Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stargate College Class! Help!!!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • majortrip
    replied
    Okay, here's my two cents.

    I don't see the women on SciFi or most other science fiction programming as drop-dead gorgeous, either, initially, with the possible exception of Rachel Luttrell. Teyla was not very glamorous in S1. However, they become more beautiful to me over time. If I had seen Gillian Anderson or Torri Higginson or Katee Sackhoff in public, I may have not thought her to be stand-out, but pretty or natural looking. These women become more beautiful or physically appealing to me over time and as I get to know the character she plays.

    In fact, if scifi were to take a woman with model looks like Molly Sims or Eva Longoria and plopped her into a role like Dr. Weir, I think I instictually would have trouble taking that character seriously. Shallow, perhaps. I think an actress has to have a certain amount of skill and seasoning to pull off science fiction. This is a genre in which not only the actors must use their imaginations, so must the viewers. I cannot enjoy a program in which I have to try to hard to make the pieces fit, and I will lose interest and stop watching.

    On the beauty side of it, it works that way for male characters, too. I am a Joe Flanigan fan, but if he did not make the role of Sheppard work for me, I would have trouble watching, even though I find him physically beautiful. Take David Duchovny. Some people don't find him attractive at all, but I did as Mulder.

    Just as actresses become more beautiful to me as their role on a show grows on me, I find it interesting to me that many women who are thought to be more traditionally attractive are in scifi roles where their natural looks are obscured. Two that come to mind are Jolene Blaylock (Enterprise) and Jeri Ryan (Voyager). If T'Pol looked like a model (from the neck up ), I don't know if I would have been interested.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeyla4ever
    replied
    Here we go again...another interesting and challenging question from Whistler.....

    Beauty...Brains....how comical that they both start with the letter "B"....
    Well, let's see...I do look at beauty...and brains...I look for character development and I look for challenging and thought provoking dialogue among the characters...Especially in the female roles, I look for characters that intrigue me and that I can find something to entertain but most importantly to critique about..yes...I do like to critique....I guess because I learn something from it..or perhaps not!

    In either case, I think you do have a point...but I do think that they are looking for beautiful and attractive women...Just not the norm of what is consider attractive in the spotlight of Hollywood right now...

    I bought the Rising DVD and I believe that it was Brad Wright that stated that he knew from the very beginning phases of Atlantis that he wanted a non military woman to command Atlantis...He knew exactly what he was looking for and he found it in Weir....He mentions how when he sees Torri, she just personifies strength and the ability to lead a city like Atlantis from a non-military stand point...I loved that! He was not looking at beauty...he was looking for a female leader...and that is powerful....Same thing with Teyla...He knew he wanted someone that would be a strong, courageous and at the same time a soulfoul woman..and just looking at Rachel she interprets all of those qualities..she is just that! So, I think these characters are so great because the writers were looking for something beyond beauty...They are beautiful woman...I don't know how anyone would say that they are not...and I think they are drop dead gorgeous..If I may...because their not only beautiful on the outside but their inner beauty is reflected in their characters as well....VAlA...I can't stand...and I don't think she is beautiful at all...She has an awesome body..but if you look at her face..she is not your ordinary beauty....but that is just my opinion...Carter, Frasier...they aren't drop dead gorgeous either...

    Today's woman has changed and our perceptions of women have changed drastically...go back a several years and look at what television considered beautiful and compare it to today's beauty and it is not the same...Today's women likes to be treated equal to men in some things but at the same time we like to preserve what makes us different from men...We like to have the same positions as men but we also like to continue to dress and walk differently..why because we are different...Today's working woman likes to see herself as capable of accomplishing anything and everything that a man can do and she doesn't have to be gorgeous to do it..and that is why television today can get away with taking a regular beauty and turn her into a bombshell...but when you look at them when they first started off, they are nothing compare to what they have turned them out to be...and yes...I think Stargate writers and producers do care about beauty..isn't this one of the strongest arguments against Teyla...that they are going for a specific persona because of her outfits? And what about the fact that Torri now is loaded with makeup...again, I just saw the Rising DVD in my 65" HighDefenition TV and she hardly has any makeup and frankly, not her best look...and neither does Rachel...her hairdo was horrible and she had much less makeup than what she does now and didn't have her skimpy outfit....

    Reality...looks does matter on TV....it's just that they are opening a different kind of beauty and letting us see a different type of beauty...one that is dictated by them..but they are still prying for our eyes...and our approval..the advantage, if any, of this is that they are also recognizing the importance of women today and our role in society as females that can lead just as good if not better than any men in any type of leadership role. And this is what I love and look for in my favorite female characters...go back to Camryn Manheim from the Practice...again...I couldn't think of any on SciFi...an overweight woman who over the years of playing this characters became one of the strongest and most admired actresses in Hollywood..but it took awhile and it took several pounds off and several makeover...but it did happen...is she considered a bombshell..no...but she is one of the few that has broken the mold on what a strong female character can bring to a show besides just looks...and that to me is very significant as a woman....but, frankly, how many more examples like this do we have? Not much...and still we have a long way to go...

    So, let's not go and say that now they are not interested in looks..YEAH RIGHT! It's just that now they have added a new characteristic to the stereotypical way of looking at women on TV...but frankly, I think SCIFI has a long way to go........we still see the leather and black tights..and the whole she bangs! (did I spell this right) for some that is enough, for others it's just partial and for most of us, it is not enough and we do look for women characters that slightly shed some light on what a real women in the real world is capable of accomplishing regardless of her looks...
    Is SciFi there yet? I don't think so.....but maybe they are trying...and that is something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Purpleyin
    replied
    Originally posted by FoolishPleasure
    I've wondered why TPTB don't use more women on the teams - even if they didn't want to use them as soldiers, they could show them as scientists, etc. Carter and Frazier always worked well together. And it would be nice to see a "minority" woman leading a team for a change.
    I'm still hoping for a return of Miko (LFP) and/or Simpson (38 Minutes)... Though it's nice they've kept Heightmeyer around and Cadman seems favoured enough to return. Still, it'd be nice for them to put in some more recurring female characters, or use the ones they already have *cough*Sora*cough*...

    Mind you this isn't restricted to female recurring characters, since Bates, Stackham and other male recurrings from S1 are awol in S2 - but there aren't that many female character to start with, so it's more disconcerting to not see a decent character come back and get developed...
    Last edited by Purpleyin; 11 October 2005, 07:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SnoggingPicard
    replied
    Whistler, you are dead on right. Stargate is such a great series for so many reasons, and part of that is the realism of the characters. Yes, all of them are not shabby looking people, but you can tell when the roles were cast, that they weren't looking for models. They were looking for someone who could BE Weir, who could BE Teyla, and who could BE Sam. For me, none of these characters are dependent on their looks and that is part of what makes them strong. They are all capable of holding their own in a verbal/scientific/physical sparring match, have marvelously complex personalities, unique senses of humor, and wonderful, varied relationships with the other characters. It really is their personalities that are so beautiful and attractive -- in the guys and the girls on the show.

    I'd like to call attention to the thread on Gateworld if I may that is called "Top 25 Babes in Stargate". It's pretty obvious why it's there. What I think is interesting is how people are rating their choices. Guys and girls continually pick Sam Carter, Weir, and Teyla as the top three, not Vala or Osiris (who are more "drop dead gorgeous" as you put it). Why is that? All of them say things like, "I like a girl with a brain"; "She's sexy and smart"; "She can kick ass"; etc, etc, etc. Most of the postings don't even address physical beauty, and if they do, mostly they are in conjunction with personality, which is the more important factor in the choices. This says soooo much about why we love these characters, and I think it says a lot about the acting and writing ability of the franchise.

    That comment about Starbuck in BSG really shocks me. I think that she is absolutely beautiful, but now that I'm looking at it with this idea in my head, I'm thinking of why I love that character so much. And that's just it -- I love her CHARACTER. When I watch Starbuck, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I wish I could have blond hair and be tall and be in shape". I think "I wish I was that confident and funny and brave and devoted." Same thing with all of the characters on Stargate. I wish that I had more of Teyla's quiet, calming introspection, more of Weir's formal, brilliant presence, more of Sam's intelligence, more of Vala's rambunctiousness, more of Dr. Frasier's empathy. These are the parts of the characters that I really admire and love, and eventually I think we even lose interest in what they look like. I'm not saying you can't physically admire any of the actors, but I would rather have a great one-liner from Sheppard to Rodney or one of his puppy-dog expressions to Weir or Teyla than, say, a scene where he doesn't have a shirt -- the former is his character, the latter is just the icing on the cake. I like the characters a lot, and nothing makes me happier when they do or say something that makes me say, "Wow! Teyla just served you!" or "You tell him Dr. Weir!" Those moments are what really make them great creations.

    Hope that that made some sense and it helps you out a bit, Whistler. Basically, I agree with you yet AGAIN. You are always so right, that it's hard not to! Keep us updated on your class!

    Leave a comment:


  • Whistler84
    replied
    Okay, random (but I think important) question to address when talking about sci-fi females of Stargate. Now, this is specifically my opinion, so please don't take this as me somehow stating a fact of any sort. But I've noticed that the women of Stargate aren't the usual beauty you see on television these days. None of them, in my opinion, (specifically based on looks alone) are drop dead gorgeous. To me, they're the type of pretty you'd encounter in real people you see everyday.

    It's their personalities and their characters that make them beautiful to me. For instance, Weir has become the most gorgeous character for me (like ever, right under Scully), but this has to do more with her character than her looks. I'll admit, if I were to have been shown a pic of Torri Higginson a couple of years back, I wouldn't have thought she was "all that." Pretty, but nothing to lose sleep over. Same thing with Rachel Luttrell, Amanda Tapping, and Teryl Rothery. They're all pretty, but not OMG-SHE'S-SO-GORGEOUS type of way!! In fact, just based on looks, I'd have to say Claudia Black would get the Most Gorgeous of Stargate Women Award. Again, this is just my subjective opinion.

    My point is (and I do have a point) that when you compare Stargate to other shows, their standards of beauty are on a level of their own. Take Lost, for example. There, you've got a group of deserted people, with no plumbing, no soap, and the same six pairs of clothing to last their lifetime on the Island. Yet, all the women are model-worthy and have unnaturally well-conditioned hair!!!! I love Lost, but dude, c'mon! People stranded on a deserted island should not look that freakin' hot!

    Based on a typical, westernized perspective of women and beauty, compare the women on Lost (or Mutant X, or Desperate Housewives, or any other pop culture show), to the women of Stargate, and one can see a difference. On Stargate, there's more natural beauty. Am I right?

    My question to you (both the women and the men in the audience) is, when you first started watching Stargate, did you notice that the women there were not all "drop-dead-gorgeous-model-worthy"? (Again, if someone disagrees with this and thinks they were, that's fine. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all.) What did you think about their looks? Did you think that reflected in your preferences for them (i.e. are you more willing to like a pretty female character, than one you don't particularly find attractive?) What, do you think, made the Stargate creators attempt to go down this route instead of the route you see in "Lost"?

    Heck, also take 'Starbuck' from BSG for a prime example. A lot of complaints against her, including one from my own brother, was that she wasn't pretty enough to be 'lead women.' Television demands a standard of beauty, and I've often seen that if a woman doesn't live up to that standard, her character is treated far more critically and harshly.

    Ultimately, I'm asking, does how a woman look on television affect your judgement of her character? Did how Sam, Weir, Teyla, Fraiser, and Vala look, effect your preference for them? Both originally, and after you got to know their characters.

    Please be honest. I need brutal honesty!

    Leave a comment:


  • chyron
    replied
    Originally posted by PhoenixSong
    Too many posts to read all, so I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but by deifnition I think you're going to have a hard time calling HP science fiction. The distinction between SciFi and Fantasy can be tough, but HP seems to reply more on "willing things to happen" than it does a set of rules within or outside of our known physical boundaries.
    Already covered plus links to the sci-fi, hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi articles on the wikipedia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeyla4ever
    replied
    [QUOTE][QUOTE=FoolishPleasure]
    Originally posted by Camy
    Went there for a peek a few weeks ago after I saw you complaining about it in another thread. Rather pointless to talk to the 12 year olds at that site
    .


    Finally, something I can agree with you on...so true...so glad you wrote and not me...it was just a terrible experience..period!

    I've wondered why TPTB don't use more women on the teams - even if they didn't want to use them as soldiers, they could show them as scientists, etc. Carter and Frazier always worked well together. And it would be nice to see a "minority" woman leading a team for a change.[/QUOTE]
    You are definetly getting a green ( I think this is what you guys call it)from me on this one!
    Maybe you and I can find some common ground afterall.....

    Leave a comment:


  • FoolishPleasure
    replied
    [QUOTE=Camy]
    Originally posted by FoolishPleasure
    After looking the MGM/Sony board and seeing what YOU posted there. . .'nuff said..

    So, you go there too...huh...interesting.....
    Went there for a peek a few weeks ago after I saw you complaining about it in another thread. Rather pointless to talk to the 12 year olds at that site.

    Originally posted by Sela
    I think that would make for a great class discussion as you also find this dynamic when it comes to racial minority characters on the various shows as well. A discussion on why so-called 'minority characters' (I include women here as a minority character) are portrayed as the "other" or the "exception" rather than the rule.

    Also why is there usually only 'one' on any team? Why is there never two women on a team with one in command? We take for granted that three men on a four person team is nothing to blink at - why not three women?
    I've wondered why TPTB don't use more women on the teams - even if they didn't want to use them as soldiers, they could show them as scientists, etc. Carter and Frazier always worked well together. And it would be nice to see a "minority" woman leading a team for a change.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhoenixSong
    replied
    Too many posts to read all, so I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but by deifnition I think you're going to have a hard time calling HP science fiction. The distinction between SciFi and Fantasy can be tough, but HP seems to reply more on "willing things to happen" than it does a set of rules within or outside of our known physical boundaries.

    Leave a comment:


  • xkawaiix
    replied
    Originally posted by Sela
    I think that would make for a great class discussion as you also find this dynamic when it comes to racial minority characters on the various shows as well. A discussion on why so-called 'minority characters' (I include women here as a minority character) are portrayed as the "other" or the "exception" rather than the rule.

    Also why is there usually only 'one' on any team? Why is there never two women on a team with one in command? We take for granted that three men on a four person team is nothing to blink at - why not three women?
    Yeah! That's just like the "Sam Should Have Been Commander of SG1" debate!
    ...but that's pretty much off topic isn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sela
    replied
    Originally posted by Whistler84
    Yes, I was planning on bringing up the infamous quote of "And just because my reproductive organs are on the inside instead of the outside, doesn't mean I can't handle whatever you can handle." I wanted to show how the ptb decided to start off their only female character, and how Sam evolved from that. And why it was not only necessary to have her be military, but also a scientist. Does that personify that ideal that women have to be twice as good as men to get half the respect?
    I think that would make for a great class discussion as you also find this dynamic when it comes to racial minority characters on the various shows as well. A discussion on why so-called 'minority characters' (I include women here as a minority character) are portrayed as the "other" or the "exception" rather than the rule.

    Also why is there usually only 'one' on any team? Why is there never two women on a team with one in command? We take for granted that three men on a four person team is nothing to blink at - why not three women?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sela
    replied
    I think talking about Sam's character is paramount to any discussion of women in the SG-1 universe. The whole subject of women in the military, command issues, relationships between the sexes while serving together - wow, you could do a whole class on Sam's alone.

    Would love to see your outlines...are your classes going to taped or videoed? Apologies if that was asked before. Got excited and replied before I read the whole thread. Good Luck to you!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeyla4ever
    replied
    [QUOTE=FoolishPleasure]After looking the MGM/Sony board and seeing what YOU posted there. . .'nuff said..

    So, you go there too...huh...interesting.....

    Leave a comment:


  • FoolishPleasure
    replied
    Originally posted by Camy
    But, before I continue..I have to say that I went to the link that you posted earlier from Sony in regards to the comments made towards Teyla....and sadly, I posted there....and I don't anymore..I found nothing intelligent from 99% of the people that posted there and nothing that challenged or intrigued my intellectual thoughts...I can respect other people's opinion, but I expect the same from them towards me as well....
    After looking the MGM/Sony board and seeing what YOU posted there. . .'nuff said..

    I like the characters of both Carter, Frazier, Weir for their beauty and intelligence. I don't strive to be like them (because I could never reach that level) but I admire them for showing women CAN make it in the scientific world, and I look at these characters as positive role models for young girls today.

    As for Starbuck, she is an intelligent, brave, but tortured individual. She stands for something else - a female who has been brutalized in the past and has overcome it. Kara is still fighting her demons, but I think she'll make it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeyla4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by xkawaiix
    Wow Camy, such depth! That was... wow.

    Thanks...considering that I wrote in the middle of the night...or the morning..I'm not quite sure...anyhow...I did it for Whistler84...I hope this helps....and to state my views on Teyla's character....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X