PDA

View Full Version : What did you guys think of "The Scene"



major davis
October 3rd, 2009, 01:19 PM
Well, that was the first romance scene we've seen in a while in stargate. Personally, I think it was next to unnessecary and overly graphic and the grunting was, well over the top. They didn't actually have to be doing it, it would be the same effect if they were kissing, and then we wouldn't have to put up with the moaning and grunting. So what did you guys think of it.

Coronach
October 3rd, 2009, 01:21 PM
It didn't bother me at all, considering how it was shot and the length of the actual clip itself. Not much else I can really say about it, to be honest. I like the character of Scott.

Egle01
October 3rd, 2009, 01:25 PM
It's a scene I can live with. Not impressed, not bothered.

EvilSpaceAlien
October 3rd, 2009, 01:46 PM
I'm not bothered by it.

Azriel
October 3rd, 2009, 01:57 PM
Not too fussed, I would even say it's realistic so long as it doesn't become a case of 'sex scene of the week'.

Coronach
October 3rd, 2009, 02:00 PM
Not too fussed, I would even say it's realistic so long as it doesn't become a case of 'sex scene of the week'.

I agree, though I doubt very highly that SGU would ever become such a thing. To be honest, though, I actually felt the scene was not unnecessary. It added something to his character which was hinted at in his later scene with James, as well as through subtleties throughout the episode.

I'm interested to see where Scott's character goes from here :)

dosed150
October 3rd, 2009, 02:02 PM
didn't bother me at all really, the over reaction is like how people made out sheppard was some kind of slut, but over 5 years i mean there weren't really that many women

Detox
October 3rd, 2009, 02:02 PM
It's something everyone does. Seriously, why is everyone so uptight about a sex scene? And not even a graphic one at that. Their shirts weren't even off!

And don't even get me started about the "family-ness" of it.

Really? You would let your children see a man get the life sucked out of him by a wraith... but god forbid if they see how they were pro-created.

Madwelshboy
October 3rd, 2009, 02:04 PM
Did bother me, one bit. I wouldnt call it overly graphic, i've seen alot worse on TV over the years.

Azriel
October 3rd, 2009, 02:07 PM
I agree, though I doubt very highly that SGU would ever become such a thing. To be honest, though, I actually felt the scene was not unnecessary. It added something to his character which was hinted at in his later scene with James, as well as through subtleties throughout the episode.

I'm interested to see where Scott's character goes from here :)

Yep, it adds to the concept of the characters being human, flawed and not the pretty stereotypical heroes. Don't get me wrong, I loved the characters of SG-1 and Atlantis, this however is a nice refreshing change. While I think stories can often be executed without a sex scene, I do agree that this one was kinda needed to develop Scott's character more.


didn't bother me at all really, the over reaction is like how people made out sheppard was some kind of slut, but over 5 years i mean there weren't really that many women

Lol, I was actually listening to the audio commentary on the S4 boxset the other day, and I can't remember who but one of the producers commented on how he found it amusing how people seemed fine with the whole Sheppard/ Kirk thing but were really annoyed when it was revealed that Keller was interested in Ronan AND McKay xD

Coronach
October 3rd, 2009, 02:07 PM
It's something everyone does. Seriously, why is everyone so uptight about a sex scene? And not even a graphic one at that. Their shirts weren't even off!

And don't even get me started about the "family-ness" of it.

Really? You would let your children see a man get the life sucked out of him by a wraith... but god forbid if they see how they were pro-created.

And there was much worse than that in SGA. I'm thinking of one quite gory-looking scene in particular that involved Teyla.

I don't get it either, but far be it for me to question other people's reasoning behind it. There is very little that would ever offend me, and sex is certainly not one of them.

dosed150
October 3rd, 2009, 02:11 PM
Yep, it adds to the concept of the characters being human, flawed and not the pretty stereotypical heroes. Don't get me wrong, I loved the characters of SG-1 and Atlantis, this however is a nice refreshing change. While I think stories can often be executed without a sex scene, I do agree that this one was kinda needed to develop Scott's character more.



Lol, I was actually listening to the audio commentary on the S4 boxset the other day, and I can't remember who but one of the producers commented on how he found it amusing how people seemed fine with the whole Sheppard/ Kirk thing but were really annoyed when it was revealed that Keller was interested in Ronan AND McKay xD

thats got to be the most common double standard the whole if a woman acts a certain way shes a slut but if a man does its no problem

actually cant remember her name at all but the woman with scott later i thought i heard her call scott Lieutenant but using the british pronounciation, or do canadians say it properly as well i mean they get z right

Coronach
October 3rd, 2009, 02:15 PM
actually cant remember her name at all but the woman with scott later i thought i heard her call scott Lieutenant but using the british pronounciation, or do canadians say it properly as well i mean they get z right

Vanessa James is her name. :) If I'm thinking of who you're thinking of, lol.

Azriel
October 3rd, 2009, 02:15 PM
She's not British. I think it's only British people who say it like Lef-tenant. I heard it pronounced the American way, if it was Lef it was very subtle.

Madwelshboy
October 3rd, 2009, 02:16 PM
It's something everyone does. Seriously, why is everyone so uptight about a sex scene? And not even a graphic one at that. Their shirts weren't even off!

And don't even get me started about the "family-ness" of it.

Really? You would let your children see a man get the life sucked out of him by a wraith... but god forbid if they see how they were pro-created.


And there was much worse than that in SGA. I'm thinking of one quite gory-looking scene in particular that involved Teyla.

I don't get it either, but far be it for me to question other people's reasoning behind it. There is very little that would ever offend me, and sex is certainly not one of them.

I've never understood the "its family freindly" either. Every time someones say that i look at my boxsets and see a 12 or 15 rating (18 in season one, but we all know why). To me if it was family freindly it would at least be have a PG rating, with maybe one or 12's. I saw a post by Sky in another thread, talking about how the Dr Who franshie has 3 different shows aimed at 3 different markets (kids, family & adult). So why cant there be a Stargate thats not in the same market as before.

Azriel
October 3rd, 2009, 02:18 PM
Vanessa James is her name. :) If I'm thinking of who you're thinking of, lol.

I spent the whole episode trying to remember where she was from, then I remembered she guest starred in Atlantis xD

Mesmer7
October 3rd, 2009, 02:18 PM
I had just read that the team went back to remaster "Children of the Gods". They said they wanted to remove the nude scene because it didn't fit the character of the show. So when I saw this sex scene in SGU, I was a little miffed at the hypocrisy.

neoprometheus
October 3rd, 2009, 02:23 PM
I was a little taken surprised by it, but it wasn't there just for the sake of being there.

The Stargate franchise is responsible for over 300 hours of television. this scene was less than, what, 10 seconds?

I've certainly seen worse. A lot worse.

JackHarkness_Hot
October 3rd, 2009, 03:30 PM
Didn't bother me in the slightest tbh.

Welcome to the 21st Century, lol.

jelgate
October 3rd, 2009, 03:34 PM
It was a scene. Nothing more. Nothing less Didn't really change one bit how I felt about the characters or the episode

Alteran of Atlantis
October 3rd, 2009, 04:03 PM
Well, that was the first romance scene we've seen in a while in stargate. Personally, I think it was next to unnessecary and overly graphic and the grunting was, well over the top. They didn't actually have to be doing it, it would be the same effect if they were kissing, and then we wouldn't have to put up with the moaning and grunting. So what did you guys think of it.

I wasn't bothered that much, the only thing that bothered me was that my dad decided to watch the episode with me for some reason, and he was down there with me when that part came on. I was a little uncomfortable, for obvious reasons, especially since I'm only 15. If they don't make that a wekly thing, I'd be okay with it ocassionally.

Rac80
October 3rd, 2009, 04:19 PM
It was a sex scene not a romantic scene, totally different. It only established that SGU is a soap....on how many soaps are there "sex-in-a-supply-closet" scenes? I remember RDA participating in one back in the 70's when he was on General Hospital. So we have the sex-in-a-supply-closet with over-acting-porno chick and scott, then we had scott and chloe "bonding"----- I guarantee there will be a triangle featuring those three and we will have more sex scenes.......

Azriel
October 3rd, 2009, 04:30 PM
I had just read that the team went back to remaster "Children of the Gods". They said they wanted to remove the nude scene because it didn't fit the character of the show. So when I saw this sex scene in SGU, I was a little miffed at the hypocrisy.

Not really hypocrisy tbh. In the case of Children of the Gods, the scene in question featured full frontal nudity. Whereas this scene 20 or so second sex scene that showed absolutely no nudity (unless you're counting the side of Vanessa James leg as nudity xD). You really cannot compare a simulated act to actual full on nudity and use a word like hypocrisy when they aren't really the same :P Besides, I think it was more about the fact that it wasn't really in line with the kind of show SG1 was.

Orion Antreas
October 3rd, 2009, 04:40 PM
It was a sex scene not a romantic scene, totally different. It only established that SGU is a soap....on how many soaps are there "sex-in-a-supply-closet" scenes? I remember RDA participating in one back in the 70's when he was on General Hospital. So we have the sex-in-a-supply-closet with over-acting-porno chick and scott, then we had scott and chloe "bonding"----- I guarantee there will be a triangle featuring those three and we will have more sex scenes.......

10-15 seconds of a sex scene hardly makes a show a soap. Besides, you mean to tell me that scene isn't realistic? It only portrayed humanity that we are flawed and do inappropriate things at the wrong time. (It was somewhat inappropriate cause he was on duty, I believe.) How can you say she was overreacting? I find that somewhat funny.

------------------------

Overall, the scene neither made me ecstatic nor annoyed me. I will admit however, that it would have bothered me when I was more tense on this stuff when I was a bit younger (15 or so; I'm 18 now.). It was a scene, 10 seconds at most. I moved on continued to be impressed by the rest of the show.

With the comments that it wasn't necessary and had no contribution to the show, that is questionable. No one can say anything till we see more with Scott and James. That scene may have given us an insight of a developing relationship between the two. By developing, I mean a romantic one. (I know a few negative people will say, "YEAH!!!!1 one w/ lotsa SEX!!!!!11 jus sexx and mor sexxx!!!!" No, that's not the case.)

People just need to grow up. I have and know that while I wouldn't want my children (when I have them someday) to watch that scene, it hardly disqualifies SGU from being a series I can show my kids (probably ages 13 or 14 and under). (Ever heard of a remote people? Fast-forward if you don't want your kids to see.)

I don't see it becoming a frequent thing shown in the series.

BRAVO872
October 3rd, 2009, 04:44 PM
I think it was a little nod to the SG1 premiere, that and they are obviously trying to set up as many possible reasons for conflict as they can.

Detox
October 3rd, 2009, 05:16 PM
It was a sex scene not a romantic scene, totally different. It only established that SGU is a soap....on how many soaps are there "sex-in-a-supply-closet" scenes? I remember RDA participating in one back in the 70's when he was on General Hospital. So we have the sex-in-a-supply-closet with over-acting-porno chick and scott, then we had scott and chloe "bonding"----- I guarantee there will be a triangle featuring those three and we will have more sex scenes.......

How does a sex scene establish that a show is a soap? By your logic, Band of Brothers was a full blown soap opera because it had a much more graphic sex scene involving full blown nudity.

Saquist
October 3rd, 2009, 05:35 PM
Well, that was the first romance scene we've seen in a while in stargate. Personally, I think it was next to unnessecary and overly graphic and the grunting was, well over the top. They didn't actually have to be doing it, it would be the same effect if they were kissing, and then we wouldn't have to put up with the moaning and grunting. So what did you guys think of it.

In the words of Commander William T. Riker..."Yes I concur, whole heartedly."

It was completely gratuitous, extended and nothing more than a time filler.
When didn't know anything characters, there was no feeling or emotional impact to the scene.

Good Call Davis, you have good taste.

flipper_gv
October 3rd, 2009, 06:35 PM
Personally, it didn't bother me that much. It just left a bad taste in the mouth. I mean the show has a totally different feel than the 2 others. They are leaving from the humoristic/action/sci fi that made me love stargate. Now it's more serious and this scene quite prove my point. IMO, it wasn't necessary and should have been left out, like someone else said in this thread or another, it would have been much better if it would have been something like intense kissing, no need for actual intercourse.

major davis
October 3rd, 2009, 07:37 PM
In the words of Commander William T. Riker..."Yes I concur, whole heartedly."

It was completely gratuitous, extended and nothing more than a time filler.
When didn't know anything characters, there was no feeling or emotional impact to the scene.

Good Call Davis, you have good taste.

Saquist seems to be a smart intelligent guy, don't you guys think? :p

Ok still, for the fact that they had their shirts on. Come on, they both had their pants off, I think I would have rathered them have their pants on and shirts off. The thing is, I wouldn't have really been bothered by it if they were kissing, even in their underwear, what I didn't like, was the fact that they were moving and grunting and moaning pantless actually doing it. Either way, it wouldn't have mattered, it still would have the same impact. I mean, he would still be on duty if they were kissing. Like do you see my point guys, or am I just repeating myself?

jds1982
October 3rd, 2009, 07:40 PM
I thought it was unnecessary, but what really bothered me was the fact that they shouldn't have had time to do anything like that. They were going 21 ly, in a Deadalus class ship that should take about 4 seconds. Eh, maybe they just put the hyperdrive on slow so geek boy could the training videos.

Confessor Rahl
October 3rd, 2009, 07:47 PM
It did not bother me in principle, but it was done a bit excessively.

MediaSavant
October 3rd, 2009, 07:49 PM
It's something everyone does. Seriously, why is everyone so uptight about a sex scene? And not even a graphic one at that. Their shirts weren't even off!

And don't even get me started about the "family-ness" of it.

Really? You would let your children see a man get the life sucked out of him by a wraith... but god forbid if they see how they were pro-created.

LOL. Good point.

That is what the world says about Americans. They get all uptight about sex but are very comfortable with violence.

It was pretty tame by comparison with other things that have been on TV. I think we haven't even begun to see the full implications of the scene given there were only hints later in the episode.

lordofseas
October 3rd, 2009, 07:50 PM
Wow. Sex. Seeing as this not intented for 8 year olds, I believe it's perfectly fine.

Col.Foley
October 3rd, 2009, 07:52 PM
Of course it was unneccessary. But it was short, and the only scene like it in only one and a half hours...not a big deal to me. Actually though it was a plus given the obvious humor of the situation.....not quite SG humor though but I'll take it:p

It was a sex scene not a romantic scene, totally different. It only established that SGU is a soap....on how many soaps are there "sex-in-a-supply-closet" scenes? I remember RDA participating in one back in the 70's when he was on General Hospital. So we have the sex-in-a-supply-closet with over-acting-porno chick and scott, then we had scott and chloe "bonding"----- I guarantee there will be a triangle featuring those three and we will have more sex scenes.......
...it does?
And you can throw in Eli and have a quaderlateral of death!:eek:

Confessor Rahl
October 3rd, 2009, 07:53 PM
I am not personally upset about the sex scene, but just because it is not a big deal (it is not and the attention surrounding it is ludicrous), does not mean it was necessary. It just was not executed well, nor was it timed well in the context of the narrative. It really was completely pointless.

dasNdanger
October 3rd, 2009, 08:27 PM
I was offended by it. First, it was forced upon me - no warning whatsoever, no chance to let me decide whether or not I wanted to watch it. I'm sitting there with my husband - and BAM! There is was, and I was embarrassed by it (and embarrassed for the actors - personally, I don't peep into my neighbor's windows to watch them have sex, so why would I want to watch these two pretend-going at?).

I felt manipulated, and it nearly made me stop watching. I know the majority of tv viewers love sex in their shows, but I don't...I think it's a private, personal thing that shouldn't be exploited for ratings and mere titillation of the viewers. I don't mind a bit of snogging, I don't mind innuendo - and I'm certainly not a prude (just read my Wraith gushings and you'll know that's true ;) ) - but I do draw the line at watching borderline soft porn. It was too graphic (esp. for younger viewers), tasteless and a very, very cheap move. If such 'shock value' moves continue, I probably will not keep watching the show.

das

Detox
October 3rd, 2009, 08:34 PM
It was too graphic (esp. for younger viewers)

I hate this statement, simply because I hate how adults how this very innocent view of children.

I have been called many insulting and vulgar things by 13 year olds on Halo and other online games. I assure you, most children have already seen their fair share of porn. A little hump scene like that, is absolutely nothing compared to what they've likely have already seen. If they're old enough to watch Stargate, chances are, they're old enough to have seen actual porn.

Children are far less innocent than you seem to believe they are.

dasNdanger
October 3rd, 2009, 08:39 PM
I hate this statement, simply because I hate how adults how this very innocent view of children.

I have been called many insulting and vulgar things by 13 year olds on Halo and other online games. I assure you, most children have already seen their fair share of porn. A little hump scene like that, is absolutely nothing compared to what they've likely have already seen. If they're old enough to watch Stargate, chances are, they're old enough to have seen actual porn.

Children are far less innocent than you seem to believe they are.

I am fully aware of that. But SOME parents, and - believe it or not - some young people - still do not want sex forced down their throats - they want to be able to make the choice about watching it, or not. Yes - many kids watch porn, and are having sex by age ten. But not all, and a primetime show should respect a parent's right to determine whether or not their child should view something that as a married woman with a great sex life, I personally found too graphic for the time slot.



das

Detox
October 3rd, 2009, 08:47 PM
I am fully aware of that. But SOME parents, and - believe it or not - some young people - still do not want sex forced down their throats - they want to be able to make the choice about watching it, or not. Yes - many kids watch porn, and are having sex by age ten. But not all, and a primetime show should respect a parent's right to determine whether or not their child should view something that as a married woman with a great sex life, I personally found too graphic for the time slot.



das
No I realize that, that's why I only highlighted that one statement. I just do not like the misconception that children are saints because honest to god... they are terrible terrible little people in general.

That said, I don't think you can blame the producers per se for forcing it down everyone's throat. If a parent's worried, they should check the ratings, and the rating for the show is exactly what it should be, TV-14, which is usually what's held for shows coming in after 9 or primetime dramas in general, and god knows. Those network shows, are often much much more graphic in their depictions. CSI is the first to pop into mind.

Alteran of Atlantis
October 3rd, 2009, 08:50 PM
I hate this statement, simply because I hate how adults how this very innocent view of children.

I have been called many insulting and vulgar things by 13 year olds on Halo and other online games. I assure you, most children have already seen their fair share of porn. A little hump scene like that, is absolutely nothing compared to what they've likely have already seen. If they're old enough to watch Stargate, chances are, they're old enough to have seen actual porn.

Children are far less innocent than you seem to believe they are.

Being 15 years old, I know that is true. You wouldn't believe some of the rumors and gossip I hear in the hallways of my high school, and I would not dare to repeat them here. I'll admit, the scene did bother me a little, but it's not that big of a deal, I guess. It was only a little short scene, but I'd prefer if they don't get anymore graphic than that.

Amalthea
October 3rd, 2009, 11:08 PM
I agree with das, it was incredibly cheap. I add that it was also pointless. I have no objection to a sex scene in general (I watched Rome, for cryin' out loud); My objection is, as stated in the discussion thread, that is was inappropriate for two officers to be going at it while on duty. It's insulting to the military regulations. People who would be so flippant about the regulations would never have made it into the Stargate program.

The Spanish Guy
October 4th, 2009, 01:32 AM
Certainly i'm not bothered at all with that scene. At least, it added to Scott's character, and wasn't a "free one" like, let's say, the nudity scene of Children of the Gods(the old one).
I've seen worst things on tv, that that "innocent" scene. :p
And i've never thought of Keller as a "slut". Strange, i am really an alien in such things. :D

Miroslav
October 4th, 2009, 05:29 AM
That is cheap copy/paste from Battlestar Galactica.

On the other hand, I wonder why Wright cut out famous <Snipped by Moderator>

ijacen
October 4th, 2009, 06:03 AM
I'm not bothered by this at all, I've seen way worse. ;)

I understand why they put this scene here, it's to show that these characters are in every way human and not your typical hero. They have flaws, they make mistakes. In other words they are not perfect.

While some of you believe that it was completely inappropriate for two military officers to have sex while on duty. I believe it adds depth to the character of Lt.Scott and Vanessa James and how they are both still young and new to the program (Scott mentioning how ICARUS was his first mission after training) compared to established characters like O'Neill and Carter how they were older/wiser and knew more about the consequences.

I also believe that this isn't the last time something like this would happen with Chloe and Lt. Scott getting along, there could be a love triangle that could also affect how Lt. Scott makes his decisions throughout the series

and also
I speculate that TJ and Young might have a pre-existing romantic relationship as hinted by the flashback conversation between TJ and Camille Wray suggesting they had an affair..well that's how I read it

atlantis_babe34
October 4th, 2009, 06:27 AM
i didn't have a problem with it at all, its just sex, everyone does it at some point or another. TPTB, are obviously taking a differnt approch on SGU, the show is more character drivin so i suspect that we are going to see more, i'm okay with that. and i don't beleive that a 10 second sex scene is considered soft porn. I mean i watch Californication and True Blood, not for the sex but for the story lines and i like that characters.

It doesn't offend me at all.

lordofseas
October 4th, 2009, 06:36 AM
That is cheap copy/paste from Battlestar Galactica.

On the other hand, I wonder why <Snipped by Moderator>

1. SG-1 was a family oriented show. A 10 year old could watch it without his parents around and be fine. However, CotG, the original CotG had that single scene which was a lot more lewd than the cover of Playboy. SG-1, as a family oriented show, shouldn't have that.

2. SGU is not a family oriented show. I'm not saying that you can't sit down with your mom, dad, sister, brother, kidlings, and watch it, I'm saying that it's projected towards a younger, but mature audience. Battlestar Galactica wasn't a family show, and therefore, it was far more darker than SG-1. If you're saying that SGU is a copy and paste of it, then I don't know why you're complaining that SGU has sex. After all, BSG has rape.

3. Typing **** with periods in between it doesn't make it less of that word. Some stupid people might think it's an acronym, but even they will figure it out.

12OzMouse
October 4th, 2009, 06:55 AM
I gotta laugh, sorry, but those of you that have a problem with that little snippet, well it's really pretty funny. Plot wise, apparently, and as evidenced later in the show, they were having a, "secret" affair. I think this will play into the story line from here on out. The fact that they didn't just show them kissing in the closet means they are going for a more adult audience, which is something they've been talking about forever. That's the kinda things adults do, yes, even squeaky clean, military types.

In almost every episode of the SG franchise, the main characters routinely snuff out life by one method or another. Normally by filling the enemy full of P-90 projectiles. But, as a society, we think that's just dandy to expose our kids/families to that behavior. I mean hey, those Jaffa warriors had families too! But, throw a little lust into an episode, and somebodies gotta have a problem with it! Whew! Time to get down off the soapbox...

MechaThor
October 4th, 2009, 07:53 AM
Personally I liked it, and have no problem with that kind of material. It was not overly Graphic, there was no real nudity other than thighs, and the "grunting" did not bother me. Its importance sets up Scott's relationship with her as well as showing the mature theme to SGU.

Candy88
October 4th, 2009, 07:54 AM
Studio Executive: "Well BSG had sex scenes, so SG:U must have them too".

It did feel very "stuck in" there. Like some studio executive had walked onto the set one day and said "we need a sex scene to help ratings, do it now" and then by the next day had forgotten all about it.

jelgate
October 4th, 2009, 07:57 AM
Studio Executive: "Well BSG had sex scenes, so SG:U must have them too".

It did feel very "stuck in" there. Like some studio executive had walked onto the set one day and said "we need a sex scene to help ratings, do it now" and then by the next day had forgotten all about it.

Because as you people know BSG was the first the SciFi series to ever feature sex. :rolleyes:

Never mind SG1 and SGA both had their fair share of sex scenes too especially the former.

Pic
October 4th, 2009, 08:06 AM
I gotta laugh, sorry, but those of you that have a problem with that little snippet, well it's really pretty funny. Plot wise, apparently, and as evidenced later in the show, they were having a, "secret" affair. I think this will play into the story line from here on out. The fact that they didn't just show them kissing in the closet means they are going for a more adult audience, which is something they've been talking about forever. That's the kinda things adults do, yes, even squeaky clean, military types.

In almost every episode of the SG franchise, the main characters routinely snuff out life by one method or another. Normally by filling the enemy full of P-90 projectiles. But, as a society, we think that's just dandy to expose our kids/families to that behavior. I mean hey, those Jaffa warriors had families too! But, throw a little lust into an episode, and somebodies gotta have a problem with it! Whew! Time to get down off the soapbox...

I agree with you on this. I was reading this thread thinking how funny the topic is. ;)

Unnecessary? Well, I've been staying spoiler-free so I don't know what future plot-lines are in the works. But I think it served to establish character interactions.
Unprofessional? I think that might be part of the point (and they're not both officers, right? Hence the discreet nature of their activities?).
Human and normal? Um, yes.
Soap opera? I kind of find that humorous, and am not really sure if I mind if it is some sort of soap opera or not. It has always promised to be more "character driven" which means character conflicts. Sex and religion are some of the biggest human conflicts of all time (yes, there are dozens more). To have a character driven show without sexual tension kind of misses the point, IMO.

For those who were offended by it, I'm sorry. The show is rated PG-14 and perhaps you assumed this was for potential violent content (like SG1/SGA) and not for the potential of a short implied sex-scene. Perhaps now that you've seen the pilot, you can make a better informed decision for yourself and whether or not to watch the show. I have a feeling this type of thing will be happening again (although, as I said I stay spoiler-free so I really have no idea - just my opinion).

Colonel Rebel
October 4th, 2009, 09:28 AM
I didn't have a problem with it.

Amalthea
October 4th, 2009, 10:05 AM
I gotta laugh, sorry, but those of you that have a problem with that little snippet, well it's really pretty funny. Plot wise, apparently, and as evidenced later in the show, they were having a, "secret" affair. I think this will play into the story line from here on out. The fact that they didn't just show them kissing in the closet means they are going for a more adult audience, which is something they've been talking about forever. That's the kinda things adults do, yes, even squeaky clean, military types.

In almost every episode of the SG franchise, the main characters routinely snuff out life by one method or another. Normally by filling the enemy full of P-90 projectiles. But, as a society, we think that's just dandy to expose our kids/families to that behavior. I mean hey, those Jaffa warriors had families too! But, throw a little lust into an episode, and somebodies gotta have a problem with it! Whew! Time to get down off the soapbox...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the young lady isn't a main character, ie in the title sequence, nor is she going to be. So what's the point in establishing a "secret affair" with someone who I imagine is going to turn into a "red shirt"? To me, that sex for sex's sake and that's just not good enough. And yes, sex is something adults do, but not on duty! Married couples in the military can't even hold hands and they obey that.

Madwelshboy
October 4th, 2009, 10:28 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the young lady isn't a main character, ie in the title sequence, nor is she going to be. So what's the point in establishing a "secret affair" with someone who I imagine is going to turn into a "red shirt"?

No she's not a main character, but shes part of the extended recurring cast, in the same way Zelenka and Lorne were for SGA for example. If IMDB is to be believed, shes not going anywhere soon.

major davis
October 4th, 2009, 10:49 AM
Being 15 years old, I know that is true. You wouldn't believe some of the rumors and gossip I hear in the hallways of my high school, and I would not dare to repeat them here. I'll admit, the scene did bother me a little, but it's not that big of a deal, I guess. It was only a little short scene, but I'd prefer if they don't get anymore graphic than that.

What bothered me most was the grunting and the fact that we see her virtually pantless(except for the certain area). I mean, I wouldn't have minded it half as much if they didn't show anything from the waist down, even with the grunting.

major davis
October 4th, 2009, 10:54 AM
Oh and here is the thing that bothers me, I just don't want scenes like these to happen every or every other ep, on per 3 eps is like tollerable, but really guys, if this becomes the loveboat in space, I will not be happy with SGU and it will subtract from the awesomeness of SGU in my opinion. :)

Rac80
October 4th, 2009, 10:54 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the young lady isn't a main character, ie in the title sequence, nor is she going to be. So what's the point in establishing a "secret affair" with someone who I imagine is going to turn into a "red shirt"? To me, that sex for sex's sake and that's just not good enough. And yes, sex is something adults do, but not on duty! Married couples in the military can't even hold hands and they obey that.

it's the set-up for the obligatory romantic triangle-- her-scott-chloe...this is a soap for pete's sake...just like bsg was. she is the "Dee" to Scott's "lee" and Chloe's "starbuck"...:rolleyes:

Azriel
October 4th, 2009, 11:23 AM
It does amuse me somewhat that people seem to be quite comfortable with seeing an alien burst from Teyla's stomach, or seeing Michael hold up the head of a Wraith Queen that he just decapitated. But a sex scene is an automatic no? We saw no nudity, yes they didn't have pants on (I keep forgetting that pants over here doesn't mean the same thing i.e. we call pants, trousers) but so what? I refer back to my first point, no nudity. The scene didn't go on for any longer then it needed to. I actually found myself laughing when Colonel Young tells Scott to "put down whatever he is holding".

Maybe I'm not so easily offended, the whole issue of this being inappropriate, I believe that was the point of the scene. Military personnel are human, just like the rest of us, so why portray them any differently? I just think people should really just live with it, if you enjoy the other aspects of the series, just accept it as a minor annoyance - it's not like most series don't have them, it's hardly a reason to stop watching and I really cannot understand why so many are getting deeply offended by relatively minor scene.

major davis
October 4th, 2009, 11:26 AM
azriel.

Your right, this scene is a minor annoyance. However, if the same minor annoyence happens nearly every episode, it will become tiresome. That is my only concern. :(

Azriel
October 4th, 2009, 11:33 AM
azriel.

Your right, this scene is a minor annoyance. However, if the same minor annoyence happens nearly every episode, it will become tiresome. That is my only concern. :(

Of course, I think I mentioned this earlier where I said that I hoped it wouldn't become a case of "sex scene of the week". I do have a lot of faith in the writers though so hopefully it will be rare occurrence, I guess we'll see though.

FallenAngelII
October 4th, 2009, 01:06 PM
100% unnecessary. They kept it going way too long. He kept humping despite being called. And, really, why did we have to have them introduced in a sex scene? A make-out scene would've established the same thing, except being less gratuitous. The scene felt entirely out of place in tone and content with the rest of the episode.

Lahela
October 4th, 2009, 01:10 PM
It didn't bother me in the slightest, nor my family. My kids didn't bat an eyelid. Why? Because humans have sex - that's how we procreate, just like any animal on earth. I would much rather them see a totally non-graphic fully clothed comedic sex scene between two willing partners than ultraviolence, any day of the week.

dasNdanger
October 4th, 2009, 02:35 PM
It does amuse me somewhat that people seem to be quite comfortable with seeing an alien burst from Teyla's stomach, or seeing Michael hold up the head of a Wraith Queen that he just decapitated. But a sex scene is an automatic no? We saw no nudity, yes they didn't have pants on (I keep forgetting that pants over here doesn't mean the same thing i.e. we call pants, trousers) but so what? I refer back to my first point, no nudity. The scene didn't go on for any longer then it needed to. I actually found myself laughing when Colonel Young tells Scott to "put down whatever he is holding".

Maybe I'm not so easily offended, the whole issue of this being inappropriate, I believe that was the point of the scene. Military personnel are human, just like the rest of us, so why portray them any differently? I just think people should really just live with it, if you enjoy the other aspects of the series, just accept it as a minor annoyance - it's not like most series don't have them, it's hardly a reason to stop watching and I really cannot understand why so many are getting deeply offended by relatively minor scene.

The reason I was offended by it was because it was forced on me, without warning - not giving me the chance to decide whether or not I wanted to see it. In THAT I felt manipulated. That offended my sense of decency. I've been married these past 20 years and have a very good relationship with my husband (most tactful way I can put it ;) ) - I'm not a prude, but I feel that the viewing audience should be allowed to decide whether they want to watch something like this, or not.

People say, 'but it's human and natural' - and that's true. So is pooping, but I don't want to see people doing that on my tv, either! Personally, I don't want to watch people having sex, for pretend or otherwise. It's one reason I don't go around peeping in my neighbor's windows, watching them have sex! See - we all know that's a creepy thing to do, and yet we sit there in our living rooms like closet voyeurs, watching strangers having 'sex' in tv shows. Well, I think that's kinda creepy, too! I think it degrades sex and makes it cheap and meaningless.

They used sex - and that scene - as a tool. To shock. To titillate. To scream at the world 'this is not your mother's Stargate!' Fine. But I don't like to be manipulated like that...I don't like to feel 'used' - and that scene made me feel exactly that way.

Why? Because it meant nothing. It didn't make a point, or advance the characters in any way. Is Scott a 'player'? Do these people love each other? Is the girl just a cheap ho who will do anybody in the supply closet? Does Scott disrespect his duty? Really - it told us nothing. A more subtle scene with more innuendo and less skin could have told us so much about the two - instead they went for the titillation and totally failed to make any point to what was being shown.

So, it's not about 'sex' - but about taking away a viewer's ability to choose (there was no warning, no lead-in). I personally choose not to watch shows that have explicit sex scenes in them - they make me uncomfortable (see voyeurism comment above), and they often make sex cheap and meaningless. I prefer shows that appeal to my intellect, and not my hormones. But maybe I'm in the minority on this one. If I am, I'm proud to be in that minority, knowing that have my own free will, and I don't have to accept whatever they feel like showing me.


So, excuse me...Masterpiece Mystery! is on tonight, and I have a hot date with Inspector Lewis and DS Hathaway! :D Now there's a bit of good tv!


das

12OzMouse
October 4th, 2009, 03:53 PM
I think some of you are going to be disappointed, because from what I've read, there's going to be a little sex and partial nudity in this show. Also, one of the main characters is a lesbian. Have you somehow missed this information? If the four seconds in episode one bothered you, what's a little implied girl on girl going to do to your sensibilities?

It doesn't bother me, but I will concede this point. Episode one's scene, was just tossed in there with pretty poor editing. I get the point, they are having an affair, then later on the ship, he acts like he doesn't know her name. Ok, I can see how they will build on that whole theme. Once they get air to breathe, food and water, their all going to eventually want a little fun, too! But Friday night's scene, looked like it was just thrown in as an after thought.

In the context of the show, if it's handled tastefully, I'm all for it, as it will more than likely fit in with the overall tone of the show. I'm an adult, I watched it with my teenage daughter, neither one of us thought much about it till I read this thread.

I probably should have just passed this whole thread by. I know from life experience that no one here is going to change anybody elses mind. I find it silly, someone else finds it shocking. Both views are valid. What it means though is that I'll be able to go on enjoying the show, others are going to have to stop watching cause I don't think they are going to change the scripts....

Sela
October 4th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Well, that was the first romance scene we've seen in a while in stargate. Personally, I think it was next to unnessecary and overly graphic and the grunting was, well over the top. They didn't actually have to be doing it, it would be the same effect if they were kissing, and then we wouldn't have to put up with the moaning and grunting. So what did you guys think of it.
I agree completely. As sex scenes go, (there was no romance in it) it was a bit sad IMHO. I think it was an effort to prove that the show was 'adult' and 'gritty'. Not. It was so obvious that came off as a bit junior high-ish.

And to those of you that imply that those who don't like it are somehow afraid of or freaked prudishly out about sex scenes in general you've got it all wrong. It's not the sex scenes that we don't like, it's the bad ones, the obvious ones, the ones that make you roll your eyes when you see it. Like this one did.

Rac80
October 4th, 2009, 07:43 PM
The reason I was offended by it was because it was forced on me, without warning - not giving me the chance to decide whether or not I wanted to see it. In THAT I felt manipulated. That offended my sense of decency. I've been married these past 20 years and have a very good relationship with my husband (most tactful way I can put it ;) ) - I'm not a prude, but I feel that the viewing audience should be allowed to decide whether they want to watch something like this, or not.

People say, 'but it's human and natural' - and that's true. So is pooping, but I don't want to see people doing that on my tv, either! Personally, I don't want to watch people having sex, for pretend or otherwise. It's one reason I don't go around peeping in my neighbor's windows, watching them have sex! See - we all know that's a creepy thing to do, and yet we sit there in our living rooms like closet voyeurs, watching strangers having 'sex' in tv shows. Well, I think that's kinda creepy, too! I think it degrades sex and makes it cheap and meaningless.
They used sex - and that scene - as a tool. To shock. To titillate. To scream at the world 'this is not your mother's Stargate!' Fine. But I don't like to be manipulated like that...I don't like to feel 'used' - and that scene made me feel exactly that way.

Why? Because it meant nothing. It didn't make a point, or advance the characters in any way. Is Scott a 'player'? Do these people love each other? Is the girl just a cheap ho who will do anybody in the supply closet? Does Scott disrespect his duty? Really - it told us nothing. A more subtle scene with more innuendo and less skin could have told us so much about the two - instead they went for the titillation and totally failed to make any point to what was being shown.

So, it's not about 'sex' - but about taking away a viewer's ability to choose (there was no warning, no lead-in). I personally choose not to watch shows that have explicit sex scenes in them - they make me uncomfortable (see voyeurism comment above), and they often make sex cheap and meaningless. I prefer shows that appeal to my intellect, and not my hormones. But maybe I'm in the minority on this one. If I am, I'm proud to be in that minority, knowing that have my own free will, and I don't have to accept whatever they feel like showing me.


So, excuse me...Masterpiece Mystery! is on tonight, and I have a hot date with Inspector Lewis and DS Hathaway! :D Now there's a bit of good tv!


das

best post on this topic...wish I had said it all. :D Green for you

Eternal Density
October 4th, 2009, 09:29 PM
I thought it was not overly long or overly graphic, and wasn't pointless either. It told me a bit about the characters and added weight to their later scenes together. I didn't find it shocking or titillating (the former largely because I was expecting it). It leaves me wondering what those characters actually have between them, how much they care about either other beyond what they might see as sneaking a bit of fun.
If it had gone on any longer or showed more, I would definitely be uncomfortable about it. And I agree that having this sort of thing happen regularly would be too much. It would get tiresome.

Manbearpig
October 5th, 2009, 01:26 AM
My parents are more than likely going to be in the same room as me for this Fridays premier in Australia. Can some PLEASE tell me the exact time or the lead up scene (without spoiling it) this happens so I can accidently 'change' the channel for 'x' seconds/minutes/hours? XD as it will be too awkward to actually watch that bit with them around (as much as I'd like too see it), Thankyou!

P.S. Sorry if I sound stupid but im serious :P

P.P.S And sorry if I posted in the wrong place.

Kidwizz
October 5th, 2009, 01:30 AM
Its not that bad. just stick it out ;). I've been in the same room with my grandparents and a worse scene has come on. trust me. they wont say anything if you dont.

tNsRAoL
October 5th, 2009, 01:32 AM
Ok the scene just before it is when Col Young is have seizures so in the next scene when the Hammond drops out of hyperspace do what ever you need to do lol.

reddevil18
October 5th, 2009, 01:33 AM
Yeah. It's no biggie. Well, maybe it is...we didn't really see Scott that well...

rosey_angel
October 5th, 2009, 01:36 AM
the sex scene isn't really bad, compared to others. everyone is clothed, and you don't see anyones anything. the scenes only goes for about 30 secs, so i wouldn't worry if i were u

tNsRAoL
October 5th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Here's a picture of the scene thanks for sblade.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/268/closetv.png

jjit
October 5th, 2009, 02:59 AM
TV14
Don't know except CotG what other eps of SG1/SGA get TV14?

SGFerrit
October 5th, 2009, 03:36 AM
I was sitting having sunday tea and my grandparents house, when my grandma put a film on that my grandad had bought to watch at his dialysis. Turns out it was porn :P She started screaming and trying to turn it off, my grandad had a huge smile on his face and me and my aunty were laughing so hard we were nearly crying.

So you could get some LOLs out of it :D



Nah seriously though, it's not that bad. Don't listen to the prudes! :cool:

leeman15251
October 5th, 2009, 03:57 AM
I was sitting having sunday tea and my grandparents house, when my grandma put a film on that my grandad had bought to watch at his dialysis. Turns out it was porn :P She started screaming and trying to turn it off, my grandad had a huge smile on his face and me and my aunty were laughing so hard we were nearly crying.

So you could get some LOLs out of it :D



Nah seriously though, it's not that bad. Don't listen to the prudes! :cool:

would have loved to been there to see that.

xandder
October 5th, 2009, 03:58 AM
Yeah. It's no biggie. Well, maybe it is...we didn't really see Scott that well...

LMAO!!!!!! how rude ;)

But seriously, its not all that bad, well not bad at all, Ive seen worse on all kind of shows, and people I know was fine with it. Just ignore all the prude hating SG-U'ers around here, they are just nit-picking for the sake of it :)

Chevron 7
October 5th, 2009, 04:36 AM
Guys the sceane was nothing, No T&A to be seen,Just a bit of kissing grunting and moaning, thats about it.;

escyos
October 5th, 2009, 04:55 AM
My parents are more than likely going to be in the same room as me for this Fridays premier in Australia. Can some PLEASE tell me the exact time or the lead up scene (without spoiling it) this happens so I can accidently 'change' the channel for 'x' seconds/minutes/hours? XD as it will be too awkward to actually watch that bit with them around (as much as I'd like too see it), Thankyou!

P.S. Sorry if I sound stupid but im serious :P

P.P.S And sorry if I posted in the wrong place.

what is this 1950! how old are you? if your parents dont think you know about sex, they are obviously wrong. but if thats what you have to do.


the scene is on icarus base...right after everyone evacuated icarus base...confused? :jack_new15:(evil laugh):jack_new15:

captain simms
October 5th, 2009, 05:32 AM
to be honest what is every ones problem with sex haha we all do it..... some more then others ;) i thought it was actually quite a good seen because, if your somewhere where there is nothing to do, then your going to find something fun and this adds to the realism, its people who get offended on the stupid little things that are actually not offensive at all

and that people is what really grinds my gears :)

dasNdanger
October 5th, 2009, 05:43 AM
Keep in mind that not everyone has the same morality and sensibilities. It is disrespectful to insult people who prefer not to have sex splashed across their tv sets. No one (that I know of) has insulted people who like the scene, and yet so many of you are insulting and ridiculing those of us who were offended by it.

Some of these people you are mocking are just kids who would rather not see this on their tv sets. Respect that. Some are kids who are respecting the rules of their household - respecting their parents' wishes - RESPECT THAT. Some are parents who do not want their young children exposed to sexual images just yet. Respect that. And some are just grown, sexually active people who feel that sex should be private and meaningful, and not exploited. Please respect that, too.

das

P-90_177
October 5th, 2009, 05:44 AM
The reason I was offended by it was because it was forced on me, without warning - not giving me the chance to decide whether or not I wanted to see it. In THAT I felt manipulated. That offended my sense of decency. I've been married these past 20 years and have a very good relationship with my husband (most tactful way I can put it ;) ) - I'm not a prude, but I feel that the viewing audience should be allowed to decide whether they want to watch something like this, or not.

People say, 'but it's human and natural' - and that's true. So is pooping, but I don't want to see people doing that on my tv, either! Personally, I don't want to watch people having sex, for pretend or otherwise. It's one reason I don't go around peeping in my neighbor's windows, watching them have sex! See - we all know that's a creepy thing to do, and yet we sit there in our living rooms like closet voyeurs, watching strangers having 'sex' in tv shows. Well, I think that's kinda creepy, too! I think it degrades sex and makes it cheap and meaningless.

They used sex - and that scene - as a tool. To shock. To titillate. To scream at the world 'this is not your mother's Stargate!' Fine. But I don't like to be manipulated like that...I don't like to feel 'used' - and that scene made me feel exactly that way.

Why? Because it meant nothing. It didn't make a point, or advance the characters in any way. Is Scott a 'player'? Do these people love each other? Is the girl just a cheap ho who will do anybody in the supply closet? Does Scott disrespect his duty? Really - it told us nothing. A more subtle scene with more innuendo and less skin could have told us so much about the two - instead they went for the titillation and totally failed to make any point to what was being shown.
So, it's not about 'sex' - but about taking away a viewer's ability to choose (there was no warning, no lead-in). I personally choose not to watch shows that have explicit sex scenes in them - they make me uncomfortable (see voyeurism comment above), and they often make sex cheap and meaningless. I prefer shows that appeal to my intellect, and not my hormones. But maybe I'm in the minority on this one. If I am, I'm proud to be in that minority, knowing that have my own free will, and I don't have to accept whatever they feel like showing me.


So, excuse me...Masterpiece Mystery! is on tonight, and I have a hot date with Inspector Lewis and DS Hathaway! :D Now there's a bit of good tv!


das

That isn't strictly true. Yes it was partially in there to make sure people knew this wasn't like other stargate series, however it did tell us off the bat that there is a sexual relationship between two of the chracters......who are now stuck on a ship of about 80 people together. So while the scene didn't have much point to it in this episode, it will probably have more relevance as the series progresses.

Besides.........as a Stargate Pilot goes they didn't do too bad...........No full frontal nudity this time. :P

lmoroney
October 5th, 2009, 06:22 AM
Having a sex scene in and of itself doesn't bother me, although, my 11 year old has been dying to watch SGU since about February, and I couldn't deny her it -- so I had to 'censor' that scene on PVR.

As an SG Fan, what bothered me is the fact that so many folk have been comparing SGU with BSG, and this (to me) was the only scene that screamed out 'Hey we're just like Battlestar'...so I didn't like it.

Laurence

Captain Obvious
October 5th, 2009, 06:54 AM
People say, 'but it's human and natural' - and that's true. So is pooping, but I don't want to see people doing that on my tv, either!

Actually, I personally wouldn't mind a little more bathroom status clarification.
It has been the subject of much INTENSE speculation. I really would love to have it commented on in SGU.

skajkingdom
October 5th, 2009, 07:03 AM
TBH, I also feel it was somehow forced. As the previous poster said, it was like screaming "look, we are like BSG!".
I am also a father of 3 children, who in the meantime watch stargate with me, and I would feel somehow "ashamed" to watch this scene with them.
I agree with dasNdanger that sex scenes are something private. The art of making good movies/shows, is to show you that some people have a relationship but without showing it actually - without necessarily showing the sex act itself.

Now, what did they want to tell us with that scene? I know the moment I saw that, I felt a negative feeling toward Lt. Scott. Dunno why, maybe just because I am a responsible person who thinks Air Force personnel should not have secret sex in locker rooms.
I just know that when I saw it, I felt it was absolutely unnecessary, and it somehow "spoiled" the otherwise well written Character of Lt. Scott. In every other scene I had sympathy with him, and I liked his character, just not in this one.

Rac80
October 5th, 2009, 07:29 AM
TBH, I also feel it was somehow forced. As the previous poster said, it was like screaming "look, we are like BSG!".
I am also a father of 3 children, who in the meantime watch stargate with me, and I would feel somehow "ashamed" to watch this scene with them.
I agree with dasNdanger that sex scenes are something private. The art of making good movies/shows, is to show you that some people have a relationship but without showing it actually - without necessarily showing the sex act itself.

Now, what did they want to tell us with that scene? I know the moment I saw that, I felt a negative feeling toward Lt. Scott. Dunno why, maybe just because I am a responsible person who thinks Air Force personnel should not have secret sex in locker rooms.
I just know that when I saw it, I felt it was absolutely unnecessary, and it somehow "spoiled" the otherwise well written Character of Lt. Scott. In every other scene I had sympathy with him, and I liked his character, just not in this one.
very well said! To add my two-cents worth again:

I am an adult who has been married for 28 years and I would be very offended if anyone peeked in my windows during sex, I would call the cops, have the person arrested and they would be a registered sex offender. What is different about watching a couple humping in a supply-closet-sex-scene-on-duty??? Nothing, I am not a voyuer, I don't get a thrill watching other people have sex (or having people watch me!), no such deviancy here. I object to people claiming it is okay for kids to watch things like this. There is an increased sexualization of our children happening. One of the first things a pedophile does with a child aged 7 to 11 is to show them pornography with the excuse "see everyone does it". Spend an hour or two intervviewing a pedophile (I have for a class, not fun at all :S) and you learn how they use sex to "groom" children. They expose kids to first sex seen in soaps and tv shows, then move on to regular pornography, then home-made porno (usually them and another child so the target child sees other kids doing it...) all aided and abetted with alcohol and drugs (Roman Polanski anyone?). This is what we allow, wink and nod at, with the increased sexualization of our kids. Little girls dress like tramps, little boys are taught to call girls "ho's", and we are surprised at the increase in pedophilia in the world. Call me what you like (prude, old fashioned) but never claim it is harmless. Pedophiles are hoping people like you make their perversions easier to indulge in.

arrakis44
October 5th, 2009, 08:03 AM
Without getting into the morality of sex on TV, I'll say I thought it was out of place. It didn't 'bother' me, I don't mind them adding BSG style 'intimacy' to the show, but this scene just didn't seem to flow with the episode as a whole.

In my mind, this kind of thing is something that should have been a slow build - two people stranded on Destiny hooking up for example would have felt much more real. Throwing it in the pilot episode seems almost desperate to me - rather like the blatant exploitation of Jeri Ryan in the later seasons of Voyager.

On the whole though I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the episode. I was very apprehensive about this new show, but I see a lot of potential here for this one to be good. Hopefully they will STAY stranded this time, lets not have another cop out like Atlantis (though I still loved that show).

JacksonClone
October 5th, 2009, 08:13 AM
That isn't strictly true. Yes it was partially in there to make sure people knew this wasn't like other stargate series, however it did tell us off the bat that there is a sexual relationship between two of the chracters......who are now stuck on a ship of about 80 people together. So while the scene didn't have much point to it in this episode, it will probably have more relevance as the series progresses.

So you couldn't have done with a camera right outside the supply closet, hearing moaning, and all of a sudden you hear Colonel Young on the radio and Lieutenant Scott rushes out while trying to get his clothes back on? (Besides, I kinda think that would have been hilarious to see! This seemingly upstanding officer being a little less than upstanding all of a sudden for...not answering his radio call! Yeah. Not answering the radio... :p ).

When it comes to sex scenes, especially abrupt sex scenes like in "Air", there's almost always a better way to tell people what's going on or you risk it being seen as unnecessary at best and gratuitous at worst.


Besides.........as a Stargate Pilot goes they didn't do too bad...........No full frontal nudity this time. :P

True! The nudity wasn't absolutely necessary in "Children of the Gods." But I feel you can make a stronger case for it there (the Goa'uld don't respect those not of their own kind) than for the sex scene here (what does sex in the closet mean for these two characters? There are a number of interpretations, as dasNdanger pointed out).

The DJ
October 5th, 2009, 08:35 AM
The reason I was offended by it was because it was forced on me, without warning - not giving me the chance to decide whether or not I wanted to see it. In THAT I felt manipulated. That offended my sense of decency. I've been married these past 20 years and have a very good relationship with my husband (most tactful way I can put it ;) ) - I'm not a prude, but I feel that the viewing audience should be allowed to decide whether they want to watch something like this, or not.

People say, 'but it's human and natural' - and that's true. So is pooping, but I don't want to see people doing that on my tv, either! Personally, I don't want to watch people having sex, for pretend or otherwise. It's one reason I don't go around peeping in my neighbor's windows, watching them have sex! See - we all know that's a creepy thing to do, and yet we sit there in our living rooms like closet voyeurs, watching strangers having 'sex' in tv shows. Well, I think that's kinda creepy, too! I think it degrades sex and makes it cheap and meaningless.

They used sex - and that scene - as a tool. To shock. To titillate. To scream at the world 'this is not your mother's Stargate!' Fine. But I don't like to be manipulated like that...I don't like to feel 'used' - and that scene made me feel exactly that way.

Why? Because it meant nothing. It didn't make a point, or advance the characters in any way. Is Scott a 'player'? Do these people love each other? Is the girl just a cheap ho who will do anybody in the supply closet? Does Scott disrespect his duty? Really - it told us nothing. A more subtle scene with more innuendo and less skin could have told us so much about the two - instead they went for the titillation and totally failed to make any point to what was being shown.

So, it's not about 'sex' - but about taking away a viewer's ability to choose (there was no warning, no lead-in). I personally choose not to watch shows that have explicit sex scenes in them - they make me uncomfortable (see voyeurism comment above), and they often make sex cheap and meaningless.

das

Implying that watching a sex scene on TV is akin to peeping in on actual people is ridiculous. That offends me frankly.

What do you want a big flashing message to pop on the screen that "Two People in a fictional show are about to engage in a natural human act" I'm not sure how any other show can give you a choice. TV is not a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Obviously, you can watch whatever you want but I don't see how seeing 2 seconds of the scene on Friday before changing a channel briefly is earth-shattering.

Every question you asked about Scott's character is a valid question that the scene clearly brought up in your mind if only for a minute. Does he disregard authority and rules? Is this a common occurrence for him? Is he emotionally unable to open up to people so he just sleeps with them instead? There are valid character questions raised by that one simple scene. There may have been an element of shock value to putting it in, but I don't for a second think that was the only reason for it.

I agree with a previous poster that as long as it doesn't become a "sex-scene of the week" situation where it's done just because they can, I'm fine with it. Battlestar used sex frequently (and much more explicitly I might add) but usually to make a point or show just how messed up some of their characters were.

I feel like I'm not making my point well and I'm not trying to insult you, but please don't generalize on something like what makes a deviant or voyeur. This has been heavily billed as a very different show. It will NOT be for everyone.

david41991
October 5th, 2009, 09:08 AM
People making out in a storageroom... It's like Grey's Anatomy in space. I guess some prefer to take out a few replicators on a spaceship, others prefer making out.

I didn't mind the scene. It was to establish something, and it was nicer done than Sha're's 'scene'.

major davis
October 5th, 2009, 10:40 AM
And the other thing is Scott is supposed to be a devout Christian(BW interview) and he is the one doing the girl, not Greer, or Riley, Or Volker, Or Spencer. :(

Ramses818
October 5th, 2009, 11:09 AM
There is no purpose for a gratuitous sex scene. If it goes to developing the character fine, but I don't get the feeling that Scott is a love machine.

Amalthea
October 5th, 2009, 12:27 PM
I think what people forget sometimes about the Sha're scene is that Showtime forced them do it. We never saw anything like it ever again. Some skimpy costumes yes, but that's it. And in Final Cut, it's gone. That says a lot to me about how the producers felt about it.

This closet scene wasn't done because SyFy made them do it (as far as we know). It was a choice. One that I think they're going to choose to do again.

I don't know how to reconcile those two things, but there they are. I think for that reason, these two scenes can't be compared.

techwork
October 5th, 2009, 01:35 PM
BSG is BSG
Shaking the camera like a hangover. Violence sex perversion - full set.

talyn2k1
October 5th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Didn't expect it to bother me, and it didn't bother me.

Sex happens, I see no issue with it being betrayed on a show like SGU, as long as it isn't to the detriment of the story, which it wasn't.

lindag8r
October 5th, 2009, 03:20 PM
The scene was not necessary at all. It was there for the sake of being there and added no real pertinent backstory that could not have been depicted in a more family friendly manner. I am very hopeful that this will not be an ongoing issue in each episode because then I will have to withdraw my viewership from SGU.

Otherwise, I felt that the first two episodes were well written, acted, and communicated. We have a strong first glimpse into the key characters and an equally good glimpse into the internal and external stresses the characters will face. The special effects were first rate!

So, PLEASE....no more of that junk.....keep the show at a PG level.....and let your extremely talented cast do their jobs. They are more than capable of telling the story without the graphic, vulgar, sexual component(s).

Eternal Density
October 5th, 2009, 05:11 PM
So you couldn't have done with a camera right outside the supply closet, hearing moaning, and all of a sudden you hear Colonel Young on the radio and Lieutenant Scott rushes out while trying to get his clothes back on? (Besides, I kinda think that would have been hilarious to see! This seemingly upstanding officer being a little less than upstanding all of a sudden for...not answering his radio call! Yeah. Not answering the radio... :p ).

When it comes to sex scenes, especially abrupt sex scenes like in "Air", there's almost always a better way to tell people what's going on or you risk it being seen as unnecessary at best and gratuitous at worst.Now that you put it that way, yeah, the same scene could have got the same idea across from outside the closet. I'd kinda be a bit more comfortable with that actually.

But I never knew that this sort of thing was original and unique to BSG :P

DepletedZPM
October 5th, 2009, 06:01 PM
My guess is that there is some plot twist set up by some compelling connection between Scott and James. But I agree, it could have been suggested without being right there in the closet for that scene.

Sela
October 5th, 2009, 07:33 PM
Keep in mind that not everyone has the same morality and sensibilities. It is disrespectful to insult people who prefer not to have sex splashed across their tv sets. No one (that I know of) has insulted people who like the scene, and yet so many of you are insulting and ridiculing those of us who were offended by it.

Some of these people you are mocking are just kids who would rather not see this on their tv sets. Respect that. Some are kids who are respecting the rules of their household - respecting their parents' wishes - RESPECT THAT. Some are parents who do not want their young children exposed to sexual images just yet. Respect that. And some are just grown, sexually active people who feel that sex should be private and meaningful, and not exploited. Please respect that, too.

das
Well said!!!

Easter Lily
October 5th, 2009, 11:10 PM
As far as I can tell from what little we've seen, the scene in question had no immediate relevance. Personally I find sex scenes like that very jarring and if jarring is what they were going for, they certainly succeeded. All I got from that was that Scott was fraternizing with a colleague and a bit of a hot head but I'm sure that could have been demonstrated in other ways. Also I'm one of those people who don't like watching other people in the act (and a private one at that) -- sort of makes me feel like a peeping Tom.
All that said, it didn't ruin my overall experience of the show but since someone asked... it's just my 2 cents.
Perhaps it'll come back later and bite him... Scott, I mean. ;)

Girlbot
October 6th, 2009, 12:13 PM
Since I had no idea about SGU, as I have said on other threads, I was totally unspoiled.
when this scene came on, the first thing thru my mind was, "Oh no, is this what they are going to use to try to attract people". I thought it was totally unnecessary. I do not like any ship in my Sci fi, and this went way beyond that. Can't we just have a storyline without the gratuitous sex scenes?
if this keeps up, they will be losing this viewer.

Linda06
October 6th, 2009, 01:30 PM
Sex scene? What sex scene? There wasn't any sex scene in part 1. Is it in part 2?

jannagalaxy
October 6th, 2009, 02:11 PM
Sex scene? What sex scene? There wasn't any sex scene in part 1. Is it in part 2?
I didn't see no sex scene? I've got this feeling that Skyone may of cut it.

Linda06
October 6th, 2009, 02:20 PM
I didn't see no sex scene? I've got this feeling that Skyone may of cut it.

Yeah I just figured it out, if it was in part 1 they would have cut it cause it was before the 9pm watershed. But if you watch the repeat tomorrow night at 9pm on Sky2 it'll more than likely be on there. They done the same with SGA's Doppelganger but the scene they cut was back in at the repeated 9pm airing ;)

jannagalaxy
October 6th, 2009, 02:23 PM
Yeah I just figured it out, if it was in part 1 they would have cut it cause it was before the 9pm watershed. But if you watch the repeat tomorrow night at 9pm on Sky2 it'll more than likely be on there. They done the same with SGA's Doppelganger but the scene they cut was back in at the repeated 9pm airing ;)
I had a look at the transcript and I looked for that bit on dvd recorder and it just went from Young having the seziure to the group arriving at the base.

I'll have to have a look for that tomorrow night. Thanks. Anyhow, I don't think it makes any difference. Those kinda scenes...well I'm not really a fan of them.

Linda06
October 6th, 2009, 02:29 PM
I had a look at the transcript and I looked for that bit on dvd recorder and it just went from Young having the seziure to the group arriving at the base.

I'll have to have a look for that tomorrow night. Thanks. Anyhow, I don't think it makes any difference. Those kinda scenes...well I'm not really a fan of them.

No worries, I don't mind sex scenes, just so long as they're done right and bonkin in a supply closet is not for me :S

Unless it's Sam/Jack* *cough* http://www.smilescollection.com/smiles/musicals/sc_9942.gif

jcainhaze
October 6th, 2009, 05:20 PM
Thought it was a pretty hot little scene. I don't understand why it's ok to show a guy pound the F out of some chic in a closet but it's not ok to show boobs. How did the distinguish one to be ok and the other is definitely not ok? BTW whoever she was had some nice legs and I'd gladly Bonk her in a mop closet.

WraithQueenH
October 6th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Good show so far, but I really hope its not heavy on sex as there is enough of that on TV. That one scene added nothing; sex for the sake of sex isn't entertaining unless you are a teenager. (Not to be harsh, but its my opinion, don't slam me, please.. I break easily)

I'm 28 years old and You can be younger and edgier but if it doesn't move the story on in some way then it's pointless.

Captain Obvious
October 7th, 2009, 07:10 AM
No worries, I don't mind sex scenes, just so long as they're done right and bonkin in a supply closet is not for me :S

Unless it's Sam/Jack**cough* http://www.smilescollection.com/smiles/musicals/sc_9942.gif

See, this is what drives me crazy. a huge number of the people arguing against this scene are huge sam/jack shippers.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Honestly, this thread is redundant. this topic has been beaten to death on another thread.

Linda06
October 7th, 2009, 10:29 AM
See, this is what drives me crazy. a huge number of the people arguing against this scene are huge sam/jack shippers.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Honestly, this thread is redundant. this topic has been beaten to death on another thread.

hehe, naw I was only kidding. We joke and go on about Jack/Sam and supply closets but truthfully.....I personally would not like that to actually happen on the show. I'd prefer it to be a mature relationship ;) Not a quick romp in a supply closet :S

Rac80
October 7th, 2009, 10:55 AM
hehe, naw I was only kidding. We joke and go on about Jack/Sam and supply closets but truthfully.....I personally would not like that to actually happen on the show. I'd prefer it to be a mature relationship ;) Not a quick romp in a supply closet :S

are we even sure Scott knew the name of the chick he was boinking? I didn't catch it that is why I refer to her as overactingpornochickinthesexscene.

Tawny
October 7th, 2009, 11:03 AM
Meh, to be quite honest, the scene didn't bother me at all. It was done pretty well considering what it was, and I think it was necessary, otherwise you wouldn't have understood why things seemed a little awkward between Scott and her later in the episode.
Something I've never understood is why some pretty damn violent deaths are fine in the 'Gate universe, yet sex isn't.

Linda06
October 7th, 2009, 11:24 AM
are we even sure Scott knew the name of the chick he was boinking? I didn't catch it that is why I refer to her as overactingpornochickinthesexscene.

hehe, that name works for me :p

wraithjunkie
October 7th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Iím more worried about what else Sky 1 is going to cut out of the show, in the sense of plot/story due to the watershed. Iím going to re-watch the show on Sky 2 tonight not to see ďthe sceneĒ but rather see if anything else was missing. Iím not fully against sex senses, but they should have relevance to the story and not just be there to get younger views/get attention.

major davis
October 7th, 2009, 01:18 PM
are we even sure Scott knew the name of the chick he was boinking? I didn't catch it that is why I refer to her as overactingpornochickinthesexscene.

Will you watch air part 3?

Rac80
October 7th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Will you watch air part 3?

I will record it to watch the next day. That way if I don't like it....I just shut it off. That is my plan as far as SGU goes right now. I read spoilers so I hope to avoid more scenes that I personally do not wish to watch, but I am interested in a couple of eps. (will we learn the overactingpornochickinthesexscene's name in the next ep?)

How about you?

Coronach
October 7th, 2009, 05:26 PM
I will record it to watch the next day. That way if I don't like it....I just shut it off.

Couldn't you also do this while watching on TV though? Or is it the commercials that bug you?


(will we learn the overactingpornochickinthesexscene's name in the next ep?)

Of course, those of us that didn't dwell on that scene so much know her name. :P Well, at least her last name (James)...which is all we can say for the majority of the recurring characters anyways.

For example, Greer's (a main character, even) first name is never mentioned, nor is Park's, Brody's, Palmer's, Volker's or Becker's; all of whom are recurring characters just like Vanessa James :)

PG15
October 7th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Interesting...


The closet scene was cut out? Whose bright idea was THAT? It's a tad important later on. *hmph*

http://twitter.com/BrianJacobSmith/status/4669654976

Coronach
October 7th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Interesting...

http://twitter.com/BrianJacobSmith/status/4669654976

Pffft, what does the actor involved know?!1one

PG15
October 7th, 2009, 08:53 PM
Inorite?

Poor, naive Brian. Everyone knows that sex on TV is always, ALWAYS gratuitous and useless. ALWAYS.

ALLLLLLLLLLWAAAAAAAYS.

:p

Pharaoh Atem
October 7th, 2009, 08:57 PM
it was hot doesn't beat sam/kara in "unfinished business" but it was ok for stargate

UniverseSizePlotHole
October 8th, 2009, 03:49 AM
It was fine - lets see if anything comes of it.

Rac80
October 8th, 2009, 08:17 AM
Couldn't you also do this while watching on TV though? Or is it the commercials that bug you?
yep I already pay for cable...not wasting my time on commercials. Hubby and I have gotten into a habit of going to a movie on friday nights/ just going out (since sga went to hell-in-a-handbasket) and it's become a "tradition" for us.:)




Of course, those of us that didn't dwell on that scene so much know her name. :P Well, at least her last name (James)...which is all we can say for the majority of the recurring characters anyways.

For example, Greer's (a main character, even) first name is never mentioned, nor is Park's, Brody's, Palmer's, Volker's or Becker's; all of whom are recurring characters just like Vanessa James :)

I didn't even catch her last name. :S I assume she is one of the people on the destiny...:S see didn't make an impression...except the over-acting. :)

bluealien
October 8th, 2009, 08:33 AM
Yep, it adds to the concept of the characters being human, flawed and not the pretty stereotypical heroes. Don't get me wrong, I loved the characters of SG-1 and Atlantis, this however is a nice refreshing change. While I think stories can often be executed without a sex scene, I do agree that this one was kinda needed to develop Scott's character more.



Lol, I was actually listening to the audio commentary on the S4 boxset the other day, and I can't remember who but one of the producers commented on how he found it amusing how people seemed fine with the whole Sheppard/ Kirk thing but were really annoyed when it was revealed that Keller was interested in Ronan AND McKay xD

What Sheppard Kirk thing... Sheppard was a monk... the most he got to do was be charming to a few women and maybe sleep with one.. and even that was left to the imagination ... humping someone up against the wall in the very first episode cannot be compared to flirting with the odd women over a 5year period... and Sheppard got called a man whore for just flirting but now its fine for an officer to have fairly graphic sex whilst on duty .. how the tides change.

Its nonsence to say that watching two people have sex makes things more realistic.. I don't have to see anyone shower to make it more realistic... or watch people eat to know they eat... I am perfectly aware that a lot of my friends have sex, but I dont need to see them at it for it to be real to me...:confused: sex scenes are just to titilate and the one in Air One was just that.. it didnt need to be there..

Col. Tomorian
October 8th, 2009, 10:24 AM
Well, that was the first romance scene we've seen in a while in stargate. Personally, I think it was next to unnessecary and overly graphic and the grunting was, well over the top. They didn't actually have to be doing it, it would be the same effect if they were kissing, and then we wouldn't have to put up with the moaning and grunting. So what did you guys think of it.
When did the first romance scene happen? If you were talking about the sex scene, I found it to be like a tasteless cut from an adult film.

Eternal Density
October 8th, 2009, 06:17 PM
sex scenes are just to titilate and the one in Air One was just that.. Not in my opinion.

SleepZone
October 9th, 2009, 07:53 AM
Seriously as a freshman in college I would say the scene wasn't even that bad. It showed the flaws of the character. He was doing bad as he's suppose to abstain from relations with workers so he's no Jack O'Niel and unlike Sheppard he doesn't just flirt but he'd go all the way.

Now he looks to be interested in someone else. Is he a man whore? Maybe but he's young, and is going after things. He's flawed, as was Sheppard. Remember Sheppard got his job because of the ATA gene, not because he was a good soldier. O'Niel was a good soldier. Our current lead is still a bit green and not as disciplined so I'd expect him to not follow regulations as strict.

WraithQueenH
October 12th, 2009, 06:32 PM
Its nonsence to say that watching two people have sex makes things more realistic.. I don't have to see anyone shower to make it more realistic... or watch people eat to know they eat... I am perfectly aware that a lot of my friends have sex, but I dont need to see them at it for it to be real to me...:confused: sex scenes are just to titilate and the one in Air One was just that.. it didnt need to be there..

:weiranime17:

Though I wouldn't say it was titilating. But otherwise, I agree with you 100%

”ūinn
October 15th, 2009, 09:37 AM
i think that scene was totally unnecessary! they could've just kissed.
... and personally i don't think that SGU has that Stargate feel about it, it's like a completely new show with no connection to SG-1 or Atlantis.
it feels like they've made it for teenagers.

EvilSpaceAlien
October 15th, 2009, 09:58 AM
i think that scene was totally unnecessary! they could've just kissed.
... and personally i don't think that SGU has that Stargate feel about it, it's like a completely new show with no connection to SG-1 or Atlantis.
it feels like they've made it for teenagers.

Really? Then SG1, and especially SGA must have been for kids because it feels like SGU is much more grown-up and serious, compared to SGA's saturday morning cartoon feel. That's just my opinion.

However I agree with you that the scene was unnecessary.

Rac80
October 15th, 2009, 12:28 PM
Really? Then SG1, and especially SGA must have been for kids because it feels like SGU is much more grown-up and serious, compared to SGA's saturday morning cartoon feel. That's just my opinion.

However I agree with you that the scene was unnecessary.

As I have said before it cracks me up that what show business considers "mature" and "adult" is what titillates a teenager. ;) It's nothing like the truly "mature" or "serious" in my experieince. :D

EvilSpaceAlien
October 15th, 2009, 12:57 PM
As I have said before it cracks me up that what show business considers "mature" and "adult" is what titillates a teenager. ;) It's nothing like the truly "mature" or "serious" in my experieince. :D

Then what is the truly mature and serious?

If you you're going to say that Stargate Atlantis is the more mature I'm going to laugh, because my 5 year old cousin watches it, and from what my parents have seen, they think it's a kids show. :p

Rac80
October 15th, 2009, 02:20 PM
Then what is the truly mature and serious?

If you you're going to say that Stargate Atlantis is the more mature I'm going to laugh, because my 5 year old cousin watches it, and from what my parents have seen, they think it's a kids show. :p

what is truly mature & serious... real committed relationships (not sex-in-a-supply-closet), making the tough decisions (yaaay to senator armstrong... he made the tough choice!;) ), how about paying bills, running out of money, having babies, losing babies,losing your job, losing your house, buying another house, moving, dealing with infertility, going back to school at 40(!), gaining 20lbs, health issues; i.e. : mostly living life day after day and finding a way to deal with it....
Simply having sex and relationship angst isn't a sign of maturity to me. when you gain a few years, you will understand. :)
Nope, SGA was what SG1 was...an adventerous romp...that's what they were and were supposed to be. SGU is a soap masquerading as scifi...IMHO.

Ashizuri
October 15th, 2009, 03:49 PM
As I have said before it cracks me up that what show business considers "mature" and "adult" is what titillates a teenager. ;) It's nothing like the truly "mature" or "serious" in my experieince. :D

I'm an adult and I take hot sex in a supply closet very seriously. ;)

I'm still not seeing what the big deal was. *shrugs* "Mature" and "serious" are so subjective that there really seems no point in debating them. But considering people are still talking about the 10 second scene and the ratings went up, I can't see TPTB taking the complaints to heart.

Sela
October 15th, 2009, 07:54 PM
I'm an adult and I take hot sex in a supply closet very seriously. ;)
Hot? Seriously?! You think that was hot?!

Oh pul-leeze! That was in no way hot! It was so very fake and pretty sad even for a supply closet. :P

Ashizuri
October 16th, 2009, 10:46 AM
Hot? Seriously?! You think that was hot?!

Oh pul-leeze! That was in no way hot! It was so very fake and pretty sad even for a supply closet. :P

Maybe not for you. He's attractive, she's attractive, they were attractive together. The lip biting was a bit silly, but the rest was hot. To me. ;)

AtlantisForever
October 16th, 2009, 03:45 PM
I'm an adult and I take hot sex in a supply closet very seriously. ;)

I'm still not seeing what the big deal was. *shrugs* "Mature" and "serious" are so subjective that there really seems no point in debating them. But considering people are still talking about the 10 second scene and the ratings went up, I can't see TPTB taking the complaints to heart.

tbh, sex scene's just show's that they are human. and brings a more realistic feel to the show.
<mod snip...debate the topic, don't insult or mock those that disagree with you>

M2W
October 25th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Seriously as a freshman in college I would say the scene wasn't even that bad. It showed the flaws of the character. He was doing bad as he's suppose to abstain from relations with workers so he's no Jack O'Niel and unlike Sheppard he doesn't just flirt but he'd go all the way.

Now he looks to be interested in someone else. Is he a man whore? Maybe but he's young, and is going after things. He's flawed, as was Sheppard. Remember Sheppard got his job because of the ATA gene, not because he was a good soldier. O'Niel was a good soldier. Our current lead is still a bit green and not as disciplined so I'd expect him to not follow regulations as strict.

I agree with this and I assume it was used as foreshadowing for things yet to come with the character(s).

DoThKi
November 1st, 2009, 01:47 PM
I had no problem with the scene. As others have noted Scott and James' behaviour is rather unprofessional but not unrealistic. It happens. It does make you wonder though that Stargate personnel are supposed to be the best of the best and presumably Icarus staff are supposed to be even more carefully selected. But the overriding theme of all the Stargate personnel, military especially, is complete lack of discipline, even before they stepped on to Destiny.

The other point about the scene is that it sets up IMO a character flaw of Scott who appears to be unable to control his libido. I'm not religious and not a raving moraliser but I wouldn't hold a high opinion of a friend who behaved as Scott did in relation to his sexual escapades.

Rac80
November 2nd, 2009, 06:43 AM
I had no problem with the scene. As others have noted Scott and James' behaviour is rather unprofessional but not unrealistic. It happens. It does make you wonder though that Stargate personnel are supposed to be the best of the best and presumably Icarus staff are supposed to be even more carefully selected. But the overriding theme of all the Stargate personnel, military especially, is complete lack of discipline, even before they stepped on to Destiny.

The other point about the scene is that it sets up IMO a character flaw of Scott who appears to be unable to control his libido. I'm not religious and not a raving moraliser but I wouldn't hold a high opinion of a friend who behaved as Scott did in relation to his sexual escapades.

you would think being "the best of the best" he would be a bit more disciplined in his personal life..... but nope "the winkie" rules that boy!

The Mighty 6 platoon
November 2nd, 2009, 12:43 PM
you would think being "the best of the best" he would be a bit more disciplined in his personal life..... but nope "the winkie" rules that boy!

Many soldiers have complete messes of personnel lives. Look at the SAS, most elite unit in the British army, hell the world, also the highest divorce race in the army.

Rac80
November 3rd, 2009, 08:41 AM
Many soldiers have complete messes of personnel lives. Look at the SAS, most elite unit in the British army, hell the world, also the highest divorce race in the army.

I would hope they are professional when on duty. :S this kids isn't even that. all the military men I know (a few captains, cols, and a even a master sergent or two) have stable family lives, as one says-- "it's easier to do my job, when I don't have to worry about my home life."

The Mighty 6 platoon
November 3rd, 2009, 10:22 AM
I would hope they are professional when on duty. :S this kids isn't even that. all the military men I know (a few captains, cols, and a even a master sergent or two) have stable family lives, as one says-- "it's easier to do my job, when I don't have to worry about my home life."

Most people are but elite units professional lives tend to be complete screw-upís personally. When your away from home, canít tell your family what you do and your day to day job involves close contact with the enemy and having to kill with regularity, this has a major effect on people.

Further no military man or women is going to start blabbing if they have problems, they'll button up and just say they're fine. Frankly if you Stargate would be utterly realistic then the number of totally screwed up people would be enormous, fighting an intergalactic war for 12 years, they'd have PTSD through the roof. Not everyone if like this, some people are well adjusted, but there are some horrific incidents like the ex SAS guy who went berserk and shot his Girl Friend with an AK47. Military service does make having a stable personnel and family life difficult, many do but there are plenty who donít.

Rac80
November 3rd, 2009, 10:40 AM
Most people are but elite units professional lives tend to be complete screw-upís personally. When your away from home, canít tell your family what you do and your day to day job involves close contact with the enemy and having to kill with regularity, this has a major effect on people.

Further no military man or women is going to start blabbing if they have problems, they'll button up and just say they're fine. Frankly if you Stargate would be utterly realistic then the number of totally screwed up people would be enormous, fighting an intergalactic war for 12 years, they'd have PTSD through the roof. Not everyone if like this, some people are well adjusted, but there are some horrific incidents like the ex SAS guy who went berserk and shot his Girl Friend with an AK47. Military service does make having a stable personnel and family life difficult, many do but there are plenty who donít.

you do know I have a degree in psychology right? didn't say it was personal chitchat....

Ashizuri
November 3rd, 2009, 11:11 AM
you would think being "the best of the best" he would be a bit more disciplined in his personal life..... but nope "the winkie" rules that boy!

Being on SG-1 Vala was part of the "best of the best" even more so than Scott is and it didn't stop her from stealing things from Atlantis while on duty. Or how about Jack and Teal'c running amok on base while on duty during Window of Opportunity?

Is having sex on duty more morally wrong than stealing from allies on duty or completely disregarding the task at hand? Does it make him less disciplined than Vala or Jack or Teal'c?

Rac80
November 3rd, 2009, 11:16 AM
Being on SG-1 Vala was part of the "best of the best" even more so than Scott is and it didn't stop her from stealing things from Atlantis while on duty. Or how about Jack and Teal'c running amok on base while on duty during Window of Opportunity?

Is having sex on duty more morally wrong than stealing from allies on duty or completely disregarding the task at hand? Does it make less disciplined than Vala or Jack or Teal'c?

1. Vala was not in the military... pure and simple. WoO was an anomoly. None of SG1 ever acted unprofessionally while ON DUTY...vala excepted of course! ;)

2. This thread is about Scott and SGU not SG1. Scott volunteered for the US military and supposedly "the best of the best" is part of the SGC.

Arica15
November 3rd, 2009, 11:30 AM
Loathe as I am to sound like I'm supporting TPTB the scene didn't bother me in of itself. Adults have sex, sometimes in cupboards, personally I could live without them as they never rally seem to add anything to a show but it doesn't shock me if they put them in, and it wasn't like acres of flesh were on display, it just all seemed a little tawdry (which I suppose was the point). And I've yet to see a sex scene which didn't end up looking a little silly with all the faces people pull.........;)

On the other hand, a friend of mine mentioned that he had watched it along with his two pre-teen daughters as they had all really enjoyed the previous stargates and when they heard there was a new one he was really looking forward to something that the family could watch together.

I'm sure you can guess what his reaction was.....

Ashizuri
November 3rd, 2009, 11:34 AM
1. Vala was not in the military... pure and simple. WoO was a an anomoly. None of SG1 ever acted unprofessionally while ON DUTY...vala excepted of course! ;)

2. This thread is about Scott and SGU not SG1. Scott volunteered for the US military and supposedly "the best of the best" is part of the SGC.

1. Vala was on SG-1 so I hold her to the same standards that I hold every other team member, miltary or not. And I disagree, members of SG-1 acted unprofessionally while on duty all the time, at least to me, it's just that SG-1 as a more family friendly show was less graphic in the nature of the mistakes that were made. WoO was an anomaly, but it doesn't change the fact that Jack and Teal'c, Jack in particular, acted extremely unprofessionally in that episode. No consequences shouldn't mean we can ignore the mistakes that were made.

2. This thread is about Scott and SGU, certainly, but making comparisons between his mistakes and the mistakes of other SGC personnel, military and non-military, and how differently they seem to be judged, seems relevent and on-topic to me.

Lord Hurin
November 3rd, 2009, 11:37 AM
I had just read that the team went back to remaster "Children of the Gods". They said they wanted to remove the nude scene because it didn't fit the character of the show. So when I saw this sex scene in SGU, I was a little miffed at the hypocrisy.

The difference between "assumed" sex, as in we didn't see it happening but were pretty sure of what was going on, and full frontal nudity is pretty profound...

I didn't care one way or the other about the scene. I appreciate that it was done "tastefully" in that we didn't get any nasty surprises if we zoom in and refocus the scene.

On the other hand, the young 20-something male part of me wishes to see Lt. James on "Skinemax" some time.. ;)

Rac80
November 3rd, 2009, 11:39 AM
Loathe as I am to sound like I'm supporting TPTB the scene didn't bother me in of itself. Adults have sex, sometimes in cupboards, personally I could live without them as they never rally seem to add anything to a show but it doesn't shock me if they put them in, and it wasn't like acres of flesh were on display, it just all seemed a little tawdry (which I suppose was the point). And I've yet to see a sex scene which didn't end up looking a little silly with all the faces people pull.........;)

On the other hand, a friend of mine mentioned that he had watched it along with his two pre-teen daughters as they had all really enjoyed the previous stargates and when they heard there was a new one he was really looking forward to something that the family could watch together.

I'm sure you can guess what his reaction was.....
the meaning of "family friendly" is not universal. :S


1. Vala was on SG-1 so I hold her to the same standards that I hold every other team member, miltary or not. And I disagree, members of SG-1 acted unprofessionally while on duty all the time, at least to me, it's just that SG-1 as a more family friendly show was less graphic in the nature of the mistakes that were made. WoO was an anomaly, but it doesn't change the fact that Jack and Teal'c, Jack in particular, acted extremely unprofessionally at times. No consequences shouldn't mean we can ignore the mistakes that were made.

2. This thread is about Scott and SGU, certainly, but making comparisons between his mistakes and the mistakes of other SGC personnel, military and non-military, and how differently they seem to be judged, seems relevent and on-topic to me.

we will differ simple as that.....

The Mighty 6 platoon
November 3rd, 2009, 01:17 PM
you do know I have a degree in psychology right? didn't say it was personal chitchat....

Well not being psychic so no.

12OzMouse
November 3rd, 2009, 06:47 PM
You guys and girls do realize that this is a fictional television program that is based on 0% fact. The stargates really don't exist and there is really no Stargate command. These people who act in this show only exist for our entertainment, and to even remotely compare them to actual military personal is wrong, unless it is for your entertainment. I guess considering how long this thread has endured, it must be pretty entertaining!

Sometimes I think a reality check is in order. SGU is going to be different from the rest of the franchise. The writers and producers have openly said so. There are going to be adult themes and the "the scene" I'm afraid is only going to be the tip of the iceberg.

I like the direction the show is going. I'm glad they included the scene, because the rest of the show is proceeding at a snails pace. Shoot, in 4 more episodes they are going to take a 5 month break! Most any other show would be canceled.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt!

GateGipsy
November 4th, 2009, 05:44 AM
12ozMouse - LOL! Yes indeed of course we do :) But it is so much fun to argue these points. Goodness knows how much time I've spent nit picking in the SG fandom over the years. It is what's so great about discussing the show with other fans. Especially working out how something might happen in order for it to fit within both the SG verse and our own. Like how Apophis managed to go back out through the stargate in the pilot episode of SG1 when we didn't see him use any portable dialling mechanism or unwrap the closed off control room and start up the computer.

12OzMouse
November 4th, 2009, 06:07 AM
I know, it was all in fun! Although I have to say that in this case, the arguments are more interesting that the actual footage in question!

Paradoxum
December 2nd, 2009, 09:54 AM
I hated this sex scene, because I recently got my little 12 year old brother hooked on stargate, we watched SG-1, Atlantis all the way through in a couple months and he was excited to begin watching Universe, I had no idea it would have such graphic scenes like that and was really disappointed that they felt they had to resort to this kind of stuff to pull in ratings. who knows maybe 10 years from now they'll remake the first 2 episodes like they did with children of the gods and cut out the sex scene (well in CoTG it was just nudity but you know what I mean)

Mongoletsi
December 3rd, 2009, 01:21 AM
I hated this sex scene, because I recently got my little 12 year old brother hooked on stargate, we watched SG-1, Atlantis all the way through in a couple months and he was excited to begin watching Universe, I had no idea it would have such graphic scenes like that and was really disappointed that they felt they had to resort to this kind of stuff to pull in ratings. who knows maybe 10 years from now they'll remake the first 2 episodes like they did with children of the gods and cut out the sex scene (well in CoTG it was just nudity but you know what I mean)

1. It's rated PG / PG13 generally. Your parents are at fault.
2. I bet he wasn't disappointed at seeing a (vague) hint of flesh.
3. "Resort to"? Erm. Sex happens. In that situation I'd be getting all I could. It's realistic.

apostrophe
May 19th, 2010, 03:43 PM
Studio Executive: "Well BSG had sex scenes, so SG:U must have them too".

It did feel very "stuck in" there. Like some studio executive had walked onto the set one day and said "we need a sex scene to help ratings, do it now" and then by the next day had forgotten all about it.\

Yeah, I agree. A lot of the show is like that (so far). Way too much character crap thrown in like space filler. Too many characters thrown in at once. Maybe this is Karma because I always liked the so-called techno-babble when it is credibly worked out (not so much the case here though). To the sci-fi tech fan all the emoting and back stories is so much "character-babble" and quickly becomes tedious if it's not mixed in with some witty repartee' or at least comes in small doses.

I've got nothing against sex but I found the scene to be of distracting intensity which didn't help amid all the other confusing character jumble. If nothing else, it establishes that the female military person has rather nice legs as opposed to discovering other aspects of her being desirable. But that's unnecessary, since we get to see her legs in a following episode as well as several scenes quickly establishing at least a couple of her other, um, strengths. :)

I'm starting to learn to reprogram DVD's so I edited it down to strong innuendo and it works much better. I cut to the point where John Boy (Scott?) is tucking his shirt in on the way out. The lusty look she gives is still priceless. That's all I need to know. Nice. Interesting. Happy for them but now it's easy to move on with the overall story (such as it is).

I think the "coitus interruptus" aspect of the uncut scene was supposed to be humorous too but, to me, it wasn't. It just added a mild sense of unfulfillment and dissatisfaction due to another layer of disruption on top of the disruptive effect of the overly prolonged and too detailed portrayal to begin with. I don't watch SG for the sex. If I want to see it done well and scenes taken to proper completion by beautiful people, I would prefer to watch actual porn of my own choosing.

The other problem is that I have gotten some older relatives interested in sci-fi. Sitting down to watch in that social setting, when you hit a scene like that, it can get a little awkward. Now, there will probably always some people who have Puritanical convictions about sex, but there is also the fact that, ultimately, sex is primarily the domain of the young. Things tend to get more difficult the older you get, past a certain age. If things are too explicit and prolonged it becomes too much of a reminder about what has been lost along with one's lost youth. It therefore, in such a mixed setting of viewers, what was intended to be titillating/amusing/engaging, instead, becomes major buzz-kill and makes everyone in the room squirm uncomfortably.

Good innuendo is harder to craft but it avoids all that and makes it easier for the widest possible (adult) audience to identify with the characters intimate personal interaction on some level without actually being provoked into reacting to it or breaking one's attention to try to figure out how one is supposed to react to it..

---

Snowman37
October 3rd, 2010, 03:22 PM
Well, that was the first romance scene we've seen in a while in stargate. Personally, I think it was next to unnessecary and overly graphic and the grunting was, well over the top. They didn't actually have to be doing it, it would be the same effect if they were kissing, and then we wouldn't have to put up with the moaning and grunting. So what did you guys think of it.
Sex is not romance, this scene was childish at best. I fast forwarded over it, so I can't comment on the details. I can only say that it shouldn't have been there. Imagine a mom watching that with her ten-year-old son after having finished with Atlantis. Do you think they'd be finishing the episode? No... the mom would have changed the channel. By including graphic scenery, the show looses a large chunk of it's audience: kids.

Adrian_Jackson
March 17th, 2011, 04:23 PM
Sex is not romance, this scene was childish at best. I fast forwarded over it, so I can't comment on the details. I can only say that it shouldn't have been there. Imagine a mom watching that with her ten-year-old son after having finished with Atlantis. Do you think they'd be finishing the episode? No... the mom would have changed the channel. By including graphic scenery, the show looses a large chunk of it's audience: kids.

Oh yeah? Well maybe it's not FOR kids! Maybe this dumb ass mom in your scenario should have done some research before stupidly showing her child something she knew nothing about. There are hints throughout the episode BEFORE that scene indicating that this is a grown-up show dealing with adult situations and characters with ulterior motives. It's different from a get go. There's nothing shocking about that scene.

Egle01
March 18th, 2011, 06:40 AM
Hello. :D It's this thread again. Oh the double standards and... double standards.