PDA

View Full Version : Mallozzi and Mullie as show runners. What do we think now?



Pages : [1] 2 3

SGFerrit
June 19th, 2007, 07:09 AM
When it was first announced that Mallozzi and Mullie were going to be running the show from season 4 onwards, was met with alot of scepticisim. I was wondering, what do people think of the job they are doing now?

Ltcolshepjumper
June 19th, 2007, 07:14 AM
The other two would still be better (BW and RC)

Mitchell82
June 19th, 2007, 07:44 AM
I think it will work out just fine. From what I have seen and read they are doing a fine job and season 4 will be a great season.

Skydiver
June 19th, 2007, 07:47 AM
Time for the oft repeated reminder

Criticize the JOBS not the PEOPLE.

NO personal comments about Joe or Paul or any of the others please.

talyn2k1
June 19th, 2007, 07:49 AM
I never had any problems with them being show runners and fully accepted that they would do what was best for the show.

Judging from the spoilers that is exactly what they are doing. I don't think I have so highly anticipated a season of Atlantis since the first season.

If S4 delivers everything the spoilers indicate, it will be the best season yet and (if Skiffy take any S4 ratings into account) I`m certain it will help secure the show's future for another season. If not S5, then S6.

EDIT: Dammit. Just realised I missed my 400th post :(

Wraith_Boy
June 19th, 2007, 08:02 AM
When it was first announced that Mallozzi and Mullie were going to be running the show from season 4 onwards, was met with alot of scepticisim. I was wondering, what do people think of the job they are doing now?

They haven't even finished filming half the eps of S4 yet, therefore it's impossible to tell based on a few storylines!

Some may sound good on paper, but they may end up totally different when they get it on screen.

Personally, I say the SG franchise should be handed to a brand new studio who can take a new show from the beginning & who will beathe fresh new life into the gate universe.

As for S4, I think PM & JM have been about for a good fer years, so are well accustomed as to how BW, RCC etc ran them in years past. Therefore I don't think there will be that great of a shift. So I expect a few good eps like every season, but also a few stinkers. Again like all previous seasons. Although I'll be very surprised if there is a S5 though!

sueKay
June 19th, 2007, 08:04 AM
I don't like the sort of stuff that RC's done in recent years...Ideally I'd like Brad to still be there

Lauriel
June 19th, 2007, 08:05 AM
I think it will work out just fine. From what I have seen and read they are doing a fine job and season 4 will be a great season.
Me too. From what we've seen so far, it sounds great and I'm really looking forward to it. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that they will come through for us.


Time for the oft repeated reminder

Criticize the JOBS not the PEOPLE.

NO personal comments about Joe or Paul or any of the others please.
Yes ma'am. *cowers from the wet noodle of doom*


I never had any problems with them being show runners and fully accepted that they would do what was best for the show.

Judging from the spoilers that is exactly what they are doing. I don't think I have so highly anticipated a season of Atlantis since the first season.

If S4 delivers everything the spoilers indicate, it will be the best season yet and (if Skiffy take any S4 ratings into account) I`m certain it will help secure the show's future for another season. If not S5, then S6.

EDIT: Dammit. Just realised I missed my 400th post :(

I was one of the one's who was skeptical at first, but I agree - I haven't been this hyped for a season yet. I can't wait. :D

Congrats on 400 posts. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i120/Lauriel_01/Smilies%20made%20by%20Zuz%20on%20GW/shep_bouncy2.gif

jenks
June 19th, 2007, 09:29 AM
Well I haven't seen any of season 4 yet, so I can't really tell, but from what I have read, they are doing a much better job than has been done in previous seasons.

maxbo
June 19th, 2007, 10:13 AM
How do I think M&M are doing as show runners? So far, they are doing a great job in peaking my interest in Season 4, but until I've seen how Season 4 is executed, then I can't really judge them yet.

PG15
June 19th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Season 4 is definately sounding pretty good, and there are ideas that JM and PM has brought forth that they have been wanting for a while but never got the chance because they weren't showrunners, like the Travelers

What's more, it's a change in how Atlantis is done, so Season 4 won't be as predictable as past seasons. I'm looking forward to it.

ShadowMaat
June 19th, 2007, 12:59 PM
When it was first announced that Mallozzi and Mullie were going to be running the show from season 4 onwards, was met with alot of scepticisim. I was wondering, what do people think of the job they are doing now?

Unless I missed something, season 4 hasn't even started to air yet. Why would opinions be likely to change in any significant way? Just because of spoiler info? HA! That'd be a rich bit of hypocrisy. ;)

Falcon Horus
June 19th, 2007, 01:28 PM
Weren't these the two that gave us Irresponsible and Irresistable?

If so, 'nough said. I'll hold my breath (but not too long) or whatever the expression should be. Anyway, I'll wait and see.

Uber
June 19th, 2007, 01:32 PM
When it was first announced that Mallozzi and Mullie were going to be running the show from season 4 onwards, was met with alot of scepticisim. I was wondering, what do people think of the job they are doing now?I don't know as the season hasn't started yet. The spoilers coming out sound good...but we'll only be able to really gage their work once we actually see it.

Gage it FAIRLY, that is. ;)

Linzi
June 19th, 2007, 01:38 PM
Obviously, I won't be able to make a judgement until I've seen season 4, but so far I'm very hopeful that the new season will be excellent. I like the cast changes, though it's taken time for me to get used to them. The spoilers sound interesting and from what I've read so far, the stories appear well thought out, so I'm looking forward to seeing the 'soft reset' for the show. I'm hopeful that JM and PM will be great! :)

majortrip
June 19th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Well, I'm hopeful for S4, but until I see it I can't say whether they did a good job or not. I will say as writers, they've written some of my favorite episodes of SG-1. They've also written some of my least favorite episodes of Atlantis. I didn't care for SG-1 S9 as a whole, but I did enjoy S10 for the most part. I'm not helpful, I know. :o It's a coin toss I suppose. But, I'm willing to give it a fair shake, especially if the promise of these S4 spoilers hold true. Like I said, I'm hopeful.

SGFerrit
June 19th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Unless I missed something, season 4 hasn't even started to air yet. Why would opinions be likely to change in any significant way? Just because of spoiler info? HA! That'd be a rich bit of hypocrisy. ;)

What I meant was, when it was announced that they were taking over, we knew nothing about season 4. Now we have got considerably more information about where they are taking it, darker, more arc driven, a war arc etc... all the characters getting their own episodes and development more so than previous years. i didn't expect anyone to have any real strong opinions yet, just seeing if what we have heard about the job they are doing has given people more hope about it and put more faith in them.

I was a little apprehensive, I must admit, after the two Lucius episodes. But from what Joe has told us and the spoilers we have gotten through, I have high hopes now.

Ruffles
June 19th, 2007, 02:19 PM
As most people have said, I don't know yet since I haven't seen the finished product. The bits that I've heard sound very exciting, and they done a good job in leaking just enough information to keep interests piqued in this abominable wait.

Ouroboros
June 19th, 2007, 02:19 PM
I'm not crazy about the idea myself. These two have signed their names to some of my least favorite episodes of late, they created Lucius, and seem to be the ones that want to make the show "funnier" as opposed to "better".

Some of the sneak peeks about season 4 have seemed promising if they actually materialize but others have also seemed like really badly concieved ideas. In general though their ideas for what would make Atlantis better at this stage seem to have historically been largely the opposite of my own, so that leaves me with some obvious expectation of future dissapointment on the horizon.

I'll wait and watch to see what happens of course, but right now I'm going to have to weight the odds in the direction of "this will probably suck for the series".

prion
June 19th, 2007, 02:29 PM
I'm cynically optimistic ;) Sounds good but I'll wait till I see the final product to jump up and down with glee. I've been down the high expectation road and it's easier to have low expectations and then be very pleasantly surprised...

Mar9645
June 19th, 2007, 02:45 PM
:weir: Now that BSG is ending, Ron Moore will be available.

I'm looking forward to an 'Under New Management' sign appearing on the Stargate franchise office door at Bridge Studios very soon. :ronan:

parisindy
June 19th, 2007, 03:35 PM
When it was first announced that Mallozzi and Mullie were going to be running the show from season 4 onwards, was met with alot of scepticisim. I was wondering, what do people think of the job they are doing now?

my answer is ... "blech"

PG15
June 19th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Weren't these the two that gave us Irresponsible and Irresistable?



Yes on Irresponsible (but even Joe himself admitted that it sucked), but Irresistable was the work of Brad Wright and Carl Binder.


they created Lucius,

Like I said, Brad and Carl came up with the idea and the teleplay. Do you have a link that says otherwise?

ToasterOnFire
June 19th, 2007, 03:58 PM
My initial reaction and current reaction have not changed. I'm very concerned about what will happen with the series now because of all the changes inside and outside of the show.

Leaked spoilers and whatnot have done nothing to change my opinion, as spoilers can be outright wrong, the episode in question can be changed at the last minute to invalidate the spoilers, and spoilers often play out differently on screen then on paper. I'll wait for s4 to judge the final product and place blame praise where warranted. ;)


:weir: Now that BSG is ending, Ron Moore will be available.

I'm looking forward to an 'Under New Management' sign appearing on the Stargate franchise office door at Bridge Studios very soon. :ronan:
Heh, but I think RDM has plenty of projects to keep him busy. I'd love to see him produce a Pern series. :)

prion
June 19th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Yes on Irresponsible (but even Joe himself admitted that it sucked), but Irresistable was the work of Brad Wright and Carl Binder.
Like I said, Brad and Carl came up with the idea and the teleplay. Do you have a link that says otherwise?

IRRESISTIBLE
Story by Brad Wright & RC COoper
Teleplay by Carl Binder

Irresistible wasn't bad. It was the sequel, bringing back a character you sorta hoped might have been done in by his soon-to-be-ex-wives, that was the problem. The character was self-serving, no ethics, had no problem in letting people die, etc. but they played him for laughs in Irresponsible. Which is what many fans found offensive.

ShadowMaat
June 19th, 2007, 05:05 PM
What I meant was, when it was announced that they were taking over, we knew nothing about season 4. Now we have got considerably more information about where they are taking it, darker, more arc driven, a war arc etc...
Iiiinteresting. I seem to recall a few people getting lambasted for daring to say that some of the upcoming eps sounded bad. "How can you possibly know that if you haven't seen it?" But hey, if someone says they think an upcoming ep is gonna be awesome, I guess that's okay, right? :rolleyes:

Whether M&M are going to be the ones who put the final nail in the coffin or the ones who pull the show up by its bootstraps and into seasons 5 and beyond (and how folks feel about either viewpoint), the real proof won't be in evidence until the season is actually airing. Until then, it's just as much speculation now as it was a few months back when we knew nothing.

Ouroboros
June 19th, 2007, 07:38 PM
Like I said, Brad and Carl came up with the idea and the teleplay. Do you have a link that says otherwise?

My bad, I knew they did Irresponsible, figured they did the other one to.

Both episodes were equally terrible in my view, for different reasons, so unfortunately this clairification doesn't really comfort me much.

prion
June 20th, 2007, 04:13 AM
Iiiinteresting. I seem to recall a few people getting lambasted for daring to say that some of the upcoming eps sounded bad. "How can you possibly know that if you haven't seen it?" But hey, if someone says they think an upcoming ep is gonna be awesome, I guess that's okay, right? :rolleyes:



Yes, have noticed it's okay to be extremely optimistic on partial spoilers and speculation, but you can't be leery of 'em. Wish folks would remember that this happens every single year with every single new season ;)

Falcon Horus
June 20th, 2007, 11:10 AM
Yes on Irresponsible (but even Joe himself admitted that it sucked), but Irresistable was the work of Brad Wright and Carl Binder.

Mmm... wait and see it is then. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Mitchell82
June 20th, 2007, 04:01 PM
:weir: Now that BSG is ending, Ron Moore will be available.

I'm looking forward to an 'Under New Management' sign appearing on the Stargate franchise office door at Bridge Studios very soon. :ronan:

O God NO! Ron Moore destroyed BSG keep him away from Stargate! As to this my intial reaction has changed. At first I was alittle concerned simply because I thought Rob Cooper did a great job but from what I have seen and heard JM and PM are doing a great job and I have no doubt that season 4 will be great.

MOOMUR
June 20th, 2007, 06:16 PM
When it was first announced that Mallozzi and Mullie were going to be running the show from season 4 onwards, was met with alot of scepticisim. I was wondering, what do people think of the job they are doing now?

I personally think they are doing a fine job. I kinda like what they are doing and am looking forward to what is going to happen in season 4. I want to be surprised.

PG15
June 20th, 2007, 11:04 PM
Well, SOMEBODY is missing a sense of humor. ;)

Celcool
June 20th, 2007, 11:16 PM
I hope you don't mean Alyssa because what she said is kind of funny. :P A response like saying co-leadership is lame isn't, if anything the response itself is lame. :P

PG15
June 20th, 2007, 11:18 PM
Oh, it's funny if you were here during the Season 9 days of SG1. ;)

david2708
June 21st, 2007, 12:56 AM
A great majority of their eps have been rubbish, and so when it was announced they were taking over, I knew the writing was on the wall.
I think people don't quite grasp that the franchise is over-not just SG-1.
The same lot are/were doing both shows so what's going to be any different?
Ratings are now unsustainableyl low and won't get any better.
Season 4 will be their swan song.

Lauriel
June 21st, 2007, 01:00 AM
A great majority of their eps have been rubbish, and so when it was announced they were taking over, I knew the writing was on the wall.
I think people don't quite grasp that the franchise is over-not just SG-1.
The same lot are/were doing both shows so what's going to be any different?
Ratings are now unsustainableyl low and won't get any better.
Season 4 will be their swan song.

Your prescience is astounding. If only the rest of us could read the writing on the wall so clearly, we'd stop watching and eagerly awaiting the next season and just move on with our lives.

ShadowMaat
June 21st, 2007, 03:29 AM
Your prescience is astounding. If only the rest of us could read the writing on the wall so clearly, we'd stop watching and eagerly awaiting the next season and just move on with our lives.

If people could just move on with their lives, there wouldn't be all this concern about bringing SG-1 elements over to Atlantis because producers, fans and even Skiffy would accept that SG-1 is dead and stop trying to turn Atlantis into a refuge for SG-1. But then again, according to some of the posts I've read, that's exactly what Atlantis was meant to be: a backup for SG-1, not a separate show. So maybe they're right after all.

With M&M in charge, it should soon become obvious just what Atlantis's future is going to be like.

vaberella
June 21st, 2007, 03:50 AM
I just like these guys. I like JM's personality and he's way funny. Maybe it's because my sister has a rather morbid personality so I'm familir with the sense of humor. Verbal judo is always entertaining. Plus, I like their ideas and I like how the show is becoming more team focused and pretty much the team in relation to the outside world. Plus I like the idea of Carter coming on board. So I don't have any complaints as of yet. Of course, I will hold off, all praise on their greatness until the season airs. But currently I'm getting positivity and so I'm responding in the like.

prion
June 21st, 2007, 05:18 AM
If people could just move on with their lives, there wouldn't be all this concern about bringing SG-1 elements over to Atlantis because producers, fans and even Skiffy would accept that SG-1 is dead and stop trying to turn Atlantis into a refuge for SG-1. But then again, according to some of the posts I've read, that's exactly what Atlantis was meant to be: a backup for SG-1, not a separate show. So maybe they're right after all.

With M&M in charge, it should soon become obvious just what Atlantis's future is going to be like.


Hmm, in all the articles I've read on SGA, not one mentioned that it was designed to harbor SG1 characters/old plots once that show got axed. I must have missed the memo ;)

Southern Red
June 21st, 2007, 05:35 AM
I too got that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I heard M&M were taking over as showrunners. Now I think my worst fears will be realized.

Some of the things they have planned for S4 seem good. For example, Travelers and Miller's Crossing. Can't wait to see Ronon on Earth. But the whole Teyla pregnancy arc just leaves me cold. It sounds like between that and the newly revealed truth about Weir, that they have trotted out every tired old SciFi cliche they can think of. Oh, and let's not forget evil Shep in Doppelganger. They may give jumping the shark a whole new level of intensity.

If it's true that the renewal for S5 will depend on the ratings for the end of S3, all this discussion may be a moot point anyway. We probably should start talking about how the series should end. What am I saying? They don't pay any attention to us anyway except to write insulting things in blogs and call us names. Meanwhile the fans who think they're getting just what their little hearts desire suck up to JM outrageously even though it's just an accidental quirk of fate that their fondest wishes will be played out on the screen instead of those of the people who are giving him heck on his blog. In the end the showrunners do what they want with little accountability, and it's the people with the magic Nielsen boxes who rule the day.

I'd be laughing if I didn't feel so much like crying. And if one more person tells someone else who disagrees with them that it's just a tv show, I may have to spork someone. :S

Lauriel
June 21st, 2007, 05:43 AM
I too got that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I heard M&M were taking over as showrunners. Now I think my worst fears will be realized.

Some of the things they have planned for S4 seem good. For example, Travelers and Miller's Crossing. Can't wait to see Ronon on Earth. But the whole Teyla pregnancy arc just leaves me cold. It sounds like between that and the newly revealed truth about Weir, that they have trotted out every tired old SciFi cliche they can think of. Oh, and let's not forget evil Shep in Doppelganger. They may give jumping the shark a whole new level of intensity.

If it's true that the renewal for S5 will depend on the ratings for the end of S3, all this discussion may be a moot point anyway. We probably should start talking about how the series should end. What am I saying? They don't pay any attention to us anyway except to write insulting things in blogs and call us names. Meanwhile the fans who think they're getting just what their little hearts desire suck up to JM outrageously even though it's just an accidental quirk of fate that their fondest wishes will be played out on the screen instead of those of the people who are giving him heck on his blog. In the end the showrunners do what they want with little accountability, and it's the people with the magic Nielsen boxes who rule the day.

I'd be laughing if I didn't feel so much like crying. And if one more person tells someone else who disagrees with them that it's just a tv show, I may have to spork someone. :S

None of that has changed since the new showrunners, though. That's been the same throughout SG-1 as well, and the same throughout other fandoms as well. TPTB might pay some passing attention to the fans, but they follow their own programme, and it has always been the Nielson box families who's opinions carry more weight. I can understand disliking decisions that JM and PM make - but hang them for that, not issues that are just a part of the system.

Regarding Teyla's arc, would you rather that they write her out purely because she is pregnant? I applaud them for adapting her arc to accomodate her. And let's face it, we'd give them hell if they did anything else.

Starxgate
June 21st, 2007, 08:19 AM
Same **** different day & thread here at Gate World.

prion
June 21st, 2007, 08:51 AM
Same **** different day & thread here at Gate World.

Er, you expected different?? ;)

Southern Red
June 21st, 2007, 09:04 AM
None of that has changed since the new showrunners, though. That's been the same throughout SG-1 as well, and the same throughout other fandoms as well. TPTB might pay some passing attention to the fans, but they follow their own programme, and it has always been the Nielson box families who's opinions carry more weight. I can understand disliking decisions that JM and PM make - but hang them for that, not issues that are just a part of the system.

Regarding Teyla's arc, would you rather that they write her out purely because she is pregnant? I applaud them for adapting her arc to accomodate her. And let's face it, we'd give them hell if they did anything else.

It is also a part of the system to blame the guys in charge when you don't like something. I see nothing wrong with presenting our views to M&M. And evidently, at least JM doesn't either or he wouldn't unscreen all the negative comments on his blog.

I would rather have seen them find clever ways to conceal her pregnancy rather than go with one of the lamest cliches of all time. How many shows have dealt with a main character's pregnancy only to be canceled soon after?

Lauriel
June 21st, 2007, 09:12 AM
It is also a part of the system to blame the guys in charge when you don't like something. I see nothing wrong with presenting our views to M&M. And evidently, at least JM doesn't either or he wouldn't unscreen all the negative comments on his blog.

I would rather have seen them find clever ways to conceal her pregnancy rather than go with one of the lamest cliches of all time. How many shows have dealt with a main character's pregnancy only to be canceled soon after?

Sorry - I wasn't clear. I didn't mean voicing opinions to JM, by all means feel free. I meant that the ratings being determined by Nielson households and the writers/PTB not catering to fans.

As for the Teyla's/Rachel's pregnancy, I think hiding it depends upon what period filming and the pregnancy coincide. If they are filming in the early stages of the pregnancy, then yes, concealing it is a possibility. If they are filming during the later stages of pregnancy, then there is little they can do to avoid it being obvious without writing the character out for a duration.

pilgrim soul
June 21st, 2007, 09:16 AM
It is also a part of the system to blame the guys in charge when you don't like something. I see nothing wrong with presenting our views to M&M. And evidently, at least JM doesn't either or he wouldn't unscreen all the negative comments on his blog.

I would rather have seen them find clever ways to conceal her pregnancy rather than go with one of the lamest cliches of all time. How many shows have dealt with a main character's pregnancy only to be canceled soon after?

How many shows look ridiculous when they attempt to cover up an obvious pregnancy by having the actress stand behind desks or hold large objects in front of her stomach? And with someone as tiny as Rachel it'd be pretty damn hard to cover up.

And saying that lots of shows have been cancelled after dealing with a main characters pregnancy is like saying lots of shows have been cancelled after a main character fell in love, or a main character died, or a main character tap danced naked in the street. I don't think many shows get cancelled because of one character storyline that is only one small part of the show over all. There is going to be a lot going on in season four outside of Teyla's pregnancy.

I wasn't too sure about the idea when it was first revealed and I'm still apprehensive about how it will play out on screen but I'm prepared to wait and see what happens, it could be handled really well - if it isn't? Well then that's the time to offer informed criticism.

bluealien
June 21st, 2007, 09:23 AM
How many shows look ridiculous when they attempt to cover up an obvious pregnancy by having the actress stand behind desks or hold large objects in front of her stomach? And with someone as tiny as Rachel it'd be pretty damn hard to cover up.

And saying that lots of shows have been cancelled after dealing with a main characters pregnancy is like saying lots of shows have been cancelled after a main character fell in love, or a main character died, or a main character tap danced naked in the street. I don't think many shows get cancelled because of one character storyline that is only one small part of the show over all. There is going to be a lot going on in season four outside of Teyla's pregnancy.

I wasn't too sure about the idea when it was first revealed and I'm still apprehensive about how it will play out on screen but I'm prepared to wait and see what happens, it could be handled really well - if it isn't? Well then that's the time to offer informed criticism.


Well said Josie and I agree..

ShadowMaat
June 21st, 2007, 09:27 AM
True, given Teyla's skimpy outfits it'd be hard to logically hide her pregnancy. But hey, isn't that one of the reasons they have "abducted by forces unknown" plotlines? ;)

Lauriel
June 21st, 2007, 09:28 AM
True, given Teyla's skimpy outfits it'd be hard to logically hide her pregnancy. But hey, isn't that one of the reasons they have "abducted by forces unknown" plotlines? ;)

Yep. But that would get bagged as an old, tired and obvious ploy as well. :):)

ShadowMaat
June 21st, 2007, 09:35 AM
Yep. But that would get bagged as an old, tired and obvious ploy as well. :):)

Ascend her. :P Hard to notice a belly bulge in all that glowy misty stuff. ;)

Of course, ascension has become a pathetic ploy on Stargate, too, but at least it'd be the first time on Atlantis. ;)

Linzi
June 21st, 2007, 09:45 AM
How many shows look ridiculous when they attempt to cover up an obvious pregnancy by having the actress stand behind desks or hold large objects in front of her stomach? And with someone as tiny as Rachel it'd be pretty damn hard to cover up.

And saying that lots of shows have been cancelled after dealing with a main characters pregnancy is like saying lots of shows have been cancelled after a main character fell in love, or a main character died, or a main character tap danced naked in the street. I don't think many shows get cancelled because of one character storyline that is only one small part of the show over all. There is going to be a lot going on in season four outside of Teyla's pregnancy.

I wasn't too sure about the idea when it was first revealed and I'm still apprehensive about how it will play out on screen but I'm prepared to wait and see what happens, it could be handled really well - if it isn't? Well then that's the time to offer informed criticism.
I agree 100%, Josie. Rachel is tiny and often bares her midriff. There's no way that her pregnancy could not be revealed on screen. So, the choices were, reduce her role or axe her, cover up the pregnancy, or write it in. I think they made the right choice. I don't want to lose Teyla, because she's part of the primary 'Gate team. No way could they shoot around Rachel's tummy. It'd look silly and always looks so damn obvious. So, they had to write it in to the storyline. Will it work? I have no idea, to be honest. I'll be interested to see how it's handled - but I'm willing to keep an open mind about it.

As for the blog? Well, you know what, it's Joe's private, personal blog. I feel he does us a favour giving us spoilers and pictures and showing us insights into what goes on behind the scenes.

Do fans really believe 'sucking up' gets them what they want? This one doesn't. But, it hasn't stopped MANY groups of fans asking their friends to post on his blog to promote their ship, favourite character etc... Even those who are not happy with the changes having lobbied to get their character back/to have more prominence on the show. Are they sucking up too? Or is saying you're upset, begging for more of your character not the same as saying you're happy with what you hear?

Bottom line, many see the blog as a way of communicating with Joe, in fact I've seen many a thread here discuss that fact.

I am hopeful that JM and PM will steer the show in a direction I like. I'm certainly pleased to give them a shot at it, because I think it did need a little soft reset and a change. I hope they get it right.

I don't agree with all JM says, but I appreciate reading his thoughts. What sort of a show runner will he and Paul be? Well, I'll let you know after I've seen season 4, but I like what I've heard about season 4 so far.

Southern Red
June 21st, 2007, 10:26 AM
Yep. But that would get bagged as an old, tired and obvious ploy as well. :):)

And rightly so as it would be old and tired. Along with a lot of other storylines that they keep repeating. Rehashing old SG-1 ideas is only one of the reasons a lot of people are upset. If you like what they're doing, then you don't have anything to complain about, and I'm happy for you. Personally I see a lot of things in S4 to look forward to, but this particular storyline is not one of them. Does that make me wrong? No, because it's just my own perfectly legitimate personal opinion. And are those who love what's happening and want to tell M&M what paragons they are wrong? Also no.


Ascend her. :P Hard to notice a belly bulge in all that glowy misty stuff. ;)

Of course, ascension has become a pathetic ploy on Stargate, too, but at least it'd be the first time on Atlantis. ;)

How about we wrap her in a Wraith cocoon for a few months? That would do it. LOL.:P See we can come up with clever ways to conceal the pregnancy of a tiny woman. ;)I guess there aren't any clever camera angles a good director could use. *ponders*

ShadowMaat
June 21st, 2007, 10:44 AM
Maybe she could get sucked into the computer system and only appear as a face, kinda like... Kryton Holly on Red Dwarf only with better graphics. :P

Pegasus_SGA
June 21st, 2007, 11:11 AM
I'll admit I was a bit nervous at first, and to be honest i'm still nervous about what's in store and how they'll do as show runners. They've had plenty of experience in SG1 and i'm sure that it'll take a few goes to get things how they want it on SGA.. it's hard when the buck stops at you and they can't exactly 'stick it to the man' when things go wrong. :lol: As P and J said the buck stops with them now. But whenever someone takes up a new job, then there will be teething problems initially. I would be very surprised if everything was perfect from the get go, because nothing is perfect.

From the looks of things though, they're certainly addressing some inbalances that people have been worried about in S3 and that's a good thing. I think introducing a few changes, such as read throughs and such is a good starting point, because it shows they're listening to the actors, and supporting them. With Rachel's pregnancy they could have easily cut her role drastically, but they didn't. And that to me says a hell of a lot about a persons character. They didn't have to write her pregnancy into the show, but they have and it was very nice to see that both Amanda and now Rachel have that kind of support.

So, I have to say i'm definately more hopeful than I was when I initially heard about the changes. And have a feeling S4 is going to be great! But at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. So I'm going to wait and see how things goes and fingers and toes crossed that everything will be fine.


*fills her cup of happiness to the top* :D

PG15
June 21st, 2007, 11:32 AM
Maybe she could get sucked into the computer system and only appear as a face, kinda like... Kryton(?) on Red Dwarf only with better graphics. :P

That was Holly. ;)

ShadowMaat
June 21st, 2007, 01:22 PM
That was Holly. ;)

My apologies. It's been YEARS since I've seen it. And years before that when I last read the books. ;)

Alipeeps
June 21st, 2007, 04:24 PM
How about we wrap her in a Wraith cocoon for a few months? That would do it. LOL.:P See we can come up with clever ways to conceal the pregnancy of a tiny woman. ;)I guess there aren't any clever camera angles a good director could use. *ponders*

It doesn't matter what camera angles you use... pregnancy changes a woman's entire body and there is always a point where it becomes noticeable... ridiculously so if you are trying to hide it. The face fills out, the posture changes, etc etc. It was the same for Scully in The X-Files, the same for Cordelia in Angel. In the case of Angel, I didn't have an inkling that Charisma was pregnant in real life - I wasn't particularly involved in fandom for the show - but even watching as a casual viewer I could *tell*. I could tell just from her face and it was suspicious that they suddenly never filmed her below the boobs or had her wearing loose jackets etc etc. It was annoying and distracting.

prion
June 21st, 2007, 05:12 PM
It doesn't matter what camera angles you use... pregnancy changes a woman's entire body and there is always a point where it becomes noticeable... ridiculously so if you are trying to hide it. The face fills out, the posture changes, etc etc. It was the same for Scully in The X-Files, the same for Cordelia in Angel. In the case of Angel, I didn't have an inkling that Charisma was pregnant in real life - I wasn't particularly involved in fandom for the show - but even watching as a casual viewer I could *tell*. I could tell just from her face and it was suspicious that they suddenly never filmed her below the boobs or had her wearing loose jackets etc etc. It was annoying and distracting.

Yup, a woman's face tends to fill out. If you watch DEAD ZONE, the pregnant now widow of the sheriff - the actress is definitely pregnant. It shows in her face.

And unless Teyla suddenly develops a bad eating problem, I don't know how they'd explain the sudden physical changes ;)

Southern Red
June 21st, 2007, 05:45 PM
Yup, a woman's face tends to fill out. If you watch DEAD ZONE, the pregnant now widow of the sheriff - the actress is definitely pregnant. It shows in her face.

And unless Teyla suddenly develops a bad eating problem, I don't know how they'd explain the sudden physical changes ;)

So why would it matter? Can't you separate the actress from the character? I'm one of those people who notices right away. Like Ali said, it shows in the face. Anyone who's ever had a baby can spot another preggie a mile away. LOL. I was just having some fun though. Didn't mean for you guys to take me seriously. I know that with Teyla's physical stuff, it would have been much harder. The bad eating habit comment reminds me of what's her face on Frazier. LOL. That was a great example of separation of character and actress. But that was a comedy.

prion
June 21st, 2007, 06:14 PM
So why would it matter? Can't you separate the actress from the character? I'm one of those people who notices right away. Like Ali said, it shows in the face. Anyone who's ever had a baby can spot another preggie a mile away. LOL. I was just having some fun though. Didn't mean for you guys to take me seriously. I know that with Teyla's physical stuff, it would have been much harder. The bad eating habit comment reminds me of what's her face on Frazier. LOL. That was a great example of separation of character and actress. But that was a comedy.

Yes, why do you ask? I just pointed out that if a woman is pregnant it shows in her face.

Southern Red
June 21st, 2007, 07:23 PM
Yes, why do you ask? I just pointed out that if a woman is pregnant it shows in her face.

Heh? Why do I ask what? Now I'm really confused. I missed that you also said it shows in her face, but I was agreeing with you. My point was that viewers should be able to forget about the pregnant actress and just think about the character. We might know the actress is pregnant, but that doesn't matter if the character is not.

This is off topic a bit. Sorry.

Mitchell82
June 21st, 2007, 09:01 PM
A great majority of their eps have been rubbish, and so when it was announced they were taking over, I knew the writing was on the wall.
I think people don't quite grasp that the franchise is over-not just SG-1.
The same lot are/were doing both shows so what's going to be any different?
Ratings are now unsustainableyl low and won't get any better.
Season 4 will be their swan song.

Your persistence is astounding. That is simply your opinion. I don't think any of their eps have been rubbish. Are some better than others? Sure but not rubbish. The franchise is not over, SG-1 is and IMO JM and PM will not run it into the ground and yes ratings are low but not that bad. Season 4 will not be the swan song.

Celcool
June 21st, 2007, 10:48 PM
Your persistence is astounding. That is simply your opinion. I don't think any of their eps have been rubbish. Are some better than others? Sure but not rubbish. The franchise is not over, SG-1 is and IMO JM and PM will not run it into the ground and yes ratings are low but not that bad. Season 4 will not be the swan song.
Yes, it is his opinion and he can express it just like you did by basically adding "not" to every sentence of his. LOL

talyn2k1
June 22nd, 2007, 12:09 AM
Your persistence is astounding. That is simply your opinion. I don't think any of their eps have been rubbish. Are some better than others? Sure but not rubbish. The franchise is not over, SG-1 is and IMO JM and PM will not run it into the ground and yes ratings are low but not that bad. Season 4 will not be the swan song.

Come on now, be honest, some episodes were rubbish *cough* Irresponsible *cough* Irresistible *cough*

But to be fair, they are the only episodes of Atlantis so far that I can honestly say I will NEVER EVER WATCH EVER AGAIN!!!!

Even The Tower had some cool vfx scenes.

But I think if the back end of S3 is strong enough to guarantee an S5, and if S4 is as good as it sounds, then S6 is a definite as long as Skiffy don't find another reason to axe it.

Alipeeps
June 22nd, 2007, 12:15 AM
So why would it matter? Can't you separate the actress from the character? I'm one of those people who notices right away. Like Ali said, it shows in the face. Anyone who's ever had a baby can spot another preggie a mile away. LOL. I was just having some fun though. Didn't mean for you guys to take me seriously. I know that with Teyla's physical stuff, it would have been much harder. The bad eating habit comment reminds me of what's her face on Frazier. LOL. That was a great example of separation of character and actress. But that was a comedy.

I'm not understanding your point here? You have posted multiple times that it is your opinion that writing Rachel's pregnancy into the show as a pregnancy arc for Teyla is a mistake and they should have tried to use clever camera angles to hide the actress' pregnancy instead.

My point in response to that was that, no matter how clever the camera angles, it is simply not possible to hide an actress' pregnancy - it always shows.

So I fail to understand your comment about separating the character from the actress? My point was, and is, that having a character who is not supposed to be pregnant being played by an actress who clearly is pregnant, is distracting and annoying and, in fact, emphasises the separation of the character from the actress. It reduces the believability of the character because you are constantly aware of the separate identities (and physical conditions!) of the character and the actress... where the goal of an actress is to inhabit a character and make them seem real and believable. A "hidden pregnancy" makes this almost impossible.

Cautious Explorer
June 22nd, 2007, 02:30 AM
I'm not understanding your point here? You have posted multiple times that it is your opinion that writing Rachel's pregnancy into the show as a pregnancy arc for Teyla is a mistake and they should have tried to use clever camera angles to hide the actress' pregnancy instead.

My point in response to that was that, no matter how clever the camera angles, it is simply not possible to hide an actress' pregnancy - it always shows.

So I fail to understand your comment about separating the character from the actress? My point was, and is, that having a character who is not supposed to be pregnant being played by an actress who clearly is pregnant, is distracting and annoying and, in fact, emphasises the separation of the character from the actress. It reduces the believability of the character because you are constantly aware of the separate identities (and physical conditions!) of the character and the actress... where the goal of an actress is to inhabit a character and make them seem real and believable. A "hidden pregnancy" makes this almost impossible.

There you go, being practical. :)

The problem for me is that when it comes to pregnancy stories, I'm more than willing to do almost anything to avoid them. I'll play along and pretend the actress isn't putting on weight, I'll ignore the fact she stands behind any object she can find and is never shot below her head and shoulders. Because I've seen way too many hideously done pregnancy stories, especially when they're hastily thrown together to cover the real life pregnancy of the actress. Maybe the writers can pull it off this time. I really hope so. I want to see Teyla have a great season, but I can't help worrying. :o

Celcool
June 22nd, 2007, 02:36 AM
The problem for me is that when it comes to pregnancy stories, I'm more than willing to do almost anything to avoid them. I'll play along and pretend the actress isn't putting on weight, I'll ignore the fact she stands behind any object she can find and is never shot below her head and shoulders. Because I've seen way too many hideously done pregnancy stories, especially when they're hastily thrown together to cover the real life pregnancy of the actress. Maybe the writers can pull it off this time. I really hope so. I want to see Teyla have a great season, but I can't help worrying. :o
That's me too, I don't care for pregnancy storylines if they don't make sense, if they're not like a natural progression of a character not just something coming along all of a sudden to cover up a real pregnancy on a TV show. It's a scifi show for heaven's sake not a soap. lol Also then the genius writers come up with a random guy we've never seen the character having a baby interact with. Doesn't make sense, like lots of things in Atlantis lately. Ever since Sunday actually.

mcbarr
June 22nd, 2007, 03:34 AM
Well, I, for one, think it's very generous of JM/PM to embrace RL's pregnancy and so forth. I just don't know where all the generosity comes from, and why it doesn't apply to all cast members. There's clearly something fishy going on in Gateland (IMO, of course).

Southern Red
June 22nd, 2007, 04:50 AM
I'm not understanding your point here? You have posted multiple times that it is your opinion that writing Rachel's pregnancy into the show as a pregnancy arc for Teyla is a mistake and they should have tried to use clever camera angles to hide the actress' pregnancy instead.

My point in response to that was that, no matter how clever the camera angles, it is simply not possible to hide an actress' pregnancy - it always shows.

So I fail to understand your comment about separating the character from the actress? My point was, and is, that having a character who is not supposed to be pregnant being played by an actress who clearly is pregnant, is distracting and annoying and, in fact, emphasises the separation of the character from the actress. It reduces the believability of the character because you are constantly aware of the separate identities (and physical conditions!) of the character and the actress... where the goal of an actress is to inhabit a character and make them seem real and believable. A "hidden pregnancy" makes this almost impossible.


There you go, being practical. :)

The problem for me is that when it comes to pregnancy stories, I'm more than willing to do almost anything to avoid them. I'll play along and pretend the actress isn't putting on weight, I'll ignore the fact she stands behind any object she can find and is never shot below her head and shoulders. Because I've seen way too many hideously done pregnancy stories, especially when they're hastily thrown together to cover the real life pregnancy of the actress. Maybe the writers can pull it off this time. I really hope so. I want to see Teyla have a great season, but I can't help worrying. :o


That's me too, I don't care for pregnancy storylines if they don't make sense, if they're not like a natural progression of a character not just something coming along all of a sudden to cover up a real pregnancy on a TV show. It's a scifi show for heaven's sake not a soap. lol Also then the genius writers come up with a random guy we've never seen the character having a baby interact with. Doesn't make sense, like lots of things in Atlantis lately. Ever since Sunday actually.

Well thank youCautious Explorer and Celcool for expressing my thoughts better than I did. I would have no trouble seeing a hugely pregnant actress pretending not to be, but that's just me. I know in RL's case it would be impossible because of the very warrior nature of Teyla, but the idea of an alien pregnancy is IMHO so very lame and stupid I, for one, will be laughing through the whole thing. And that will distract me more than having her carrying around a very strategically placed P90.

Now we find out they are pulling a Ford on Weir. So far M&M have not impressed me with their good ideas.

prion
June 22nd, 2007, 05:07 AM
I think we can all agree that Rachel's pregnant, they're going to make Teyla pregnant, and they probably won't hide her all season behind big rocks on planets ;)

Celcool
June 22nd, 2007, 05:11 AM
I know in RL's case it would be impossible because of the very warrior nature of Teyla, but the idea of an alien pregnancy is IMHO so very lame and stupid I, for one, will be laughing through the whole thing. And that will distract me more than having her carrying around a very strategically placed P90.
Agreed.


I think we can all agree that Rachel's pregnant, they're going to make Teyla pregnant, and they probably won't hide her all season behind big rocks on planets ;)
Maybe it would be better if they did. lol

vaberella
June 22nd, 2007, 06:11 AM
Maybe it would be better if they did. lol
Why?

Anuna
June 22nd, 2007, 06:28 AM
Well thank youCautious Explorer and Celcool for expressing my thoughts better than I did. I would have no trouble seeing a hugely pregnant actress pretending not to be, but that's just me. I know in RL's case it would be impossible because of the very warrior nature of Teyla, but the idea of an alien pregnancy is IMHO so very lame and stupid I, for one, will be laughing through the whole thing. And that will distract me more than having her carrying around a very strategically placed P90.

So far M&M have not impressed me with their good ideas.

Like the rest of S4 ideas, this one is totally lame too. Somebody mentioned on some other thread that SGA was barely finding it's legs. The team warmed up, and the dynnamics just formed; the group was becoming more than sum of it's parts. And now they shatter that. That is not 'fixing what ain't broken' that is 'Breaking something that is prefectly fine'.

FoolishPleasure
June 22nd, 2007, 06:33 AM
That's me too, I don't care for pregnancy storylines if they don't make sense, if they're not like a natural progression of a character not just something coming along all of a sudden to cover up a real pregnancy on a TV show. It's a scifi show for heaven's sake not a soap.


JMS was once asked why Babylon 5 was so successful, both commercially and critically. His response was to write good scifi, there must be no cute, cuddly animals, and no children as part of the main cast. Those were his rules, and it worked. JMS had a way of writing "ship" and romance without it becoming soap, and one character had a baby at the END of the series, but it was never a part of the series. Speculation was that JMS intended to use this child to continue the B5 universe as an adult in a spinoff series that never happened.

JM said on his blog that he met JMS once. Obviously they didn't talk much. *LOL*

prion
June 22nd, 2007, 08:42 AM
JMS was once asked why Babylon 5 was so successful, both commercially and critically. His response was to write good scifi, there must be no cute, cuddly animals, and no children as part of the main cast. Those were his rules, and it worked. JMS had a way of writing "ship" and romance without it becoming soap, and one character had a baby at the END of the series, but it was never a part of the series. Speculation was that JMS intended to use this child to continue the B5 universe as an adult in a spinoff series that never happened.

JM said on his blog that he met JMS once. Obviously they didn't talk much. *LOL*

Yup, bring in that cute animal and the show is toast. Unless it's tribbles, which multiply like locusts on steroids and devour entire grain storage units.

Which begs the question: okay, Teyla's pregnant, let's say she gives birth, then what?? Please, no MiracleGro kids that turn into adults overnight.Or will the kid get snatched? Die? Sprout wings and fly off? Or will be she be aducted by aliens and be left with a claim ticket for the kid?? I hope the writers have devised a logical, believable solution... and yes, Teyla could keep the kid but then I don't think she'd be running out on missions.

jenks
June 22nd, 2007, 09:08 AM
Like the rest of S4 ideas, this one is totally lame too. Somebody mentioned on some other thread that SGA was barely finding it's legs. The team warmed up, and the dynnamics just formed; the group was becoming more than sum of it's parts. And now they shatter that. That is not 'fixing what ain't broken' that is 'Breaking something that is prefectly fine'.

That's a matter of opinion, personally I think Weirs character was dragging the show down, I'm very glad the changes have been made.

prion
June 22nd, 2007, 09:18 AM
That's a matter of opinion, personally I think Weirs character was dragging the show down, I'm very glad the changes have been made.

I'd suggest a poll on the topic, but then knowing how polls get stuffed <G> they're sorta useless (unless like on some boards, you can only vote once).

Steve_the_Wraith
June 22nd, 2007, 10:48 AM
That's a matter of opinion, personally I think Weirs character was dragging the show down, I'm very glad the changes have been made.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, if it doesn't work break it

Mitchell82
June 22nd, 2007, 11:57 AM
Come on now, be honest, some episodes were rubbish *cough* Irresponsible *cough* Irresistible *cough*

But to be fair, they are the only episodes of Atlantis so far that I can honestly say I will NEVER EVER WATCH EVER AGAIN!!!!

Even The Tower had some cool vfx scenes.

But I think if the back end of S3 is strong enough to guarantee an S5, and if S4 is as good as it sounds, then S6 is a definite as long as Skiffy don't find another reason to axe it.

Well I must disagree. They may not be the best but are far from rubbish in my eyes. I would watch them aain as they are funny. The only part I think could have been done better is Koyla's demise but they arent bad enough to never watch again. I do agree that unless skiffy just want to axe it the quality is good enough to continue.

Lauriel
June 23rd, 2007, 03:38 AM
Well thank youCautious Explorer and Celcool for expressing my thoughts better than I did. I would have no trouble seeing a hugely pregnant actress pretending not to be, but that's just me. I know in RL's case it would be impossible because of the very warrior nature of Teyla, but the idea of an alien pregnancy is IMHO so very lame and stupid I, for one, will be laughing through the whole thing. And that will distract me more than having her carrying around a very strategically placed P90.

Now we find out they are pulling a Ford on Weir. So far M&M have not impressed me with their good ideas.

Did I miss something - who said it was an alien pregnancy? Or do you mean because Teyla is an alien?

I'm curious as to what everyone thought of Vala's pregnancy? That seemed to work out okay, although I'm not a regular watcher of SG-1, so I might have missed the bad bits.

I like the fact that JM and PM are supporting Rachel. I'll be a little more forgiving because of that fact alone, and I hope they can put together a plot that will stand on it's own without leeway given for the RL factors.

Southern Red
June 23rd, 2007, 04:32 AM
Did I miss something - who said it was an alien pregnancy? Or do you mean because Teyla is an alien?

I'm curious as to what everyone thought of Vala's pregnancy? That seemed to work out okay, although I'm not a regular watcher of SG-1, so I might have missed the bad bits.

I like the fact that JM and PM are supporting Rachel. I'll be a little more forgiving because of that fact alone, and I hope they can put together a plot that will stand on it's own without leeway given for the RL factors.

One of the many scenarios for S4concerning the pregnancy is that it will be some sort of weird alien thing. Judging from the preview we say last night, that seems likely. But we still don't know for sure. The whole rapid growth baby become evil adult idea is an old SciFi cliche.

Anuna
June 23rd, 2007, 04:38 AM
That's a matter of opinion, personally I think Weirs character was dragging the show down, I'm very glad the changes have been made.

I respect your oppinion, but they could also do a better job of writing her, Teyla, Ford, Ronon .... instead making Rodney and Sheppard stars of the show. Which reminds me of how many characters in ST Enterprise were handled.

ShadowMaat
June 23rd, 2007, 05:31 AM
One of the many scenarios for S4concerning the pregnancy is that it will be some sort of weird alien thing. Judging from the preview we say last night, that seems likely. But we still don't know for sure. The whole rapid growth baby become evil adult idea is an old SciFi cliche.

Especially since they just did that on SG-1. But of course, it'd be COMPLETELY different for Teyla so it'd be stupid of people to try and compare the two, blah blah blah. :rolleyes:

nowvoyager908
June 23rd, 2007, 06:47 AM
That's a matter of opinion, personally I think Weirs character was dragging the show down, I'm very glad the changes have been made.

I disagree. IMHO, Weir was the character that held the show together and gave it some style and substance (along with Beckett).

Without her (them), we got nothing but Abbott and Costello, and their back-up singers, going through the gate and almost getting themselves killed, before saving the day, at the very last second of course, in each and every episode (sorry for the run-on). Mmmmm, sounds remarkably similar to (exactly alike) another show that's been airing. Can't quite recall the name tho. LOL.

I guess imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery. :rolleyes:

ShadowMaat
June 23rd, 2007, 06:53 AM
Sometimes I wonder if TPTB only know how to write one show and one set of characters...

It'll be particularly interesting to see what SG: Universe looks like.

Ltcolshepjumper
June 23rd, 2007, 06:55 AM
I disagree. IMHO, Weir was the character that held the show together and gave it some style and substance (along with Beckett).

Without her (them), we got nothing but Abbott and Costello, and their back-up singers, going through the gate and almost getting themselves killed, before saving the day, at the very last second of course, in each and every episode (sorry for the run-on). Mmmmm, sounds remarkably similar to (exactly alike) another show that's been airing. Can't quite recall the name tho. LOL.

I guess imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery. :rolleyes:

I agree. IMO, Weir (and Beckett) added a more human side to the show. W/o them, it will probably be just another SG-1.

vaberella
June 23rd, 2007, 07:41 AM
I respect your oppinion, but they could also do a better job of writing her, Teyla, Ford, Ronon .... instead making Rodney and Sheppard stars of the show. Which reminds me of how many characters in ST Enterprise were handled.

Actually, they could do to really give a deeper focus on all characters. Shep is the "quint-essential" star, that doesn't mean he's had good writing. On the contrary, he's been left on the wayside. This goes at times to the writing for Rodney. He's great, but really he hasn't evolved much from S1, although I do like him in some places more than others.

Overall the writers have stated quite clearly they were a bit overwhelmed by two shows and hence the reason we may have seen a lag in some of the characterization for majority of characters. Weir and Shep being my top two, while Teyla being my most underused and Rodney probably my least growth. Ronon surprisingly, if one pays attention has been given a more three-dimensional role on the show than any other character, although he could use a bit more air time on his deeper side as seen in Trinity, Sateda, Common Ground/Vengeance. Shep barely makes it to Weir's level only because he's an extremely actionary figure, so his judgements are scraped over. Plus he's not leader.

The point is, that pretty much all the characters have fallen short of great characterization. I have nothing wrong with a character who's not perfect, because really that's realistic...what is the problem is inane writing resulting in poorly established characterization. And as I've said, no character is immune to that "illness".

The only positive that's going on now, is the fact that the writers/TPTB are making a marked effort in turning the tides and establishing set characters. It's like SGA S4, is really SGA S1. New storyline, possibly a few new writers on board, new showrunners, a forum for the actors to work hand in hand with the writers---and really just a new positive outlook on things is really giving something new. It's unfortunate through the seasons things have fallen short at times (not all, just a small few). But hopefully that's in the past, and what was a problem won't be too much of a problem in the future.

Southern Red
June 23rd, 2007, 07:46 AM
Sometimes I wonder if TPTB only know how to write one show and one set of characters...

It'll be particularly interesting to see what SG: Universe looks like.

Looks like we're about to find out in S4 when they present the first stage of Atlantis: SG-1. Makes me wonder which show exactly was canceled.;)

nowvoyager908
June 23rd, 2007, 10:05 AM
Sometimes I wonder if TPTB only know how to write one show and one set of characters...

It'll be particularly interesting to see what SG: Universe looks like.

Can't really imagine how they're gonna make it any different than SG1 or SGA (heard that song and dance before), but it won't really matter because at some point, you know Carter will be dragged in once again, bringing the dreaded reset button with her, and Universe will become just another SG1 clone. And so it goes. :cool:

jenks
June 23rd, 2007, 10:44 AM
I disagree. IMHO, Weir was the character that held the show together and gave it some style and substance (along with Beckett).

Without her (them), we got nothing but Abbott and Costello, and their back-up singers, going through the gate and almost getting themselves killed, before saving the day, at the very last second of course, in each and every episode (sorry for the run-on). Mmmmm, sounds remarkably similar to (exactly alike) another show that's been airing. Can't quite recall the name tho. LOL.

I guess imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that happen with or without her?

Pegasus_SGA
June 23rd, 2007, 10:59 AM
Can't really imagine how they're gonna make it any different than SG1 or SGA (heard that song and dance before), but it won't really matter because at some point, you know Carter will be dragged in once again, bringing the dreaded reset button with her, and Universe will become just another SG1 clone. And so it goes. :cool:

You'll often find that a 'child' so to speak has characteristics of the parent, and then when it flies solo, it takes on it's own personality... and now that the 'parent' is not technically in the picture show, you might just be surprised at the direction it takes. :D

I don't know what you bean by carter bringing the 'dragged reset button' with her though.

nowvoyager908
June 23rd, 2007, 11:00 AM
Wouldn't that happen with or without her?

Yeah. But with Weir (and Beckett), there was some balance to the show. A civilian, or a medical doctor, may have a far different perspective in any given situation than a soldier or even a scientist. It made the show more interesting IMHO and less predictable . . . regardless of whose viewpoint was victorious in the end. Without these balancing forces, its just the same (you know what), different day. ;)

Ltcolshepjumper
June 23rd, 2007, 11:02 AM
Overall the writers have stated quite clearly they were a bit overwhelmed by two shows and hence the reason we may have seen a lag in some of the characterization for majority of characters. Weir and Shep being my top two, while Teyla being my most underused and Rodney probably my least growth. Ronon surprisingly, if one pays attention has been given a more three-dimensional role on the show than any other character, although he could use a bit more air time on his deeper side as seen in Trinity, Sateda, Common Ground/Vengeance. Shep barely makes it to Weir's level only because he's an extremely actionary figure, so his judgements are scraped over. Plus he's not leader.

The point is, that pretty much all the characters have fallen short of great characterization. I have nothing wrong with a character who's not perfect, because really that's realistic...what is the problem is inane writing resulting in poorly established characterization. And as I've said, no character is immune to that "illness".

The only positive that's going on now, is the fact that the writers/TPTB are making a marked effort in turning the tides and establishing set characters. It's like SGA S4, is really SGA S1. New storyline, possibly a few new writers on board, new showrunners, a forum for the actors to work hand in hand with the writers---and really just a new positive outlook on things is really giving something new. It's unfortunate through the seasons things have fallen short at times (not all, just a small few). But hopefully that's in the past, and what was a problem won't be too much of a problem in the future.

When SG-1 was still around, we know where they focused MOST of their efforts;)

nowvoyager908
June 23rd, 2007, 11:07 AM
You'll often find that a 'child' so to speak has characteristics of the parent, and then when it flies solo, it takes on it's own personality... and now that the 'parent' is not technically in the picture show, you might just be surprised at the direction it takes. :D

I don't know what you bean by carter bringing the 'dragged reset button' with her though.


I think in this case, the child had little in common with the parent and now that the parent is out of the picture, the child is becoming the parent. LOL. You know, when someone says "Wow, I have become my mother". Something like that.

I was just referencing the fact that for many of us, Carter is the poster child for all the changes happening on SGA in the back half of season 3 and on into season 4 . . . the dreaded reset that everyone keeps talking about.

jenks
June 23rd, 2007, 11:11 AM
Yeah. But with Weir (and Beckett), there was some balance to the show. A civilian, or a medical doctor, may have a far different perspective in any given situation than a soldier or even a scientist. It made the show more interesting IMHO and less predictable . . . regardless of whose viewpoint was victorious in the end. Without these balancing forces, its just the same (you know what), different day. ;)

I agree Weir made it less predictable, but for totally the wronge reasons. Her character was anything but consistent. Teyla has always been the one to question the morality of things anyway, so there'll still be a different perspective, not to mention the fact that we're still going to have a medical doctor.

ShadowMaat
June 23rd, 2007, 12:10 PM
Weir isn't the only one who acts inconsistently. In fact, if they purged all the "inconsistent" characters there'd probably be no one left. ;)

PG15
June 23rd, 2007, 01:21 PM
I was just referencing the fact that for many of us, Carter is the poster child for all the changes happening on SGA in the back half of season 3 and on into season 4 . . . the dreaded reset that everyone keeps talking about.


But...that's not true. Whatever happens in the back half of Season 3 had nothing to do with Carter coming over.

Oh, and I'll say it again, that "soft reset" has been blown WAAAAAY out of proportion. It probably means nothing more than getting Atlantis away from the Wraith and having it powerless again, or something. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I mean, we've heard from JM and PM that Season 4 is more arc-based than before. You can say that our defination of arc-based is different from theirs, but since those two have worked on Atlantis since the beginning, if it's more arc-based than before for them, it'll be more arc-based than before for us. There's really no way around that, logically speaking.

prion
June 23rd, 2007, 02:33 PM
The only positive that's going on now, is the fact that the writers/TPTB are making a marked effort in turning the tides and establishing set characters. It's like SGA S4, is really SGA S1. New storyline, possibly a few new writers on board, new showrunners, a forum for the actors to work hand in hand with the writers---and really just a new positive outlook on things is really giving something new. It's unfortunate through the seasons things have fallen short at times (not all, just a small few). But hopefully that's in the past, and what was a problem won't be too much of a problem in the future.

Yes, because they are no longer doing 2 shows, they've got no excuse, unless they say they're burned out, then it's time to quit and get new writers.
I'm *hoping* they'll bolster character development in season 4. The tidbits shown in the ads last night were quite promising, but we don't know how much development we'll get. Promising also is the actors get read-throughs with the writers, so they can do "whoa, wait, my character is doing WHAT?"

So hopefully we can avoid another "Irresponsible." cough cough

ShadowMaat
June 23rd, 2007, 05:09 PM
I was skimming the SCIFI boards and saw a VERY funny poll asking who needed replacing: the actors or TPTB? When last I checked, TPTB were winning by 100%. Or losing, if you want to look at it that way. LOL!

Of course there were only four votes and it was probably the thread-starter and three friends, but it still made me laugh. :D

Mitchell82
June 23rd, 2007, 05:20 PM
But...that's not true. Whatever happens in the back half of Season 3 had nothing to do with Carter coming over.

Oh, and I'll say it again, that "soft reset" has been blown WAAAAAY out of proportion. It probably means nothing more than getting Atlantis away from the Wraith and having it powerless again, or something. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I mean, we've heard from JM and PM that Season 4 is more arc-based than before. You can say that our defination of arc-based is different from theirs, but since those two have worked on Atlantis since the beginning, if it's more arc-based than before for them, it'll be more arc-based than before for us. There's really no way around that, logically speaking.

Agreed but thats not all that has been blown out of proportion. Everything has IMO and way too much of the concerns have been laid at Joe and Paul. Now I'm not saying that those concerns arent valid, they are in the eyes of those who have them. But it is extremly unfair to blame Amanda for taking Torri's spot. It doesnt bother me in the least that Carter is coming over, but if you are that's fine but don't blame Amanda. The reset is not as big as some thought, but it does mean that we will be on our own again and on the run.

DragonEagle
June 23rd, 2007, 06:22 PM
I'm personally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since s4 has yet to air. Although I was concerned when I read through their interview, especially when it was mentioned that they enjoy shows when "no character is safe." My first thought was, oh great, so if we make it to a season five we could have a whole new cast by then. But I remain hopeful that they won't tinker with the cast any more than it already has been. Who knows, maybe they can improve the show and maybe it'll plummet back into the ocean like Atlantis. We'll just have to wait and see.

Pegasus_SGA
June 24th, 2007, 12:34 AM
I'm personally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since s4 has yet to air. Although I was concerned when I read through their interview, especially when it was mentioned that they enjoy shows when "no character is safe." My first thought was, oh great, so if we make it to a season five we could have a whole new cast by then. But I remain hopeful that they won't tinker with the cast any more than it already has been. Who knows, maybe they can improve the show and maybe it'll plummet back into the ocean like Atlantis. We'll just have to wait and see.

Martin Wood said the same thing, so it's not just Joe and Paul. And...

*for those of the tomatoe throwing persuasion, please wait till the end of my post* :P

I agree with them. What's the point of having a show, that's high packed with drama, action, jeapordy without the risks that go with it? It becomes unbelievable! Our team gets into trouble every week, but it's okay, because we know that they'll all survive without consequence... if that happens you lose the 'realism' imo.

DragonEagle
June 24th, 2007, 10:35 AM
Martin Wood said the same thing, so it's not just Joe and Paul. And...

*for those of the tomatoe throwing persuasion, please wait till the end of my post* :P

I agree with them. What's the point of having a show, that's high packed with drama, action, jeapordy without the risks that go with it? It becomes unbelievable! Our team gets into trouble every week, but it's okay, because we know that they'll all survive without consequence... if that happens you lose the 'realism' imo.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Realism has no place in a show that takes place in another galaxy with humans that amazingly speak english and evil life-sucking monsters. In my opinion, to kill off characters is good in shows like ER or Law & Order, where the premise is set in the real world. However, in Scifi fans tend to get attached to the characters. Its perfectly fine to me for the team to go through all that trouble and come through unscathed, it may not be realistic, but lets face it, the show isn't realistic to begin with!

AGateFan
June 24th, 2007, 10:42 AM
Martin Wood said the same thing, so it's not just Joe and Paul. And...

*for those of the tomatoe throwing persuasion, please wait till the end of my post* :P

I agree with them. What's the point of having a show, that's high packed with drama, action, jeapordy without the risks that go with it? It becomes unbelievable! Our team gets into trouble every week, but it's okay, because we know that they'll all survive without consequence... if that happens you lose the 'realism' imo.
The scifi shows that have had the longest run are those with most consistant and likeable cast. (outside of Dr who a show specifically designed for a rotating cast) Sure one or two may come or go over the years but mostly its consistant. Its awesome to watch stargate in S1 and barly notice background characters like Walter and Siler and then watch in season 5 and say "Hey that gateguy, his name is walter". Kinda like Cheif O'Brian in TNG. Its the little consistant things that make it so special.

nowvoyager908
June 24th, 2007, 10:53 AM
Martin Wood said the same thing, so it's not just Joe and Paul. And...

*for those of the tomatoe throwing persuasion, please wait till the end of my post* :P

I agree with them. What's the point of having a show, that's high packed with drama, action, jeapordy without the risks that go with it? It becomes unbelievable! Our team gets into trouble every week, but it's okay, because we know that they'll all survive without consequence... if that happens you lose the 'realism' imo.

I don't agree about the realism factor, especially in a sci-fi show which by its very nature is unrealistic. I still say there are other ways to portray danger and suspense than to kill off characters. In my mind, it's just a one-shot dead-end moment. And once that person is toast, how do you decide who's gonna be the next victim. Because if character death is the only way to portray realism, one death is surely not gonna do it.

But the big point is the team that gets into trouble every week does surivive without consequence. It's always the other guy who gets sacrificed. How realistic is that? IMHO of course. ;)

Mitchell82
June 24th, 2007, 10:55 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Realism has no place in a show that takes place in another galaxy with humans that amazingly speak english and evil life-sucking monsters. In my opinion, to kill off characters is good in shows like ER or Law & Order, where the premise is set in the real world. However, in Scifi fans tend to get attached to the characters. Its perfectly fine to me for the team to go through all that trouble and come through unscathed, it may not be realistic, but lets face it, the show isn't realistic to begin with!

Sorry but I must agree with Pegasus. Stargate and scifi in general are fiction so their usually isnt much more than a hint of realisism but Stargate has always tried to make it as real as possible even though most of what happens if extremly unlikely. Killing off characters while can be frustrating does make it seem more real instead of always having everyone survive insurmountable odds. this makes them seem invulnerable but the way they do it makes us realize we are truly mortal no matter how much we persevere.

DragonEagle
June 24th, 2007, 11:01 AM
Sorry but I must agree with Pegasus. Stargate and scifi in general are fiction so their usually isnt much more than a hint of realisism but Stargate has always tried to make it as real as possible even though most of what happens if extremly unlikely. Killing off characters while can be frustrating does make it seem more real instead of always having everyone survive insurmountable odds. this makes them seem invulnerable but the way they do it makes us realize we are truly mortal no matter how much we persevere.

You are more than entitled to your opinion Mitchell. But my point is that most, (granted not all) scifi fans enjoy shows like star trek and stargate for the consistency of the cast. They get comfortable with the characters and come to watch the show just for them. As I've said in other posts, it is not the Stargate itself that makes the show good, it is the characters that we have come to know and love that keep us coming back for more.

jenks
June 24th, 2007, 11:08 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Realism has no place in a show that takes place in another galaxy with humans that amazingly speak english and evil life-sucking monsters. In my opinion, to kill off characters is good in shows like ER or Law & Order, where the premise is set in the real world. However, in Scifi fans tend to get attached to the characters. Its perfectly fine to me for the team to go through all that trouble and come through unscathed, it may not be realistic, but lets face it, the show isn't realistic to begin with!

I don't think it's about realism, I think it's about jeopardy and drama.

nowvoyager908
June 24th, 2007, 11:14 AM
You are more than entitled to your opinion Mitchell. But my point is that most, (granted not all) scifi fans enjoy shows like star trek and stargate for the consistency of the cast. They get comfortable with the characters and come to watch the show just for them. As I've said in other posts, it is not the Stargate itself that makes the show good, it is the characters that we have come to know and love that keep us coming back for more.


ITA. I never realized until this stuff regarding SGA "hit the fan" how lucky I was during all those years watching Star Trek. Certainly each and every episode was not perfect, but I stuck with it because I liked the respective casts (each and every member) and felt a connection to them. It was that connection that kept me tuning in each week . . . through five very different series. And when time and RL permits, I will still watch a rerun of any of the Treks over pretty much anything else. I felt the same way about SGA . . . until now that is.

Mitchell82
June 24th, 2007, 11:25 AM
You are more than entitled to your opinion Mitchell. But my point is that most, (granted not all) scifi fans enjoy shows like star trek and stargate for the consistency of the cast. They get comfortable with the characters and come to watch the show just for them. As I've said in other posts, it is not the Stargate itself that makes the show good, it is the characters that we have come to know and love that keep us coming back for more.

Actually I agree with that consitency with the cast is a good thing and it is why I stick with most shows and it does get frustrating when all your favoite characters are killed off but it can get quite borring if the stories get dull because the character have been worn out. The killing of a character everynow and then is a neccesary evil. It's true you get comfortable with a cast and don't want it broken up but that can add to better drama and stories. I was upset with Carsons departure but M&M seem to be doing a good job and am glad the show is in their hands.

DragonEagle
June 24th, 2007, 11:45 AM
Actually I agree with that consitency with the cast is a good thing and it is why I stick with most shows and it does get frustrating when all your favoite characters are killed off but it can get quite borring if the stories get dull because the character have been worn out. The killing of a character everynow and then is a neccesary evil. It's true you get comfortable with a cast and don't want it broken up but that can add to better drama and stories. I was upset with Carsons departure but M&M seem to be doing a good job and am glad the show is in their hands.

I agree that it can get dull after awhile, but killing someone off is not the only way they could solve that. Someone could be captured for an extended period of time, like Daniel was by Adria for several episodes. Someone could be seriously injured (but survive) or contract some deadly disease. There are a number of things they can do besides killing someone off. To me, it takes creativity to keep things interesting while still keeping the same cast. Killing off a character, especially a well-loved character like Carson, seems like they have no ideas on any other ways to boost the interest of the viewers.

Pegasus_SGA
June 24th, 2007, 12:31 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Realism has no place in a show that takes place in another galaxy with humans that amazingly speak english and evil life-sucking monsters. In my opinion, to kill off characters is good in shows like ER or Law & Order, where the premise is set in the real world. However, in Scifi fans tend to get attached to the characters. Its perfectly fine to me for the team to go through all that trouble and come through unscathed, it may not be realistic, but lets face it, the show isn't realistic to begin with!

Respectfully, I disagree. Realism can take many forms in a TV programme from idnetifyng with characters, to things that happen in the show comparative to what happens in your own life...obviously not the wraith sucking the life out of you.. :lol: But, some people identify themselves with certain characteristics that make up the characters. And the same flaws in those characters make the show...more real shall we say. The show runners have said in both SG1 and SGA that there needs to be that jeapordy. For me (and obviously you do feel differently) I like to have that jeapordy, and don't want necessarilly, to know that at the end of the episode everything's going to be ok. Otherwise for me it loses that excitement.


The scifi shows that have had the longest run are those with most consistant and likeable cast. (outside of Dr who a show specifically designed for a rotating cast) Sure one or two may come or go over the years but mostly its consistant. Its awesome to watch stargate in S1 and barly notice background characters like Walter and Siler and then watch in season 5 and say "Hey that gateguy, his name is walter". Kinda like Cheif O'Brian in TNG. Its the little consistant things that make it so special.

I agree. Consistancy in any show is an important factor. I enjoy seeing elements from one episode carried on throughout the series, even if it is just a one liner here and there. AND it's not always there if i'm being honest. It has got better, but it's definately still got a way to go. I want to know the impacts of what happens to our characters, what makes them tick. How it makes them feel when they lose someone. I don't expect a 45 minute ep on mourning for that person, but am happy for snippets, and we don't often get that, because of time restraints. I uderstand that. I hope that it is something that's addressed by Joe and Paul.


I don't agree about the realism factor, especially in a sci-fi show which by its very nature is unrealistic. I still say there are other ways to portray danger and suspense than to kill off characters. In my mind, it's just a one-shot dead-end moment. And once that person is toast, how do you decide who's gonna be the next victim. Because if character death is the only way to portray realism, one death is surely not gonna do it.

But the big point is the team that gets into trouble every week does surivive without consequence. It's always the other guy who gets sacrificed. How realistic is that? IMHO of course. ;)

It's not that the whole show is realistic, it's that it has inherant elemants that are realistic... but then who know's what the government is up to. :lol: Sure, there are ways to portray danger and suspense, but realistically if you know for certain that NO characters are going to be killed off then for me it loses some of the realism, because no matter what happens it's irrelevant, because everything will be fine by the end of the 45 minutes. Why do you think so much money is spent on SFX? To make it more realistic maybe? If realism isn't important in a show, why do they spend millions getting those effects right for the viewer? Because it's pretty?

Yes the team get into trouble frequently, but if they killed one member of the cast off every week when they got into trouble, how realistic is that? Luck only goes so far, before it runs out. And sometimes it's not the fighting off scary monsters or doing a dangerous job that kills you...


Sorry but I must agree with Pegasus. Stargate and scifi in general are fiction so their usually isnt much more than a hint of realisism but Stargate has always tried to make it as real as possible even though most of what happens if extremly unlikely. Killing off characters while can be frustrating does make it seem more real instead of always having everyone survive insurmountable odds. this makes them seem invulnerable but the way they do it makes us realize we are truly mortal no matter how much we persevere.

Absolutely. Killing off characters, especially ones that people are attached to is upsetting, but at the end of the day they are flesh and blood. Would I have liked for things to have stayed the same. Absolutely. Joe and Paul do seem to follow the whole 'no one is safe' rule of thumb, but not everyone will agree with it, I understand that. But by bringing back Beckett...albeit for a limited time, doesn't that say something? The thing is we don't know how they're going to be as show runners until we see what their actions are with regards to the cast/characters/show. So we rely on snippets of information until it airs. Obviously some of the things said people won't like, but personally how can I make a judgement on something that i've not seen? From what i've seen introuduced so far, they're trying and for me that's a good starting point. By acknowledging in a round about way that they've had a lot of work to do doing both shows, some inbalances have happened which is what they're trying to address. Is that a bad thing? Personally, no, it shows they're making an effort to make the show as enjoyable for us as possible and trying to iron out some of the things that irk us....

*looks at post* ooops. Sorry. I've kinda rambled..... there's a shocker! :lol:

Redhooks
June 24th, 2007, 12:53 PM
If "nobody is safe," I would like them to whump Sheppard into the afterlife and THEN we would see how the Sheppard fans would react in comparison to the Beckett and to a lesser extent Weir fans (she didn't die, yet!) Now that is a debate I would love to see!!!

This post is firmly tongue-in-cheek, but it brings up the point as to who usually gets killed in the cast is not the main team members, but the secondary characters. Just my thought on the subject. *runs away from GateWorld before all the Sheppard fangirls track me down!!!*

Jackie
June 24th, 2007, 12:54 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Realism has no place in a show that takes place in another galaxy with humans that amazingly speak english and evil life-sucking monsters. In my opinion, to kill off characters is good in shows like ER or Law & Order, where the premise is set in the real world. However, in Scifi fans tend to get attached to the characters. Its perfectly fine to me for the team to go through all that trouble and come through unscathed, it may not be realistic, but lets face it, the show isn't realistic to begin with!


Sorry but I must agree with Pegasus. Stargate and scifi in general are fiction so their usually isnt much more than a hint of realisism but Stargate has always tried to make it as real as possible even though most of what happens if extremly unlikely. Killing off characters while can be frustrating does make it seem more real instead of always having everyone survive insurmountable odds. this makes them seem invulnerable but the way they do it makes us realize we are truly mortal no matter how much we persevere.



Very intresting sides to this argument. Each is true--yes, there is no real right or wrong to killing of characters.

IMO--if I go through all the research and devlopment to create a character that is so real that the fans can connect to that character--even though the situation is totally unreal--that character becomes an investment that shouldn't be thrown away lightly.

If your actor is leaving and the story allows for a death that would benefit your main story arc. Then that is a viable option. But--in carson's case--if you kill of a character for a ratings boost. Well, than you have just tossed years of work down the toilet.

Sci-fi should not be imminue to killing off a character just becuase sci-fi is totally unreal. Sci-fi should be held to the same higher standard as Law and Order and other shows that make a death of a character a huge impact.

The trick to hooking a fan is simple. No matter how unreal the situation is--make the character as real as possible. :)

Celcool
June 24th, 2007, 12:56 PM
Sorry but I must agree with Pegasus. Stargate and scifi in general are fiction so their usually isnt much more than a hint of realisism but Stargate has always tried to make it as real as possible even though most of what happens if extremly unlikely. Killing off characters while can be frustrating does make it seem more real instead of always having everyone survive insurmountable odds. this makes them seem invulnerable but the way they do it makes us realize we are truly mortal no matter how much we persevere.
I wonder if you would be still saying that if it were Carter who they would kill off. ;)

Pegasus_SGA
June 24th, 2007, 01:10 PM
If "nobody is safe," I would like them to whump Sheppard into the afterlife and THEN we would see how the Sheppard fans would react in comparison to the Beckett and to a lesser extent Weir fans (she didn't die, yet!) Now that is a debate I would love to see!!!

This post is firmly tongue-in-cheek, but it brings up the point as to who usually gets killed in the cast is not the main team members, but the secondary characters. Just my thought on the subject. *runs away from GateWorld before all the Sheppard fangirls track me down!!!*

:lol: Too late! :P *puts on her camouflage* Whumped into oblivion and Shep being dead has been done (and as a whumper, I would be negligent in my duties to not ask for the same again) :P But look at Daniel and how many times he's come back from the dead? ;) Is he the exception to the rule? Usually the only time (that i'm aware) when a main chaacter dies it's usually not because of a story line, it's either a personal decision, and actors decision or a... *prepares to duck* and executive decision, and not necessarily by the show runners. The thing is we will never know what happened behind closed doors and why the decisions were made and while I may not necessarily like it, I will live with it and see where things go. If I don't like the direction Atlantis is going when it airs...well then i'll switch off and play elsewhere. I'll probably rant about it, and be upset, but I won't let it consume me. Given that this is a possibility of S4 of Atlantis being the last....and I sincerely hope it's not. I thik TPTB have a tough job on their hands. Here they've taken over a show, that's not done consistantly well in the ratings, and they're trying to make sure it has a good a run as SG1 or it goes out in style. I hope that the changes are good ones, and personally, they've taken the show (darker) which is what it was originally intended, in the hopes of attracting more viewers. And I hope it succeeds, otherwise i'm going to have a lot of spare time on my hands :lol:


Very intresting sides to this argument. Each is true--yes, there is no real right or wrong to killing of characters.

IMO--if I go through all the research and devlopment to create a character that is so real that the fans can connect to that character--even though the situation is totally unreal--that character becomes an investment that shouldn't be thrown away lightly.

If your actor is leaving and the story allows for a death that would benefit your main story arc. Then that is a viable option. But--in carson's case--if you kill of a character for a ratings boost. Well, than you have just tossed years of work down the toilet.

Sci-fi should not be imminue to killing off a character just becuase sci-fi is totally unreal. Sci-fi should be held to the same higher standard as Law and Order and other shows that make a death of a character a huge impact.

The trick to hooking a fan is simple. No matter how unreal the situation is--make the character as real as possible. :)

I agree, killing off a character for no good reason is ridiculous, but how many times have we seen people who have 'fought the good fight' lost it to something inane? I'm not saying that I agree with those decisions, but I have accepted them.


I wonder if you would be still saying that if it were Carter who they would kill off. ;)

Celcool, play nice. ;) :P :D

ShadowMaat
June 24th, 2007, 01:18 PM
I think "no one is safe" really means "no one is safe except Shep and McKay and maybe Carter." ;) We could lose Lorne, maybe Zelenka, probably lots of nameless victims, Heightmeyer, um... that new doctor, Katie, Keiko (if I'm remembering her name right), McKay's sister (ooo, imagine him trying to explain THAT to the kids!), Caldwell, Abe (whose last name is not Vigoda even if that's all I can remember), Dr. Lee, the Athosians... Probably not Teyla or Ronon, but I wouldn't call them 100% safe, either. Chuck. Although if we lost Chuck I think there'd be a lot of outrage. ;)

Or they could kill off the whole ball of wax in the finale only to get renewed at the last minute and be forced to start over with a new cast. :D Although TPTB would probably just wank everyone back into existence. :rolleyes:

Falcon Horus
June 24th, 2007, 01:37 PM
I wonder if you would be still saying that if it were Carter who they would kill off. ;)


Celcool, play nice. ;) :P :D

Honestly, I was thinking the same thing as Celcool. She just had more guts to actually voice/post that. :o


...Heightmeyer...

No, not my psychologist. What will I do without her? :(


...Keiko (if I'm remembering her name right)...

Do you mean Miko Kusanagi? We haven't seen her since Letters From Pegasus so I don't think we have to worry. Either she's already dead or send back to Earth or will never be spoken of again. I opt for the last since we haven't heard from her in two seasons.

nowvoyager908
June 24th, 2007, 01:42 PM
Very intresting sides to this argument. Each is true--yes, there is no real right or wrong to killing of characters.

IMO--if I go through all the research and devlopment to create a character that is so real that the fans can connect to that character--even though the situation is totally unreal--that character becomes an investment that shouldn't be thrown away lightly.

If your actor is leaving and the story allows for a death that would benefit your main story arc. Then that is a viable option. But--in carson's case--if you kill of a character for a ratings boost. Well, than you have just tossed years of work down the toilet.
Sci-fi should not be imminue to killing off a character just becuase sci-fi is totally unreal. Sci-fi should be held to the same higher standard as Law and Order and other shows that make a death of a character a huge impact.

The trick to hooking a fan is simple. No matter how unreal the situation is--make the character as real as possible. :)

Not only that, but I suspect TPTB didn't kill Carson to inject some realism into the show or to boost ratings, but rather to open up a spot for a pretty, young thing they thought would hook a certain demographic (who shall remain nameless, LOL). Talk about tossing stuff into the toilet. :S

AGateFan
June 24th, 2007, 01:53 PM
Not only that, but I suspect TPTB didn't kill Carson to inject some realism into the show or to boost ratings, but rather to open up a spot for a pretty, young thing they thought would hook a certain demographic (who shall remain nameless, LOL). Talk about tossing stuff into the toilet. :S
The irony in that is Stargate (the show that was on for 8 seasons) had huge female following. So you would think you would want someone like Beckett so that you could cash in and bring some of that fanbase over.

But that’s because I keep forgetting that sci-fi advertisers don’t care about female fans. They think because they have sci-fi in their title that they got to cater to the spike TV type viewership and that’s who they sell their advertising to. Which is so odd since women outnumber men and many have very good incomes with lots of expendable cash.

Redhooks
June 24th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Not only that, but I suspect TPTB didn't kill Carson to inject some realism into the show or to boost ratings, but rather to open up a spot for a pretty, young thing they thought would hook a certain demographic (who shall remain nameless, LOL). Talk about tossing stuff into the toilet. :S
TPTB should have not made Carson the Jack-of-all-Medical Trades and Master of them all too. It has been stated before, but they should have kept Carson more a recurring character working with other medical experts and not doing it all himself. They could have brought Keller in periodically like they did with Heightmayer. (How didn't they use Carson as the resident psychiatrist also, I don't know. :P)

Pegasus_SGA
June 24th, 2007, 02:06 PM
Honestly, I was thinking the same thing as Celcool. She just had more guts to actually voice/post that. :o



The thing is, yes it's true that people will feel differently if it was their favourite character getting killed off, but it's a moot point. Joe and Paul (as far as i'm aware) are not planning on any more culling. So, while I agree with yours and Celcool's point, until the showrunners say/plan/rumoured to kill off Carter it's not a debate for this thread.


Not only that, but I suspect TPTB didn't kill Carson to inject some realism into the show or to boost ratings, but rather to open up a spot for a pretty, young thing they thought would hook a certain demographic (who shall remain nameless, LOL). Talk about tossing stuff into the toilet. :S

Who knows what the decisions were behind it. From what i've read they look at the male demographic, but I don't hear much about the female, so who knows... It would be interesting to find out how the show runners feel about the female fans. From what i've seen at the one convention I went to the majority were female... but i've no idea if women are counting in the demographics.


The irony in that is Stargate (the show that was on for 8 seasons) had huge female following. So you would think you would want someone like Beckett so that you could cash in and bring some of that fanbase over.

But that’s because I keep forgetting that sci-fi advertisers don’t care about female fans. They think because they have sci-fi in their title that they got to cater to the spike TV type viewership and that’s who they sell their advertising to. Which is so odd since women outnumber men and many have very good incomes with lots of expendable cash.

Very possible.


TPTB should have not made Carson the Jack-of-all-Medical Trades and Master of them all too. It has been stated before, but they should have kept Carson more a recurring character working with other medical experts and not doing it all himself. They could have brought Keller in periodically like they did with Heightmayer. (How didn't they use Carson as the resident psychiatrist also, I don't know. :P)

I agree, I don't get why he became part of the main cast either, and I do think they struggled to find him a place in that status quo, and would have been happy if the execs brought him back as a recurring character... I think his popularity surprised them, and they wanted (maybe) to show the fans they were listening, but it didn't pay off.... I'm glad that he has been brought back, even if it is just for a few episodes, but I don't want it done so badly that everything that happened in that ep becomes meaningless.

nowvoyager908
June 24th, 2007, 02:07 PM
:I thik TPTB have a tough job on their hands. Here they've taken over a show, that's not done consistantly well in the ratings, and they're trying to make sure it has a good a run as SG1 or it goes out in style. I hope that the changes are good ones, and personally, they've taken the show (darker) which is what it was originally intended, in the hopes of attracting more viewers. And I hope it succeeds, otherwise i'm going to have a lot of spare time on my hands :lol:


My theory is that SGA hasn't performed consistently in the ratings because neither SciFi or TPTB have apparently tried to extend the Stargate audience beyond SG1. And as SG1's ratings have fallen due to either viewer fatigue or cast changes or a combination of both, SGA's have taken a hit as well.

Running the shows together has hurt SGA IMHO because viewers don't see the two as being separate. Potential new viewers, who didn't watch SG1 for whatever reason, would have every reason to believe SGA was just more of the same. Most fans have trouble distinguishing between the two, so casual viewers didn't stand a chance. As an example, can you imagine CBS or NBC running all the CSI's or the Law & Order's on one night. Network shows and cable shows are obviously different animals, but you would think programming decisions would have some commonality.

At a time when they should be shoring up the fan base, TPTB are doing their best to antagonize portions of it. I don't think this how you protect the future of the franchise.

nowvoyager908
June 24th, 2007, 02:13 PM
The irony in that is Stargate (the show that was on for 8 seasons) had huge female following. So you would think you would want someone like Beckett so that you could cash in and bring some of that fanbase over.

But that’s because I keep forgetting that sci-fi advertisers don’t care about female fans. They think because they have sci-fi in their title that they got to cater to the spike TV type viewership and that’s who they sell their advertising to. Which is so odd since women outnumber men and many have very good incomes with lots of expendable cash.


Ain't that the truth. Between Spike and SciFi, I think I've seen that scary, smiling Bob (you know the one) guy about a gazillion times. I guess they think all the women folk are in the kitchen toiling over a hot stove. LOL.

DragonEagle
June 24th, 2007, 02:13 PM
My theory is that SGA hasn't performed consistently in the ratings because neither SciFi or TPTB have apparently tried to extend the Stargate audience beyond SG1. And as SG1's ratings have fallen due to either viewer fatigue or cast changes or a combination of both, SGA's have taken a hit as well.

Running the shows together has hurt SGA IMHO because viewers don't see the two as being separate. Potential new viewers, who didn't watch SG1 for whatever reason, would have every reason to believe SGA was just more of the same. Most fans have trouble distinguishing between the two, so casual viewers didn't stand a chance. As an example, can you imagine CBS or NBC running all the CSI's or the Law & Order's on one night. Network shows and cable shows are obviously different animals, but you would think programming decisions would have some commonality.

At a time when they should be shoring up the fan base, TPTB are doing their best to antagonize portions of it. I don't think this how you protect the future of the franchise.

Well, the whole idea of running SGA with SG1 was to attract the SG1 audience, that's also what they are thinking with bringing Carter to Atlantis. But I do see your point, especially since SG1 itself wasn't doing too good with rating these past seasons. I'm sure those HUGE breaks in between don't exactly help either. Six months right smack dab in the middle of a season?!! Sounds like ratings suicide to me.

nowvoyager908
June 24th, 2007, 02:31 PM
Well, the whole idea of running SGA with SG1 was to attract the SG1 audience, that's also what they are thinking with bringing Carter to Atlantis. But I do see your point, especially since SG1 itself wasn't doing too good with rating these past seasons. I'm sure those HUGE breaks in between don't exactly help either. Six months right smack dab in the middle of a season?!! Sounds like ratings suicide to me.

I understand that in the beginning they would want to attract the SG1 audience, but I think at some point, SGA should have been cut loose to find its "legs" and its own audience. I think linking the two shows so closely together has hurt SGA in the end.

DragonEagle
June 24th, 2007, 02:41 PM
I understand that in the beginning they would want to attract the SG1 audience, but I think at some point, SGA should have been cut loose to find its "legs" and its own audience. I think linking the two shows so closely together has hurt SGA in the end.

I agree, a lot of people now seem to see SGA as a continuation of SG1, rather than its own independent spin-off. And I'm sure as SG1 lost ratings in those last few seasons, so did SGA simply as a result of being run directly afterwards. People turn off the tv because they don't like the direction of SG1 and they consequently turn off atlantis as well.

jenks
June 24th, 2007, 04:50 PM
You can't be serious, what has SG-1 being on before Atlantis got to do with anything? If there was a crap show on before your favourite show would you stop watching?

Falcon Horus
June 24th, 2007, 05:07 PM
You can't be serious, what has SG-1 being on before Atlantis got to do with anything? If there was a crap show on before your favourite show would you stop watching?

Jenks does have a point. Look at the ratings of 'The Road Not Taken' and 'Irresponsible'. SG1 had lower ratings than SGA and as far as I know it's SG1 first and then later in the evening SGA.

DragonEagle
June 24th, 2007, 05:20 PM
You can't be serious, what has SG-1 being on before Atlantis got to do with anything? If there was a crap show on before your favourite show would you stop watching?

I was not talking about die hard fans of SGA, I was talking about those who watch SG1 and then watch atlantis kind of passively. What I meant was that they turn off the tv when they dislike SG1, then go and do other things and never turn it back on for atlantis. I'm sure people who really like SGA continue watching it even after SG1 lost ratings. But the passive watchers do still count as viewers.

AGateFan
June 24th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Yep, I skipped SG-1 but tuned back in on time for Atlantis. That, however, was not always easy as something else would catch my attention (like whatever movie or sporting event I started watching at 8) and it was hard to drag myself away from that to watch Atlantis at 9. So I can see how that could hurt ratings. If they had a good lead in show or had Atlantis be a lead in for another show it may work out better for Atlantis. I guess we will see next season.

jenks
June 24th, 2007, 06:01 PM
I was not talking about die hard fans of SGA, I was talking about those who watch SG1 and then watch atlantis kind of passively. What I meant was that they turn off the tv when they dislike SG1, then go and do other things and never turn it back on for atlantis. I'm sure people who really like SGA continue watching it even after SG1 lost ratings. But the passive watchers do still count as viewers.

Either way I just don't buy it. Would you agree that Painkiller Janes ratings might be down due to a lack of quality on Atlantis then?

ShadowMaat
June 24th, 2007, 06:18 PM
Last season Atlantis was on before BSG, but BSG still got good ratings. ;) *ducks*

Sorry, couldn't resist the chance to snark. :D

But just to prove I'm not COMPLETELY horrible... if I recall correctly the ratings for both shows declined when Skiffy broke 'em up.

DragonEagle
June 24th, 2007, 06:34 PM
Either way I just don't buy it. Would you agree that Painkiller Janes ratings might be down due to a lack of quality on Atlantis then?

Painkiller Jane has nothing to do with Atlantis. I didn't mean every show depends on the ones that come before it. I meant since most of the viewers that watch SGA originally watched SG1, that they would be linked, that's all.

Celcool
June 24th, 2007, 09:30 PM
The thing is, yes it's true that people will feel differently if it was their favourite character getting killed off, but it's a moot point. Joe and Paul (as far as i'm aware) are not planning on any more culling. So, while I agree with yours and Celcool's point, until the showrunners say/plan/rumoured to kill off Carter it's not a debate for this thread.

Why am I even replying to this? Sure, if I'm anti then it's a moot point. It's as moot point as all the speculations for s4 eps the pros or whoever are writing on this forum. Thank you very much. What I said is true, if it were your favorite character getting killed or removed from the show you'd feel the same way as we do. Your point of view would change significantly, which would make your present arguments a moot point.

Pegasus_SGA
June 24th, 2007, 10:31 PM
Why am I even replying to this? Sure, if I'm anti then it's a moot point. It's as moot point as all the speculations for s4 eps the pros or whoever are writing on this forum. Thank you very much. What I said is true, if it were your favorite character getting killed or removed from the show you'd feel the same way as we do. Your point of view would change significantly, which would make your present arguments a moot point.

Hang on a second Celcool, when did this become pro and anti? My point was that Carter and Sheppard getting killed off, has nothing to do with this thread.

The thread is "Mallozzi and Mullie as showrunners. What do we think now."

The thing is it is a moot point, if you're pro or anti. Like I said before, it's irrelevant to this thread, because it has nothing to do with Mallozzi and Mullie being showrunners. Unless you've heard something about Carter or Shep getting killed off by the execs that we've not heard of. ;) Why not mention about Weir and how you'd like the execs to handle her return, or what you think they should do to bring her back?

Instead, I got the impression that you were stirring the pot. If you weren't, fine, I apologise.

suse
June 24th, 2007, 10:38 PM
The other two would still be better (BW and RC)

:eek: One out of two of those maybe. The other needs to be writing, not producing, at least not at that level. :S

suse

SG13-NightOps
June 24th, 2007, 11:41 PM
Why am I even replying to this? Sure, if I'm anti then it's a moot point. It's as moot point as all the speculations for s4 eps the pros or whoever are writing on this forum. Thank you very much. What I said is true, if it were your favorite character getting killed or removed from the show you'd feel the same way as we do. Your point of view would change significantly, which would make your present arguments a moot point.

No - I wouldn't.

Jack O'Neill, Daniel Jackson, Janet Frasier, Susan Ivanova, Marcus Cole, Kosh, Hoburn "Wash" Washburn, Jadzia Dax, Leo Wyatt, Cole Turner, Henry Blake, Water "Radar" O'Reilly... I could go on.

I learnt to move on.

ShadowMaat
June 25th, 2007, 03:39 AM
Find me someone who is giving up on the show ONLY because a favorite character is killed off; someone who loves every aspect of the show, thinks the writing is fantastic, likes all the characters (including the "replacement" for the killed-off character), thinks the story arcs are new and interesting and (dead character aside) completely trusts TPTB. Find me one of these mythical fans to whom so much derision and ridicule is directed. Otherwise maybe you can stop your antagonism long enough to admit that for most of those who say they're giving up there's a variety of reasons... as in more than one contributing factor.

Southern Red
June 25th, 2007, 05:14 AM
Find me someone who is giving up on the show ONLY because a favorite character is killed off; someone who loves every aspect of the show, thinks the writing is fantastic, likes all the characters (including the "replacement" for the killed-off character), thinks the story arcs are new and interesting and (dead character aside) completely trusts TPTB. Find me one of these mythical fans to whom so much derision and ridicule is directed. Otherwise maybe you can stop your antagonism long enough to admit that for most of those who say they're giving up there's a variety of reasons... as in more than one contributing factor.

If they can't be antagonistic towards people who disagree with them, how would they fill their day? ;)

SG13-NightOps
June 25th, 2007, 06:33 AM
Find me someone who is giving up on the show ONLY because a favorite character is killed off; someone who loves every aspect of the show, thinks the writing is fantastic, likes all the characters (including the "replacement" for the killed-off character), thinks the story arcs are new and interesting and (dead character aside) completely trusts TPTB. Find me one of these mythical fans to whom so much derision and ridicule is directed. Otherwise maybe you can stop your antagonism long enough to admit that for most of those who say they're giving up there's a variety of reasons... as in more than one contributing factor.

I never implied that anyone was like that.

Although - its impossible not to notice that almost every thread descends into Weir Vs Carter - very quickly.

I personally had just replied to Celcool, who had specifically said:- ... if it were your favorite character getting killed or removed from the show you'd feel the same way as we do. Your point of view would change significantly ...

That is as close as I can point to someone specifically saying "My opinion on Atlantis changed because they killed my favourite character - and yours would too". That is exactly how that comment translates on my end, anyway.
Celcool May have other problems with Atlantis - however has specifically stated in that comment that the "significant change in view point" was specifically caused solely by the "killing off or removal of said favourite character" from the show.

Now while I have never said that anyone was stopping watching due to the loss of a favourite character, I find it interesting that you manage to post this rebuttal pretty much under the comment that can be interpreted by the every day forum reader as the Proof you ask for.
It is comments like that one that cause the misinterpretation that you are complaining about. Its hardly the readers fault if they are misled by those kinds of comments.

Celcool
June 25th, 2007, 06:52 AM
SG13-NightOps, you just may be one of few who wouldn't be bothered if their favorite character got killed. Nobody else has stated that the case for them. Btw. I noticed you have a whole lot of favorite characters and all killed by tptb? LOL No wonder you're used to it by now. ;) It's the first time this will happen to me. *sigh*

SouthernRed, I loved your entire post. ;)

SG13-NightOps
June 25th, 2007, 07:02 AM
SG13-NightOps, you just may be one of few who wouldn't be bothered if their favorite character got killed. Nobody else has stated that the case for them. Btw. I noticed you have a whole lot of favorite characters and all killed by tptb? LOL No wonder you're used to it by now. ;) It's the first time this will happen to me. *sigh*

SouthernRed, I loved your entire post. ;)

I have problems with "favourite". Its an ensemble thing for me. Much like the "Favourite episode of a season". I can never seem to pin down just that one specific. Its like John and Rodney. They work off each other so well, how do you specifically point to one and say 'and he is why its so good', when they are both so good. I dont know - Maybe I am just the worlds worst fence sitter. LOL.

Shadow-Maat.

"Elizabeth being my favourite character, I think it's safe to say I won't be watching unless she has a significant role in the series." (http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=6324150&postcount=70)
That cover it for you?

vaberella
June 25th, 2007, 08:00 AM
I have problems with "favourite". Its an ensemble thing for me. Much like the "Favourite episode of a season". I can never seem to pin down just that one specific. Its like John and Rodney. They work off each other so well, how do you specifically point to one and say 'and he is why its so good', when they are both so good. I dont know - Maybe I am just the worlds worst fence sitter. LOL.

Shadow-Maat.

"Elizabeth being my favourite character, I think it's safe to say I won't be watching unless she has a significant role in the series." (http://forum.gateworld.net/showpost.php?p=6324150&postcount=70)
That cover it for you?
I agree with you SG13. I can find fave eps since there are eps with all the elements I love. But if I were to sit there and cut it down to a top three then I'd have 4 or 5 eps per each at a time.

I do find it hard to have a favorite character. I've thought of myself as a long time McKay fave character girl, but even at times I've been known to want McKay zipped up and put in a closet somewhere. :D I think I was ill at the time, that's my only excuse. Overall I think I like the assemble cast and really I just like the storylines and I'm entertained by them more so than even the cast.

So I mean if it was a whole other cast and they changed everyone but kept the names and the stories, I'd be watching. Shoot, if they changed the names but kept the premise I'd be watching. I'm just into the show as a whole. I think, as I've said in the past, if anyone invests in one concept, ship or character when watching the show----they've set themselves up for some serious disappointment.

ShadowMaat
June 25th, 2007, 08:21 AM
I never implied that anyone was like that.
You? No. But others have. Rather nastily, too, IMO. Some people go out of their way to be as rude and antagonistic about it as they can. It isn't enough to say "I disagree" they have to imply that anyone who thinks such-and-such is a spoiled, mewling baby. It isn't enough to say "I won't miss X and will be happy to see Y" they have to taunt people that X is gone and Y is coming.

Pegasus_SGA
June 25th, 2007, 08:27 AM
You? No. But others have. Rather nastily, too, IMO. Some people go out of their way to be as rude and antagonistic about it as they can. It isn't enough to say "I disagree" they have to imply that anyone who thinks such-and-such is a spoiled, mewling baby. It isn't enough to say "I won't miss X and will be happy to see Y" they have to taunt people that X is gone and Y is coming.

And the reverse is also true..... there's bad apples on both sides of the fence! Some are just slyer about their intentions than others... but that's a whole different ball game and a completely different thread. :P

ToasterOnFire
June 25th, 2007, 09:04 AM
Find me someone who is giving up on the show ONLY because a favorite character is killed off; someone who loves every aspect of the show, thinks the writing is fantastic, likes all the characters (including the "replacement" for the killed-off character), thinks the story arcs are new and interesting and (dead character aside) completely trusts TPTB. Find me one of these mythical fans to whom so much derision and ridicule is directed. Otherwise maybe you can stop your antagonism long enough to admit that for most of those who say they're giving up there's a variety of reasons... as in more than one contributing factor.
Good point. If the roles were reversed and TPTB were getting rid of McKay instead of Weir I would have no problem dropping the show. This is not simply because I watch the show only because I'm 100% McKay, it's because TPTB haven't given me much else to really capture my interest. All of the characters save McKay are woefully underdeveloped. I find that inexcusable after 60 episodes. I think most of the episode plotlines to range from good to meh, with only a handful per season that I would really call excellent and would watch again. When I look at the show overall I'm afraid I wouldn't rate it very highly. McKay is what keeps me around.

Celcool
June 25th, 2007, 09:20 AM
Good point. If the roles were reversed and TPTB were getting rid of McKay instead of Weir I would have no problem dropping the show. This is not simply because I watch the show only because I'm 100% McKay, it's because TPTB haven't given me much else to really capture my interest. All of the characters save McKay are woefully underdeveloped. I find that inexcusable after 60 episodes. I think most of the episode plotlines to range from good to meh, with only a handful per season that I would really call excellent and would watch again. When I look at the show overall I'm afraid I wouldn't rate it very highly. McKay is what keeps me around.
Weir is what kept me around. I love your sig btw.

ShadowMaat
June 25th, 2007, 09:22 AM
Weir is what kept me around. I love your sig btw.
Yeah, but if you stop watching it isn't JUST because Weir isn't in it anymore, right?

Pegasus_SGA
June 25th, 2007, 09:27 AM
Weir is what kept me around. I love your sig btw.
Quick question Celcool. Hypothetically, if Joe and Paul told the fans that Weir would be back full time in S5 would you watch S4? Or if Torri says that even if asked she wouldn't come back, would you watch, S4 knowing it was the actresses choice?

Excuse me, i'm curious. :P

Celcool
June 25th, 2007, 09:36 AM
Yeah, but if you stop watching it isn't JUST because Weir isn't in it anymore, right?
Well there are other things I don't like of what they have planned for s4 but losing Weir is the main reason. Let me borrow the list from a topic in the general section of the forum. :P

-losing Carson
-losing Weir
-losing Ford
-Carter coming over to replace a main character
-crossovers of plots/characters with SG1
-the "soft reset"
-the show getting darker
-the writing in general seems to have hit a dead end lately, hence the reset.

Those reasons are all connnected and together they're powerful enough to drive folks away. Oh yeah let me add another reason: arrogant, etc. TPTB. ;)

The only thing that doesn't bother me at all from this list is losing Ford. I guess it's because I started watching the show when he was already gone and I like Ronon.

Mitchell82
June 25th, 2007, 12:05 PM
Very intresting sides to this argument. Each is true--yes, there is no real right or wrong to killing of characters.

IMO--if I go through all the research and devlopment to create a character that is so real that the fans can connect to that character--even though the situation is totally unreal--that character becomes an investment that shouldn't be thrown away lightly.

If your actor is leaving and the story allows for a death that would benefit your main story arc. Then that is a viable option. But--in carson's case--if you kill of a character for a ratings boost. Well, than you have just tossed years of work down the toilet.

Sci-fi should not be imminue to killing off a character just becuase sci-fi is totally unreal. Sci-fi should be held to the same higher standard as Law and Order and other shows that make a death of a character a huge impact.

The trick to hooking a fan is simple. No matter how unreal the situation is--make the character as real as possible. :)

ITA. There are many sides to this argument. IMO no matter what the situation scifi or simple drama your characters need to seem real and every now and then you have to kill off a main character to make it as real as possible. I do however hate it when the axing of a character is done for no other reason than a ratings boost however I was happy with how it was done with Carson.

Mitchell82
June 25th, 2007, 12:10 PM
SG13-NightOps, you just may be one of few who wouldn't be bothered if their favorite character got killed. Nobody else has stated that the case for them. Btw. I noticed you have a whole lot of favorite characters and all killed by tptb? LOL No wonder you're used to it by now. ;) It's the first time this will happen to me. *sigh*

SouthernRed, I loved your entire post. ;)

I'm going to respond here since you have pegged me as one of these too. Do I mind it when a favorite character is killed yes I do no matter how or why it's done. It does get to me when it happens but key things have to happen to make me accept it and still enjoy the show. The main cast still needs to remain and flow just as good as it did before. Also the killing of the character has to make sense to the story. Would I like it if Carter was killed, no I'd hate it. Would it make me stop watching, mabey. I don't know untill I see how it's done and why but it would possibly make me stop but here is what would do it for me if John,teyla, Ronon or Mckay was killed off.

ShadowMaat
June 25th, 2007, 12:19 PM
I may be upset when a character I like is killed off, but if the character is then brought back... it makes the producers seem wishy-washy; as if they don't really know what they're doing and/or that they're caving to fan pressure.

If you're going to kill someone off I think they should stay dead- even in scifi. Yeah, there are always exceptions (Spock, the Doctor), but for the most part I think TPTB of TV shows and movies should have the brass ones to stick with a decision... even if it means never seeing my favorite character again. That's what fanfic and reruns are for. :)

Mitchell82
June 25th, 2007, 12:26 PM
Well there are other things I don't like of what they have planned for s4 but losing Weir is the main reason. Let me borrow the list from a topic in the general section of the forum. :P

-losing Carson
-losing Weir
-losing Ford
-Carter coming over to replace a main character
-crossovers of plots/characters with SG1
-the "soft reset"
-the show getting darker
-the writing in general seems to have hit a dead end lately, hence the reset.




Well I understand you opinion I just don't agree but I will adress all your concerns.
*Loosing Carson- I understand that very well I hated it as much as i hated killing off Fraiser and if it was done any other way I'd agree with you but it was handled very well IMO.
*Loosing Weir- I can see why you don't like it but she just was not as good of a character as she should have been and was very weak in the skillset department and her only true skill was negotiation.
*Loosing Ford- This I agree with your sentament, it doesent bother me much either mainly because I prefer Ronon.
*Carter coming over to replace a main character- I know exactly how you feel as I felt the same when Jack was replaced by Cam as well as Vala, but after seeing them in action I was pleasantly surprised to find out I loved them. It's a bit different with Carter since I'm not worried about it.
*crossovers of plots/characters with SG1- This one I don't get. We will have a few crossovers which I don't see as a big deal and the only plots from SG-1 that have come over are 1.The Lost City and Anceint storyline, which belongs in SGA and 2.the Asurans. Sure the Asurans are replicators but the reason I don't mind is because they are quite different.
*the soft reset- this one I really don't get as it has been blown way out of proportion. The reset has simply meant that we are in a sense starting over. We will be on a new planet, on our own for a while and have limited defenses like in season 1. No biggie here.
*the show getting darker- This I really think could be a good thing. It was already getting darker and I think it will help things rather than hurt.
*the writing in general seems to have hit a dead end lately, hence the reset-That is a matter of opinion and one I don't agree with. I don't think the writing has been bad lately nor do I see the "reset" as evidence of that.

Celcool
June 25th, 2007, 12:29 PM
I'm going to respond here since you have pegged me as one of these too. Do I mind it when a favorite character is killed yes I do no matter how or why it's done. It does get to me when it happens but key things have to happen to make me accept it and still enjoy the show. The main cast still needs to remain and flow just as good as it did before. Also the killing of the character has to make sense to the story. Would I like it if Carter was killed, no I'd hate it. Would it make me stop watching, mabey. I don't know untill I see how it's done and why but it would possibly make me stop but here is what would do it for me if John,teyla, Ronon or Mckay was killed off.
Thank you for your honest reply, of course you wouldn't want your fave character killed and could lead you to quit watchng the show. And btw. Torri was in the main cast. The way it's done bugs me as well, if I start talking about the actress now because I don't know how they'll deal with the character yet, I have to say that I absolutely hate the way they handled/treated Torri in this (as they did Paul). I'm guessing you wouldn't want for Amanda to be in Torri's shoes right now either. If the roles were reversed...

Mitchell82
June 25th, 2007, 12:44 PM
Thank you for your honest reply, of course you wouldn't want your fave character killed and could lead you to quit watchng the show. And btw. Torri was in the main cast. The way it's done bugs me as well, if I start talking about the actress now because I don't know how they'll deal with the character yet, I have to say that I absolutely hate the way they handled/treated Torri in this (as they did Paul). I'm guessing you wouldn't want for Amanda to be in Torri's shoes right now either. If the roles were reversed...

Your welcome and no I wouldnt want Amanda or any cast member treated poorly which is what I was upset with about Carson but do we really know she was treated badly?

prion
June 25th, 2007, 12:47 PM
TPTB should have not made Carson the Jack-of-all-Medical Trades and Master of them all too. It has been stated before, but they should have kept Carson more a recurring character working with other medical experts and not doing it all himself. They could have brought Keller in periodically like they did with Heightmayer. (How didn't they use Carson as the resident psychiatrist also, I don't know. :P)

by the same argument, Sam shouldn't be the jack of all trades scientist too. I'm watching an SG1 episode and she's assisting in medical procedures? The writers DO know her 'doctor' isn't in medicine, right? aieee....

Linzi
June 25th, 2007, 12:52 PM
by the same argument, Sam shouldn't be the jack of all trades scientist too. I'm watching an SG1 episode and she's assisting in medical procedures? The writers DO know her 'doctor' isn't in medicine, right? aieee....
Yep, and McKay in Inferno is an expert on volcanoes when he's an astro-physicist etc... I think it's less to do with the characters being all round geniuses, but more to do with using the characters to fulfill the requirements of the plot. I'm prepared to give the writers a little leeway here. Yes, I know the characters are not all experts in everything, but it is fiction, so I can mostly turn a blind eye. ;)

prion
June 25th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celcool
Thank you for your honest reply, of course you wouldn't want your fave character killed and could lead you to quit watchng the show. And btw. Torri was in the main cast. The way it's done bugs me as well, if I start talking about the actress now because I don't know how they'll deal with the character yet, I have to say that I absolutely hate the way they handled/treated Torri in this (as they did Paul). I'm guessing you wouldn't want for Amanda to be in Torri's shoes right now either. If the roles were reversed...


Your welcome and no I wouldnt want Amanda or any cast member treated poorly which is what I was upset with about Carson but do we really know she was treated badly?

None of us can say if an actor was treated badly/poorly/ufairly. To TPTB, actors are like, well, office equipment. Replaceable. Face it, it's like that in any business, alas. Alas, the manner in which TPTB handled divulging Weir's disappearance from the show was, well, pretty lame. Ditto for Carson. We won't get into Jonas vanishing. Basically, I think it boils down to that the only people who got decent treatment in press, etc. were those that left the show willingly and on good terms (to our knowledge) which would mean RDA and MS in SG1.

prion
June 25th, 2007, 01:03 PM
Yep, and McKay in Inferno is an expert on volcanoes when he's an astro-physicist etc... I think it's less to do with the characters being all round geniuses, but more to do with using the characters to fulfill the requirements of the plot. I'm prepared to give the writers a little leeway here. Yes, I know the characters are not all experts in everything, but it is fiction, so I can mostly turn a blind eye. ;)

Heh, yup. I'm okay with leeway if they can concoct a logical reason for them to have and use that knowledge. I suspect McKay may be fascinated by potential energy sources, which would mean geothermal energy. But still, if you're not a medical doc, you've got no place hanging around a surgery.

Linzi
June 25th, 2007, 01:08 PM
Heh, yup. I'm okay with leeway if they can concoct a logical reason for them to have and use that knowledge. I suspect McKay may be fascinated by potential energy sources, which would mean geothermal energy. But still, if you're not a medical doc, you've got no place hanging around a surgery.
:lol: I guess not! :)

vaberella
June 25th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Yep, and McKay in Inferno is an expert on volcanoes when he's an astro-physicist etc... I think it's less to do with the characters being all round geniuses, but more to do with using the characters to fulfill the requirements of the plot. I'm prepared to give the writers a little leeway here. Yes, I know the characters are not all experts in everything, but it is fiction, so I can mostly turn a blind eye. ;)

In response to bold...I agree with the above that's how I feel the writers of Law & Order: Criminal Intent do to Vincent Donofrio's character Det. Robert Goren. He seems to have the skill set to break down any criminal and we're talking psychologically assesing but by speaking the language of a madman. For him to be able to read some of the medical jargon or scientific jargon in order to fulfill is role is just amazing. Plus he's a New York cop on top of that...I roll my eyes when I think on it, because no detective has those abilities, just doesn't make sense. Again it's for plot and I also turn a blind eye---my point is to say this problem with 'realistic' characterization doesn't fall on scifi shows alone but is a normal element in all things tv. CSI is no different---bloody contaminators; those women wear too much make up and don't even put a shower cap when they're picking up the evidence.

Redhooks
June 25th, 2007, 01:19 PM
Yep, and McKay in Inferno is an expert on volcanoes when he's an astro-physicist etc... I think it's less to do with the characters being all round geniuses, but more to do with using the characters to fulfill the requirements of the plot. I'm prepared to give the writers a little leeway here. Yes, I know the characters are not all experts in everything, but it is fiction, so I can mostly turn a blind eye. ;)
I wouldn't say McKay was an expert in Volcanoes, but an Astro-Physicist does deal with planetary bodies, so he would have to have some knowledge about the make-up of planets and he was able to interpret the info the Ancient's equipment was giving him based on his almost two years on Atlantis. McKay also has degrees in Mechanical Engineering and one other field that I can't remember. He said this to *mind goes blank* somebody when he says "do you have a degree in AP, ME, (something else), no, I didn't think so... "
I do agree with you that the writers stretch believabilty to make the plot work, but they did it too much with Carson because it was easier and cheaper than casting a guest star for an episode or two.

I think JM & PM seem to be changing things for the better in Season 4 from the way the previous showrunners ran Seasons 2 and 3, but time will tell.

Linzi
June 25th, 2007, 01:24 PM
I wouldn't say McKay was an expert in Volcanoes, but an Astro-Physicist does deal with planetary bodies, so he would have to have some knowledge about the make-up of planets and he was able to interpret the info the Ancient's equipment was giving him based on his almost two years on Atlantis. McKay also has degrees in Mechanical Engineering and one other field that I can't remember. He said this to *mind goes blank* somebody when he says "do you have a degree in AP, ME, (something else), no, I didn't think so... "
I do agree with you that the writers stretch believabilty to make the plot work, but they did it too much with Carson because it was easier and cheaper than casting a guest star for an episode or two.

I think JM & PM seem to be changing things for the better in Season 4 from the way the previous showrunners ran Seasons 2 and 3, but time will tell.
I agree concerning Carson. Having medical professionals in my family, they laugh themsleves senseless at Carson's diverse medical prowess, how he's a surgeon, geneticist, micro-biologist, general practioner etc...Yes, it's a bit daft, I'd agree, but seriously, I have been able to turn a blind eye at that. Other things, perhaps not... ;)

Celcool
June 25th, 2007, 01:50 PM
None of us can say if an actor was treated badly/poorly/ufairly. To TPTB, actors are like, well, office equipment. Replaceable. Face it, it's like that in any business, alas. Alas, the manner in which TPTB handled divulging Weir's disappearance from the show was, well, pretty lame. Ditto for Carson. We won't get into Jonas vanishing. Basically, I think it boils down to that the only people who got decent treatment in press, etc. were those that left the show willingly and on good terms (to our knowledge) which would mean RDA and MS in SG1.
I'm looking at it from Torri's point of view, after 3 years of giving her all to this character, becoming more and more comfortable and settled in in her job, living in Vancouver, forming bonds with the rest of the cast (see her GW interview) I'm sure she didn't expect to be booted from the show and then an Sg-1 actress coming to replace her character's role after that show is over. I'm thinking nobody could ever feel happy about this happening to them. And yes, before anyone attacks me, I know it's not Amanda's fault, it's PTPB's.

Pegasus_SGA
June 25th, 2007, 02:08 PM
I'm looking at it from Torri's point of view, after 3 years of giving her all to this character, becoming more and more comfortable and settled in in her job, living in Vancouver, forming bonds with the rest of the cast (see her GW interview) I'm sure she didn't expect to be booted from the show and then an Sg-1 actress coming to replace her character's role after that show is over. I'm thinking nobody could ever feel happy about this happening to them. And yes, before anyone attacks me, I know it's not Amanda's fault, it's PTPB's.

But why are you looking at it from Torri's point of view? You're not Torri. And unless you're a close family member or her best friend or even her boss, how could you possibly see it from her point of view. Unless you are so close to her that she would confide with you what happened. The thing is Celcool, you've made it personal and i'm sorry but this is where you're wrong, and why it's possibly a reason tensions arise on threads (and I really don't mean the disrespectfully). Torri made her choices, she knew the business, and at the end of the day she had a choice, to come back as reocurring or leave. HER choice as far as we are aware, was she decided to stay. Surely that speaks volumes for itself without the 'fans' interpreting things, saying she's unhappy and thus the fans should be venemous and unhappy with S4 (and that wasn't directed at you), just a feeling.

The thing is and it's been said many times, the decision made about Torri, was before they had even thought about who would take over. It's not personal its business. Maybe a business we wouldn't get involved in, but hey, that's the acting world, parts get cut, cast changes happen. Again it's not personal to the actor/actress. TPTB don't owe the cast anything, they're there to do a job, and that's it. Yes some loyalty can and does come into play, but ultimately it's what they think is right for the business and irrespective of whether we agree with it or not. It's not our call.

I don't know how Torri feels about fans going to bat.. I imagine it must be nice to know that there are people out there who care about the character as much as they do, but do you really think that she would approve of how people post about her, and saying it's for her that they are being so vitriolic in some instances?

Uber
June 25th, 2007, 02:26 PM
I'm getting extremely weary seeing the same people dredge up the same commentary on almost every thread of this forum whether it's on topic or not...and in this case, it's decidedly NOT.

Here's a thought...how 'bout we do something novel here and actually talk about the thread topic, which is about how well (or poorly) people consider Joe and Paul are doing as showrunners and not about how Torri does or does not feel about a situation we have zero information on?

Whaddaya all say???

I for one am pretty excited about some of the things they're proposing...and slightly nervous about a couple of others. But it will all come down to how well or poorly the ideas are executed.

Time will tell.

ShadowMaat
June 25th, 2007, 02:32 PM
I think they'll kill the show. :) But of course it won't be their fault- it'll be Skiffy's fault for not promoting it enough, it'll be the fault of the sniveling fans who can't accept the changes, it'll be due to counter-programming or some life-changing world event or Mercury in retrograde, but it won't be because of poor storytelling, nope.

But that's how I'll call it if it happens. :)

ToasterOnFire
June 25th, 2007, 04:24 PM
I've got dibs on blaming GLOBAL WARMING.

PG15
June 25th, 2007, 04:28 PM
Well, my opinion of M&M just got even higher, with this (http://bp2.blogger.com/_bu0vVgPPyEs/RoBSlLNwLxI/AAAAAAAADyE/5X-g9WQ2Y-c/s1600-h/DSC06145.JPG)

Turtles!! :D

scifi_lemon
June 25th, 2007, 04:45 PM
McKay also has degrees in Mechanical Engineering and one other field that I can't remember. He said this to *mind goes blank* somebody when he says "do you have a degree in AP, ME, (something else), no, I didn't think so... "

Listen, I've been looking for that quote for a fic. Do you know what ep that's from? PM if you need to. Thanks!

But, to be on topic....in McKay's case I don't have a problem with him knowing stuff outside Astrophysics/Engineering. Just because he isn't an 'expert' in them like the ones above, doesn't mean he can't know something about them. I'm sure he studied ALL forms of physics in college or something.

scifi_lemon
June 25th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Well, my opinion of M&M just got even higher, with this (http://bp2.blogger.com/_bu0vVgPPyEs/RoBSlLNwLxI/AAAAAAAADyE/5X-g9WQ2Y-c/s1600-h/DSC06145.JPG)

Turtles!! :D

:lol: At last, we know the fate of Carson's we baby turtles! ;)

Alipeeps
June 25th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Listen, I've been looking for that quote for a fic. Do you know what ep that's from? PM if you need to. Thanks!


I'm pretty sure it's from Duet, where he is trying to work on fixing the wraith beam and Cadman keeps interrupting... :)

scifi_lemon
June 25th, 2007, 04:48 PM
I'm pretty sure it's from Duet, where he is trying to work on fixing the wraith beam and Cadman keeps interrupting... :)

Sweet! Thanks! *runs off to the Duet transcript*

Mitchell82
June 25th, 2007, 04:52 PM
I'm getting extremely weary seeing the same people dredge up the same commentary on almost every thread of this forum whether it's on topic or not...and in this case, it's decidedly NOT.

Here's a thought...how 'bout we do something novel here and actually talk about the thread topic, which is about how well (or poorly) people consider Joe and Paul are doing as showrunners and not about how Torri does or does not feel about a situation we have zero information on?

Whaddaya all say???

I for one am pretty excited about some of the things they're proposing...and slightly nervous about a couple of others. But it will all come down to how well or poorly the ideas are executed.

Time will tell.
That happens everywhere you go. In the comming months it will be hard to not dredge up things in other threads. Back on topic I am extremly confident on the abilities of TPTB and of whats to come but like you said time will tell.

jenks
June 25th, 2007, 05:18 PM
I'm pretty sure it's from Duet, where he is trying to work on fixing the wraith beam and Cadman keeps interrupting... :)

McKAY: And do you have a degree in physics, hmm? Well, what about mechanical engineering, huh?

SG13-NightOps
June 25th, 2007, 05:25 PM
I'm getting extremely weary seeing the same people dredge up the same commentary on almost every thread of this forum whether it's on topic or not...and in this case, it's decidedly NOT.

Here's a thought...how 'bout we do something novel here and actually talk about the thread topic, which is about how well (or poorly) people consider Joe and Paul are doing as showrunners and not about how Torri does or does not feel about a situation we have zero information on?

Whaddaya all say???

I for one am pretty excited about some of the things they're proposing...and slightly nervous about a couple of others. But it will all come down to how well or poorly the ideas are executed.

Time will tell.

I think the problem Uber - is that until we *see* season 4, we have no idea how well they are doing in terms of quality.

This means that people can only comment on the decisions they have made - dropping Weir to recurring being one of those.
You know me, I am pro S4, et al.. but They do have ground to mention Weirs removal, even if its the exact same thing they said in the last 50 Weir related threads.

Me - I was just here to remind people to never bet your last dollar on other peoples opinions. There is always at least one person who will feel, or have the opinion, that you bet your left maple nut that no one has.

Mitchell82
June 25th, 2007, 05:33 PM
I think the problem Uber - is that until we *see* season 4, we have no idea how well they are doing in terms of quality.

This means that people can only comment on the decisions they have made - dropping Weir to recurring being one of those.
You know me, I am pro S4, et al.. but They do have ground to mention Weirs removal, even if its the exact same thing they said in the last 50 Weir related threads.

Me - I was just here to remind people to never bet your last dollar on other peoples opinions. There is always at least one person who will feel, or have the opinion, that you bet your left maple nut that no one has.

LOL good points and thanks for choking me btw. I was taking a drink ot tea when I read your last sentence and choked on it.;)

Uber
June 25th, 2007, 06:00 PM
I think the problem Uber - is that until we *see* season 4, we have no idea how well they are doing in terms of quality.

This means that people can only comment on the decisions they have made - dropping Weir to recurring being one of those.
You know me, I am pro S4, et al.. but They do have ground to mention Weirs removal, even if its the exact same thing they said in the last 50 Weir related threads.

Me - I was just here to remind people to never bet your last dollar on other peoples opinions. There is always at least one person who will feel, or have the opinion, that you bet your left maple nut that no one has.I don't have a problem with the decision to drop Weir being talked about in this thread as it relates to how people feel about the leadership decisions being made by Joe and Paul. That would be relevant and on topic.

Talking about how hurt Torri must be or how she betrayed she must feel or generally attempting to intuit what Torri is or is not feeling about what's going on and taking up the mantle to defend her feelings and virtues is NOT relevant nor on topic to this thread, which continues to be "Mallozzi and Mullie as Show Runners...What Do We Think Now?" and continues to NOT be the "How Torri Must Be Feeling about the changes" discussion thread.

There are countless threads for that...the Weir discussion thread, The Save Weir thread, the Who's happy and who's not thread, the anti 4 thread...etc. etc. etc.

ShadowMaat
June 25th, 2007, 06:03 PM
I should hope that stuff would be kept to minimum on ANY thread since trying to predict/state how other people feel is a bit of a dodgy topic.

vaberella
June 25th, 2007, 06:51 PM
I should hope that stuff would be kept to minimum on ANY thread since trying to predict/state how other people feel is a bit of a dodgy topic.

You need to spend more time on the S4 section. "Minimum" is non-existant when it comes to Weir/TH, it would seem. ~sigh~

ToasterOnFire
June 25th, 2007, 07:42 PM
Can we please not bring fights into other threads? It's bad enough that one thread had to be shut down, no reason to start a domino effect. :mckay:

Agent_Dark
June 25th, 2007, 07:44 PM
Judging by what I've heard about the decision's they've made for season 4, I reckon they are teh shizzle.

Mitchell82
June 25th, 2007, 07:45 PM
Judging by what I've heard about the decision's they've made for season 4, I reckon they are teh shizzle.

I assume thats a good thing?

SG13-NightOps
June 25th, 2007, 07:48 PM
I assume thats a good thing?

LOL! The Shizzle is indeed a good thing!

Linzi
June 25th, 2007, 10:51 PM
I don't have a problem with the decision to drop Weir being talked about in this thread as it relates to how people feel about the leadership decisions being made by Joe and Paul. That would be relevant and on topic.

Talking about how hurt Torri must be or how she betrayed she must feel or generally attempting to intuit what Torri is or is not feeling about what's going on and taking up the mantle to defend her feelings and virtues is NOT relevant nor on topic to this thread, which continues to be "Mallozzi and Mullie as Show Runners...What Do We Think Now?" and continues to NOT be the "How Torri Must Be Feeling about the changes" discussion thread.

There are countless threads for that...the Weir discussion thread, The Save Weir thread, the Who's happy and who's not thread, the anti 4 thread...etc. etc. etc.
Agreed!

Well said, PegasusSGA too. We don't know ANYTHING about how Torri feels, nor is it any of our business. We're not her friends and can't begin to say how she feels. I think some people are taking cast decisions too personally and projecting their own feelings onto how Torri might feel. I agree it's not for discussion on this thread, or on any thread here. As the mods say, keep the actors out of it!

Talking about Weir, and the decision to reduce her role in season 4 is relevent to this thread, as it's about how M&M will be as show runners and it seems the buck stops with them for the casting decisions of season 4. Some like their decisions, some not. Though, I get the feeling the decision about Carson's fate had nothing to do with them, as that happened in season 3 and they weren't show runners there. I do wonder if it was their decision to bring in Jewel though? I personally think that was a smart move on their part. I also know that bringing AT over as Carter was their idea too, or at least they pitched the idea to AT. I think that was a wise move for the show too, personally.

I have like many of M&M's episodes, there has also been the odd one I'm not so impressed with...*cough, Irresponisible, cough*, so I'm going to be really interested to see what the episodes they've written in season 4 are like. Also, I want to see if I notice a different feel to the show in season 4. We've all heard about the soft reset, and it sounds promising, but will I notice a different feel to the show? I hope so, but often I've heard things like 'SGA is darker than SG1' and I haven't actually noticed that much of a difference in tone between the two shows.

So, for me, I'm interested to see if the new show runners can come up with the goods.

Pegasus_SGA
June 25th, 2007, 11:29 PM
*mod snip*

I obviously touched a nerve with regards to the Torri comment, but you know what? I stick by what I say. By putting yourself in the shoes of the actor, everything will be personal to you. My post was not nasty or inflammatory, and I have never negged anyone, but as the truth was obviously too painful for you, you obviously felt the need to vent. It's okay, i'm a big girl and i've got broad shoulders. But, what you fail to understand M&M look at things from a business perspective and while it's understandable not everyone can see that. but, to improve the show, sometimes they have to do things that people won't/don't like. They're trying to improve the quality of the show by any means possible and sometimes that means changing things that may not have worked in the past...

*Now waits for the Ford fans to red her*

I never liked Ford, thought he was green and whiny and it made me want to slap him upside the head on several occasions, and to be honest the removal of Ford by the producers/execs/TPTB early on was welcomed. With that said, the return of Ford and the changes made him to be a very interesting character whom I really liked. I liked how his character changed and he became interesting and more than one dimensional, and I like to see that in a character... Who know's maybe bringing Weir back ala Ford is a good thing, so she can get her get up and go back. I think there needs to be more of a consistancy with the characters and how they deal with stuff, and now that M&M aren't having to deal with 2 shows they'll be able to spend more time on building up the characters. And it certainly looks as if they're making a concertive effort to redress the issues that fans have concerns with.

*please now commence with tomatoe throwing*

kiwigater
June 26th, 2007, 12:07 AM
Sorry 'bout the snips guys, but please keep personal disputes off the thread. Disagreeing with each other is fine, but keep it respectful. :)
Any problems just report the post :)

Redhooks
June 26th, 2007, 12:37 AM
Talking about Weir, and the decision to reduce her role in season 4 is relevent to this thread, as it's about how M&M will be as show runners and it seems the buck stops with them for the casting decisions of season 4. Some like their decisions, some not. Though, I get the feeling the decision about Carson's fate had nothing to do with them, as that happened in season 3 and they weren't show runners there. I do wonder if it was their decision to bring in Jewel though? I personally think that was a smart move on their part. I also know that bringing AT over as Carter was their idea too, or at least they pitched the idea to AT. I think that was a wise move for the show too, personally.

I have like many of M&M's episodes, there has also been the odd one I'm not so impressed with...*cough, Irresponisible, cough*, so I'm going to be really interested to see what the episodes they've written in season 4 are like. Also, I want to see if I notice a different feel to the show in season 4. We've all heard about the soft reset, and it sounds promising, but will I notice a different feel to the show? I hope so, but often I've heard things like 'SGA is darker than SG1' and I haven't actually noticed that much of a difference in tone between the two shows.

So, for me, I'm interested to see if the new show runners can come up with the goods.

Casting decisions:
1) Having Keller replace Carson would be OK to me if somewhere early in the season, it is noted that Keller either was a med school prodigy or is about 30-32 years old and just looks young. I can't believe it if the Keller character turns out to be the same age as Jewel Staite and isn't a prodigy.
2) As I stated in detail in another thread, I think the choice to have Carter (if she stays only for one year) may cause harm in the long run, but it made sense in the short term due to there may not be a long run if the series is cancelled. It made JM & PM's job easier not having to bring in a new character while trying fix other problems in the show some of which I'm sure they contributed to (i.e. weak scripts and rudderless direction in S2 & S3.) Of course, if there is as S5 and Carter leaves, then they are right back to getting a new commander and will have to use shows to introduce the new character unless they use a recurring character like Caldwell or Ellis.

Story Direction:
1) We have no idea how much JM & PM were involved in some of the bad decisions (IMO) that were made in S2 & S3, so we have to wait and see if their promises of change in season 4 will come true or not. It is always easy to say "were changing for the better" but harder to back it up. It is also harder when it has been said before and not backed-up. I always cringe in the S4 preview when Paul says he doesn't think things have gelled yet and want to yell at him "Get TPTB/writers together and look in a mirror to find out why!" To me, Season 1 had so much promise that I could excuse some of the weak episodes near the beginning for some of the better ones later on. The spoilers and storylines of the season 4 episodes I have heard so far do sound promising, I just hope when they air I will be able to say they executed it well.

The worst part about TV to me is if a show isn't going well it is the actors who always get the axe first and not the TPTB/writers when it is TPTB/writers fault. Of course the flipside is that the actors get a lot of the praise when a show is doing well and not TPTB/writers. Unfortunately, that is as they say "show business." We as fans have to accept it and keep watching or leave. If enough people leave, TPTB will have to find another job too.

Linzi
June 26th, 2007, 12:48 AM
Casting decisions:
1) Having Keller replace Carson would be OK to me if somewhere early in the season, it is noted that Keller either was a med school prodigy or is about 30-32 years old and just looks young. I can't believe it if the Keller character turns out to be the same age as Jewel Staite and isn't a prodigy.
2) As I stated in detail in another thread, I think the choice to have Carter (if she stays only for one year) may cause harm in the long run, but it made sense in the short term due to there may not be a long run if the series is cancelled. It made JM & PM's job easier not having to bring in a new character while trying fix other problems in the show some of which I'm sure they contributed to (i.e. weak scripts and rudderless direction in S2 & S3.) Of course, if there is as S5 and Carter leaves, then they are right back to getting a new commander and will have to use shows to introduce the new character unless they use a recurring character like Caldwell or Ellis.

Story Direction:
1) We have no idea how much JM & PM were involved in some of the bad decisions (IMO) that were made in S2 & S3, so we have to wait and see if their promises of change in season 4 will come true or not. It is always easy to say "were changing for the better" but harder to back it up. It is also harder when it has been said before and not backed-up. I always cringe in the S4 preview when Paul says he doesn't think things have gelled yet and want to yell at him "Get TPTB/writers together and look in a mirror to find out why!" To me, Season 1 had so much promise that I could excuse some of the weak episodes near the beginning for some of the better ones later on. The spoilers and storylines of the season 4 episodes I have heard so far do sound promising, I just hope when they air I will be able to say they executed it well.

The worst part about TV to me is if a show isn't going well it is the actors who always get the axe first and not the TPTB/writers when it is TPTB/writers fault. Of course the flipside is that the actors get a lot of the praise when a show is doing well and not TPTB/writers. Unfortunately, that is as they say "show business." We as fans have to accept it and keep watching or leave. If enough people leave, TPTB will have to find another job too.
I think you make a good point about the actors taking the criticism/praise when the writing should be taken into consideration too. I think as the performers are the ones we 'see' we forget about the guys behind the scenes all too often. When I watch an episode I'm not thinking about the writing, I'm being entertained and having emotional responses to what I watch. It's when I dissect an episode after I've watched it that I think about the writing and direction of the episode. But how many do that? Only quite passionate fans, I suspect.

I do think actors reap the benefits but also suffer the repercussions of poor and good writing decisions. However, sometimes characters just don't work out, for whatever reason, and it's actually a combination of factors.

SG13-NightOps
June 26th, 2007, 02:50 AM
Casting decisions:
The worst part about TV to me is if a show isn't going well it is the actors who always get the axe first and not the TPTB/writers when it is TPTB/writers fault. Of course the flipside is that the actors get a lot of the praise when a show is doing well and not TPTB/writers. Unfortunately, that is as they say "show business." We as fans have to accept it and keep watching or leave. If enough people leave, TPTB will have to find another job too.

I can thankfully say, I have never said anything to that effect.

JMS and Joss Whedon and script-writing gods. :D

The actors do a wonderful job at bringing these characters to life.

vaberella
June 26th, 2007, 05:05 AM
Judging by what I've heard about the decision's they've made for season 4, I reckon they are teh shizzle.


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif Oh no she didn't!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

But I totally agree, these guys are totally on the ball. They are finally paying attention to detail; they have an open forum between the writers and the actors (something which I love---we're gettng TWO story ideas from Joe Flanigan---Woohoo!!); the storylines seem to be real good, and new approach to rather old concepts in the genre; and is it just me, have you noticed the new filming styles they're using?!<---Mainly to do with Doppelganger. Wicked stuff going on and I have high hopes it shall be the shizite!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

scifi_lemon
June 26th, 2007, 11:23 AM
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif Oh no she didn't!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

But I totally agree, these guys are totally on the ball. They are finally paying attention to detail; they have an open forum between the writers and the actors (something which I love---we're gettng TWO story ideas from Joe Flanigan---Woohoo!!); the storylines seem to be real good, and new approach to rather old concepts in the genre; and is it just me, have you noticed the new filming styles they're using?!<---Mainly to do with Doppelganger. Wicked stuff going on and I have high hopes it shall be the shizite!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

ITA. S4 is gonna be teh bomb!!!! ;)

prion
June 26th, 2007, 12:06 PM
For me, I've probably liked and disliked an equal amount of episodes penned by M&M, but they might improve in my eyes if they don't dole out any more crud like "Irresponsible" and other comedic episodics of that pre-teen mentality ;)

prion
June 26th, 2007, 12:09 PM
But I totally agree, these guys are totally on the ball. They are finally paying attention to detail; they have an open forum between the writers and the actors (something which I love---we're gettng TWO story ideas from Joe Flanigan---Woohoo!!); the storylines seem to be real good, and new approach to rather old concepts in the genre; and is it just me, have you noticed the new filming styles they're using?!<---Mainly to do with Doppelganger. Wicked stuff going on and I have high hopes it shall be the shizite!!

Well, you should have to finally pay attention to detail in the 4th season. That should be done from day one. Well, when Joe F's ideas actually become scripts, instead of pitched ideas, I'll do some squeeing... so far I don't believe any are scripts (and his idea for "Epiphany" evidentally got altered quite a bit from the original idea).

majortrip
June 26th, 2007, 12:15 PM
For me, I've probably liked and disliked an equal amount of episodes penned by M&M, but they might improve in my eyes if they don't dole out any more crud like "Irresponsible" and other comedic episodics of that pre-teen mentality ;)

What is amazing to me is how hit-or-miss writing seems to be. Window of Opportunity was wonderful to me, and The Tower was abysmal in some scenes that I guess were supposed to be funny, they just were too campy for my tastes.

Redhooks
June 26th, 2007, 12:18 PM
They are finally paying attention to detail; they have an open forum between the writers and the actors (something which I love---we're gettng TWO story ideas from Joe Flanigan---Woohoo!!); the storylines seem to be real good, and new approach to rather old concepts in the genre; and is it just me, have you noticed the new filming styles they're using?!<---Mainly to do with Doppelganger. Wicked stuff going on and I have high hopes it shall be the shizite!!
I have only heard it is ONE story idea from JF and that the other one got shelved. As long as the end result of the story isn't as bland as Epiphany was then maybe it is an episode to look forward to, IMO (I know it was changed from JF's original idea.)
I wish I was as positive as you are vaberella, but past promises of change/great ideas keep coming up with no follow through. I have the attitude now to just wait and see.

Edit: Started typing this before prion replied and made the same point as she (I believe) did about Epiphany. :o

Mister Oragahn
June 26th, 2007, 02:41 PM
If God wrote the "Utmost Complete & Ultimate Guide to Plotholes, Clichés & Embarassing, Pointless Scripting", Berman, Braga, Mullie and Mallozzi still managed to cram a couple of their own in there.

ShadowMaat
June 26th, 2007, 02:54 PM
If God wrote the "Utmost Complete & Ultimate Guide to Plotholes, Clichés & Embarassing, Pointless Scripting", Berman, Braga, Mullie and Mallozzi still managed to cram a couple of their own in there.

Does that mean the show has a Bible after all? ;) That explains a lot. :P

vaberella
June 26th, 2007, 03:03 PM
ITA. S4 is gonna be teh bomb!!!! ;)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif Oh no you didn't!!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif No you did not!!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif You cats need to come up to Harlem, you won't last a day around my way!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

I love it! If I could turn pink I'd be tickled. http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif


I have only heard it is ONE story idea from JF and that the other one got shelved. As long as the end result of the story isn't as bland as Epiphany was then maybe it is an episode to look forward to, IMO (I know it was changed from JF's original idea.)
I wish I was as positive as you are vaberella, but past promises of change/great ideas keep coming up with no follow through. I have the attitude now to just wait and see.

Edit: Started typing this before prion replied and made the same point as she (I believe) did about Epiphany. :o

There were two story ideas pitched by JF in S4, because JM said for certain one of them was brought in for sure. This was asked because when JM confirmed one, I think it was Linzi or Ali who asked whether it's the same story that was pushed to S5. JM said this was another one. Then later on, the second one was picked, I think "tentatively" from being in S5 since it would fit the direction a bit better in S4. But the second one hasn't been confirmed as an official ep, it's still under discussion.


Edited:
PG15 writes: “I thought Joe Flanigan's pitch has been pushed to Season 5? Has it been "reinstated"?”

Answer: Nope. Different pitch.
Link: http://josephmallozzi.blogspot.com/2007/06/june-2-2007.html


It's the June 2, 2007 it's the first question and I'd like to correct the fact that it was PG15 who asked the question, not the two ladies above as I first mentioned.

As for the second idea, I think I read that on an online interview or something. I'll go search for it, I could be incorrect, but I'm sure I read that the second was "tentatively" picked for S4 again---unless it was a third idea. Ugh, I hope I didn't hear it word of mouth and assumed it was in an article. I'll definitely be searching for it and posting it, when and if I find it.

It's true what you say about what was done with Epiphany, but remember what JM said in his blog, there is now an open forum between the writers and the actors that wasn't there before. Now I think they're considering the input of the actors more, maybe to respect the integrity of the character. I do think the writers had a more than fair grasp of the characters overall make up, but at the same time possibly due to two shows and the rush in story and what not many of their character based eps and just eps with a few other exceptions (not character based) would fall short. I again think the changes give rise to a more optimistic outlook--because so far as we can tell the writers are sticking to their word.

Falcon Horus
June 26th, 2007, 03:06 PM
Does that mean the show has a Bible after all? ;) That explains a lot. :P

Of course, it's called the Book of Origin.

scifi_lemon
June 26th, 2007, 03:31 PM
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif Oh no you didn't!!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif No you did not!!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif You cats need to come up to Harlem, you won't last a day around my way!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

I love it! If I could turn pink I'd be tickled. http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

Hey, don't insult my California whiteness, dude http://i19.tinypic.com/4pv0jdf.gif


It's true what you say about what was done with Epiphany, but remember what JM said in his blog, there is now an open forum between the writers and the actors that wasn't there before. Now I think they're considering the input of the actors more, maybe to respect the integrity of the character. I do think the writers had a more than fair grasp of the characters overall make up, but at the same time possibly due to two shows and the rush in story and what not many of their character based eps and just eps with a few other exceptions (not character based) would fall short. I again think the changes give rise to a more optimistic outlook--because so far as we can tell the writers are sticking to their word. [/COLOR]

ITA.


Of course, it's called the Book of Origin.

:lol:

Redhooks
June 26th, 2007, 05:33 PM
There were two story ideas pitched by JF in S4, because JM said for certain one of them was brought in for sure. This was asked because when JM confirmed one, I think it was Linzi or Ali who asked whether it's the same story that was pushed to S5. JM said this was another one. Then later on, the second one was picked, I think "tentatively" from being in S5 since it would fit the direction a bit better in S4. But the second one hasn't been confirmed as an official ep, it's still under discussion.


Edited:
Link: http://josephmallozzi.blogspot.com/2007/06/june-2-2007.html


It's the June 2, 2007 it's the first question and I'd like to correct the fact that it was PG15 who asked the question, not the two ladies above as I first mentioned.

As for the second idea, I think I read that on an online interview or something. I'll go search for it, I could be incorrect, but I'm sure I read that the second was "tentatively" picked for S4 again---unless it was a third idea. Ugh, I hope I didn't hear it word of mouth and assumed it was in an article. I'll definitely be searching for it and posting it, when and if I find it.
What I meant was ONE story idea for season 4 and the other story idea was shelved for Season 5, maybe. I have not seen that the 2nd idea has been revived for season 4.:S I'll wait for you to post the link to confirm your info.


It's true what you say about what was done with Epiphany, but remember what JM said in his blog, there is now an open forum between the writers and the actors that wasn't there before. Now I think they're considering the input of the actors more, maybe to respect the integrity of the character. I do think the writers had a more than fair grasp of the characters overall make up, but at the same time possibly due to two shows and the rush in story and what not many of their character based eps and just eps with a few other exceptions (not character based) would fall short. I again think the changes give rise to a more optimistic outlook--because so far as we can tell the writers are sticking to their word.

Again, you are more optimistic than I am that they will deliver on what they are promising. While I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that things sound better, I will still wait and see.

scifi_lemon
June 26th, 2007, 05:38 PM
What I meant was ONE story idea for season 4 and the other story idea was shelved for Season 5, maybe. I have not seen that the 2nd idea has been revived for season 4.

That's what I thought as well.


Again, you are more optimistic than I am that they will deliver on what they are promising. I will still wait and see.

I want to just wait and see as well, but it's so hard not to get your hopes up! ;)

Mitchell82
June 26th, 2007, 05:39 PM
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif Oh no she didn't!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif

But I totally agree, these guys are totally on the ball. They are finally paying attention to detail; they have an open forum between the writers and the actors (something which I love---we're gettng TWO story ideas from Joe Flanigan---Woohoo!!); the storylines seem to be real good, and new approach to rather old concepts in the genre; and is it just me, have you noticed the new filming styles they're using?!<---Mainly to do with Doppelganger. Wicked stuff going on and I have high hopes it shall be the shizite!! http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/cryingwlaughter.gif
Love Your smilies can I have them? Also I agree season four will indeed be awsome!

Redhooks
June 26th, 2007, 05:57 PM
I want to just wait and see as well, but it's so hard not to get your hopes up! ;)

For me, I just have to watch a few, select, season 2 and 3 episodes and then it is hard to get my hopes up. :( Besides, if Season 4 is good then I can say "that was better than I hoped it would be." ;)

scifi_lemon
June 26th, 2007, 06:00 PM
For me, I just have to watch a few, select, season 2 and 3 episodes and then it is hard to get my hopes up. :( Besides, if Season 4 is good then I can say "that was better than I hoped it would be." ;)

That's true. But I remain cautiously optimistic. ;)

prion
June 26th, 2007, 06:11 PM
It's true what you say about what was done with Epiphany, but remember what JM said in his blog, there is now an open forum between the writers and the actors that wasn't there before. Now I think they're considering the input of the actors more, maybe to respect the integrity of the character. I do think the writers had a more than fair grasp of the characters overall make up, but at the same time possibly due to two shows and the rush in story and what not many of their character based eps and just eps with a few other exceptions (not character based) would fall short. I again think the changes give rise to a more optimistic outlook--because so far as we can tell the writers are sticking to their word. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

The show should improve, one would hope, without the writers doing TWO shows at once (never a good idea, really), and the fact that the actors are (it seems) being given more input is promising. I think as long as certain writers stay away from writing 'comedy' episodes, we should be safe (cough cough) ;)

ShadowMaat
June 26th, 2007, 06:52 PM
I think as long as certain writers stay away from writing 'comedy' episodes, we should be safe (cough cough) ;)
If you believe that, I have some ocean-front property in Montana I'd like to sell to you. :P

scifi_lemon
June 26th, 2007, 06:56 PM
The show should improve, one would hope, without the writers doing TWO shows at once (never a good idea, really), and the fact that the actors are (it seems) being given more input is promising. I think as long as certain writers stay away from writing 'comedy' episodes, we should be safe (cough cough) ;)


If you believe that, I have some ocean-front property in Montana I'd like to sell to you. :P

Buuurrrr, it's getting a little chilly in here, don't ya think? ;)

But I agree with Prion, having only one show to focus on should improve things as well as the actors getting a chance to 'make a difference' I guess.

Mitchell82
June 26th, 2007, 07:28 PM
The show should improve, one would hope, without the writers doing TWO shows at once (never a good idea, really), and the fact that the actors are (it seems) being given more input is promising. I think as long as certain writers stay away from writing 'comedy' episodes, we should be safe (cough cough) ;)

Well I like the comedy episodes but from what I've seen season 4 will be more serious. I don't we have anything to worry about.

vaberella
June 26th, 2007, 08:10 PM
What I meant was ONE story idea for season 4 and the other story idea was shelved for Season 5, maybe. I have not seen that the 2nd idea has been revived for season 4.:S I'll wait for you to post the link to confirm your info.
Still on the hunt Red...I hope I find it. I'm going to have to start keeping a file on where I hear these things and from whom.


Again, you are more optimistic than I am that they will deliver on what they are promising. While I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that things sound better, I will still wait and see.

That's cool. I'm normally optimistic. :D I wasn't a cheerleader in elementary school for nothing! Woohoo!!


Love Your smilies can I have them? Also I agree season four will indeed be awsome!

Knock yourself out. I have plenty to go around. I felt GW was trying to limit my feelings, so I had to go elsewhere and seek out smilies that clearly expand on my emotions. :D

You can't hold me back GW...I won't let you have that power over me!! Coming off soap box now...http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/www_MyEmoticons_com__scared2.gif

SG13-NightOps
June 26th, 2007, 09:01 PM
Knock yourself out. I have plenty to go around. I felt GW was trying to limit my feelings, so I had to go elsewhere and seek out smilies that clearly expand on my emotions. :D

You can't hold me back GW...I won't let you have that power over me!! Coming off soap box now...http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/www_MyEmoticons_com__scared2.gif

*Seals all Vabby's Smilies* http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mags-smilies/familie033.gif

I love smilies. I collect them. Although I havent updated my photobucket in ages.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mags-smilies/nah_nah.gif

anyway - I now need to find a red and yellow M&M's smilies for when I am talking about Joe and Paul :D

scifi_lemon
June 26th, 2007, 09:11 PM
*Seals all Vabby's Smilies* http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mags-smilies/familie033.gif

I love smilies. I collect them. Although I havent updated my photobucket in ages.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mags-smilies/nah_nah.gif

anyway - I now need to find a red and yellow M&M's smilies for when I am talking about Joe and Paul :D

:lol: I like the big smilie ;)

kinzeb
June 26th, 2007, 09:23 PM
I think they'll kill the show. :) But of course it won't be their fault- it'll be Skiffy's fault for not promoting it enough, it'll be the fault of the sniveling fans who can't accept the changes, it'll be due to counter-programming or some life-changing world event or Mercury in retrograde, but it won't be because of poor storytelling, nope.


Yeah, what ShadowMaat said.

Btw, excellent post!

Mister Oragahn
June 27th, 2007, 01:53 AM
Does that mean the show has a Bible after all? ;) That explains a lot. :P

Funnily enough, SG-1 did have a sort of complete bible for about everything.

Then they decided to ditch, I think around season 6 or so.

prion
June 27th, 2007, 04:01 AM
Well I like the comedy episodes but from what I've seen season 4 will be more serious. I don't we have anything to worry about.


Some of their comedy works, some of it doesn't and belongs on Comedy Central ;)

jenks
June 27th, 2007, 04:21 AM
There shouldn't be any comedy episdoes, the funniest moments in Stargate are never when characters tell jokes, or even when they're in funny situations, just their honest reaction to things are what makes people laugh imo.

Alipeeps
June 27th, 2007, 04:36 AM
To clear up the confusion over the JF eps... JF pitched one ep which they spun in the writers meetings and loved but ultimately decided had elements too similar to an ep already in the works for S4 and hence this idea was pushed back to Season 5 (if we get Season 5).

Joe also pitched another ep which is being developed as a late Season 4 episode.

Therefore, he pitched two eps in total, one has been pushed back to Season 5 and the other will be in Season 4.

All the relevant sources etc can be found at SGA_Spoilers (http://community.livejournal.com/sga_spoilers/).

prion
June 27th, 2007, 05:40 AM
There shouldn't be any comedy episdoes, the funniest moments in Stargate are never when characters tell jokes, or even when they're in funny situations, just their honest reaction to things are what makes people laugh imo.

Agreed. Subtle humor is so much better than the whack-over-the-head with the sledgehammer stuff. Leave that to sitcoms.

scifi_lemon
June 27th, 2007, 12:37 PM
Agreed. Subtle humor is so much better than the whack-over-the-head with the sledgehammer stuff. Leave that to sitcoms.

Ditto.

Mister Oragahn
June 27th, 2007, 12:52 PM
There shouldn't be any comedy episdoes, the funniest moments in Stargate are never when characters tell jokes, or even when they're in funny situations, just their honest reaction to things are what makes people laugh imo.

if u dont like atlantanis then dont post!!!!!!! your nota tru fan of stragate!!!!!!!!1!!!


Agreed. Subtle humor is so much better than the whack-over-the-head with the sledgehammer stuff. Leave that to sitcoms.

Or for Boston Legal.
:nox:

Ruffles
June 27th, 2007, 01:02 PM
if u dont like atlantanis then dont post!!!!!!! your nota tru fan of stragate!!!!!!!!1!!!


Easy there MO. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and to post. Constructive criticism hasn't ever hurt anyone. Nothing is perfect.

I find it incredible that JM actually has a blog and takes the time to listen to what fans think (even if he doesn't act on it). That alone gives me hope for S4.

PG15
June 27th, 2007, 01:04 PM
I'm sure MO was just being facetious. ;)

Ruffles
June 27th, 2007, 01:15 PM
I'm sure MO was just being facetious. ;)

Ah, if that's the case, my sincere apologies. Hard to tell these days....

vaberella
June 27th, 2007, 01:30 PM
There shouldn't be any comedy episdoes, the funniest moments in Stargate are never when characters tell jokes, or even when they're in funny situations, just their honest reaction to things are what makes people laugh imo.


Agreed. Like when people thought "Meredith" was funny. What is so funny about Meredith? I didn't get it. It went over my head. I thought it was a great name. Maybe it's because I like names that don't define sex, like Leslie, Carol/Caroll, and Meredith. Their good strong men names, then women started using them and they are now mainly thought of as women names. But no...people were laughing like it was a joke. I don't get it. Actually I never get their jokes. I think the only time when I laughed and I was supposed to laugh was John's reaction to McKay in Echoes when they went looking for that whale sound decoding machine. But I can't even remember the joke, but I did like John's reaction and I think that was what I was supposed to get. Most of the time, I hear birds chirping. If you ain't the Kings of Comedy---you're wasting my time. :D

I do like their reaction to situations, that's far more entertaining. The character responses of the "Oh, We're f*****!" comes to mind. Which is definitely up the alley of scifi. So I also thought eps like "Irresponsible" and "Iresistable" had no place, although "Irresistable" wasn't that bad.

Mister Oragahn
June 27th, 2007, 01:38 PM
Ah, if that's the case, my sincere apologies. Hard to tell these days....

Nevermind :p

SG13-NightOps
June 27th, 2007, 02:20 PM
Agreed. Like when people thought "Meredith" was funny. What is so funny about Meredith? I didn't get it. It went over my head. I thought it was a great name. Maybe it's because I like names that don't define sex, like Leslie, Carol/Caroll, and Meredith. Their good strong men names, then women started using them and they are now mainly thought of as women names. But no...people were laughing like it was a joke. I don't get it. Actually I never get their jokes. I think the only time when I laughed and I was supposed to laugh was John's reaction to McKay in Echoes when they went looking for that whale sound decoding machine. But I can't even remember the joke, but I did like John's reaction and I think that was what I was supposed to get. Most of the time, I hear birds chirping. If you ain't the Kings of Comedy---you're wasting my time. :D
Well I guess the given Meredith is more commonly used for Girls, its probably what caused the joke. For SG1 followers it was a bit of a double joke given that when asked about what her name means, Sam replied "My father wanted a boy"


I do like their reaction to situations, that's far more entertaining. The character responses of the "Oh, We're f*****!" comes to mind. Which is definitely up the alley of scifi. So I also thought eps like "Irresponsible" and "Iresistable" had no place, although "Irresistable" wasn't that bad.

"Plan F, as in we are totally...."
IMO, it is the way the actors portray the character and the reaction is for the most part, the part that makes the whole moment.

However, I don't remember a rule book that said Sci Fi cant be funny. Its part of what I love most about Stargate, Firefly and Babylon 5 - and why BSG, Lost and Heroes are 3 shows I would rather not watch. TV is for entertainment, I like to be entertained. I simply can't find Drama's entertaining - I find them depressing.
Stargate has always had a twist of humour - if that ever did leave the show, then we may just have found a viable reason for me to not make the effort to watch anymore.

Agent_Dark
June 27th, 2007, 02:27 PM
However, I don't remember a rule book that said Sci Fi cant be funny. Its part of what I love most about Stargate, Firefly and Babylon 5 - and why BSG, Lost and Heroes are 3 shows I would rather not watch. TV is for entertainment, I like to be entertained. I simply can't find Drama's entertaining - I find them depressing.
I like both though, and I think some of the shows you've listed there do great at what they do. Fully serious Stargate doesn't entirely work for me, because I can't find it believable enough. Whether thats because I'm used to the humour aspect, or because the show itself can't pull it off well doesn't really matter, I just like the way it goes about telling its stories. BSG on the other hand I definitely would not want to it become all about the lol's. It does drama great and thats they way I like it. Heroes and Firefly seem to mix it up between the humour and drama and they are great if you like a bit of both - which I do :)

ShadowMaat
June 27th, 2007, 02:44 PM
However, I don't remember a rule book that said Sci Fi cant be funny.
Oh, absolutely scifi can be funny! Some of my favorite scifi has loads of humor in it. The difference, as I see it, is that the humor I enjoy is written by competent people. :P For me it isn't that TPTB should limit their comedic turns because they don't belong in the show, it's that they should limit them because their attempts tend to suck. ;) Yeah, I've enjoyed some of the lighter stuff, but if limiting it means we get no more travesties like Irresistible then I'd consider it an acceptable loss.

AGateFan
June 27th, 2007, 02:57 PM
Well I guess the given Meredith is more commonly used for Girls, its probably what caused the joke. For SG1 followers it was a bit of a double joke given that when asked about what her name means, Sam replied "My father wanted a boy"



"Plan F, as in we are totally...."
IMO, it is the way the actors portray the character and the reaction is for the most part, the part that makes the whole moment.

However, I don't remember a rule book that said Sci Fi cant be funny. Its part of what I love most about Stargate, Firefly and Babylon 5 - and why BSG, Lost and Heroes are 3 shows I would rather not watch. TV is for entertainment, I like to be entertained. I simply can't find Drama's entertaining - I find them depressing.
Stargate has always had a twist of humour - if that ever did leave the show, then we may just have found a viable reason for me to not make the effort to watch anymore.
I agree, I much prefer the sci-fi shows that have a touch of a sense of humor. Subtle humor like people have in real life. I am usually not fan of sci-fi shows that take themselves too seriously but I am also not a fan of HIGH CAMP (cheese) sci-fi either. There is, of course, a place for those they are just not for me.

I much prefer a show like B5 or early Stargate (maybe even early farscape) where the humor came "naturally" out of the situation and someone just pointed it out or said something in a way a snarky person would say something. The whole hammer over the head humor like irresistible, irresponsible or most of later Stargate falls flat for me. Especially when it is humor that is expressly at the expense of the characters or other people.

That said some "humorous episodes" can work. Such as Window of Opportunity which is constantly voted the best Stargate ep. Yet still in that the humor came out of their SITUATION and you had the intense non humorous moment at the end that just made it seem to be quite well rounded ep.

SG13-NightOps
June 27th, 2007, 03:22 PM
I agree, I much prefer the sci-fi shows that have a touch of a sense of humor. Subtle humor like people have in real life. I am usually not fan of sci-fi shows that take themselves too seriously but I am also not a fan of HIGH CAMP (cheese) sci-fi either. There is, of course, a place for those they are just not for me.

I much prefer a show like B5 or early Stargate (maybe even early farscape) where the humor came "naturally" out of the situation and someone just pointed it out or said something in a way a snarky person would say something. The whole hammer over the head humor like irresistible, irresponsible or most of later Stargate falls flat for me. Especially when it is humor that is expressly at the expense of the characters or other people.

That said some "humorous episodes" can work. Such as Window of Opportunity which is constantly voted the best Stargate ep. Yet still in that the humor came out of their SITUATION and you had the intense non humorous moment at the end that just made it seem to be quite well rounded ep.

Thats absolutely the question here.

Do you remove it all together to avoid Irresponsible like episodes, at the risk of never seeing another WoO type episode? We are talking about the the SG1 episode consistantly considered the best, and the SGA episode consistantly considered the worst - while both sit on the same writers Resume.

If M&M can create another WoO like episode (not plot wise, obviously) in Atlantis, then its worth it, imo. I wont sacrifice what is good, to avoid bad.

ShadowMaat
June 27th, 2007, 04:13 PM
Of all the light/comedic episodes in Stargate (both of them), how many are fan favorites? WoO was way back in season four: what have they given us lately? ;)

Even Wormhole X-treme is a very polarizing ep: folks tend to either love it or loathe it. Of course, either way WX was only from season 5.

I think another issue for me is that I feel as if the shows are (or were, in SG-1's case) getting increasingly... campy. I consider the gates to be semi-serious shows and as such I don't mind the occasional lighter ep (sometimes they're even appreciated), but as with the crossovers thing I just feel that the campiness is becoming too frequent- at least for my tastes.

I know TPTB have said Atlantis is gonna get darker, but they've been promising that from the start. Atlantis itself was supposed to be "darker" than SG-1. Then they promised that things would get darker in S2. And S3. And now S4. I could almost believe it in S1, but if S2-3 are examples of the kind of "darkness" we can expect in S4, well, let's just say that their idea of "dark" tends to be close to my idea of "asinine."

They can't do "dark" right, they can't do "light" right so Atlantis ends up as this disheveled heap of half-formed ideas and missed opportunities. I can't even call it a Frankenstein's monster because ol' Frankie used a better design concept than TPTB. :P

Just my opinion, of course.

Mitchell82
June 28th, 2007, 10:43 AM
I like both though, and I think some of the shows you've listed there do great at what they do. Fully serious Stargate doesn't entirely work for me, because I can't find it believable enough. Whether thats because I'm used to the humour aspect, or because the show itself can't pull it off well doesn't really matter, I just like the way it goes about telling its stories. BSG on the other hand I definitely would not want to it become all about the lol's. It does drama great and thats they way I like it. Heroes and Firefly seem to mix it up between the humour and drama and they are great if you like a bit of both - which I do :)

I agree. Stargate has shown that they can mix it up really well. It makes the show much more interesting when you can have a serious topic and make it abit funny and also they can do comedic eps and still be serious. Urgo, Window of Oportunity are classic examples. Being able to mix it up and do it so well is the reason I love Stargate so much.

vaberella
June 28th, 2007, 06:27 PM
Well I guess the given Meredith is more commonly used for Girls, its probably what caused the joke. For SG1 followers it was a bit of a double joke given that when asked about what her name means, Sam replied "My father wanted a boy"
Carol is now a female dominated name, but it's still originally male as is Meredith. So what's your point? The name isn't funny. It means "noted ruler" or "sea lord" that's a good strong male name. Maybe it's because I know most gender neutral names, so that's why I wasn't too impressed. And it's most commonly a girls name in America same as Carol. But these originally male names.




"Plan F, as in we are totally...."
IMO, it is the way the actors portray the character and the reaction is for the most part, the part that makes the whole moment.

However, I don't remember a rule book that said Sci Fi cant be funny. Its part of what I love most about Stargate, Firefly and Babylon 5 - and why BSG, Lost and Heroes are 3 shows I would rather not watch. TV is for entertainment, I like to be entertained. I simply can't find Drama's entertaining - I find them depressing.
Stargate has always had a twist of humour - if that ever did leave the show, then we may just have found a viable reason for me to not make the effort to watch anymore.

No one ever said scifi couldn't be funny. Some are just better executed than others. And I'm not into the straight comedy, I'll assume that "Irresistable"/"Irresponsible" were supposed to be comedic eps, which fell ridiculously short for me, although I was entertained by parts of Irresistable. All in all, when eps gear towards funny, I find them more not funny an dry. When it's based on reaction to incident and or remarks to the same kind, I'm far more entertained.

ShadowMaat
June 28th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I prefer the inherent humor of a given situation rather than something that makes the characters (or the fans) look like idiots.

SG13-NightOps
June 28th, 2007, 08:03 PM
Carol is now a female dominated name, but it's still originally male as is Meredith. So what's your point? The name isn't funny. It means "noted ruler" or "sea lord" that's a good strong male name. Maybe it's because I know most gender neutral names, so that's why I wasn't too impressed. And it's most commonly a girls name in America same as Carol. But these originally male names.
Honestly, I have never met one myself. I've met female Peta's and Shannon's - but never a Male called Meridith or Carol. Its the inherent need for a man to be masculine and not related to anything feminine that causes the amusement. Much like Rodney's "Passed out from Manly Hunger" line even if 'Faint' is the proper medical term.



No one ever said scifi couldn't be funny. Some are just better executed than others. And I'm not into the straight comedy, I'll assume that "Irresistable"/"Irresponsible" were supposed to be comedic eps, which fell ridiculously short for me, although I was entertained by parts of Irresistable. All in all, when eps gear towards funny, I find them more not funny an dry. When it's based on reaction to incident and or remarks to the same kind, I'm far more entertained.

I found the well acted adoration for Lucius by the cast to be amusing. Lucius himself made me cringe, but the cast did an admirable job creating the scene. I never myself said Irresistable and Irresponsible were perfect episodes - only that if I had to put up with one to get better quality then I am happy to do so. They are only just getting into the groove with the ensemble, and by the wholesale changes, one can see that they are really trying to improve the overall quality. By season 3, SG1 was able to turn out almost similar episodes with highly annoying characters and make it very amusing (Urgo). Lucius flopped, but I am happy to give them the chance to try again, if only for something to the calibre of Urgo, Upgrades or WoO - all purposefully amusing.

vaberella
June 28th, 2007, 09:43 PM
Honestly, I have never met one myself. I've met female Peta's and Shannon's - but never a Male called Meridith or Carol. Its the inherent need for a man to be masculine and not related to anything feminine that causes the amusement. Much like Rodney's "Passed out from Manly Hunger" line even if 'Faint' is the proper medical term.
If you're American you most likely know OF a Carroll (proper spelling of the male version) than actually met one. You ever watch the shows All in the Family or In The Heat Of The Night? Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker. I think it's because of him that I started reading up on gender neutral names. As for Meredith, I personally have never met one, but I have read of males called Meredith in books and of course I know of gender neutral names. Not to harp on it too much...I just didn't find it funny, nor did I understand it's comedic appeal. But at this point, we're harping on this too much, although I can tell you it always irked me when my msn chatter buddies would be giggling away since I found the most unfunny things. I actually saw John as just being an extremely childish character, it's the same when he brought around the lemon in that SG1 ep! Ugh, how annoying.

As you mentioned the whole 'faint' thing: I did recognize what the impression they were trying to give off. I, on the other hand, didn't find it funny. <----I just put that down to being a womanist. I was more :S, than laughing about it. I don't want to give an impression that my humor is dry, but I just found the use of humor on the show, more often than not, came across forced and slightly off kilter at times. I, as you can tell, don't watch the show too much for the comedic aspect.



I found the well acted adoration for Lucius by the cast to be amusing. Lucius himself made me cringe, but the cast did an admirable job creating the scene. I never myself said Irresistable and Irresponsible were perfect episodes - only that if I had to put up with one to get better quality then I am happy to do so. They are only just getting into the groove with the ensemble, and by the wholesale changes, one can see that they are really trying to improve the overall quality. By season 3, SG1 was able to turn out almost similar episodes with highly annoying characters and make it very amusing (Urgo). Lucius flopped, but I am happy to give them the chance to try again, if only for something to the calibre of Urgo, Upgrades or WoO - all purposefully amusing.

Agreed on what you're saying. But when I see eps like Aurora that had great comedic appeal, if only because it placed Teyla out of her normal zen like persona. So it was quite entertaining to see her approach to it and that made me laugh. I can see the writers added the comedy element and I felt it worked out. I just didn't get or feel for the comedy episodes as I should have. Again I felt "Iressitable" fell flat, I found the looks John gave Rodney in Echoes, or Rodney getting shot in the behind, or just each time Ronon got b**** slapped (very three stooges like; but also it's funny to see "Conan" getting pwned) more so entertaining than the eps I "should" have laughed at.

SG13-NightOps
June 28th, 2007, 10:34 PM
If you're American you most likely know OF a Carroll (proper spelling of the male version) than actually met one. You ever watch the shows All in the Family or In The Heat Of The Night? Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker. I think it's because of him that I started reading up on gender neutral names. As for Meredith, I personally have never met one, but I have read of males called Meredith in books and of course I know of gender neutral names. Not to harp on it too much...I just didn't find it funny, nor did I understand it's comedic appeal. But at this point, we're harping on this too much, although I can tell you it always irked me when my msn chatter buddies would be giggling away since I found the most unfunny things. I actually saw John as just being an extremely childish character, it's the same when he brought around the lemon in that SG1 ep! Ugh, how annoying.

As you mentioned the whole 'faint' thing: I did recognize what the impression they were trying to give off. I, on the other hand, didn't find it funny. <----I just put that down to being a womanist. I was more :S, than laughing about it. I don't want to give an impression that my humor is dry, but I just found the use of humor on the show, more often than not, came across forced and slightly off kilter at times. I, as you can tell, don't watch the show too much for the comedic aspect.

No, I am Australian - so practically every guy over here is on a testosterone overload. Probably where my amusement from it stems from. For a great example of exactly what a traditional aussie male can be like over here, a song called Bloke by Chris Franklin. Its only funny because it really can be oh so true.


Agreed on what you're saying. But when I see eps like Aurora that had great comedic appeal, if only because it placed Teyla out of her normal zen like persona. So it was quite entertaining to see her approach to it and that made me laugh. I can see the writers added the comedy element and I felt it worked out. I just didn't get or feel for the comedy episodes as I should have. Again I felt "Iressitable" fell flat, I found the looks John gave Rodney in Echoes, or Rodney getting shot in the behind, or just each time Ronon got b**** slapped (very three stooges like; but also it's funny to see "Conan" getting pwned) more so entertaining than the eps I "should" have laughed at.

Rodney's reaction to getting shot in the butt was priceless. I also found the 'forced funnies' of him all doped up to get it removed highly amusing. DH is just a class actor and can really make that work. If it were Shep in that position, it would simply not have had the same effect.

I also loved the whole "Malp on a stick" scene - followed by "Conan and Xena". But I also Loved 200 and The Other Guys, which are the most written just to be funny episodes ever. Much like everything else, we obviously never expected to agree on these things 100%. I mean, I know the Lucius eps are horrible - utterly horrible - but to go back to the old cliche, not trying to write any episodes for humour is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It could strip all the humour out of the show, including those priceless looks and arrows in the glutius maximus, and replace it with a BSG style snooze fest. I am not saying you at all Vabby, but I would not bet anything that there is no one out there that thinks they should do that because Lucius was a bad idea. There is always someone who feels or thinks the way that you or I could not even begin to wrap our heads around why anyone would feel that way.

Its another part of the "Wait and See" aspect of my approach to TV. :D

vaberella
June 28th, 2007, 11:27 PM
No, I am Australian - so practically every guy over here is on a testosterone overload. Probably where my amusement from it stems from. For a great example of exactly what a traditional aussie male can be like over here, a song called Bloke by Chris Franklin. Its only funny because it really can be oh so true.
OT: Yeah I have a pretty good idea. I dated an Aussie a while back...~sigh~ I'll stick to Italian in the near future. :D His testosterone and my womanism would clash---especially since I was greatly entertained by spending my time emasculating him. Anyway he was more impressed that my initials were VB (happens to also be one of my many nicknames in many corners), as it was his favorite beer. :D I'm just that good! :cool:

By the way if you can get your hands on some All In The Family (great american racist/sexist/prejudice/agist/homophobic comedy---a classic really). In The Heat Of The Night, everyone should watch, because it's just a classic film with Sidney Poitier---Carroll O'connor is not in it, he's in the tv show (which was great as well). That movie was testing the racial boundary...it's not easy to take when a man of african descent from the north slaps a plantation owner from the south in the face. :D


Rodney's reaction to getting shot in the butt was priceless. I also found the 'forced funnies' of him all doped up to get it removed highly amusing. DH is just a class actor and can really make that work. If it were Shep in that position, it would simply not have had the same effect.

I also loved the whole "Malp on a stick" scene - followed by "Conan and Xena". But I also Loved 200 and The Other Guys, which are the most written just to be funny episodes ever. Much like everything else, we obviously never expected to agree on these things 100%. I mean, I know the Lucius eps are horrible - utterly horrible - but to go back to the old cliche, not trying to write any episodes for humour is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It could strip all the humour out of the show, including those priceless looks and arrows in the glutius maximus, and replace it with a BSG style snooze fest. I am not saying you at all Vabby, but I would not bet anything that there is no one out there that thinks they should do that because Lucius was a bad idea. There is always someone who feels or thinks the way that you or I could not even begin to wrap our heads around why anyone would feel that way.

Its another part of the "Wait and See" aspect of my approach to TV. :D

I agree with you on the funny eps mentioned. I did balk at the "Xena/Conan" comment when I first heard it, but then I got over that quick and took it at face value that my man although I adore him is a jerk!! :D As for the rest in bold, I totally agree with you. We must avoid BSG comparisons at all costs. :( I had my problems with the show, actually I had many many many many many many many way too many problems with it. :S

SG13-NightOps
June 29th, 2007, 12:13 AM
OT: Yeah I have a pretty good idea. I dated an Aussie a while back...~sigh~ I'll stick to Italian in the near future. :D His testosterone and my womanism would clash---especially since I was greatly entertained by spending my time emasculating him. Anyway he was more impressed that my initials were VB (happens to also be one of my many nicknames in many corners), as it was his favorite beer. :D I'm just that good! :cool:

By the way if you can get your hands on some All In The Family (great american racist/sexist/prejudice/agist/homophobic comedy---a classic really). In The Heat Of The Night, everyone should watch, because it's just a classic film with Sidney Poitier---Carroll O'connor is not in it, he's in the tv show (which was great as well). That movie was testing the racial boundary...it's not easy to take when a man of african descent from the north slaps a plantation owner from the south in the face. :D

I love my aussie bloke, because there is so much SNAG in him. My sister however has a testosterone laden 'bloke' who I cant even pretend to get along with. Sometimes you get lucky. :D



I agree with you on the funny eps mentioned. I did balk at the "Xena/Conan" comment when I first heard it, but then I got over that quick and took it at face value that my man although I adore him is a jerk!! :D As for the rest in bold, I totally agree with you. We must avoid BSG comparisons at all costs. :( I had my problems with the show, actually I had many many many many many many many way too many problems with it. :S
In the end, I only sat through the pilot long enough to see Serenity. I would prefer that sometimes, JM pushes the boundries of whats funny rather than ever let it slip into BSG. (McKay is my favourite too - on equal footing with Ronon. Ronon is cool, and McKay is funny. Its like Jack and Teal'c - whom are my two SG1 faves. Teal'c is cool and Jack is funny!)

jenks
June 29th, 2007, 01:19 AM
Honestly, I have never met one myself. I've met female Peta's and Shannon's - but never a Male called Meridith or Carol. Its the inherent need for a man to be masculine and not related to anything feminine that causes the amusement. Much like Rodney's "Passed out from Manly Hunger" line even if 'Faint' is the proper medical term.




I never knew there were male ones :S

prion
June 29th, 2007, 03:49 AM
I never knew there were male ones :S

names are cyclical. Everybody goes wild naming their kid this or that, and then there are family names. I've never met a meredith myself (of either sex) but when it comes to men with what are considered women's names, there's Caroll O'Conner (All in the Family) or Leslie Nielsen (Due South, and a gazillion movies). And well, I guess "Rainbow" is interchangeable too, but at least there's only one "Dweezil" and "Moon Unit" that I've heard of ;)

vaberella
June 29th, 2007, 04:03 AM
I never knew there were male ones :S
Yeah there are male shannon's, but I don't think it's spelt this way. Have you heard of the uber hot actress Michael Michelle?! Yup, her name is Michael. Look her up.

Then there are names like Darryl, Jordan, Erin, Casey, Angel, Carey/Kerry, or my real name---My real name is a man's name, my mum wanted a boy; now that I think about it so is my middle name---spelt the female version though). Most assume it's a woman's name since it sounds feminine, but there are far more men who have it than women.

Rainbow is gender neutral. Punky Brewster's real name is Rainbeau (same difference in my book). :D


In the end, I only sat through the pilot long enough to see Serenity. I would prefer that sometimes, JM pushes the boundries of whats funny rather than ever let it slip into BSG. (McKay is my favourite too - on equal footing with Ronon. Ronon is cool, and McKay is funny. Its like Jack and Teal'c - whom are my two SG1 faves. Teal'c is cool and Jack is funny!)

Yeah, I'm near adoring Ronon, when I rewatch his scenes. I wasn't into Jason Momoa because I think if you're not David Hasselhoff from any Baywatch, your not worth my time. The rest of the men seemed campy and OTT to me. DH was my man. Not to mention I'm not into pretty boys. :S

But his portrayals are deep and sincere and I was really into JM's performance of Ronon. He totally sold me the character. I also give the writers props, because next to McKay, Ronon is the most well developed character.

Ruffles
June 29th, 2007, 06:25 AM
Agreed. Like when people thought "Meredith" was funny. What is so funny about Meredith? I didn't get it. It went over my head. I thought it was a great name. Maybe it's because I like names that don't define sex, like Leslie, Carol/Caroll, and Meredith. Their good strong men names, then women started using them and they are now mainly thought of as women names. But no...people were laughing like it was a joke. I don't get it. Actually I never get their jokes. I think the only time when I laughed and I was supposed to laugh was John's reaction to McKay in Echoes when they went looking for that whale sound decoding machine. But I can't even remember the joke, but I did like John's reaction and I think that was what I was supposed to get. Most of the time, I hear birds chirping. If you ain't the Kings of Comedy---you're wasting my time. :D

I do like their reaction to situations, that's far more entertaining. The character responses of the "Oh, We're f*****!" comes to mind. Which is definitely up the alley of scifi. So I also thought eps like "Irresponsible" and "Iresistable" had no place, although "Irresistable" wasn't that bad.


I understand your thoughts on "Meredith" but I doubt many 10-12 year olds would. As a child, he would have been horribly teased for having a "girl's" name (regardless of its history), especially being a geeky kid.

His reaction actually feeds it. He is obviously embarrassed by it.

My initial reaction was to giggle when it came up. Having to deal with name teasing on top of geek teasing explains a lot about McKay. But then, you just had to feel sorry for him.

If he'd just stood up straight, looked Sheppard in the eye, and said "Yeah, my name's Meredith. So what?" it would have ended the discussion. However, I don't think that would have been in character for Rodney.


I think the best humorous moments have to flow from a situation rather than be forced. Personally, I much prefer a biting wit than slap-stick. The more dripping with sarcasm the better.

I found the Conan and Xena comment hilarious because it sounded like McKay. He hasn't quite learned to appreciate that Ronon and Teyla are more than warriors. But he's learning.

vaberella
June 29th, 2007, 07:12 AM
I understand your thoughts on "Meredith" but I doubt many 10-12 year olds would. As a child, he would have been horribly teased for having a "girl's" name (regardless of its history), especially being a geeky kid.

His reaction actually feeds it. He is obviously embarrassed by it.

My initial reaction was to giggle when it came up. Having to deal with name teasing on top of geek teasing explains a lot about McKay. But then, you just had to feel sorry for him.

If he'd just stood up straight, looked Sheppard in the eye, and said "Yeah, my name's Meredith. So what?" it would have ended the discussion. However, I don't think that would have been in character for Rodney.

You've just proven my point about Shep. He was a childish jerk. Why waste the time, when he already knows what McKay's reaction would be. But he wanted to excite and annoy. It just bugged me when Shep did that, I thought he was a bit more mature than that. I leave the petulant irksome behaviour to McKay.


I think the best humorous moments have to flow from a situation rather than be forced. Personally, I much prefer a biting wit than slap-stick. The more dripping with sarcasm the better.

I found the Conan and Xena comment hilarious because it sounded like McKay. He hasn't quite learned to appreciate that Ronon and Teyla are more than warriors. But he's learning.

McKay was prejudice plain and simple...nothing about appreciating. He seems himself as the civilized scientist and them the primitive barbarians---especially Ronon.

But I agree with you on the sarcastic wit, although I could get annoyed by it. But then again, as I said...it's hard to appeal to my humor. Ugly Betty is apparently supposed to be a very funny show (I'm a stand-up kind of person)---it's rather sad that I don't laugh at anything I see on screen. I just like aspects of it and think it's cute. I don't even find most comedy shows funny. I think there were only three comedy shows ever found funny Will & Grace, The Cosby Show, and Martin. Everything else was just...http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e308/vaberella/blahblah.gif

Ruffles
June 29th, 2007, 08:22 AM
You've just proven my point about Shep. He was a childish jerk. Why waste the time, when he already knows what McKay's reaction would be. But he wanted to excite and annoy. It just bugged me when Shep did that, I thought he was a bit more mature than that. I leave the petulant irksome behaviour to McKay.

Mature? Since when has anything between Shep and McKay been mature? They're like two brothers always trying to outdo the other with the insults and teasing. Just watch "The Game" for another example of that. It's just that Sheppard tends to reserve that behavior for McKay whereas McKay acts that way all the time.


McKay was prejudice plain and simple...nothing about appreciating. He seems himself as the civilized scientist and them the primitive barbarians---especially Ronon.

Oh, you betcha. He was a total snob. Everyone is primitive to him. :D Rodney has a definite lack of people skills, but I do think he's learning.

One thing I would like to see M & M do is advance that part of his character - to take his experiences from M&MM, Tao and Sunday and show him growing. I also hope for some depth to Teyla and Ronon. I know we're going to get some character stories for them. I would like to see them have more than just warrior/fighting skills - let them use their brains for something.

BTW - I loved The Cosby Show. I'm also a huge fan of MASH - mostly comedy but did drama so well. Chandler from Friends could dish sarcasm so well. And I think the funniest guy on the planet is David Hyde Pierce from Frasier. He could say more with a look than most could in a monologue. IMHO of course.

prion
June 29th, 2007, 08:57 AM
I understand your thoughts on "Meredith" but I doubt many 10-12 year olds would. As a child, he would have been horribly teased for having a "girl's" name (regardless of its history), especially being a geeky kid. And the Xena/Conon thing was great.

His reaction actually feeds it. He is obviously embarrassed by it.

My initial reaction was to giggle when it came up. Having to deal with name teasing on top of geek teasing explains a lot about McKay. But then, you just had to feel sorry for him.

If he'd just stood up straight, looked Sheppard in the eye, and said "Yeah, my name's Meredith. So what?" it would have ended the discussion. However, I don't think that would have been in character for Rodney.


I found the Conan and Xena comment hilarious because it sounded like McKay. He hasn't quite learned to appreciate that Ronon and Teyla are more than warriors. But he's learning.

Yeah, but this is Rodney, so his reaction was perfect for him when SHeppard called him "Meredith." Doesn't matter how old you get, you can revert right back to that memory of being taunted as a kid, and I'll bet as soon as he could use the name ROdney and bypass Meredith he did so.




You've just proven my point about Shep. He was a childish jerk. Why waste the time, when he already knows what McKay's reaction would be. But he wanted to excite and annoy. It just bugged me when Shep did that, I thought he was a bit more mature than that. I leave the petulant irksome behaviour to McKay.



Mature? Since when has anything between Shep and McKay been mature? They're like two brothers always trying to outdo the other with the insults and teasing. Just watch "The Game" for another example of that. It's just that Sheppard tends to reserve that behavior for McKay whereas McKay acts that way all the time.


One thing that Shep and McKay demonstrate when they're together is a total lack of maturity, but they do take their responsibilities seriously. I hate to say it, but this is how guys (men) do behave (not all, but a lot). Their way of showing they like each other (but in a manly way) is to insult each other. Go figure.

Adria
July 3rd, 2007, 03:44 AM
When it was first announced that Mallozzi and Mullie were going to be running the show from season 4 onwards, was met with alot of scepticisim. I was wondering, what do people think of the job they are doing now?

1, to early to judge 2, i have high hopes for this season and i do have faith that joe and paul will do what there feel is best for the season.