Why is the [bleep] even allowed to continue existing after AoT? (Ark spoilers)

[FallenAngelII]

Why is the IOA not yet disbanded after what happened in "Ark of Truth"? They infiltrated a mission with a secret black ops of their own in which they were going to use a cataclysmically dangerous piece of technology (Replicators) to commit genocide against misguided enemy combatants.

Their backup plan, should SG-1 not allow them to use the Replicator was to have it cannibalize the Odyssey (including its Asgard core) in order to do its job.

All of this and the IOA is still allowed to continue functioning in season 4 of "Atlantis"? You'd think that after that huge, huge, huge genocidical mistake, the president would've dissolved the IOA and at least replaced all of its decisionmakers.

But not a peep about it in Atlantis. Apparently, the IOA came out of it unscatched (yet again).

[Dark Soul]

This is before season 4? I thought it was after because Season 4 started airing on TV before the AoT was even suppose to be released. Maybe we will hear something about it later this season or next season.

[s09119]

This is before season 4? I thought it was after because Season 4 started airing on TV before the AoT was even suppose to be released. Maybe we will hear something about it later this season or next season.

AoT takes place before Season 4 of Atlantis.

[The_Carpenter]

replaced all of its decisionmakers.

But not a peep about it in Atlantis. Apparently, the IOA came out of it unscatched (yet again).

Perhaps he did. But why would it be mentioned in Atlantis in that story line it would make no sense, and additionally if they mentioned it, it would be a major spoiler for The Ark Of Truth which I don't see the PTB writing such a spoiler into Atlantis even if they thought Atlantis Season 4 was going to air before The Ark of Truth (people may not be able afford to buy the DVD movie before season 4 aired, or numerous other reasons)

[FallenAngelII]

Perhaps he did. But why would it be mentioned in Atlantis in that story line it would make no sense, and additionally if they mentioned it, it would be a major spoiler for The Ark Of Truth which I don't see the PTB writing such a spoiler into Atlantis even if they thought Atlantis Season 4 was going to air before The Ark of Truth (people may not be able afford to buy the DVD movie before season 4 aired, or numerous other reasons)

Because otherwise it's a potential plothole and annoyance? It wouldn't really be that huge of a spoiler if they said "There's been some restructuring after 'that incident'" or something similar on Atlantis.

And you can't write stuff with consideration to "Will people buy this other thing before watching this episode". How long are they going to have to wait 'til they reference anything in the movies, then? A year, two?

[BloomGate]

Because otherwise it's a potential plothole and annoyance? It wouldn't really be that huge of a spoiler if they said "There's been some restructuring after 'that incident'" or something similar on Atlantis.

Why would they mention it at all? It seems to me that you think that SG should be more serialized and cohesive in structure. SG just isn't written that way. It makes selling it in syndication more difficult. TV stations don't like serialized shows in case they preempt the show from time to time.

So, again, other than to satisfy the curiosity of anal retentive fans, why would they include information like that when it doesn't affect the current story being told?

[Vala_M]

You have a point there. I guess because the SGC's funds are still going to ship production and not to the SGC so the money has to come from somewhere, although, I agree, a better money source should be found.

Vala,

[FallenAngelII]

Why would they mention it at all? It seems to me that you think that SG should be more serialized and cohesive in structure. SG just isn't written that way. It makes selling it in syndication more difficult. TV stations don't like serialized shows in case they preempt the show from time to time.

So, again, other than to satisfy the curiosity of anal retentive fans, why would they include information like that when it doesn't affect the current story being told?

Because it creates a huge plothole for anyone who's seen "The Ark of Truth" (and soon, that number will be pretty big)?

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Huge plot hole? Riiight....

[tjmitchem]

Why is the IOA not yet disbanded after what happened in "Ark of Truth"? They infiltrated a mission with a secret black ops of their own in which they were going to use a cataclysmically dangerous piece of technology (Replicators) to commit genocide against misguided enemy combatants.

Who, precisely, has the authority to disband them?

[BloomGate]

Because it creates a huge plothole for anyone who's seen "The Ark of Truth" (and soon, that number will be pretty big)?

Please explain to me how not detailing the internal consequences to the IOA constitutes a plothole.

As a matter of fact, you'd better define a plothole for me again.

[Cap116]

I don't think the president can disband the IOA, but what he could do is raise the budget for the SGC, so that the would not have to depend on the IOA as much as they do. In season 9, the SGC had to go to the IOA to make up the difference of their budget that was taken away by the Approprations Committee. So then they can go back to operating under the SGC without IOA approval on anything.

[the fifth man]

I don't think the president can disband the IOA, but what he could do is raise the budget for the SGC, so that the would not have to depend on the IOA as much as they do. In season 9, the SGC had to go to the IOA to make up the difference of their budget that was taken away by the Approprations Committee. So then they can go back to operating under the SGC without IOA approval on anything.

Now that would be sweet. Wouldn't that be something if

Spoiler:

that actually happened? What with us seeing the President in Continuum after all.

[FallenAngelII]

Who, precisely, has the authority to disband them?

There's got to be someone. You can't have an organization with lunatics like that being the head honchos of something as important as the Stargate program. Like how the president of the United State has a lot of power but there are ways to dispose of him.

As a matter of fact, you'd better define a plothole for me again.

"A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome. Plot holes are usually seen as weaknesses or flaws in a story, and writers usually try to avoid them to make their stories seem as realistic as possible."

Not necessarily something that contradicts established facts. Plotholes can simply be unanswered questions that are way too illogical to not touch upon.

[BloomGate]

"A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome. Plot holes are usually seen as weaknesses or flaws in a story, and writers usually try to avoid them to make their stories seem as realistic as possible."

Not necessarily something that contradicts established facts. Plotholes can simply be unanswered questions that are way too illogical to not touch upon.

So, how does the lack of explanation about the internal dealings of the IOA go against the flow of logic established by the story's plot? And since you are talking about a story arc in a TV series that hasn't had an "outcome" yet as it's still ongoing, how can it be essential to the story's outcome?

I recognize the part in quotes as from Wikipedia, but that last bit is your own interpretation isn't it? Taking some liberties with the English language aren't you? I can buy the Wiki definition to a certain extent, but you've now expanded the definition as something not explained *yet* that irritates you due to your own impatience.