PDA

View Full Version : TPTB Still Can't Write Romance, Need to Stop Trying



Pandora's_Box
November 21st, 2008, 10:42 PM
Firstly, I squeeeed. Yes, I'll admit it. I am a huge McKeller shipper and damn proud of it. I love that they're together. I love that they've kissed in this time line multiple times. I love that they love each other.

So what's the point of this thread? That would be what I don't love. I don't love how it came about and how it was written.

I understand that SGA is not a romantic drama. It's SF. And it's not Farscape-flavoured SF or ever BSG-flavoured SF. It's spaceships and aliens in your head and sucking the life force through your chest. It's explosions and guns and wonky physics. I don't expect outright romance. Subtle hints? Sure, why not? Make things interesting.

But after 10 years of maddeningly subtle romantic hints and nudges on SG-1 and 4 years of it on SGA to suddenly elevate the show into a rousing crescendo of geek love seems......sorely out of place.

If it had been well- handled maybe I wouldn't be posting this. But, in my opinion, it wasn't and here I am.

Not only did we have poorly constructed triangle (and with 3 sides, how hard can it really be?), and a poorly written one at that, but I've been left sort of wondering if I'd missed some vital scenes from Search and Rescue onwards. Rodney declaring his love for Jennifer on his presumed deathbed, as touching as it was, seemed oddly rushed considering his only other touching interaction with her was demonstrating concern in The Seed. Now Jennifer loves him too? Why? Because he said it first?

I'm lost. This was their first date.....and they love each other. Granted a lot has happened to them since they've met and it could be enough to develop very strong feelings, but if that's the case then.....where are the scenes that demonstrate this?

I get it and I've said it myself. SGA is not a romantic drama. It's a science fiction show. The spaceships and the aliens have to come first. But if that's the case then, PTB, please don't throw out an episode that circulates almost entirely on the notion that two characters are deeply in love with each other for reasons that are only fathomable to viewers in possession of McKeller-tinted shippy glasses.

If it's not within the parameters of the show to develop a plausible romance, then I'd rather not see some unexplainable (by the show) romance. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The mouth that's trying to be objective anyway. :D

ykickamoocow
November 21st, 2008, 10:54 PM
Firstly, I squeeeed. Yes, I'll admit it. I am a huge McKeller shipper and damn proud of it. I love that they're together. I love that they've kissed in this time line multiple times. I love that they love each other.

So what's the point of this thread? That would be what I don't love. I don't love how it came about and how it was written.

I understand that SGA is not a romantic drama. It's SF. And it's not Farscape-flavoured SF or ever BSG-flavoured SF. It's spaceships and aliens in your head and sucking the life force through your chest. It's explosions and guns and wonky physics. I don't expect outright romance. Subtle hints? Sure, why not? Make things interesting.

But after 10 years of maddeningly subtle romantic hints and nudges on SG-1 and 4 years of it on SGA to suddenly elevate the show into a rousing crescendo of geek love seems......sorely out of place.

If it had been well- handled maybe I wouldn't be posting this. But, in my opinion, it wasn't and here I am.

Not only did we have poorly constructed triangle (and with 3 sides, how hard can it really be?), and a poorly written one at that, but I've been left sort of wondering if I'd missed some vital scenes from Search and Rescue onwards. Rodney declaring his love for Jennifer on his presumed deathbed, as touching as it was, seemed oddly rushed considering his only other touching interaction with her was demonstrating concern in The Seed. Now Jennifer loves him too? Why? Because he said it first?

I'm lost. This was their first date.....and they love each other. Granted a lot has happened to them since they've met and it could be enough to develop very strong feelings, but if that's the case then.....where are the scenes that demonstrate this?

I get it and I've said it myself. SGA is not a romantic drama. It's a science fiction show. The spaceships and the aliens have to come first. But if that's the case then, PTB, please don't throw out an episode that circulates almost entirely on the notion that two characters are deeply in love with each other for reasons that are only fathomable to viewers in possession of McKeller-tinted shippy glasses.

If it's not within the parameters of the show to develop a plausible romance, then I'd rather not see some unexplainable (by the show) romance. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The mouth that's trying to be objective anyway. :D

What they needed to do was show scenes with McKay and Keller hanging out together and slowly getting to know one another. Unfortunately this was never going to happen as Stargate Atlantis rarely shows how characters interact when not on duty.

Browncoat1984
November 21st, 2008, 10:55 PM
I tend to agree with what you said, though I never really saw the Ronon/McKay/Keller thing as some sort of 3-way triangle, in my mind it was never played like that and the only time it was ever implied was off-screen by the producers. I think that if they hadn't said anything about that, that nobody would have said anything and would have made a big deal about it. The way I saw it was Ronon just messing with McKay's head in the end, having a bit of fun with Rodney. I think that *maybe* at first, back in S4 he might have had some sort of romantic notion towards Keller, but probably in the end just decided, as he said at the beginning of this episode "who cares."

I will say, though, that I was disappointed we didn't get any scenes of Shep and Ronon surfing. I was expecting some sort of B plot that showed Ronon trying to surf, sort of reminiscent of O'neill trying to get Teal'c to fish in his pond.

ablevins425
November 21st, 2008, 11:20 PM
I love McKay, but really hate Keller. I had some serious doubts about this episode, but i thought Jennifer came across very effectively and sincere. I think this has been her best to date, and if the quality stays I could learn to like Keller.

Wayston
November 22nd, 2008, 02:03 AM
the problem with a mckay / keller relationship is that Rodney's social skills really suck; it is unrealistic to assume that keller would fall for him at all but I guess the romance was written to woo all the nerds watching

Pharaoh Atem
November 22nd, 2008, 02:17 AM
a room full of male writers what do you expect

thedrumm3rguy
November 22nd, 2008, 02:29 AM
really didn't like the romance writing in this one...seemed so.....16 yr old :D

*cue Dawsons creek music*

are the writers even married? lol

iolanda
November 22nd, 2008, 02:39 AM
The romance itself was OK. It just does not fit too much into this show at this point.

ykickamoocow
November 22nd, 2008, 02:47 AM
Realism demands some romance in Stargate. Statistically alot of people get married after meeting their wife/husband at work. It is a VERy common place for people to become couples. The fact that in 13 years (and 15 seasons) of Stargate that it hasnt happened is quite frankly unrealistic. Romance in the work place is reasonably common and this is the first time we have seen in on Stargate.

Infinite-Possibilities
November 22nd, 2008, 02:48 AM
Yeah I'm sorry but this is now the dumbest romance I've ever seen on TV. I was never a fan of the McKeller paring, but I didn't object because I fundamentally despised the couple together, I hated this because its so poorly written. Its completely out of nowhere, the triangle was terrible enough, but the suddenness of them totally falling in love with each other completely ruins my suspension of disbelief. We never got to see them actually fall in love. They just all of a sudden were. What are they 12? I realize Stargate was never known for strong romance but this is surprisingly poor. Some of their earlier romances that were slow burning were actually semi-decent, I thought. John spent basically 4 years developing a borderline romantic chemistry with Elisabeth and Teyla, and they still have no overt declarations of OMG I LOVE YOU. Rodney and Keller had what? A half dozen to dozen scenes together tops and they love each other and are making out like they are horny high-schoolers. I'm honestly shocked at how painful to watch it is, which is sad because it didn't need to be this bad. This would have been acceptable if it was not so foolishly rushed. This season feels like its more bipolar than the previous one: it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Lahela
November 22nd, 2008, 04:03 AM
Realism demands some romance in Stargate. Statistically alot of people get married after meeting their wife/husband at work. It is a VERy common place for people to become couples. The fact that in 13 years (and 15 seasons) of Stargate that it hasnt happened is quite frankly unrealistic. Romance in the work place is reasonably common and this is the first time we have seen in on Stargate.

But how do you know it hasn't happened, dozens of times? There are more people in Atlantis or the SGC than just the ones in the opening credits. What I don't understand is why we suddenly have to watch it happening :S

jenks
November 22nd, 2008, 04:19 AM
It's a shame really, they were doing so well up until the "I love you, have done for some time now" moment. Good episode though, better than I think a lot of people expected.

rsanchez
November 22nd, 2008, 04:34 AM
But after 10 years of maddeningly subtle romantic hints and nudges on SG-1 and 4 years of it on SGA to suddenly elevate the show into a rousing crescendo of geek love seems......sorely out of place.

It's McKay, a theoretical physicist, and Keller, a doctor who thinks she can cure Pegasus with a drug. The geeky romance was to be expected. The love between Keller and anyone is out of place.

I have to agree with Wayston. It's unrealistic that someone like Keller would fall for a (social) loser like McKay. All the scientists saw it, thinking Keller was McKay's sister. Bill Nye even called dibs. If Bill Nye thinks he has a chance at taking your girl, you know something isn't right.

CazzBlade
November 22nd, 2008, 05:09 AM
I have to agree with Wayston. It's unrealistic that someone like Keller would fall for a (social) loser like McKay. All the scientists saw it, thinking Keller was McKay's sister. Bill Nye even called dibs. If Bill Nye thinks he has a chance at taking your girl, you know something isn't right.

Is that true? :lol: although I think uncle and neice would be more accurate :P

kymeric
November 22nd, 2008, 05:59 AM
Firstly, I squeeeed. Yes, I'll admit it. I am a huge McKeller shipper and damn proud of it. I love that they're together. I love that they've kissed in this time line multiple times. I love that they love each other.

So what's the point of this thread? That would be what I don't love. I don't love how it came about and how it was written.

I understand that SGA is not a romantic drama. It's SF. And it's not Farscape-flavoured SF or ever BSG-flavoured SF. It's spaceships and aliens in your head and sucking the life force through your chest. It's explosions and guns and wonky physics. I don't expect outright romance. Subtle hints? Sure, why not? Make things interesting.

But after 10 years of maddeningly subtle romantic hints and nudges on SG-1 and 4 years of it on SGA to suddenly elevate the show into a rousing crescendo of geek love seems......sorely out of place.

If it had been well- handled maybe I wouldn't be posting this. But, in my opinion, it wasn't and here I am.

Not only did we have poorly constructed triangle (and with 3 sides, how hard can it really be?), and a poorly written one at that, but I've been left sort of wondering if I'd missed some vital scenes from Search and Rescue onwards. Rodney declaring his love for Jennifer on his presumed deathbed, as touching as it was, seemed oddly rushed considering his only other touching interaction with her was demonstrating concern in The Seed. Now Jennifer loves him too? Why? Because he said it first?

I'm lost. This was their first date.....and they love each other. Granted a lot has happened to them since they've met and it could be enough to develop very strong feelings, but if that's the case then.....where are the scenes that demonstrate this?

I get it and I've said it myself. SGA is not a romantic drama. It's a science fiction show. The spaceships and the aliens have to come first. But if that's the case then, PTB, please don't throw out an episode that circulates almost entirely on the notion that two characters are deeply in love with each other for reasons that are only fathomable to viewers in possession of McKeller-tinted shippy glasses.

If it's not within the parameters of the show to develop a plausible romance, then I'd rather not see some unexplainable (by the show) romance. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The mouth that's trying to be objective anyway. :D

Maybe this is how romance works for everyone else in the universe but you? O.o

Pandora's_Box
November 22nd, 2008, 06:15 AM
the problem with a mckay / keller relationship is that Rodney's social skills really suck; it is unrealistic to assume that keller would fall for him at all but I guess the romance was written to woo all the nerds watching

Why unrealistic? And what do his social skills have to do with another person finding him attractive?

Sure, he may not be the easiest person in the world to get to know, and he most certainly is prickly enough to keep most women at an arm's length or further, but he's not horribly unattractive physically speaking or such a horrible person that no one could ever like him.

He and Jennifer seem more compatible to me than Rodney and Katie ever were.


Realism demands some romance in Stargate. Statistically alot of people get married after meeting their wife/husband at work. It is a VERy common place for people to become couples. The fact that in 13 years (and 15 seasons) of Stargate that it hasnt happened is quite frankly unrealistic. Romance in the work place is reasonably common and this is the first time we have seen in on Stargate.

True, but the degree to which we see it is defined by the genre of the show. I'd have had no problem if they'd kept it running in the background or even if they'd made it more overt. But if they'd chosen to make it more overt than they should have chosen to have it make sense. Right now, it just seems out of place.


Maybe this is how romance works for everyone else in the universe but you? O.o

Quite possibly. But SGA isn't a show about the analysis of different types of romantic relationships in the universe regardless.

jelgate
November 22nd, 2008, 06:39 AM
The problem with all Stargate ships is they just pop up. A good ship takes seasons of subtle development.

g.o.d
November 22nd, 2008, 06:45 AM
thank god, they cancelled it. Even mexican soap-operas have better ships than stargate

Pandora's_Box
November 22nd, 2008, 06:51 AM
thank god, they cancelled it. Even mexican soap-operas have better ships than stargate

SGA has a lot more going for it than this one mishandled ship. I'm sad it's canceled to make way for a series that, considering it's going to be exactly the same PTB, looks to be more possibly poorly written 'ship.

g.o.d
November 22nd, 2008, 06:54 AM
SGA has a lot more going for it than this one mishandled ship. I'm sad it's canceled to make way for a series that, considering it's going to be exactly the same PTB, looks to be more possibly poorly written 'ship.

yeah, different show, same crap...they should have cancelled the whole Stargate franchise and eventually return to it after few years with the whole new team of writers, producers, etc.

Briangate78
November 22nd, 2008, 06:58 AM
They do everything else well except Romance, I have to agree. Just think that with SGU the same writers are going to try and write more character relationships. Why can't they just stick to the format that works, like the 2 prior eps.

Browncoat1984
November 22nd, 2008, 08:29 AM
I think part of the problem is that romance between our lead characters just seems out of place on Stargate. Romance between team members is bad idea IMHO because it would seriously undermine the team dynamics. I was glad when Teyla got in a relationship with someone OTHER than Shep so we wouldn't have to worry about that, and of course Weir leaving means no Shep and Weir. Shep and Weir would have been an even worse idea because, she's like his boss, isn't she?

Then there's O'neill and Carter...because their in the military, O'neill, being the commander of the team, should never have let himself get that close to Carter. Of course, the only reason it even came out was because of the Tokra lie detector, had it not been for that device it probably never would have come out. O'neill did a good job of hiding it from the audience at least, IMHO.

We've also only had Keller as CMO for less than two years. This is another problem with Stargate, when it comes to replacing characters, which they've done many times before, they do a poor job at it. Its always like "okay, she/he's gone, here's your new guy!" It would have been better if we had seen Keller as perhaps an understudy of Carson, so we, the audience, would know that we're getting someone whose as good as Carson at least when you're talking about medical expertise. She could have been on as a recurring character for a few eps in say season 2 or 3. Maybe when Paul couldn't be on an ep she could have been on in his place as acting CMO or something, and she still could have had that uncertainty that we saw in episodes like "Missing" but by the time she's brought on as a lead character she has the confidence she has now. Maybe as an understudy for Carson, she also would have struck a friendship up with Rodney.

In my opinion, the best character replacement was Woolsey. He should have been brought on in season 4 instead of 5, and his character makes perfect sense coming in off of Weir. We would have had two seasons to develope his character instead of just 1. Don't get me wrong, I love the character of Carter and Amanda as an actress, but she just did not work well when she was in charge of Atlantis.

As someone said earlier in this thread, the Atlantis writing team is all males. I think it would help if they had at least one or two females to help balance out the team, especially when it comes to writing the female characters like Weir, Teyla, Carter, and Keller that we've seen on Atlantis.

Pharaoh Atem
November 22nd, 2008, 03:44 PM
The problem with all Stargate ships is they just pop up. A good ship takes seasons of subtle development.

good example roslin and adama from bsg

4 seasons

Briangate78
November 22nd, 2008, 03:50 PM
good example roslin and adama from bsg

4 seasons

Took long enough! :p

Pharaoh Atem
November 22nd, 2008, 03:54 PM
Took long enough! :p

but it really works

hell it's the first ship i've truly believed in

leanbarton
November 22nd, 2008, 03:56 PM
I believe I just witnessed the worst episode ever! It was cool to see Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the first moments but I'm not sure Bill Nye would be working on something so complicated.

The premise was absurd, McKay and Keller as an item is absurd, and the writing was awful. Also the special effects for the outside view of the bunker looked like some kind of 3D model downloaded from a website.

Let's hope the rest of the episodes are great, but I have my doubts about the upcoming Vegas.

Rac80
November 22nd, 2008, 04:04 PM
the problem with a mckay / keller relationship is that Rodney's social skills really suck; it is unrealistic to assume that keller would fall for him at all but I guess the romance was written to woo all the nerds watching


really didn't like the romance writing in this one...seemed so.....16 yr old :D

*cue Dawsons creek music*

are the writers even married? lol
I agree with both of you. MENTAL GREEN -- mckay always makes me want to http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sick/sick0021.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-animated-smileys.php)


Realism demands some romance in Stargate. Statistically alot of people get married after meeting their wife/husband at work. It is a VERy common place for people to become couples. The fact that in 13 years (and 15 seasons) of Stargate that it hasnt happened is quite frankly unrealistic. Romance in the work place is reasonably common and this is the first time we have seen in on Stargate.

In the military a romance can get you kicked out that is why there was no confirmation on military ships like S/J. atlantis is civilian so yes, there should be more romance happening.... BUT not these two please!:S

Is that true? :lol: although I think uncle and neice would be more accurate :P

LOL I agree there (squick), but I found it funny that the other nerds thought she resembled HIS sister... waaaay to squicky there! http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sick/sick0021.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-animated-smileys.php) well sam resembled Jeannie too... does mckay have a incest-fixation going? :S

ToasterOnFire
November 22nd, 2008, 05:04 PM
good example roslin and adama from bsg

4 seasons
Bonus: Fandom reaction to A/R has been almost completely supportive! Imagine that! :D
(Lee/Kara is another story though, sigh. :P)

And yes, TPTB have a pretty bad track record when it comes to canon ship. I suppose if I have to choose between the nonstop irritation of Sam/Jack will-they-or-won't-they or some laughably rushed McKeller I'd choose the latter, if only with the hope that the show can now get back to the damn TEAM.

Briangate78
November 22nd, 2008, 05:05 PM
but it really works

hell it's the first ship i've truly believed in

me too actually. I liked how it was done.

ykickamoocow
November 22nd, 2008, 05:32 PM
Lets look at another Scifi show which i felt handled relationships reasonably well.

These are all the successful relationships which happened on Star trek DS(

Sisko/Yates
Jadzia Dax/Worf
Ezri Dax/Bashir
Kira/Odo
O'Brien/Keiko
Rom/Leeta

and i felt apart from the Kira/Odo relationship all of these pairings worked well and felt natural. If Star Trek can do the relationship stuff correctly them i dont see why the Stargate writers cant do the same.

airrick
November 23rd, 2008, 12:48 AM
a room full of male writers what do you expect


Writing a show that geeky guys like me are suppose to like.. imagine that.. LOL

They stick in these love stories for the wandering women and the guys that like chick flicks.. its true I tell you

ykickamoocow
November 23rd, 2008, 01:02 AM
Writing a show that geeky guys like me are suppose to like.. imagine that.. LOL

They stick in these love stories for the wandering women and the guys that like chick flicks.. its true I tell you

Let me guees. You believe that if you go near a girl you will get cooties.

I know this will upset you but im going to say it anyway. Relationships (yes even the relationships which involve going near girls) are apart of life. I dont want Stargate turning into nothing but a soap opera but it doesnt bother me at all to have afew relationships as it is realistic. To deny that relationships do exist is apsolutely moronic.

airrick
November 23rd, 2008, 01:14 AM
Let me guees. You believe that if you go near a girl you will get cooties.

I know this will upset you but im going to say it anyway. Relationships (yes even the relationships which involve going near girls) are apart of life. I dont want Stargate turning into nothing but a soap opera but it doesnt bother me at all to have afew relationships as it is realistic. To deny that relationships do exist is apsolutely moronic.


As for the first part of your statement.. you dont even know the half :)

I dont mind relationships.. I dont mind them in shows.. I dont like it when the focus is around a love story.. The reason so many people feel as if this entire "I love you" etc was rushed is because even when the shows carry over stories from previous episodes.. most of the week to week shows are stand alone.. and the elements of a good love story take a lot of tweaking and serious developments.. this scenario just doesnt have it.. its not there and those that feel it is there are feeling it because they want it to work for the characters not because it DOES work..

airrick
November 23rd, 2008, 01:27 AM
Lets look at another Scifi show which i felt handled relationships reasonably well.

These are all the successful relationships which happened on Star trek DS(

Sisko/Yates
Jadzia Dax/Worf
Ezri Dax/Bashir
Kira/Odo
O'Brien/Keiko
Rom/Leeta

and i felt apart from the Kira/Odo relationship all of these pairings worked well and felt natural. If Star Trek can do the relationship stuff correctly them i dont see why the Stargate writers cant do the same.

I think it can work, and fit nicely into the overall series. I just think that this time in this case it seems forced and doesnt really make any sense. I know its not the military but when it came to Sam and Jack you felt the connection there, even though they never had the chance to really explore it.

Even though Rodney and Keller have the option of exploring it, it just seems like a fan fic gone wild. Something that doesnt really seem to fit into the show.. like a square into a circle hole..

Akward.. and empty.. just my 2 cents.

g.o.d
November 23rd, 2008, 01:56 AM
but it really works

hell it's the first ship i've truly believed in

I don't like relationships, but I have to admit in this case it's believeable

silvercomet
November 23rd, 2008, 07:13 AM
Apart from the fact that I just don't like McKeller - I can't see the romance. Maybe my expectations are too high but two 'I love you' out of the blue and then their behaviour on the plane - no, that's not romantic for me. I can't feel a bond between these two.

I really liked the scenes in The Last Man. IMO they were more like a romance than the whole season 5 so far. Maybe I wouldn't be against McKeller if the writing were better. Because generally I like relationships between main characters (Farscape and JAG fan here).

An example which really worked for me was the Ronon/Keller scene in Quarantine. Sparkling.

Since SGA is a series which doesn't need romance necessarily I really wish the writers would stop trying to write such stuff. :(

VSS
November 23rd, 2008, 07:42 AM
As a diehard S/J shipper, I have to think they were just trying to introduce something into SGA that people wanted to see. They're just not very good at it, and frankly, it's not easy to do.

The problem being that all shows, all story lines, revolve around tension and conflict. If everything is just great all the time, there's nothing to say. That's Fiction Writing 101.

So every romance is inevitably doomed unless they do drag it out for literally years. Unless you have a handy plot device like military regulations, what are you going to come up with? Adama and Roslin works because they had the same conflict of interest on a lesser scale than O'Neill and Carter. It's believable for a scifi show (or any show) for the President to not literally be in bed with the Commander of the military. And it's also part of the story, which is critical.

But what are they going to come up with on Atlantis? Where's the conflict? The fact that there isn't any means they have to make one up and that's where you get in to soap opera territory. These men are not romance writers and this is not Grey's Anatomy, thank God. So I really believe that people who like seeing McKay and Keller together ought to be glad that the series is over, or surely TPTB would be forced to write some kind of problem in to the story just to keep it interesting.

I mean, even in Firefly, the only happily married couple ends up with one dead. That's the usual solution when people are happy- I mean I watched this week's NCIS and now I wonder if it's Tony or Ziva who's going to get killed in a year or so!

So I'd say that while romance is important to any series that involves actual human people, it's darn hard to write it. Especially season after season of the same characters. They had the whole Carter and O'Neill thing handed to them with a ribbon on top and really, I can't think of another similar situation in any TV series, not that I keep up with it. TPTB would never, ever be able to keep a romance going for ten years under any other circumstances.

huntress
November 23rd, 2008, 07:51 AM
I haven't seen the episode and after reading what you wrote, I sure won't. They kissed. Eugh! Sorry I am not a fan of Keller at all and Keller/McKay is so not my ship : points at banner :

The writers from Stargate suck. Period. They can't handle decent two parters (EVERY two parter from season two on was a disspointment), they have no clue how to write believable character development (the writers from CSI have a better grasp in emotional development and I sure didn't see that coming but anyone who watched the latest season knows what I am talking about - all I say is "For Warrick") and they certainly can't handle romance. Did their mediocre skills ever stop them from trying? Hell no. No need to rant about it now. The show is anyway almost over. If they haven't learned it by now, then they certainly never will. Just take the show as it is and don't try to overanalyze the episodes and characters. It will only frustrate you.

Also for those who say that romance is hard to write: actually it isn't. To write a good comedy is HARD, to write a good character piece that is had. To write a believable romance? Piece of cake for any decent writer.

ToasterOnFire
November 23rd, 2008, 07:55 AM
I was ruminating that maybe the believability of a ship is directly related to the presence of a show bible or a long term vision by TPTB. If TPTB know ship X is going to happen even before the show starts then they can add hints and development over time. Conversely, if TPTB decide on the ship in the beginning of one season and then have it become canon in the middle of said season, well it's probably not going to be all that great.

But then again, Adama/Roslin was not originally part of RDM's plan (IIRC, he was going to leave things with that dance back in Colonial Day and then Olmos went and adlibbed that kiss in Resurrection Ship, heh). So I think it's a combination of vision, TPTB's ability to adapt, actor intent, spending enough but not too much time on the ship, and making sure that the characters aren't only defined by the ship. Adama and Roslin are much more than their ship. McKay has plenty of depth outside of his ship (often to the detriment of everyone else in SGA, but that's another thread). But Keller? I'm not so sure.

VSS
November 23rd, 2008, 08:00 AM
<snip for space>

Also fpr those who say that romance is hard to write: actually it is the easiest thing, the write a good comedy is HARD, to write a good character piece that is had. To write a believable romance? Piece of cake for any decent writer.

Sorry, I have to disagree with your last sentence. If it were easy to write, the writers would have done it! I think the character development was better with SG-1 than SGA, but that might have been intentional for all I know. It's easy to write a year or two of a relationship- but then what? How do you integrate it into a scifi series? I agree comedy is hard but for completely different reasons.

And CSI is no better than anyone else at this, as the plethora of long-running love affairs on those shows will surely attest.;)

VSS
November 23rd, 2008, 08:03 AM
I was ruminating that maybe the believability of a ship is directly related to the presence of a show bible or a long term vision by TPTB. If TPTB know ship X is going to happen even before the show starts then they can add hints and development over time. Conversely, if TPTB decide on the ship in the beginning of one season and then have it become canon in the middle of said season, well it's probably not going to be all that great.

But then again, Adama/Roslin was not originally part of RDM's plan (IIRC, he was going to leave things with that dance back in Colonial Day and then Olmos went and adlibbed that kiss in Resurrection Ship, heh). So I think it's a combination of vision, TPTB's ability to adapt, actor intent, spending enough but not too much time on the ship, and making sure that the characters aren't only defined by the ship. Adama and Roslin are much more than their ship. McKay has plenty of depth outside of his ship (often to the detriment of everyone else in SGA, but that's another thread). But Keller? I'm not so sure.

I agree with you on that. It's vision, pure luck and chemistry between the actors. I have not seen enough of McKay and Keller to comment on the last part. I kind of think Keller was brought on to be someone's romantic interest simply because she doesn't seem to fit the part she's supposed to play, so maybe she fails your test of having another purpose.

huntress
November 23rd, 2008, 08:11 AM
I totally agree with you ToasteronFire and you are so right!

In the case of Laura and Bill it was perfect because it was believable and it took a long, long time. In the mini series Bill couldn't stand Laura and saw in her only some school teacher who wants to make his life difficult, in season one they start to respect each other, rather grudgingly. Laura saw that there is more in Bill then just this military guy and Bill saw that Laura was quite feisty and not just the little school teacher he thought of. Then the whole thing blew apart with the Putsch in which Laura was put behind bars by Bill and Bill seeing the light at the end and admitting that he was wrong. From the two parter "Home" on a real friendship blossomed and became more and more and in the middle of season 4 (!) they have come to the point to admit that they love each other. Talk about a slow and steady development. That is the reason why the ship is so well loved - both by fans and the writers. It has substance.

In the case of Keller and McKay? Keller is a new. rather two dimensional character that had very little screen time and even in that limited screen time couldn't make an impression. The relationship was thrown at us out of nowhere in this season and now in the middle we are supposed to believe that they are a couple. It is cheap, hasty and unbelievable.

VSS
November 23rd, 2008, 08:15 AM
I think that after all the whining over Daniel/Vala and Sam/Jack they figured they'd better do something. They just didn't think it through.

Oh, and Weir left the show. Otherwise, it would have been Weir/Sheppard.

talyn2k1
November 23rd, 2008, 08:34 AM
the problem with a mckay / keller relationship is that Rodney's social skills really suck; it is unrealistic to assume that keller would fall for him at all but I guess the romance was written to woo all the nerds watching

I wouldn't say Rodney's lack of social skills completely remove the chance of a woman like Keller being interested in him. My social skills are limited at best, yet by some minor miracle I managed to find a woman who I have been with for 5 years and married 3 months ago. How a socially-inept individual such as myself ever got a girl just boggles the mind...apparently.


What they needed to do was show scenes with McKay and Keller hanging out together and slowly getting to know one another. Unfortunately this was never going to happen as Stargate Atlantis rarely shows how characters interact when not on duty.

I would've liked this, even if it had just been the odd mention of them spending time together. Only problem is, if they had done this, then all the Keller/McKeller/ship/Atlantis/everything haters would've been complaining that they were forcing the romance down our throats/turning Atlantis into Dawson's Creek etc etc etc.


It's a shame really, they were doing so well up until the "I love you, have done for some time now" moment. Good episode though, better than I think a lot of people expected.

I felt that this was a little forced, up until reading this forum and being reminded that Rodney said he loved her in 'The Shrine', which makes it feel less strange and a little more natural.


The problem with all Stargate ships is they just pop up. A good ship takes seasons of subtle development.

A good point. I would've liked a little more development leading up to this. They could've either started the inklings of the relationship last season, or waited until next season to move things along (bear in the mind that when they filmed this episode, I don't think they'd heard the cancellation news yet. I could be wrong on this though.)

I've got no problem with ship in Stargate, I just don't want it to be heavily featured as that isn't the reason I watch Stargate or Sci-Fi in general. You can (and should) have the occasional episode where one or both is placed in mortal danger and the other goes to extreme (preferrably morally questionable) extremes to save them. Ship is good as a plot device, but when used wrong it just feels like filler.

I like how Ronon is just a little bit annoyed about losing out to Rodney, would love to see some signs of this in the way they interact in the future, which should be interesting considering they weren't the best of friends beforehand.

Southern Red
November 23rd, 2008, 10:37 AM
I think that after all the whining over Daniel/Vala and Sam/Jack they figured they'd better do something. They just didn't think it through.

Oh, and Weir left the show. Otherwise, it would have been Weir/Sheppard.

There are a lot of angry Shep/Teyla fans right now that would strongly disagree with you. Which just goes to prove that ship is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, and I think that was intentional on this show. Ultimately, the decision to jerk everybody around for 5 years only ended up alienating all the shippers.

On the subject of ship being done well over a period of time, I think it could be. This has been discussed at length at least by my shipper group and hundreds of fanfics have shown how it could be done in dozens of ways. I'm sure the other shippers have similar scenarios. Sheridan/Delenn on Babylon 5 is an excellent example of how that would work. It doesn't have to become a soap opera and no one has to die. A long term stable mature relationship can be shown on screen without breaking up or killing off one of the pair.

These writers failed because they didn't pick a ship and stick with it.

DragonLadyK
November 23rd, 2008, 10:49 AM
But if that's the case then, PTB, please don't throw out an episode that circulates almost entirely on the notion that two characters are deeply in love with each other for reasons that are only fathomable to viewers in possession of McKeller-tinted shippy glasses.

Mental green. I don't have McKeller-shippy glasses (and I have Keller-is-a-Mary-Sue-so-stop-schilling-the-Wesley-and-light-her-on-fire-glasses), so this ep just made me hate the ship and Keller a little bit more. It also made me feel sorry for McKay, just like the Sam/Jack scenes just make me both feel for AT, hate Sam a little more, and hate the ship.

Before writing romance, TPTB should have sat down and watched Delenn/Sheridan from Babylon 5. Then they should have copied that -- first the worked together, then they became friends, then they fell in love, and then they dated, and then they got married over the course of three seasons. It was so logically-written that the audience (with rare exception) saw the romance coming before the characters really did.

This stop-and-start sudden "I love you" stuff just makes all characters involved look bad.

DragonLady

Briangate78
November 23rd, 2008, 11:31 AM
The writers can write good creative eps, Remnants being a recent example. Romance though should not be touched in Stargate. Just the idea of two people shipping, but don't actually go through with it. Sam and Jack, anyone?

BTW, aren't you glad these same writers are going to be writing a lot of Romance and shipping in SGU.

I don't know about you, but I would rather them just do another season of Atlantis and maybe Mckeller could go away. But now you are all going to get Mckeller type romance 1000 fold in SGU! Enjoy!

VSS
November 23rd, 2008, 11:55 AM
There are a lot of angry Shep/Teyla fans right now that would strongly disagree with you. Which just goes to prove that ship is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, and I think that was intentional on this show. Ultimately, the decision to jerk everybody around for 5 years only ended up alienating all the shippers.

On the subject of ship being done well over a period of time, I think it could be. This has been discussed at length at least by my shipper group and hundreds of fanfics have shown how it could be done in dozens of ways. I'm sure the other shippers have similar scenarios. Sheridan/Delenn on Babylon 5 is an excellent example of how that would work. It doesn't have to become a soap opera and no one has to die. A long term stable mature relationship can be shown on screen without breaking up or killing off one of the pair.

These writers failed because they didn't pick a ship and stick with it.

You might be right about Shep and Teyla, especially given the last couple of seasons. And I totally agree about the part in bold. I had not thought of that, but why develop a totally new romantic relationship when there are already characters that fans have already picked up on for whatever reason? I don't really get it, either. Would it have been so terribly tragic for The Leading Man to fall for someone? I have to say, that's what the formula is, you know. Not just with Stargate, but everywhere. It's almost a joke, it's so predictable.

The only way Shep didn't fit this mold is that he doesn't have a Deep Dark Secret that's left him Tragically Lonely and Emotionally Scarred for the rest of his life. (A previous bad marriage isn't enough- she'd have to have died for it to qualify as a Deep Dark Secret). I think they just didn't want to go there with John because it would be too much work. No, it doesn't have to be a soap opera and no one has to die. My point is, that's the easy way out and it's what almost everyone does. A good romance is hard to write.

CazzBlade
November 23rd, 2008, 12:10 PM
The only way Shep didn't fit this mold is that he doesn't have a Deep Dark Secret that's left him Tragically Lonely and Emotionally Scarred for the rest of his life. (A previous bad marriage isn't enough- she'd have to have died for it to qualify as a Deep Dark Secret). I think they just didn't want to go there with John because it would be too much work. No, it doesn't have to be a soap opera and no one has to die. My point is, that's the easy way out and it's what almost everyone does. A good romance is hard to write.

Actually according to JM John does...
spoiler for if they ever actually get around to putting it in the show but that would constitute character development for the leading man so that will never happen :rolleyes:
There's supposed to be an issue with the death of his mum and that why he tortures himself

VSS
November 23rd, 2008, 12:43 PM
Actually according to JM John does...
spoiler for if they ever actually get around to putting it in the show but that would constitute character development for the leading man so that will never happen :rolleyes:
There's supposed to be an issue with the death of his mum and that why he tortures himself

So he fits the Tragic Leading Man role after all!;)

I'd heard about that, that's from JM's blog, right? See, that's the kind of thing that should have been there from day one. I'm no TV writer but it seems to me that critical details like that belong in a well-developed backstory that the characters have going in to the pilot of the series. Not five seasons in to it. Never mind romances, it's be easier to write any character development if they knew something about the characters, like ToasterOnFire mentioned already.

SoulReaver
November 23rd, 2008, 05:06 PM
Even mexican soap-operas have better ships than stargatebollox. nothing beats the O'Neil

Mister Oragahn
November 23rd, 2008, 08:32 PM
Firstly, I squeeeed. Yes, I'll admit it. I am a huge McKeller shipper and damn proud of it. I love that they're together. I love that they've kissed in this time line multiple times. I love that they love each other.

So what's the point of this thread? That would be what I don't love. I don't love how it came about and how it was written.
[...]

If it's not within the parameters of the show to develop a plausible romance, then I'd rather not see some unexplainable (by the show) romance. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The mouth that's trying to be objective anyway. :D

As much as shippers repel me, there's a point that if you're going to depict a believable romance -and there's nothing wrong in having some- it should be done properly. Now I don't know about the 'pisode, I haven't seen it yet, but it's a rule of thumb thing there.

Now, I thought that the show, which pretty much lost for its crappyness early in season 2, doesn't even manage to please the lemmings/shippers/whumpers, frak me! It's has come very low then.

Pandora's_Box
November 24th, 2008, 08:40 AM
But Keller? I'm not so sure.

There are plenty of people who would disagree with you. Many people think she's gotten too much screen time and too much development to the detriment of the rest of the characters.

And while I don't agree with that particular sentiment, I don't think I agree with yours entirely either. I think episodes like Missing and then Tracker were consciously written to as to develop her character independent of any shippyness. Even Trio demonstrated, to a degree, her ability to hold it together in a crisis and her resourcefulness.

So I don't think her only moments of character development have been defined by her "romances", although considering the fact that in season 5 most of her story lines have included this dreaded triangle concept, I fear that TPTB are indeed only using her for that now.



These writers failed because they didn't pick a ship and stick with it.

I think the major reason for that was that TPTB never intended for their to be a canon relationship on the show....ever. I think, at one point, they even said as much. Then something changed...



Now, I thought that the show, which pretty much lost for its crappyness early in season 2, doesn't even manage to please the lemmings/shippers/whumpers, frak me! It's has come very low then.

I don't watch the show for the shippyness. I watch it because it's sci-fi and there are actually some pretty well-written episodes. I think aside from the botched attempt at a romance, TPTB are actually doing a bang up job on season 5.

adamisme
November 24th, 2008, 09:09 AM
I think the romance was pretty out of the blue, there were nice touches, but slightly ruined by the I love you bit at the end, I don't have experience with relationships really, but I do know even if you went out with someone on a 1st date and realised that you really liked this person, you wouldn't say I love you on the 1st date, that would freak someone really out

prion
November 24th, 2008, 11:08 AM
Not only did we have poorly constructed triangle (and with 3 sides, how hard can it really be?), and a poorly written one at that, but I've been left sort of wondering if I'd missed some vital scenes from Search and Rescue onwards. Rodney declaring his love for Jennifer on his presumed deathbed, as touching as it was, seemed oddly rushed considering his only other touching interaction with her was demonstrating concern in The Seed. Now Jennifer loves him too? Why? Because he said it first?

I'm lost. This was their first date.....and they love each other. Granted a lot has happened to them since they've met and it could be enough to develop very strong feelings, but if that's the case then.....where are the scenes that demonstrate this?

I get it and I've said it myself. SGA is not a romantic drama. It's a science fiction show. The spaceships and the aliens have to come first. But if that's the case then, PTB, please don't throw out an episode that circulates almost entirely on the notion that two characters are deeply in love with each other for reasons that are only fathomable to viewers in possession of McKeller-tinted shippy glasses.

If it's not within the parameters of the show to develop a plausible romance, then I'd rather not see some unexplainable (by the show) romance. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The mouth that's trying to be objective anyway. :D

I think that SG1 has proven that the writers on the show(s) are incapable of constructing a realistic romance. The Sam/Jack thing just ain't gonna happen. fans waiting for an on-screen consummation of any sort (besides AU stuff) will turn gray before that happens ;)

I don't think this was written to placate 'McKellar' fans anymore than it was a piece of fanfic written by a writer on the show. A "Marty Sue", to be precise ;)

Trouble is, well.... you pretty much laid it all out!

VSS
November 24th, 2008, 11:38 AM
I think that SG1 has proven that the writers on the show(s) are incapable of constructing a realistic romance. The Sam/Jack thing just ain't gonna happen. fans waiting for an on-screen consummation of any sort (besides AU stuff) will turn gray before that happens ;)

I don't think this was written to placate 'McKellar' fans anymore than it was a piece of fanfic written by a writer on the show. A "Marty Sue", to be precise ;)

Trouble is, well.... you pretty much laid it all out!

Bet a case of jello made with beer that you're wrong.;)

ponycake
November 24th, 2008, 11:58 AM
I find that vaguely depressing that a McKeller shipper brings that up - the introduction of this ship has polarised fandom completely so if even McKeller shippers in question are unhappy with the execution it just reaffirms that I wish they hadn't touched this. Not until they get someone on the writing staff who can actually pull this kind of thing off at any event. Sub-text is the shippers and geners friend.

jelgate
November 24th, 2008, 01:27 PM
Bet a case of jello made with beer that you're wrong.;)

I'll take that bet

FallenAngelII
November 24th, 2008, 02:46 PM
Romance? What romance. People will think I'm biased but insofar, this so-called romance hasn't been any more romantic than Rodney's interaction with John. In fact, it's been much less so.

In fact, for two people who have supposedly loved each other for a very long time, they have almost no chemistry and tender moments. This was just two people going out together, getting into a life-and-death situation and then some random kissing (and hints of air plane sex, which I found very inappropriate).

Because, really, let's try to name all of the McKeller moments insofar that have been blatantly romantic in nature and that can't be viewed as simple friendship. We'll be able to count them on one hand.

Heck, the entire episode hand a B story of a McKeller date and what happened in the episode that was romantic, really? Almost nothing. They talked just like friends do, they held hands once and then kissed. There were no tender moments besides that.

"I love you" my tuchas.

VSS
November 24th, 2008, 04:27 PM
I'll take that bet

You're on.

sparky123456789
November 25th, 2008, 04:51 AM
I liked the episode in alot of ways. I even liked the ship which had been slowly developing between the 2. (disappearing botanists and "why cares" aside). keller winding him up at the start and on the plane, and "just sign it" moments etc. all funny, if a bit out of place in the SG world. Mckay saving her (faulty first aid aside), despite being told he was smarter and that his help was needed, sacrificing the glory all good points.

where i began to lose my cool was "i love you", a bit much for me....but my trust in the writers still remained, although "i have for some time" kind of put me off. lol

The kiss was fine too. Had they ended like this id have been a happy camper.

The plane was what really annoyed me. As has been pointed out SG and ships are all about the subtlty and teasing the fans. Sam and jack are perfect examples. Alot of their relationship was actually built up in alternate timelines and universes, but we still got "i care about her, alot more than im supposed to"....and Sam crying when they cant find him in paradise lost.

The last scene couldve and shouldve been done alot better to keep in line with the SG spirit. Im not trying to diss sex in sci fi or whatever. Vala is hillarious, the innuendo always funny. And unending was another example where the sex/love wasnt over done.

I just feel that keller was way too obvious. What the scene needed if they really wanted to imply sex, was a simple Moeibus (sam and jack in the jumper) moment, where they kiss long and hard and thats it....leaving it to our imaginations.

ps. unrelated to the ship. Where was sam in the ep??

NoobTau'ri
December 2nd, 2008, 05:40 AM
As much as shippers repel me

You know, we finally found some common ground. Shippers/whumpers/thunkers are <mod snip> of the sci-fi genre. I don't understand why anyone would watch a science-fiction show only for the interpersonal relationships and drama. If that's all you care about, then why don't you go watch a good ol' Mexican soap opera or "Fried Green Tomatoes"? Then there's the fact that these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers call us nerds for wanting to discuss the technological aspects of space exploration and what the futre holds in promisse. Yeah, because caring about science is so ****ing wrong in a science-fiction show. Then, there's the fact that 99% of these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers are female. Let me tell you that not even 1% of the members of this board would be female if they eliminated the characters&relationship boards. Then there's the morally reproachable fact that "thunk" threads are abut a bunch of <mod snip> talking about much it turns them on to see men getting beat to a bloody pulp. Would a thred started by a male fan talking about how hot it is to see women getting beaten tolarated? Of course not. The thread would be deleted and the perpetrator would be ether banned or suspende for weeks. Double-standard anyone?

Pandora's_Box
December 2nd, 2008, 05:56 AM
You know, we finally found some common ground. Shippers/whumpers/thunkers are the <mod snip> of the sci-fi genre. I don't understand why anyone would watch a science-fiction show only for the interpersonal relationships and drama.

And because you don't understand it, it's crazy and unacceptable? That's fascinating logic right there.



If that's all you care about, then why don't you go watch a good ol' Mexican soap opera or "Fried Green Tomatoes"? Then there's the fact that these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers call us nerds for wanting to discuss the technological aspects of space exploration and what the futre holds in promisse. Yeah, because caring about science is so ****ing wrong in a science-fiction show.

I'm sure you mean the "science" in science-fiction shows.

Why don't you just go watch the Discovery Channel, then? I'm sure the science there is much more accurate and they even have shows that tell you about developments, innovations, and technological advances!

Oh wait...you mean you like science-fiction as a genre and that's why you watch it?

Well, what a coincidence, so do I!



Then, there's the fact that 99% of these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers are female. Let me tell you that not even 1% of the members of this board would be female if they eliminated the characters&relationship boards.

And this is important because....



Then there's the morally reproachable fact that "thunk" threads are abut a bunch of <mod snip> talking about much it turns them on to see men getting beat to a bloody pulp. Would a thred started by a male fan talking about how hot it is to see women getting beaten tolarated? Of course not. The thread would be deleted and the perpetrator would be ether banned or suspende for weeks. Double-standard anyone?

Try it out. Let me know how it goes. Although I do believe there's already a Teyla Whump thread so you may be behind the times a bit.

Shpinxinator
December 2nd, 2008, 06:01 AM
[QUOTE=NoobTau'ri;9329537] You know, we finally found some common ground. Shippers/whumpers/thunkers are <mod snip> of the sci-fi genre. I don't understand why anyone would watch a science-fiction show only for the interpersonal relationships and drama. If that's all you care about, then why don't you go watch a good ol' Mexican soap opera or "Fried Green Tomatoes"? Then there's the fact that these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers call us nerds for wanting to discuss the technological aspects of space exploration and what the futre holds in promisse. Yeah, because caring about science is so ****ing wrong in a science-fiction show. Then, there's the fact that 99% of these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers are female. Let me tell you that not even 1% of the members of this board would be female if they eliminated the characters&relationship boards. Then there's the morally reproachable fact that "thunk" threads are abut a bunch of <mod snip> talking about much it turns them on to see men getting beat to a bloody pulp. Would a thred started by a male fan talking about how hot it is to see women getting beaten tolarated? Of course not. The thread would be deleted and the perpetrator would be ether banned or suspende for weeks. Double-standard anyone?


*clears throat*


Oh for pete's sake!

A show filled with nothing but technobable is as boring as watching a meeting of the senate! Yes it's important and interesting is some respects but come now! Stargate has ALWAYS been about the characters....ALWAYS.

So chill out el duderino and stop worrying about a double standard.

VSS
December 2nd, 2008, 07:18 AM
You know, we finally found some common ground. Shippers/whumpers/thunkers are <mod snip> of the sci-fi genre. I don't understand why anyone would watch a science-fiction show only for the interpersonal relationships and drama. If that's all you care about, then why don't you go watch a good ol' Mexican soap opera or "Fried Green Tomatoes"? Then there's the fact that these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers call us nerds for wanting to discuss the technological aspects of space exploration and what the futre holds in promisse. Yeah, because caring about science is so ****ing wrong in a science-fiction show. Then, there's the fact that 99% of these whumpers/thunkers/shippers/losers are female. Let me tell you that not even 1% of the members of this board would be female if they eliminated the characters&relationship boards. Then there's the morally reproachable fact that "thunk" threads are abut a bunch of <mod snip> talking about much it turns them on to see men getting beat to a bloody pulp. Would a thred started by a male fan talking about how hot it is to see women getting beaten tolarated? Of course not. The thread would be deleted and the perpetrator would be ether banned or suspende for weeks. Double-standard anyone?

Like a famous shipper once said: "You have issues."

I quite frankly don't know where to start. First of all, it's truly a joke to think that Stargate is really science fiction. It used to be, but I'd be more inclined to call it a adventure/fantasy show now. But, hey, I'm just one of those irrelevant female sci fi fans, what do I know? :rolleyes: Stargate, especially SGA devolved into a spaceships and aliens kind of show and that's where it lost me. Sure, we used have great episodes with all kinds of interesting scientific twists and moral dilemmas, but where is that now?

Furthermore, all of the best science fiction isn't just comprised of CGI and tech, as you would suggest. It's just a way to play out societal beliefs and personal traits to their most extreme conclusion (points to location, upper right). That's what great scifi is. Like it or not, it involves PEOPLE, not things. The things provide the interesting backdrop against which the human drama unfolds.

Also, the statistics show that around 35-40% of scifi fans are female, not 1%. Clearly, that's enough to make or break a franchise. And, despite your assertions to the contrary, not all of women are shippers and not all shippers are male, but I guess you must have missed the day they taught Venn diagrams in school.

There are Sam thunk and whump threads. There's a lot of Sam whump fanfic out there, too, not to mention the very extreme S & M situations the poor woman manages to get herself into in the fanfic world! I've never heard anyone try to make a claim that it's sexist, and a lot (if not most) of it is written by women. If there seems to be a preponderance of thunking and whumping over the male characters, keep in mind that part of it is due to the simple fact that most of the characters are male. But, oh, I forgot, that's that little sticky thing called statistics again. Well, don't bother your pretty little head about it, just run along now, there are still plenty of cool little toys for you to play with.

Skydiver
December 2nd, 2008, 09:34 AM
I would say, what makes people loyal to a show? it's not the stellar science week after week. It's not checking out 'space battle of the week'.

Can that be interesting? sure.

But what draws people back each week to watch a show and what engenders the loyalty to the show? the characters and the interactions between them.

People didn't tune in to see what planet showed up on Stargate, they wanted to see how the TEAM handled their adventures on this new planet. Because, while the science may be interesting, a person's imagination is fired by the characters and seeing what they get up to.

People don't travel thousands of miles to check out a showing of CGI at a convention, they travel to see the actors that bring the characters they like so much to life.

Skydiver
December 2nd, 2008, 09:35 AM
Now, AS A MOD

Make your points, but do it WITHOUT calling other forum members names. You personally may not like a group, but that does not mean that they suck, it just means that you don't like them.

bluealien
December 2nd, 2008, 09:51 AM
I would say, what makes people loyal to a show? it's not the stellar science week after week. It's not checking out 'space battle of the week'.

Can that be interesting? sure.

But what draws people back each week to watch a show and what engenders the loyalty to the show? the characters and the interactions between them.

People didn't tune in to see what planet showed up on Stargate, they wanted to see how the TEAM handled their adventures on this new planet. Because, while the science may be interesting, a person's imagination is fired by the characters and seeing what they get up to.

People don't travel thousands of miles to check out a showing of CGI at a convention, they travel to see the actors that bring the characters they like so much to life.

I totally agree...

Briangate78
December 2nd, 2008, 10:05 AM
I would say, what makes people loyal to a show? it's not the stellar science week after week. It's not checking out 'space battle of the week'.

Can that be interesting? sure.

But what draws people back each week to watch a show and what engenders the loyalty to the show? the characters and the interactions between them.

People didn't tune in to see what planet showed up on Stargate, they wanted to see how the TEAM handled their adventures on this new planet. Because, while the science may be interesting, a person's imagination is fired by the characters and seeing what they get up to.

People don't travel thousands of miles to check out a showing of CGI at a convention, they travel to see the actors that bring the characters they like so much to life.

These characters have grown on me, and have become very dynamic imo. I tune in every week to see what these characters will go through and how they interact with eachother.

silvercomet
December 2nd, 2008, 10:46 AM
I would say, what makes people loyal to a show? it's not the stellar science week after week. It's not checking out 'space battle of the week'.

Can that be interesting? sure.

But what draws people back each week to watch a show and what engenders the loyalty to the show? the characters and the interactions between them.

People didn't tune in to see what planet showed up on Stargate, they wanted to see how the TEAM handled their adventures on this new planet. Because, while the science may be interesting, a person's imagination is fired by the characters and seeing what they get up to.

People don't travel thousands of miles to check out a showing of CGI at a convention, they travel to see the actors that bring the characters they like so much to life.

You name exactly all the reasons why I watch a show. If I don't like the characters or the actors, I won't watch it, even when there's a good story. The reasons that SGA is a special show for me are the great and likable characters. And this is also the reason why I'm so disappointed when a character oder the chemistry between the characters doesn't work for me. Like this romance-thing.

VSS
December 2nd, 2008, 11:36 AM
You name exactly all the reasons why I watch a show. If I don't like the characters or the actors, I won't watch it, even when there's a good story. The reasons that SGA is a special show for me are the great and likable characters. And this is also the reason why I'm so disappointed when a character oder the chemistry between the characters doesn't work for me. Like this romance-thing.

I have a question for you, then. Do you think it would have been better for the writers to have watched how the various characters interacted with each other, to see if there was some kind of chemistry there, before writing in a romance? Perhaps Keller wasn't around long enough for that, but I wonder if that would have worked. That's what they claimed they did for Sam and Jack but I never really believed it. I think chemistry is just luck, and the writers write in romances and hope for the best.

silvercomet
December 2nd, 2008, 12:39 PM
I have a question for you, then. Do you think it would have been better for the writers to have watched how the various characters interacted with each other, to see if there was some kind of chemistry there, before writing in a romance? Perhaps Keller wasn't around long enough for that, but I wonder if that would have worked. That's what they claimed they did for Sam and Jack but I never really believed it. I think chemistry is just luck, and the writers write in romances and hope for the best.

Yes, I also believe one can't just write 'chemistry'. It's there or it isn't. It's sometimes an important point when TPTB cast actors. And they decline actors when there isn't any chemistry. Well, if they have already something special in their minds, anyway.

I would say Keller was around long enough. TPTB have known the actress since season 3 (not as Keller)/since season 4 as Keller. So I would say they know how good Keller interact with the other characters.

The problem is, everybody has a different point of view. For me currently there isn't a great chemistry between McKay and Keller. It was different in 'The Last Man' or when they just had a friendship. But there are also people who think they have a great chemistry together.

Thinking of 'The Last Man': maybe it's about the writing, too. I'm not sure whether it was the writing or the fact that it was just an AU and I didn't need to bother about it. But now I definitely can't stand the way this romance is written.

ponycake
December 2nd, 2008, 12:50 PM
Maybe the Last Man is the way to go for the writing department: Romantic Montage!

Closed mouth snog, cut to them walking down a street holding hands, cut to Keller wearing too much pale foundation and dying about the place, cut to Woeisme!Rodney, cut to a fade to black.

If the writers aren't actually given time to spell things out, and you know, ruin everything, maybe that formula should be the way to go. The less dialogue and meaningful interaction the less chance they have of frightening small children and animals with their version of what romantic love is.

NoobTau'ri
December 2nd, 2008, 01:00 PM
I have just received a warning for posting my opinion that shippers/thunkers/whumpers are losers. It is my opinion and that won't change. And I think it's funny because I didn't insult any individual person but was generic in my insult, so I didn't break any of the board's rules.

And people do watch shows for the characters, yes, but when it comes to sci-fi shows one of the main motivations is intellectual curiosity about what the future might hold in terms of exploring different planets, galaxies, universes and dimensions and what science will allow us to do, what technologies we will have centuries, millenia from now and what scientific troubles we might encounter as we push further and further in our developmen, etc. My criticism of whumpers/thunkers/shippers, etc is that they only care about the drama of character interaction and who is dating/sleeping with whom etc. They turn Stargate into a Mexican soap opera.

If all you care about is drama, then there are much better venues than a sci-fi show. There are fantastic dramatic series that are all about character interaction, like "Rome", "Band Of Brothers', or going down on the excellency scale, "Desperate Housewives". These series are all about character arches and who is sleeping with who and will please the the croud who really likes this. If you like hardcore intellectual drama, you can't go wrong with good ol' Shakespeare. Go see McBeth for truly profound character development and drama.

The original sci-fi show of our modern era, the classic Star Trek from the late 1960s, was created by a bunch of nerdy boys wanting to explore their nerdy fantasies without reproach. The characters were there to provide a view of how Humans would react in contact with alien civilizatons that are radically different from us, or when confronted with scientific conundrums that defy their concepts of possibilities. There was character interaction and development, yes, but it was subordinated to the larger imperative of what it means to be Human in a strange Universe filled of mystery and wonders. Fantasy for nerdy boys and not for emo girls. If the original Trek were airing today, I'm sure that, instead of fan fic stories about captain Kirk being confronted with some strange alien race possesed of strange powers that wants to destroy the Enteprise and how Kirk managed to outwit them, there would be tons of "slash" fic written by these females "fans" about Kirk and Spoc having anal sex with each other because the fear of the aliens made them bond together. Pathetic.

Pandora's_Box
December 2nd, 2008, 01:10 PM
I have just received a warning for posting my opinion that shippers/thunkers/whumpers are losers. It is my opinion and that won't change. And I think it's funny because I didn't insult any individual person but was generic in my insult, so I didn't break any of the board's rules.


??

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And seriously? Have you read read any science fiction outside of Star Trek or Stargate? You do realize that science fiction has been not only about the exploration of space and tech, but about the exploration of the human psyche and society?

I hope you realise that Spock's struggle to maintain his Vulcan logic while controlling him human emotions was a huge theme in Star Trek. So was the exploration of new worlds and civilisations and the reconciliations of different ways of thought with Earth's customs and morals.

Science fiction is more than explosions and ships, aliens in all colours of the rainbow and sex with a different girl on every planet. If that's all you get out of it, then I feel sorry for you because you're missing out on the best part of science fiction; the characters.

ponycake
December 2nd, 2008, 01:16 PM
I have just received a warning for posting my opinion that shippers/thunkers/whumpers are losers.

<snip>

And people do watch shows for the characters, yes, but when it comes to sci-fi shows one of the main motivations

As you say yourself, you insulted people and called them losers. Whether it's a group or a named individual why do you think that would be okay?

And you've just explained why YOU watch sci-fi, which may in fact be different as to why this person over there and that person over there watches it. You seem to basically be annoyed over the fact that people have different tastes than what you do. Well, that's life.

Crazedwraith
December 2nd, 2008, 01:23 PM
Pandora's Box, I've already greened you for another thread but I'd very much like to for that post as well. Mental Green

VSS
December 2nd, 2008, 02:23 PM
I have just received a warning for posting my opinion that shippers/thunkers/whumpers are losers. It is my opinion and that won't change. And I think it's funny because I didn't insult any individual person but was generic in my insult, so I didn't break any of the board's rules.

And people do watch shows for the characters, yes, but when it comes to sci-fi shows one of the main motivations is intellectual curiosity about what the future might hold in terms of exploring different planets, galaxies, universes and dimensions and what science will allow us to do, what technologies we will have centuries, millenia from now and what scientific troubles we might encounter as we push further and further in our developmen, etc. My criticism of whumpers/thunkers/shippers, etc is that they only care about the drama of character interaction and who is dating/sleeping with whom etc. They turn Stargate into a Mexican soap opera.

If all you care about is drama, then there are much better venues than a sci-fi show. There are fantastic dramatic series that are all about character interaction, like "Rome", "Band Of Brothers', or going down on the excellency scale, "Desperate Housewives". These series are all about character arches and who is sleeping with who and will please the the croud who really likes this. If you like hardcore intellectual drama, you can't go wrong with good ol' Shakespeare. Go see McBeth for truly profound character development and drama.

The original sci-fi show of our modern era, the classic Star Trek from the late 1960s, was created by a bunch of nerdy boys wanting to explore their nerdy fantasies without reproach. The characters were there to provide a view of how Humans would react in contact with alien civilizatons that are radically different from us, or when confronted with scientific conundrums that defy their concepts of possibilities. There was character interaction and development, yes, but it was subordinated to the larger imperative of what it means to be Human in a strange Universe filled of mystery and wonders. Fantasy for nerdy boys and not for emo girls. If the original Trek were airing today, I'm sure that, instead of fan fic stories about captain Kirk being confronted with some strange alien race possesed of strange powers that wants to destroy the Enteprise and how Kirk managed to outwit them, there would be tons of "slash" fic written by these females "fans" about Kirk and Spoc having anal sex with each other because the fear of the aliens made them bond together. Pathetic.

See, the problem is here that you're making sweeping generalizations about categories of fans of which you are not a member. That is against forum rules. Believe me, I know.;)

You have absolutely no idea what whumpers/shippers/thunkers care about, their level of intellectual discourse or interest in scientific things. Because a good proportion of them happen to be scifi fans- in RL they are engineers, doctors, students, writers, and otherwise a lot more highly educated than (I'm speculating- I'm not a member of any other fandom) most people with an interest in straightforward drama. It's not up to you to decide what kind of fans populate this or any other kind of genre. Having an interest in romance and having an interest in science are not mutually exclusive. Read any XKCD lately? How about Ursula K. Le Guin?

Infinite-Possibilities
December 2nd, 2008, 03:34 PM
Then there's the morally reproachable fact that "thunk" threads are abut a bunch of <mod snip> talking about much it turns them on to see men getting beat to a bloody pulp. Would a thred started by a male fan talking about how hot it is to see women getting beaten tolarated? Of course not. The thread would be deleted and the perpetrator would be ether banned or suspende for weeks. Double-standard anyone?

Hmmm. Well. So THAT'S what "Whumping" means. :thoranime07::o

Mitchell82
December 2nd, 2008, 04:19 PM
Firstly, I squeeeed. Yes, I'll admit it. I am a huge McKeller shipper and damn proud of it. I love that they're together. I love that they've kissed in this time line multiple times. I love that they love each other.

So what's the point of this thread? That would be what I don't love. I don't love how it came about and how it was written.

I understand that SGA is not a romantic drama. It's SF. And it's not Farscape-flavoured SF or ever BSG-flavoured SF. It's spaceships and aliens in your head and sucking the life force through your chest. It's explosions and guns and wonky physics. I don't expect outright romance. Subtle hints? Sure, why not? Make things interesting.

But after 10 years of maddeningly subtle romantic hints and nudges on SG-1 and 4 years of it on SGA to suddenly elevate the show into a rousing crescendo of geek love seems......sorely out of place.

If it had been well- handled maybe I wouldn't be posting this. But, in my opinion, it wasn't and here I am.

Not only did we have poorly constructed triangle (and with 3 sides, how hard can it really be?), and a poorly written one at that, but I've been left sort of wondering if I'd missed some vital scenes from Search and Rescue onwards. Rodney declaring his love for Jennifer on his presumed deathbed, as touching as it was, seemed oddly rushed considering his only other touching interaction with her was demonstrating concern in The Seed. Now Jennifer loves him too? Why? Because he said it first?
You must have missed the subtle hints that were there since season 4. They started developing a "crush" for each other in Trio and it slowly grew from there. You could see the caring for each other in every ep since then with the way they looked at each other. It was quite obvious they care for each other and it wasn't so out of the blue like you suggest. I also disagree that the triangle was poorly written. It was just fine IMO.


I'm lost. This was their first date.....and they love each other. Granted a lot has happened to them since they've met and it could be enough to develop very strong feelings, but if that's the case then.....where are the scenes that demonstrate this?
Ok since you asked. There are scenes in Trio, S&R, The Seed, The Shrine, Tracker, First Contact, and Lost Tribe that clearly demonstrate they have feelings for each other. Yes this was their first "date" but theyve had those feelings for a long time for each other.


I get it and I've said it myself. SGA is not a romantic drama. It's a science fiction show. The spaceships and the aliens have to come first. But if that's the case then, PTB, please don't throw out an episode that circulates almost entirely on the notion that two characters are deeply in love with each other for reasons that are only fathomable to viewers in possession of McKeller-tinted shippy glasses.

If it's not within the parameters of the show to develop a plausible romance, then I'd rather not see some unexplainable (by the show) romance. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The mouth that's trying to be objective anyway. :D
I disagree as IMO they wrote it just fine.

ponycake
December 2nd, 2008, 04:41 PM
There are scenes in Trio, S&R, The Seed, The Shrine, Tracker, First Contact, and Lost Tribe that clearly demonstrate they have feelings for each other.

Maybe that's the problem. If the writers had been a bit clearer maybe you wouldn't have part of fandom clutching McKeller to their bosom and the other parts toeing it warily with the toe of their shoe. It wouldn't be so polarising and there wouldn't be such a disconnect between what the writers were intending and what parts of fandom are seeing. If you have a preferential viewing of McKeller you're most likely going to fill in the blanks that the writers left, but if you don't, the writers have left some viewers floundering, imo.

But that's only my opinion. Obviously yours is different. :)

Mitchell82
December 2nd, 2008, 05:28 PM
Maybe that's the problem. If the writers had been a bit clearer maybe you wouldn't have part of fandom clutching McKeller to their bosom and the other parts toeing it warily with the toe of their shoe. It wouldn't be so polarising and there wouldn't be such a disconnect between what the writers were intending and what parts of fandom are seeing. If you have a preferential viewing of McKeller you're most likely going to fill in the blanks that the writers left, but if you don't, the writers have left some viewers floundering, imo.

But that's only my opinion. Obviously yours is different. :)

Fine by me. If we all thought a like this would be a boring place. IMHO the signs were there. They were subtle but they were there none the less and it was quite obvious IMHO that they cared for each other for a long time.

Skydiver
December 2nd, 2008, 05:59 PM
I don't think there's anything that can happen in this fandom that won't be polarizing. Honestly, the SGA fandom is so entrenched in 'my side/your side' that they can't do a single thing that doesn't upset one group or another.

chemistry comes from the actors.

IN MY OPINION

amanda and rick had great chemistry. she's an open person, he's a flirt, she's married so she was safe to flirt with and she grew up with brothers so she gave as good as she got. and there was a great friendship there. And it was a friendship that started to show through the characters.

then it became a friendship that the writers played with. And it gave fans something to have fun with themselves because SG1 used to be full of great character moments. pointed looks, glances, off shot comments (stuff that's cut now because 'character stuff is boring, fans want explosions and effects'), and it fed the imaginations of millions of fans. it gave them emotional meat to sink thier teeth into.

and, by and large, a lot of that came from the acgtors themselves. Quite frequently, rick and amanda would go to the writer and say 'these lines are out of character, we're going to do this'...and because rick was an EP, it'd get changed.

the SGA folks don't have that pull. they gotta do what they're told to do.

Personally? I find that these writers write relationships and romance with all the clarity of a teenage child, whose only experience is what they see on tv/read in books and with little real experience. After seeing how Daniel and Vala was handled, I feel that rick and amanda were right to 'edit' the writers, because they seemed to have a better feel than the writers do

silvercomet
December 2nd, 2008, 10:18 PM
They started developing a "crush" for each other in Trio and it slowly grew from there. You could see the caring for each other in every ep since then with the way they looked at each other. It was quite obvious they care for each other and it wasn't so out of the blue...


There are scenes in Trio, S&R, The Seed, The Shrine, Tracker, First Contact, and Lost Tribe that clearly demonstrate they have feelings for each other. Yes this was their first "date" but theyve had those feelings for a long time for each other.

I didn't see that in 'Trio'. Keller was a little bit interested, yes. But IMO Rodney wasn't. So Rodney's confession in 'The Shrine' came out of the blue for me. And the caring in 'S&R' and 'The Seed' was more something like everybody would care for a friend. Sheppard cared for her in 'The Seed', too. That doesn't mean he is in love with her (well, I hope he isn't ;)).

And then I asked myself, what happened with Ronon? This worked for me in 'Quarantine'. More feelings IMO. From both sides.

fumblesmcstupid
December 2nd, 2008, 10:57 PM
David Hewlett has more chemistry with a box of rocks, than he does with Staite! (IMO)

Mitchell82
December 3rd, 2008, 12:32 PM
I didn't see that in 'Trio'. Keller was a little bit interested, yes. But IMO Rodney wasn't. So Rodney's confession in 'The Shrine' came out of the blue for me. And the caring in 'S&R' and 'The Seed' was more something like everybody would care for a friend. Sheppard cared for her in 'The Seed', too. That doesn't mean he is in love with her (well, I hope he isn't ;)).
Rodney has trouble showing emotion and expressing feelings but IMO it was obvious he was interested. As for the emotion in The Seed he was more concerned than anyone IMO.

ponycake
December 3rd, 2008, 05:38 PM
I think our "IMO's" might be shaded by whether we ship McKeller or whether we are ambivalent or don't like the concept, which is human nature obviously to view things as we want to see them, especially since it is obviously debatable (as seen just on this thread alone) that the writers gave clear direction of what they were intending in order to bring along non-shippers for the ride. Whether it was a case of dropping bread crumbs through a story arc or leaping out with anvils during odd moments your mileage will vary.

IMO, of course. ;)

Skydiver
December 3rd, 2008, 05:50 PM
not everybody's.

I don't have a strong feeling either way about mckeller or keller/ronon. preferences,sure,but it's not 'make it or break it' for me.

all in all, for my tastes, these guys can't write a romance that isn't completely bogged down with cliches. Harlequin romance novels are 'better'

ponycake
December 3rd, 2008, 06:17 PM
Yeah, it was a bit of a gross generalisation and the shoe isn't always going to fit. I also do wonder about how much of being an internet fan colours our perception of the show from being a general audience member - there's not a lot that can hold up to such close scrutiny.

But saying that I agree with you about romance on the show and I think it's a hold over from the fact that their female characters are pretty wafer thin as well. Weir, Teyla, Heightmeyer (sp?), Sam etc seem to be versions of the same archetype of a serene mother figure, there to gently keep the 'boys' in line who are bounding around having fun. And the exception to this are characters like Larrin whose source of fun is her sexuality and it just makes the whole Madonna/Whore hang-up that much more obvious. You’re either there to stand on the sidelines and affectionately roll your eyes at the guys, or you’re there as a good time girl.

IMO it's the actresses that saved the writing to an extent by what they brought to the role as individuals, but if the writers can't put together a multi-faceted character who is female how on earth are they going to put together a romance, which as you've said, could be taken from a crumpled up and thrown away first draft of a harlequin writer?

My perception, may not be others, YMMV etc, etc, etc.

ShadowMaat
December 3rd, 2008, 06:30 PM
As a small point, Skydiver, it might be good to point out that if insulting individual people isn't allowed neither is insulting whole groups of them. In fact, it opens a whole new kettle of kittens when you start painting with the wide brush. And if group insults were allowed, the term "The Idiots In Charge" would not be banned from the forum. :P

However, I was under the impression that this thread was more about the writers, not the fans. Do the writers do a good job of writing romance on the shows? I think not. Admittedly I tend to be anti-ship on a general basis, but when it's handled with MATURITY and MUTUAL RESPECT and when I think there is some honest chemistry between the characters then I have less of an issue with it. The problem is that on Stargate that rarely ever happens. Maturity in particular seems to be missing most of the time- and not just from the shippy parts of the scripts. :rolleyes:

silvercomet
December 4th, 2008, 12:34 AM
Rodney has trouble showing emotion and expressing feelings but IMO it was obvious he was interested.

Yes, he has trouble showing them. But nevertheless in 'Trio' it seemed he wasn't even eager to go for a drink with her. One can be oblivious about other's intentions. But even I would notice when somebody wants to have a drink with me. The reason for that would be another thing. I didn't see much interest. But, as always, these are personal points of view.


Do the writers do a good job of writing romance on the shows? I think not.

I agree. It's not just the McKeller thing. I can't speak much about SG-1. But I haven't seen one romance in SGA which convinced me. The exception was Ronon/Keller in Quarantine. Rodney and Katie? Yes, I saw the development. But the proposal came out of the blue for me. Did the relationship really go that far? Sheppard and the women? Nah. Worse, the writing lately showed him acting like a 5-year-old. I know, sometimes he behaves like one, but please not in such a way ('Did she mention my name? Did she?'). Elizabeth and the man in 'Sunday'? It seemed very artificial for me. Etc.