PDA

View Full Version : The Olive Branch to the Sam Fans (Season 4 spoilers)



FallenAngelII
January 15th, 2007, 10:23 PM
OK, so a lot of Sam fans (OK, well, a few) are now roaming these boards defending her honor, stating that she'll be a good addition, that they love her and that people will too and yaddi yaddi yadda.

It's important to make one thing clear: The majority of the Weir-Savers aren't criticizing Sam's character or Amanda Tapping's acting abilities or whatever.

What we're criticizing is the fact that there's a show dynamic. Over the course of 3 years, SGA has become kinda an ensemble show despite the fact that a few characters have become wallflowers.

Disrupting that by getting rid of Carson (for good), reducing Elizabeth's role and bringing in two new characters isn't going to be good on the show. To quote Philip J. Fry: "Unexpected things make them (the TV audience) feel scared."

A lot of casual viewers and "fanatical" (as in us) viewers alike will dislike these changes. And yes, a lot of them will stop watching the show because of it. People are like that.

We're not saying that Sam will undoubtedly ruin the show. We're not saying that she's a bad character. But everything has its own place and its own time. Forcing Sam onto the show out of choice (at least with the Vala/Mitchell Brouhaha, it was because two regulars had left the show out of their own choice) while reducing the roles of two staple characters, that's not going to end up all Peaches and Rainbows.

We (well, most of us) do not hate Sam. We hate the changes they are making so suddenly and with such a rushed feel to them.

In comparison, wouldn't you be upset if it was Atlantis getting canned, if they brought Rodney over to SG-1, brought in a new character and screwed two regulars (who'd been there since the beginning, which means Sam, Daniel or Teal'c) on SG-1 over?

Mitchell82
January 15th, 2007, 11:31 PM
OK, so a lot of Sam fans (OK, well, a few) are now roaming these boards defending her honor, stating that she'll be a good addition, that they love her and that people will too and yaddi yaddi yadda.

It's important to make one thing clear: The majority of the Weir-Savers aren't criticizing Sam's character or Amanda Tapping's acting abilities or whatever.

What we're criticizing is the fact that there's a show dynamic. Over the course of 3 years, SGA has become kinda an ensemble show despite the fact that a few characters have become wallflowers.Disrupting that by getting rid of Carson (for good), reducing Elizabeth's role and bringing in two new characters isn't going to be good on the show. To quote Philip J. Fry: "Unexpected things make them (the TV audience) feel scared."

A lot of casual viewers and "fanatical" (as in us) viewers alike will dislike these changes. And yes, a lot of them will stop watching the show because of it. People are like that.We're not saying that Sam will undoubtedly ruin the show. We're not saying that she's a bad character. But everything has its own place and its own time. Forcing Sam onto the show out of choice (at least with the Vala/Mitchell Brouhaha, it was because two regulars had left the show out of their own choice) while reducing the roles of two staple characters, that's not going to end up all Peaches and Rainbows.

We (well, most of us) do not hate Sam. We hate the changes they are making so suddenly and with such a rushed feel to them.

In comparison, wouldn't you be upset if it was Atlantis getting canned, if they brought Rodney over to SG-1, brought in a new character and screwed two regulars (who'd been there since the beginning, which means Sam, Daniel or Teal'c) on SG-1 over?
Ok wha I've hilighted ios nothing but opinion and not supported by fact. True there is a team dynamic, but I do not feel it is being broken. WEIR IS NOT LEAVING the show she is only reducing her role and possibly by her (Tori) own choice. I am not the only one that feels that the show will not be ruined by only 3 cast changes and only 1 member leaving. I happen to think the show has plenty of potential to go on without Carson and the additon of AT and JS. I still think the Weir fans are overreacting. I like her but am not worried about her role being reduced.
As to your final comment that kinda did happen. We lost several characters and got 4 new ones without compromising the show IMO.

FallenAngelII
January 15th, 2007, 11:34 PM
"The fact that" is a manner of speaking. It does not make a claim to that the thing you're talking about is pure indisputable fact.

And while the show has great potential, it will undoubtedly be different. Great changes have been made. "Unexpected things make them feel scared". A lot of viewers will tune out because the show will change so drastically.

SG-1 never had their regulars screwed over. They left out of their own choice.

Mitchell82
January 15th, 2007, 11:40 PM
"The fact that" is a manner of speaking. It does not make a claim to that the thing you're talking about is pure indisputable fact.

And while the show has great potential, it will undoubtedly be different. Great changes have been made. "Unexpected things make them feel scared". A lot of viewers will tune out because the show will change so drastically.

SG-1 never had their regulars screwed over. They left out of their own choice.

Ok good point, but Teryl was screwed over ande that turned out fine. Paul is the only one screwed here as we know nothingabout tori's situation. Yes changes have been made, and whether they are good or bad is yet to be seen so I say wait and see.

Nolamom
January 16th, 2007, 12:19 AM
SG-1 never had their regulars screwed over. They left out of their own choice.
Sorry, but you're wrong there. Sam was reduced from a dynamic, three-dimensional *leader* to a wallpaper character in as fast as you can say Cam Mitchell - and with about as many lines. Then the poor hewo, Mitchell, changes from week to week as the writers cannot decide WHO he really is since they never bothered to give him a decent backstory. And Daniel had a complete personality transplant. Teal'c, who had become much more outgoing from seasons 6-8 was back to monosyllables until season 10, when tptb discovered him again. the only ones to have left of their own choice was Hammond (for health reasons) and Jack (for family reasons). I cannot fault either of them for that.

All in all it's a mess.

Nolamom
January 16th, 2007, 12:22 AM
Ok good point, but Teryl was screwed over ande that turned out fine.
Has it really? I know a lot of folks miss her a great deal. Same with Jacob Carter - he wasn't ready to leave either.

ladysarah
January 16th, 2007, 12:29 AM
I agree. I don't care about Sam either way, I'm not a SG1 fan, and I don't have the time or energy to bother about a show and character that does not interest me.

But when it's about the show I love, all bets are off. This is where I start to care, and then I get pissed.

lemming << maybe.

tears of blood
January 16th, 2007, 12:35 AM
Personally, i reserve judgement until the scripts/episode names/synopsis, etc are made known, theirs no need to like think its the end of the world because shes joining... she could for all we or anyone else knows fit in perfectly and add a new dynamic to the show, theirs no denying shes a great actress...

i think its too early to judge whenever or not its the end as we know it for the show because shes joining..

i however dont agree with how Carson was made redundant

ladysarah
January 16th, 2007, 12:44 AM
theirs no denying shes a great actress...

That is a matter of opinion.

I have not seen enough of her to say myself, but I have noticed over the years many mixed thoughts on her acting ability, from 'she's crap and wooden, to she's the bestest thing since sliced bread' amongst my friends, and random fans across this forum and on LJ.

I'm not entirely convinced she's a great actress. I only give that title to actors like Sir Ian McKellan, Hilary Swank, you get the idea.

Vicky
January 16th, 2007, 01:54 AM
I really like Sam, I think some of you know it, but Atlantis is not where she should be. But I won't resent her for that.

The only ones to blame are TPTB who think it's a good idea (which I doubt but it's not like we can say anything about the show we watch *rollseyes*).

I know that some people have never watched SG1 and are not interested to see a SG1 character in Atlantis, especially in those circumstances.

I'm under the impression they just want to sort of save their precious SG1...

sueKay
January 16th, 2007, 01:59 AM
The way I see it...

spoilers for late s3Grodin: Killed off
Bates: Vanished
Ford: Reduced to recurring.Was in 4 s2 eps and never heard of since
Beckett: We were told he would 'dissappear'...nope...he went KABOOM. dead.
Weir: We've been told she will be recurring...

How many eps do you think she's actually gonna be in? They're obviously making the statement that they're not invested in her character anymore.

andr3w_iii
January 16th, 2007, 01:59 AM
Well i think if Sam is going to work in Atlantis her and Rodney's bickering has to be turned down, if not is going to get old real quick.

N i dont want to see Cam anywhere near Atlantis ever again, i can not begin how that would turn me off Atlantis.

:sheppard: :mckay:

Gen_J_O'Neill
January 16th, 2007, 02:08 AM
Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt it scifi who wanted a character from sg1 to appear in SGA. So i think most of the anger should be focussed towards them.

Im actually looking forward to seeing what Carter will bring to s4. I think she will be an interesting addition to the cast and provide a new dynamic. Id have to agree with you andr3w_iii, the bickering will have to be turned down otherwie it will just become stupid!

To those Weir supporters out there, remember that Carson had more screentime in s1 than he did in s2, so its possible that her role will not be diminished at all.

Another thing, I dont mind people sharing their opinions, thats what this forum is here for, but i get realy p****ed off when people say they are not going to tune in next season when they havent even heard any of the proposed stories or ideas. It just irks me!

Night Spring
January 16th, 2007, 04:12 AM
To those Weir supporters out there, remember that Carson had more screentime in s1 than he did in s2, so its possible that her role will not be diminished at all.
If Weir's screentime is going to remain the same, then why bother changing her status? Carson's situation in S1-S2 is not a valid analogy to what's happening to Weir.


Another thing, I dont mind people sharing their opinions, thats what this forum is here for, but i get realy p****ed off when people say they are not going to tune in next season when they havent even heard any of the proposed stories or ideas. It just irks me!
People watch the show for different reasons. Some watch for the stories, others for their favorite characters. If your favorite character is no longer in the show, then why watch it? It's totally logical that you won't.

Falcon Horus
January 16th, 2007, 04:12 AM
I like Carter ... on SG1.

I have always liked the character, and I think she even loosened up a bit in the last few years. But I just can't picture her in Atlantis. How hard I try, I just don't see it.

Maybe once the stories have been filmed and are shown on TV, I might envision it more clearly but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be royally p****d about how TPTB treat Weir (and Carson by extent). Because I am.

I'm still very p****d about what they did to Doc Fraiser on SG1. And I will never forgive TPTB for that idiotic mistake. I can live with it, but I can't forget about it.

Skythe
January 16th, 2007, 04:31 AM
You probably shouldn't jump the gun. While i'm already bored of Carter-Mckay, i'm waiting to see what they will do this this before i judge it.

And remember, when people have an opinion of something they tend to search for evidence that supports this. Try and watch the carter s4 eps with an objective mind.

Agent_Dark
January 16th, 2007, 05:38 AM
If Weir's screentime is going to remain the same, then why bother changing her status?

I think it may have something to do with certain stipulations in regards to regular characters. They're a regular character so they have to use them in an episode - it's what they're paying the actors for after all. They must feel they can better use Weir as a recurring character were they don't have to use her in every episode, and I would agree with that.

Gen_J_O'Neill
January 16th, 2007, 05:51 AM
Nicely said Agent Dark!


People watch the show for different reasons. Some watch for the stories, others for their favorite characters. If your favorite character is no longer in the show, then why watch it? It's totally logical that you won't.

Thats a good point! But what im saying is just give the show a chance before you decide not to watch it anymore. Who knows, you may even like the new direction. If you watch the first ep and dont like it, so be it, then make your statement that your no longer going to watch, but dont make up your mind on speculation that it may be bad.

PS: Not trying to offend anyone, just getting my view across :)

Devmen
January 16th, 2007, 06:03 AM
honestly since the show was doing well before changed, why not keep them?

minigeek
January 16th, 2007, 06:10 AM
We (well, most of us) do not hate Sam. We hate the changes they are making so suddenly and with such a rushed feel to them.

I think that was an important post to make and my hat's off to you for doing it so well.

I'm a self-admitted "Sam fan", in the sense that I post most often in the "Sam's a Great Character" thread. However I (quite a few of us, actually) also really feel for Torri's fans (and for Paul's also). We know what it's like, because not too many months ago, we were faced with a similar "up in the air" scenario vis-a-vis how many episodes we'd get to see our own favourite character appear on SG-1 (we heard 'some episodes of Atlantis' and then we heard maybe 'two' and before that we heard 'we don't know what to do with her character').

At the end of the day, not much of what we 'heard' ended up even coming to pass. Carter spent a great deal of her time on SG-1 and news of her marginalization was exaggerated, at best. But there certainly was a fervor over it.

Everyone's going to jump in to defend their favourite character when things get 'ugly', but to be honest - I think a lot of SaGC-card-toting-members are way on-side when it comes to Torri/Weir being kept as the female lead of Atlantis. She's a great character, too, and I know I'd be bummed to see her marginalized, also.

Having said that - perhaps AD has a valid point, too. How many episodes is Weir going to be in? Is it one fewer than last year? Just enough to push her into the label of recurring, though we'll see just as much of her as ever? I don't have the answers to those questions, but I do think that experience has dictated (this close to the beginning of principle photography for S4 of Atlantis especially), it might be wise to see what begins to unfold before the march of doom grows any larger. Panic is a disease and it spreads like wildfire - often where it's not even necessary.

minigeek

Night Spring
January 16th, 2007, 06:36 AM
Having said that - perhaps AD has a valid point, too. How many episodes is Weir going to be in? Is it one fewer than last year? Just enough to push her into the label of recurring, though we'll see just as much of her as ever?
If in fact the reduction in Weir's time is so minimal that we're getting virtually as much of her as we did previously, then TPTB have made a very stupid decision in not immediately making a public statement announcing this to reassure the Weir fans and other fans concerned about overall cast dynamics. They can save themselves and the fans a lot of unpleasantness by being upfront about this. That they haven't done so shows that they either do not care about how concerned fans feel, or that our concerns are right, and there will in fact be a considerable reduction of screen time for Weir.

ParadoxRealities
January 16th, 2007, 06:55 AM
OK, so a lot of Sam fans (OK, well, a few) are now roaming these boards defending her honor, stating that she'll be a good addition, that they love her and that people will too and yaddi yaddi yadda.

It's important to make one thing clear: The majority of the Weir-Savers aren't criticizing Sam's character or Amanda Tapping's acting abilities or whatever.first off, thank you for the proverbial olive branch. but we've, most of us, have agreed with you from the beginning. most of us want Weir as leader, because we know what it's like to be screwed over like that. we're not trying to push our character into any situation that gets her screen time, if only because we don't want to turn the rest of the fan base against her (personally, i'm a Weir fan as well). preserving the show dynamic, or at least not screwing over characters/relationships, is important whether we(gen) actually like the show or not.

We're not saying that Sam will undoubtedly ruin the show. We're not saying that she's a bad character.and thank you for understanding that. i think it's a bad situation too; it won't help any character. even if it ends up ok, TPTB have to know what saying Sam's in for 14 eps, Carson's leaving, and Weir becoming "reaccuring", would do to the fans.
(at least with the Vala/Mitchell Brouhaha, it was because two regulars had left the show out of their own choice)and two were wallpapered, one of which had her command stolen, and another was rewritten. i don't know the SGA situation as well, but they seem to be running parallel tracks both headed for that cliff over yonder.

In comparison, wouldn't you be upset if it was Atlantis getting canned, if they brought Rodney over to SG-1, brought in a new character and screwed two regulars (who'd been there since the beginning, which means Sam, Daniel or Teal'c) on SG-1 over?yes, i would be. as a matter of fact, i am. except 'two' and 'a' are three. this is exactly how we've been feeling for two years.:( welcome to the boat, sorry about the leaky floor.

FallenAngelII
January 16th, 2007, 07:08 AM
Ok good point, but Teryl was screwed over ande that turned out fine. Paul is the only one screwed here as we know nothingabout tori's situation. Yes changes have been made, and whether they are good or bad is yet to be seen so I say wait and see.
You think Teryl's situation "turned out fine"? Fine how? She got one episode almost two years after she was written out.

Not a direct quote, but this is how she discovered she was being written out:
PTB (on the phone): "We're killing off your character. How do you feel about that?"
Teryl: How do I feel? How do you think I feel?!


Sorry, but you're wrong there. Sam was reduced from a dynamic, three-dimensional *leader* to a wallpaper character in as fast as you can say Cam Mitchell - and with about as many lines. Then the poor hewo, Mitchell, changes from week to week as the writers cannot decide WHO he really is since they never bothered to give him a decent backstory. And Daniel had a complete personality transplant. Teal'c, who had become much more outgoing from seasons 6-8 was back to monosyllables until season 10, when tptb discovered him again. the only ones to have left of their own choice was Hammond (for health reasons) and Jack (for family reasons). I cannot fault either of them for that.

All in all it's a mess.
As opposed to what happened to Torri and Paul? The PTB screw characters over all the time because they're bad at writing them. But the characters you mentioned weren't killed off or reduced to a smaller role (at least not on paper) unless they left out of their own free will.

While the SG-1 brouhaha was also sudden and a lot of changes were made, it was because they thought they weren't coming back. Then out of the blue (IIRC, after the season had ended), Sci-Fi announced they were coming back, but only after two leads (RDA and DSD) had left the show (out of their own free will to spend more time with their kids and grand kids). Of course, the writing for season 9 changed dramatically. But, hey, since when are the PTB perfect?

While the two situations are similar, they're not identical. The changes made on SGA are voluntary. The changes made on SG-1 were not (mostly).

I started out as an SG-1 fan and I still am. Don't think that I'm uneducated on the matters of SG-1.


Personally, i reserve judgement until the scripts/episode names/synopsis, etc are made known, theirs no need to like think its the end of the world because shes joining... she could for all we or anyone else knows fit in perfectly and add a new dynamic to the show, theirs no denying shes a great actress...

i think its too early to judge whenever or not its the end as we know it for the show because shes joining..

i however dont agree with how Carson was made redundant
It does not matter if she fits in perfectly. She could be one of the best characters the show has ever had. But unless they're gonna change her radically to make her a lot like either Elizabeth and/or Carson, the show's gonna be different. A lot different. Unless Sam becomes Elizabeth-2 and Keller (or whatever Jewel's character's gonna be called) becomes Carson-2, the show's going to change dramatically with the departure of one regular, diminished role of another and two new supporting characters (and I use that term loosely because they're both gonna be in the majority of the episodes).

Casual viewers will turn away because radical changes within such a short timespan is never good. Orthodox viewers might turn away because the show has changed too much within too short a time.

Because no matter if the show becomes better or worse, the show will undoubtedly have changed.

Change is to be made slowly (if you can). With SG-1, they couldn't. With SGA, they can, but they choose not to.

GateGipsy
January 16th, 2007, 07:23 AM
OK I'm lost! What on earth is meant to be the topic of this thread, mmm? Is it a discussion on how you can like Sam but not like her being moved to Atlantis? Or is it yet another discussion about Weir and Beckett being moved off the show as regulars under a rather thin disguise?

If it is the former, then fine. We don't have another thread on that topic so I'm happy to leave this one alone.

However, I haven't seen much discussion along those lines, in fact there seems to be little about Sam at all and a *lot* about Weir and Beckett being moved off.

Either we stick to the topic here or this thread gets merged. Cheers :)

FallenAngelII
January 16th, 2007, 07:26 AM
OK I'm lost! What on earth is meant to be the topic of this thread, mmm? Is it a discussion on how you can like Sam but not like her being moved to Atlantis? Or is it yet another discussion about Weir and Beckett being moved off the show as regulars under a rather thin disguise?

If it is the former, then fine. We don't have another thread on that topic so I'm happy to leave this one alone.

However, I haven't seen much discussion along those lines, in fact there seems to be little about Sam at all and a *lot* about Weir and Beckett being moved off.

Either we stick to the topic here or this thread gets merged. Cheers :)
The topic was supposed to be "We can like Sam but still not want her on Atlantis" or "We can oppose to what's happening with Weir and dislike the changes Sam brings without opposing Sam as a character - We're all friends here". Then it escalated.

GateGipsy
January 16th, 2007, 07:28 AM
Yup that's what I mean. I think that it is perhaps time the thread got back on topic, or we merged it into one of the Weir and Becket threads.

ParadoxRealities
January 16th, 2007, 08:00 AM
As opposed to what happened to Torri and Paul? The PTB screw characters over all the time because they're bad at writing them. But the characters you mentioned weren't killed off or reduced to a smaller role (at least not on paper) unless they left out of their own free will.yes, it's different. but lets stop playing victim. we both got screwed over, unfortunately you don't know how much yet. neither do we, for the second time. on SG-1: they 'don't know what to do with Sam Carter', and AT feels awkward and left out of the 'new situation' after missing 5 eps. they take Sam's command (but not really ATs). TPTB LOVE writing Daniel/Vala, and it shows to say the least. but RDA and DS leave on their own. on SGA: TPTB downgraded Tori on paper and maybe in reality. they write off Carson. They bring in a major character from the parent show for 14 eps, hurting the reputation of the character even more. if my language shows bias, please forgive me.

While the SG-1 brouhaha was also sudden and a lot of changes were made, it was because they thought they weren't coming back. Then out of the blue (IIRC, after the season had ended), Sci-Fi announced they were coming back, but only after two leads (RDA and DSD) had left the show (out of their own free will to spend more time with their kids and grand kids). Of course, the writing for season 9 changed dramatically. But, hey, since when are the PTB perfect?
While the two situations are similar, they're not identical. The changes made on SGA are voluntary. The changes made on SG-1 were not (mostly).
I started out as an SG-1 fan and I still am. Don't think that I'm uneducated on the matters of SG-1.that's all true, but there are a lot of voluntary character changes, especially to Mitchell, Vala, Sam, and Daniel that destroyed the show dynamic even more. we don't know how much SGA will actually change (voluntarily), but i can assure you that there were PLENTY of voluntary changes to SG-1. i know you watch it and you may not see it, but there will no doubt be SGA fans that don't mind either. but i don't to fight this battle here--in fact, i don't want to fight here at all.

It does not matter if she fits in perfectly. She could be one of the best characters the show has ever had. But unless they're gonna change her radically to make her a lot like either Elizabeth and/or Carson, the show's gonna be different. A lot different. Unless Sam becomes Elizabeth-2 and Keller (or whatever Jewel's character's gonna be called) becomes Carson-2, the show's going to change dramatically with the departure of one regular, diminished role of another and two new supporting characters (and I use that term loosely because they're both gonna be in the majority of the episodes).agreed. there will be a change, good or bad. and missing the old characters and dynamic is perfectly fine whether you like the new one or not. It also does NOT mean that you can't handle or dislike all change/are a complete pre-pubescent idiot. i know i'll miss it whether i like the new SGA or not. i know i miss SG-1 and hate the new one. you're preaching to the choir--and i'm singing to the preacher.

Change is to be made slowly (if you can). With SG-1, they couldn't. With SGA, they can, but they choose not to.with SG-1, they had to write out Jack and Hammond. they probably have had to bring in a new base CO. SciFI wanted Vala back. the might have had to bring in a forth team member. they needed some kind of villain and the Goa'uld war was over. how that equates to disbanding the team, reassembling [term used loosely] it around a new incredibly green leader whos never been near the gate, 'having no idea what to do with Sam Carter', (caricaturizing Vala into a sex kitten/bratty-10-year-old, warping and super gluing Daniel to Vala's hip, cementing the M/T, D/V, Sam alone pairings, and introducing the Bori) I have no idea.


ETA: wow that took a long time to write. sorry GateGipsy, am i on topic?

FallenAngelII
January 16th, 2007, 08:03 AM
ParadoxRealities: I won't comment on the rest of your post because the first paragraph bored me. Do you know why AT didn't appear in those first 5 eps except for short periods of time and through a video-phone screen? She was pregnant.

Night Spring
January 16th, 2007, 08:21 AM
Fallen Angel, you purpotedly created this thread to offer an olive branch to Sam fans, and yet when a Sam fan does offer his/her honest opinion on the situation, you proceed to argue with them? This does not strike me as "offering an olive branch."

FallenAngelII
January 16th, 2007, 08:25 AM
Fallen Angel, you purpotedly created this thread to offer an olive branch to Sam fans, and yet when a Sam fan does offer his/her honest opinion on the situation, you proceed to argue with them? This does not strike me as "offering an olive branch."
Offering an olive branch does not mean capitulating and taking things lying down. They offered opinions, I offered mine.

I am, as strange as it might seem, a member of both camps. I like both Sam and Elizabeth. I'm just trying to be the voice of reason between a war that's apparentely about to erupt.

Both sides are letting their love for their characters blind them. I empathize with both characters and am seeking a middle ground, one where both characters will benefit and neither at the cost of the other.

Night Spring
January 16th, 2007, 08:33 AM
"catipulating"? "taking things lying down"? Maybe it's a cultural differnce, but to me, those concepts don't even come into play in an honest and respectful exchange of opinions. These concepts assume that there is an "other side" who is trying to bend you to their will. And going into a discussion assuming that such an "other side" exists is likely to lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy -- you are assuming an inherently antagonistic stance where none may be necessary in the first place, which is likely to evoke antagonism in others in response.

FallenAngelII
January 16th, 2007, 08:37 AM
"catipulating"? "taking things lying down"? Maybe it's a cultural differnce, but to me, those concepts don't even come into play in an honest and respectful exchange of opinions. These concepts assume that there is an "other side" who is trying to bend you to their will. And going into a discussion assuming that such an "other side" exists is likely to lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy -- you are assuming an inherently antagonistic stance where none may be necessary in the first place, which is likely to evoke antagonism in others in response.
Are you claiming that my discussions with both sides in this thread haven't been respectful and honest?

What have I said that's been disrespectful and/or dishonest? I offered an olive branch to show that while I oppose the changes, I still like the character.

I have no problems with Sam crossing over. I do, however, have a problem with the manner in which she's crossing over. And while I stay respectful and honest, I still discuss the negative points about that (in a respectful and honest way).

Your previous post makes it seem like if you want to offer an olive branch, you cannot, under any circumstances, discuss things with the opposing side(s).

Also, notice that I didn't argue against every single person or every single point brought up. Only those I disagreed with or felt I could add to.

Night Spring
January 16th, 2007, 08:47 AM
Are you claiming that my discussions with both sides in this thread haven't been respectful and honest?

What have I said that's been disrespectful and/or dishonest?

Well. ParadoxRealities wrote a long and thoughtful post, starting with:
yes, it's different. but lets stop playing victim. we both got screwed over,

And then you responded:
ParadoxRealities: I won't comment on the rest of your post because the first paragraph bored me. Do you know why AT didn't appear in those first 5 eps except for short periods of time and through a video-phone screen? She was pregnant.
You said you found their post boring, and questioned their knowledge of the history of the show. That doesn't strike me as respectful at all. Or sincerely trying to "offer an olive branch," which is what I took ParadoxRealities as doing when he/she said "we both got screwed over." But instead of accepting that branch, you appear to belittle their opinion by saying it was "boring" and questioning their knowledge.

FallenAngelII
January 16th, 2007, 08:56 AM
He offered up disinformation, so I ignored the rest of the post. I do that with everyone. It's not a practice I only do to people with opposing views. Why should I read past the first paragraph when 90% of it is disinformation? It's not out of disrespect (entirely). In threads like these, 100's of posts are made daily. You don't read all of them. You read those that interest you.

His stopped being interesting after he wrote about the Sam debacle.

Night Spring
January 16th, 2007, 09:09 AM
He offered up disinformation, so I ignored the rest of the post. I do that with everyone. It's not a practice I only do to people with opposing views.

He attacked the inclusion of Vala (on my favourite characters) by proxy by claiming that was the reason why Sam got shafted.
Okay, as I recall, AT took maternity leave, and Vala was introduced to "hold the seat" while AT was away. Originally, once AT/Sam was back, Vala was supposed to be written out of the show, never to return, or to make only occasional guest appearances. Instead, Vala rejoined the show in the 10th season as a full-time cast member, and, from what I understand, many people feel that she has taken screen time away from Sam.

Now, you may not agree with this assessment of the situation, and that is your right. But if other people feel that Sam "got shafted" by Vala, then that is a valid opinion, and they are entitled to it. By calling it "disinformation," you are being disrespectful and belittling of their opinion.

And in any case, by bringing your need to defend Vala into a thread that's supposed to be about finding the common ground between Sam fans and Weir fans, you are defeating the purpose of this thread. If you are truly serious about offering an olive branch, then we need to find a common ground for *all* fans. Otherwise, if people are allowed to freely "defend" their favorites against accusations of shafting other characters, this thread would soon denegrate into mud-slinging over Daniel taking time away from Sam, Rodney taking time away from everyone else, Ronon getting bashed by Ford supporters.... You get the idea.

FallenAngelII
January 16th, 2007, 09:29 AM
But Sam got shafted after Vala was written "out". And by Cam, not Vala. Say what you will about Vala, Cam shafted Sam in season 9. In season 10, it's dual shafting, sure. But he places sole blame on Vala.

Besides, never once did I claim that Sam didn't get shafted or that it wasn't a bad thing. Vala is not the sole reason for Sam getting shafted, however. Heck, we could blame Daniel. How many Daniel-centric episodes did seasons 9 and 10 (so far) not have?

Skydiver
January 16th, 2007, 09:36 AM
And since this thread has turned into yet another 'what's wrong with atlantis in season four' thread, i see no need for it.

We already have plenty of threads to discuss what is right or wrong with season four