someone who is not a Weir fan I am so glad she is only being *General Hammond* on the show, and really that is what she should be, we have a TEAM and as the TEAM spends most of its time being shot at, I don't really see what use in an actual story Weir would be.

Yes if SGA was a different show, one that actually spent time trying to learn things from the natives instead of getting shot at I maybe could see it, but then we have Teyla, and she is already on the TEAM and this is her world.

I didn't get the impression she lived in a bubble so she would know some of the races already on other Planets, if the show had concentrated more on that side of Teyla she may also be an interesting character but again this is SGA they don't do that here. :cool: I think one of the largest and unspoken problems with SGA is that there really are too many characters viaring for screen time. Some shows like Star Trek can pull that off but you know I bet some in that fandom lamented their favourite characters not getting good episodes or lines or development... just a thought.

Chailyn
January 8th, 2007, 01:57 PM
I hadn't really considered that before, but speaking as a Weir fan, I actually really like that idea - it would have gotten her much more involved in the show. It's incredibly frustrating to see so many episodes where she just sort of waves goodbye, and sends a few seconds of advice through the wormhole later, and that's her whole role for the episode. It's even more frustrating, considering that TPTB said at the start that they didn't want that to be all she did. If she were demoted and put on the team, she's get in on the action more, and I think it'd be fun to see her getting to make first contact with cultures more often, since that's sort of her area of expertise. :)

I like that idea too. Weir could start using those linguistic/negotiating skills, which I think is sort of missing from the current team. I also think it would be interesting to see Caldwell take over and how his relationship with Sheppard would change now that Weir isn't there to buffer them. Methinks Sheppard would be in for a rocky time. It would create great conflict.

About Jewel, I'm actually looking forward to seeing her. I'm not sure I buy her character fully, but I like her as an actress, so I'm expecting some good things from her.

Although, I still don't think Carson should be at the top of the list to be replaced. Go figure.

Anise76
January 8th, 2007, 02:02 PM
I'm not taking it as personally as you seem to think. I just thought that some of the other female under-25s on this thread might be offended by it, is all, and wanted to warn you on that. And none of that post was related to whether I like Beckett or not.

You say I take things out of context, but you've just made of yourself a prime example of taking things differently than they were meant. I wasn't trying to patronise you, I was trying to help.

Sure. Fine. Whatever. :beckett:

xfkirsten
January 8th, 2007, 02:36 PM
Well as someone who is not a Weir fan I am so glad she is only being *General Hammond* on the show, and really that is what she should be, we have a TEAM and as the TEAM spends most of its time being shot at, I don't really see what use in an actual story Weir would be.

Yes if SGA was a different show, one that actually spent time trying to learn things from the natives instead of getting shot at I maybe could see it, but then we have Teyla, and she is already on the TEAM and this is her world.

Different strokes for different folks. I'm not going to argue preferences, because I know that not everyone likes the same things I do. As for what use Weir could be... well, what use was Daniel on SG-1? You say that Teyla fills that position, but I think that's also lacking. This could be another issue of the writers' inability to write Teyla, but I don't really see her as filling that position. Occasionally they meet groups with whom Teyla has traded, but oftentimes she doesn't know about the people. And she strikes me as much more of a warrior type than someone primarily interested learning about each particular culture. Again, I think that the poor writing of Teyla plays a part, but I just don't see her filling that bill.


I didn't get the impression she lived in a bubble so she would know some of the races already on other Planets, if the show had concentrated more on that side of Teyla she may also be an interesting character but again this is SGA they don't do that here. :cool: I think one of the largest and unspoken problems with SGA is that there really are too many characters viaring for screen time. Some shows like Star Trek can pull that off but you know I bet some in that fandom lamented their favourite characters not getting good episodes or lines or development... just a thought.

I've never gotten that impression either. And I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think this comes back to the argument that many people are making in this thread - there are a couple of characters that are continually seeing focus, while others (Weir, Teyla, Ronon) are continually stuck on a back burner, being only given an episode a season (at most!) to really develop their character. It's not so much a problem of too many characters as it is just balancing the load.

Pegasus_SGA
January 8th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Hope and I am dam sure a few of the cast members playing Doctors were what I would have called, a bit on the young side, but they made up for it by having great chemistry with the other actors, and yes a good character to play (regardless of age).

I love ER and I agree with you that they made it work because of the chemistry between them. I am willing to give 'Jewel' a shot at playing the part she's been given, and won't turn off just because of Carson's development. I just wished she were a bit older. Given her age (and I really don't mean to be agest here) I can't see what experiece she could possibly have had. To be the main doc of Atlantis (if she is being that) you have to have something about you. Yes Carson said in one ep (sorry can't for the life of me remember it) when they were recruiting that a lot of the docs they were hiring had more experience, but Weir said something like, 'not like you'. Yes he learned the experience on the job, but he had to have a background to start with otherwise he would never have been chosen in the first place. So i'm hoping that when the new character is introduced, that it is gradual and well written and know something about her background that would make her uniquely qualified for the position, and not just because she's a genius.



Personally I think she can do it, I think she has the potential to be the best female character on the show, even if it turns out to be for a brief time (we still have no real idea how many eps she will be in, I think it is 10-14). Also where is the information she will be from Earth? I think I did read genius, but then this is SGA the BEST & BRIGHTEST remember? (yeah I know it hasn't worked out that way with the stupid decisions of Sheppard and Weir and yeah McKay but still B&B)


I hope you're right, as long as her character is written well, and from what's happening to the other female members of SGA i'm not that hopeful, as they seem to fading into the background. I really think that before someone else is added into the mix, the writers need to take affirmative action in providing character development for the women that have been in it from the beginning. I'm not sure what you meant by your last sentance though.


I do seriously think some are just wanting to find fault as she is seen to be replacing Carson. :cool: :rolleyes:

Yes, people are upset because all we've heard is rumours as to why that's happening, but nothing factual. I for one don't understand it, and i'm not happy about it either, but I will give the new character a chance.


speaking as a Weir fan, I actually really like that idea - it would have gotten her much more involved in the show. It's incredibly frustrating to see so many episodes where she just sort of waves goodbye, and sends a few seconds of advice through the wormhole later, and that's her whole role for the episode. It's even more frustrating, considering that TPTB said at the start that they didn't want that to be all she did. If she were demoted and put on the team, she's get in on the action more, and I think it'd be fun to see her getting to make first contact with cultures more often, since that's sort of her area of expertise. :)

I agree, for someone who's character involves negotitions, treaties and so forth it's hard to understand why she's not been developed. I personally feel its to do with the writing and not providing her with the character development. I enjoyed her character more in TRW, because it gave her the opportunity to develop, which is what the women on the show desperately need.


She is basically JUST be old enough to be out of 'school' but she IS NOT old enough to be practicing unsurpervised.To be a fully qualified doctor especially within a specialist field takes a person well beyond the age of 30.

Exactly and I don't particularly want to see a repeat of Doogie Howser MD, lol. And this is why its so important for the writers to develop her appropriately, so we are not saying in a few months time, 'told you she was too young to play the part', or that she was 'just there for eye candy'.



It really IMO helped to make the show successful, it gave some part of the audiences a base to work from. SGA didn't have that, but it did have it within the character of Carson Beckett. An 'everyman' who brought some sembelence of normality and reality to the show and drew in the viewers who needed that.


I agree, Carson is someone that people can relate to and that is appealing to viewers.


Also I don't care how many times tptb think they are writing regulation USAF *support or not* as long as Sheppard keeps that hair I ain't buying any of it. :cool:

lol, I know people in the AF that have hair like his :)

[/quote]if the show had concentrated more on that side of Teyla she may also be an interesting character but again this is SGA they don't do that here. :cool: I think one of the largest and unspoken problems with SGA is that there really are too many characters viaring for screen time. [/quote]

I agree, but I don't think there are too many characters, I just think that there are some eps which are unbalanced, and lines could conceivably be given to other people.


I like that idea too. Weir could start using those linguistic/negotiating skills, which I think is sort of missing from the current team. I also think it would be interesting to see Caldwell take over and how his relationship with Sheppard would change now that Weir isn't there to buffer them. Methinks Sheppard would be in for a rocky time. It would create great conflict.

I'd like to see that side of her developed more to. But Caldwell taking over *shudders* no thanks. I don't know what it is, but i'm not fussed on his character at all. I loved MP in the x-files as he had an air of presence (sorry can't spell tonight) but his character on here again was to play a sort of 'bad guy' but it didn't sit well with me. I did enjoy his presence in the long goodbye, so maybe it is what you do with the character and the script they're given *shrugs*

Lida
January 8th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Most of those 'young actors' are playing interns, resisdents etc. 'Doctors' who are still in the process of becoming fully qualified which IS realistic. The medical training systems between the US and UK work slightly differently but she is basically JUST be old enough to be out of 'school' but she IS NOT old enough to be practicing unsurpervised. Besides, the people on ER & Chicago Hope etc (two excellent shows I also love) are playing roles with a much suitable such as 'Carter' started on ER as a intern (someone just finished medical school and into the first year of there basic training). To be a fully qualified doctor especially within a specialist field takes a person well beyond the age of 30.

Yes I will admit I am slightly biased here because I am extremely upset by Carson's killing off especially with no logical explanation, it seems that the writing staff are taking the easy way out because they have painted themselves into a corner with the character and struggle to take him 'out of the box'. However one of the aspects I loved about SG1 was its melding of fantasy and reality. They worked hard to at least generally adhere to real USAF protocol etc (hence the USAF support) and melding it with the fantastical elements. It really IMO helped to make the show successful, it gave some part of the audiences a base to work from. SGA didn't have that, but it did have it within the character of Carson Beckett. An 'everyman' who brought some sembelence of normality and reality to the show and drew in the viewers who needed that.

But anyone can see 'Jewel' has been cast for testerone factor which has been flippantly dealt with by tauting her as a 'genuis'. Any other science, no bother, but a doctor who deals with the lives of others so directly. And as others have also said practicing MEDICINE requires a certain amount of 'experience'. So the replacement is not only unrealistic its daft. I liked this show when it had a bit more brains and walked the line a little better between fantasy and believability.

Nothing much to add, as you have said it all.....adding JS is a joke, period. She is far too young to be believeable, and this is not Dougie Houser, if that was the name of the show. I never watched it. It thought the idea then was ridiculous. It's more so in the setting of an off world assignment.

Gee a whole world full of docs, extremely well trained, many with multiple board certifications but they pick a "kid". Wow, I am so not looking forward to season 4 of Atlantis. Good job guys, you really know how to break a show.;)

Night Spring
January 8th, 2007, 05:20 PM
In case anyone's interested, I started a thread inspired by an exchange I had earlier in this one: Survey: Hottest Characters in SGA (http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=39282)

Luz
January 8th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Yes, people are upset because all we've heard is rumours as to why that's happening, but nothing factual. I for one don't understand it, and i'm not happy about it either, but I will give the new character a chance.

Allow me to be the voice of the unreasonable here and say that I already hate the character that JS will be playing just because she's going to be replacing Carson. I'm not willing to give her a chance at all, I don't need to see her in action to know that this arrangement sucks.
There is a lot of resentment in me directed at tptb, as a fan I'm already pretty fed up with the all changes taking place, and I'm this ** close to throwing away my remote and tuning off this show.

Willow'sCat
January 11th, 2007, 03:58 PM
I've never gotten that impression either. And I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think this comes back to the argument that many people are making in this thread - there are a couple of characters that are continually seeing focus, while others (Weir, Teyla, Ronon) are continually stuck on a back burner, being only given an episode a season (at most!) to really develop their character. It's not so much a problem of too many characters as it is just balancing the load.I do think it is a problem of too many characters for these writers and this franchise.

I think back on some of my favourite shows, and time and time again one or two characters emerge from the cast to take over the show or at least take centre stage in the stories even from shows that are meant to be ensembles. It may be the nature of writing TV, that may be the reason most shows are actually centred around only two or three characters, with sometimes two or three more in the background.

I think one of the problems is the credits and the initial set up, to have Weir/Torri as second lead (female lead) then not use her does make it seem like the tptb didn't think things through or that they had all these great plans for Weir but now have put them way, way on the back burner.

I don't think just because Weir is the over all Leader that Torri needs second lead status but by giving her that the fans rightly expect her to be the focus of the show most of the time, reality she is not, she is *General Hammond* she comes in to give instruction, to voice concern but really for this viewer there is often little else I see her doing. I am not thinking this will change, and so the voices asking for change will continue.

RoryJ
January 11th, 2007, 07:11 PM
But anyone can see 'Jewel' has been cast for testerone factor which has been flippantly dealt with by tauting her as a 'genuis'. Any other science, no bother, but a doctor who deals with the lives of others so directly. And as others have also said practicing MEDICINE requires a certain amount of 'experience'. So the replacement is not only unrealistic its daft. I liked this show when it had a bit more brains and walked the line a little better between fantasy and believability.

I love Carson do death and am very upset at the poilers, but I was very comforted when I heard that they were bringing Jewel in. From seeing her in Firefly and Serenity, I feel she is a very talented actress and has a good instinct. And she may be young, but she doesn't exactly look that young. Hell, my doctor here at home looks younger than her, and she's been in practice for ten years!

I'm excited because Jewel's a great actress and can amplify the quality of a scene easily, just like I feel Paul does.

FallenAngelII
January 11th, 2007, 07:16 PM
I love Carson do death and am very upset at the poilers, but I was very comforted when I heard that they were bringing Jewel in. From seeing her in Firefly and Serenity, I feel she is a very talented actress and has a good instinct. And she may be young, but she doesn't exactly look that young. Hell, my doctor here at home looks younger than her, and she's been in practice for ten years!

I'm excited because Jewel's a great actress and can amplify the quality of a scene easily, just like I feel Paul does.
Yes she does. She played Ellia, a, what, 14 yearold Wraith. >_>' And from the photos I've seen, she looks pretty young.

RoryJ
January 11th, 2007, 07:29 PM
I think one of the problems is the credits and the initial set up, to have Weir/Torri as second lead (female lead) then not use her does make it seem like the tptb didn't think things through or that they had all these great plans for Weir but now have put them way, way on the back burner.

I don't think just because Weir is the over all Leader that Torri needs second lead status but by giving her that the fans rightly expect her to be the focus of the show most of the time, reality she is not, she is *General Hammond* she comes in to give instruction, to voice concern but really for this viewer there is often little else I see her doing. I am not thinking this will change, and so the voices asking for change will continue.

Well, they did set her up as second lead, so now they should do something about it. :P While I am willing to concede McKay's place over hers (thus, he recieves the coveted last spot in the credit with his character full name, which is sort of a slot of honor), I still think that there are great plots out there dealing with the city or with Atlantis' fragile system of balances that could utilize Elizabeth more. The internal, within-the-city stories are the ones where I feel Atlantis really shines. Every time they go offworld on a stand-alone mission, I find myself feeling that SG-1 could have easily pulled it off better. When SGA falls back on the city, or its command dynamics, or the Ancients/Wraith/Asurans/Genii, it really takes off. And these are all fantastic opportunities to utilize ALL the characters' strengths, including Elizabeth's.

And I don't think being in the General Hammond role necessarily by nature limits that role. Look at O'Neill in season 8. He was the general in charge, but he still had a lot of meat to work with in nearly every episode, and that was when RDA was working half-time! Thus, I know that TPTB can do great things with the expedition leader's role, and so I expect them to. I love McKay to death, but why does he get so many episodes? I don't think I can take many more one-man acts. Give Teyla, Elizabeth, Ronon (look how much he shined in Sateda), or Carson something more to work with, please.


Yes she does. She played Ellia, a, what, 14 yearold Wraith. >_>' And from the photos I've seen, she looks pretty young.


Well, I think Joe "looks" a lot younger than most Lt. Colonel's I know in the Air Force. Doesn't stop me from believing (now, his attitude and blatant disregard for hair regulations, hmm ...:cool:).

FallenAngelII
January 11th, 2007, 08:06 PM
Well, I think Joe "looks" a lot younger than most Lt. Colonel's I know in the Air Force. Doesn't stop me from believing (now, his attitude and blatant disregard for hair regulations, hmm ...:cool:).
At least Joe is as old as the character he's supposed to portray. He doesn't have to bloat his age.

RoryJ
January 11th, 2007, 09:39 PM
At least Joe is as old as the character he's supposed to portray. He doesn't have to bloat his age.

But he certainly doesn't look it. Your average viewer who doesn't participate in fandom isn't going to know that he's actually forty; my mom first thought he was in his very early thirties. A captain I know who watches the show came up to me one day and said that no way could Sheppard or Sam Carter be old enough to have reached Lt. Colonel rank. I had to tell him that the actors were older than they looked (and Sam is able to get promoted ridiculously quick).

Conversely, depending on how Jewel plays the character, the average viewer may not know that she's so young. Watching Firefly, I still didn't think she looked all that young, and she was supposed to be playing a young-ish, go-lucky, carefree character.


At the end of all things, I think TPTB made a wise decision for themselves for two reasons. 1) She's a great and intelligent actress. 2) She has a substantial sci-fi fan base. TPTB aren't stupid; they knew exactly what they were doing by going for actors like Ben Browder, Claudia Black, Mitch Pileggi, and Morena Baccarin. The fan bases for Farscape and Firefly are big. Trying to collect those bases and integrate them into your own is a good strategy. That said, I know why they did it, and I don't think it was something so trivial and childish as "eye candy". She's replacing an extremelly beloved character - you don't cast that replacement lightly, and as an actress, you don't take that job lightly, either.

prion
January 12th, 2007, 03:50 AM
Well, not sure if the Jewel/Paul situation really belongs in this thread, but the reason I dislike the move is that shows the writers are incapable of working with their present characters. Can't figure out how to fix a problem you made? Junk the character and start with a fresh one? Sign of bad management.

TJuk
January 12th, 2007, 05:59 AM
At the end of all things, I think TPTB made a wise decision for themselves for two reasons. 1) She's a great and intelligent actress. 2) She has a substantial sci-fi fan base. TPTB aren't stupid; they knew exactly what they were doing by going for actors like Ben Browder, Claudia Black, Mitch Pileggi, and Morena Baccarin. The fan bases for Farscape and Firefly are big. Trying to collect those bases and integrate them into your own is a good strategy. That said, I know why they did it, and I don't think it was something so trivial and childish as "eye candy". She's replacing an extremelly beloved character - you don't cast that replacement lightly, and as an actress, you don't take that job lightly, either.

Oh I can certain see WHY they've done it, and understand the reasoning behind wanting to tap into an existing fanbase to boost viewing numbers. But they've tried it before, multiple times, to little or no effect. Not with Ben or Claudia, two BIG names. Not with Morena, Connor Trinneer or Jewel or indeed names like Richard Kind as guests stars, recurring or otherwise.

The ratings have not gone up to any significant amount even when the person is a regular and I cant see it being any different with Jewel this time around. Or for that matter, AT/Carter. Any and all SG1 fans wanting to watch SGA will be doing so already. Surely anyone with half an ounce of sense will have realised that, which is why I think its other factors motivating the replacement AND casting choice. The fan base they're hoping to tap into want to see more then just a firmilar face, they want the setting and the character back that they loved NOT simply the actress/actor. You will get some who are fans of the actor, but those numbers will be insignificant in comparison to what they want and NEED.

I think what needs replacing is some of the writers, you need some fresh blood with new ideas, a fresh perception who haven't been jaded or got themselves into a set way of thinking. We need renewed enthusiasm and incite within the writing pool NOT the actors/characters replacing. Carson's death WILL be dramatic, doesn't matter how good/bad its written, it will still have some impact because of his popularity. However it will be short lived and is VERY short sighted. They need to write characters out of the corners they've put them in, not disgard them. Doing that is so incredibly and blatantly lazy. If its for other reasons then surely by now someone would have justified their reasons. In my experience keeping silent is an admission of guilt and failure.

leelakin
January 12th, 2007, 06:07 AM
At the end of all things, I think TPTB made a wise decision for themselves for two reasons. 1) She's a great and intelligent actress. 2) She has a substantial sci-fi fan base.

So is Paul.
And if I'm not completely wrong about this, his fanbase among Stargate viewers is greater than that of Jewel. *lol*

Suzotchka
January 12th, 2007, 06:12 AM
Well, not sure if the Jewel/Paul situation really belongs in this thread, but the reason I dislike the move is that shows the writers are incapable of working with their present characters. Can't figure out how to fix a problem you made? Junk the character and start with a fresh one? Sign of bad management.

I absolutely agree with you on this. They can't write for the women they have now on the show. So why bring in another one? There needs to be more of a focus on Elizabeth and Teyla. Teyla can do anything any other member of the team can do. So let's see her do it! And the same for Elizabeth. I would love to see her use her linguistic and negotiating skills.

And while I am enjoying season 3 overall, I think the characters they have now need developing.

Suzotchka
January 12th, 2007, 06:15 AM
Oh I can certain see WHY they've done it, and understand the reasoning behind wanting to tap into an existing fanbase to boost viewing numbers. But they've tried it before, multiple times, to little or no effect. Not with Ben or Claudia, two BIG names. Not with Morena, Connor Trinneer or Jewel or indeed names like Richard Kind as guests stars, recurring or otherwise.

I also agree with this. They tried it before on SG-1, it didn't work. I think they need to be concerned about keeping the viewers they have now.

FallenAngelII
January 12th, 2007, 06:24 AM
So is Paul.
And if I'm not completely wrong about this, his fanbase among Stargate viewers is greater than that of Jewel. *lol*
I think they meant that tapping into the other fanbases, getting them to watch Stargate.

Trialia
January 12th, 2007, 06:26 AM
I think they meant that tapping into the other fanbases, getting them to watch Stargate.

So do I. The trouble there is that a lot of us cross over already. I was a fan of Farscape and Firefly before they brought the new cast members over...

TJuk
January 12th, 2007, 06:46 AM
I absolutely agree with you on this. They can't write for the women they have now on the show. So why bring in another one? There needs to be more of a focus on Elizabeth and Teyla....[ ].....
And while I am enjoying season 3 overall, I think the characters they have now need developing.

I DEFINATELY think Teyla needs developing. Even though they haven't used her much this season, I truely enjoy her character. She is a 'strong female' without being overtly forceful. She can kick ass and handle herself but isn't waving or beating people over the head with the feminist banner. She has a quiet sense of strength and ability..I really like that. I like her subtle and wise nature. I also love her spirituality which is a great higlight, she is the 'soul' of the show. Its one of the reasons I enjoy her relationship and interactions with Carson, she gets to show more of that softer side of her personality and it really helps to round out her character. Something she doesn't and to some extent, cant show with the others. And an important part I will miss when Carson is no longer around to give her that outlet.

Rachel, like Paul does an awful lot with very very little. They have a great ability to say things with their faces and become part of a scene when on paper, you wouldn't even know if they were there or not.

Its the writing that has let both of them down, another example of how 'lazy' the writing has become. You have a great set of actors under your nose but they're not being written for because they're the wrong gender, or they dont happen to be 'Marty-Sue' enough. I hope, she at least wont suffer the same fate as Carson if this show survives long enough to consider needing another such lazy writing tactic.

prion
January 12th, 2007, 08:29 AM
Its the writing that has let both of them down, another example of how 'lazy' the writing has become. You have a great set of actors under your nose but they're not being written for because they're the wrong gender, or they dont happen to be 'Marty-Sue' enough. I hope, she at least wont suffer the same fate as Carson if this show survives long enough to consider needing another such lazy writing tactic.

If any of the writers are perusing this thread, I hope they realize that a lot of fans want more than just 'sketches' of their favorite characters, that we'd like some depth, otherwise we could just watch cartoons.

Lida
January 12th, 2007, 08:48 AM
It wouldn't surprise me at all that should SGA garner a 5th season, another main character will be dumped--for the damatic impact, of course ;) ;) First Ford, now Carson--who's next? My money's on one of the women, although I'm undecided on who would go first--Weir or Teyla? At least we know neither McKay nor Sheppard will end up on the chopping block (unless whichever actor wanted to leave the show).

How about the new doc, for failure to understand what she was getting in to? That would work for me.

Skydiver
January 12th, 2007, 09:13 AM
Guys, this is not the 'why jewel is bad/why is paul leaving' thread.

If y'all want to discuss the merits of the cast changes, start a thread for it...or there may very well be one already.

This was to discuss martin gero's and carl binder's role for season 4

I am declaring the Jewell/Paul issue to be off topic for this thread. Take that debate elsewhere.

Lida
January 12th, 2007, 09:30 AM
Guys, this is not the 'why jewel is bad/why is paul leaving' thread.

If y'all want to discuss the merits of the cast changes, start a thread for it...or there may very well be one already.

This was to discuss martin gero's and carl binder's role for season 4

I am declaring the Jewell/Paul issue to be off topic for this thread. Take that debate elsewhere.

Anything you say Sky......I'm certain people will find other problems........I'm finished with the subject. It's liiebeating a dead horse...

Have a good day!:)

Anhara
February 24th, 2007, 05:23 AM
I've always had a disliking for Mallozzi and Mullie. I felt the show changed in Season Four, which was the year they joined Stargate and Jonathan Glassner left. I also felt that Mallozzi, Mullie and Gero come across as quite arrogant in interviews they like talking about themselves too much. I don't get this impression from other people, i.e. Robert C. Cooper, Jonathan Glassner, Brad Wright and Martin Wood.

I hated the 'Behind The 200th Episode' special with Gary Jones (it was a skit) going around everyone practically begging to be in the 200th episode and being (quite harshly) turned down by everyone from Rob Cooper to Martin Wood to even Craft services. It was supposed to be a 'joke' but all it did was show the writers/producers as arrogant, mean and elitist by making Gary look like a total Felger. It does not look like a very fun crew to be around unless you're 'in the team'. Again, I stress it was supposed to be a joke but it (a) wasn't really funny (b) is quite easy to believe they're actually like that through reading some of their interviews.

jenks
February 24th, 2007, 06:26 AM
But he certainly doesn't look it. Your average viewer who doesn't participate in fandom isn't going to know that he's actually forty;

Definatly, I know people in their mid 20's who look older than him.

PG15
February 24th, 2007, 02:18 PM
I hated the 'Behind The 200th Episode' special with Gary Jones (it was a skit) going around everyone practically begging to be in the 200th episode and being (quite harshly) turned down by everyone from Rob Cooper to Martin Wood to even Craft services. It was supposed to be a 'joke' but all it did was show the writers/producers as arrogant, mean and elitist by making Gary look like a total Felger. It does not look like a very fun crew to be around unless you're 'in the team'. Again, I stress it was supposed to be a joke but it (a) wasn't really funny (b) is quite easy to believe they're actually like that through reading some of their interviews.

IMHO, their humor fitted right in with Stargate's humor. It's always been a bit snarky, and I think if you just step back a little and look at what Stargate's all about, at least in the humor department, it'll make sense.

And it was hilarious, IMHO. I guess you'd probably don't want to watch the Martin Gero special on the Season 1 Atlantis DVD.

Anhara
February 25th, 2007, 04:32 AM
Oh great, another 'you didn't think it was funny because you didn't 'get' it'. I got it just fine, there isn't much to get, it's not exactly 'high brow' humour is it? They're pretending to be mean people, that's not snarky, a six-year-old in the playground can manage that level of nasty bullying. I'm judging by your avatar that you are a fan of the snark king himself, as am I, love McKay he is easily my favourite character in Atlantis and he is SNARKY writ large.

I really do want to know what Martin Gero has to say though, any chance of a summarise? I have all the SG DVD's, not Atlantis ones as of yet.

I have seen his 'Making of A Dream' on Youtube though and thought it was quite funny, he did come across as being a full-of-himself writer but he WAS acting it and very well I might add. I think the rest of the cast were just really ready for him though, especially David Hewlett. I don't know why but it came across as the same concept as the Gary Jones one but it was much funnier and it made him quite likeable in a David Brent kind of way. Even Brad Wright was funny. I suppose it's easier to see those in power make themselves look like twits than it is to see those without the power (i.e. Gary Jones) made to look look small by those in power. If you catch my drift.

Trialia
February 26th, 2007, 01:51 AM
Personally, I enjoyed the "behind 200" a lot more than I enjoyed "200" itself. *shrugs* Matter of opinion, of course.