Anubis over the edge ?

[Torley]

Now, a twist would be if they showed Anubis in fact being the pawn of a greater master!

[Anubis]

I sort of Agree Anubis is over the edge but then all the Gou'ald's have done things over the top

[uknesvuinng]

The bottom line is: Daniel says "I don't, uh, I don't have to die, right?" and the monk answers this question with "You do not have the same evil within you". It seems like a pretty straight-forward answer indicating a big fat "no" to me.

It's a big fat "not the answer to the question". Removing the evil meant getting rid of the symbiote, which meant Bra'tac would die. Daniel then asked if he would have to die, to which the monk responded "You do not have the same evil within you." Daniel took this to mean he didn't have to die, and made this vocally known, which the monk then immediately followed by telling him he had his own burdens to release. What the monk first tells Daniel is true, he doesn't have a symbiote within him. This has nothing to do with Daniel dying. He doesn't have a symbiote to take out in the first place, so it won't kill him to do so. However, he had his own burdens to be released, which can easily be taken as "you have to give up your hold on this life." It's like:
Monk: "Woman, you will feel pain in childbirth."
Man: "Will I have to feel pain?"
Monk: "You cannot give birth."
Man: "OK"
Monk: "But other events will happen to you in life."

On top of all that, during Bra'tac's conversation, the monk said the body would become unimportant when the mind was freed. We catch on from Oma as she helps Daniel ascend that freeing the mind was the first step towards ascension, not ascension itself. So it's reasonable to assume that one burden was the desire to live, and once it and any other possible burdens are released, the body matters not. The desire to live is a big hinderance in letting one's self die. One further example is Daniel's ascension, it wasn't until he gave up the desire to live and got Jacob to stop healing him that he was able to pass on and ascend. That says a great deal more than our extrapolating of a monk's words.

[Ugly Pig]

Daniel took this to mean he didn't have to die, and made this vocally known, which the monk then immediately followed by telling him he had his own burdens to release.

...specifically, his hatred for the goa'uld. Sorry, but I still don't buy your interpretation of the scene. As you say, Daniel does take the monk's statement to mean he wouldn't have to die. I just don't think the continued dialogue is meant to indicate otherwise.

[uknesvuinng]

...specifically, his hatred for the goa'uld. Sorry, but I still don't buy your interpretation of the scene. As you say, Daniel does take the monk's statement to mean he wouldn't have to die. I just don't think the continued dialogue is meant to indicate otherwise.

While it's possible that Daniel's hatred of the the Goa'uld could be one of his burdens, there's absolutely no reason to link either statement to Daniel's feelings about the Goa'uld in any way. The monk says this in response to the question of having to die.

Personally, I'm tired of going on about this. I've already pointed out more than enough reasons why it makes sense that one has to die first, and I can't see any reason for pointing out any more considering you haven't even responded to my points yet; you've just continued to ignore the points and state your own ideas without giving them any kind of real support.

[Ugly Pig]

While it's possible that Daniel's hatred of the the Goa'uld could be one of his burdens, there's absolutely no reason to link either statement to Daniel's feelings about the Goa'uld in any way.

Except that the monk certainly did take notice of Daniel's hatred. I do think this is the burden he was referring to.

The monk says this in response to the question of having to die.

That would be the point I disagree with. I see this line as the monk shifting the conversation to Daniel's own problems. Basically, here's how the exchange comes across to me:
Daniel: I don't have to die, right?
Monk: You do not have the same evil within you. (No.)
Daniel: Good.
Monk: But you do have your own burdens, etc. (But you have some issues that need to be resolved.)

Personally, I'm tired of going on about this. I've already pointed out more than enough reasons why it makes sense that one has to die first, and I can't see any reason for pointing out any more considering you haven't even responded to my points yet; you've just continued to ignore the points and state your own ideas without giving them any kind of real support.

Say what? I haven't ignored your points at all, I've just disagreed with them. I think you've been reading too much into what seems to me like a fairly straight-forward bit of dialogue. As for stating my ideas with no support, well - I've explained my interpretation of what is presented on screen, just like you have been doing. But yeah - I'm getting tired of this, too. So if we can agree to disagree, that's just fine with me.

[Janus]

The idea of being dead for a thousand year and then coming back.
Not this. And super-soldiers, forget it.
Both taken from computer game 'Return to Castle Wolfenstein'.
He even has his own insane scientist overseeing the Kull warriors in Evolution, part 1+2.
Conclusion: It's been done, seen it, move on !

Could the RTCW-people press charges for copyright voilation against MGM ?
Since their super-soldiers existed first....I hope not

[Anubis]

Just because it's simular they can't really do much about it since I'm guessing it isn't EXACTLY the same. If it was then yes, they could do things to MGM, but I doubt it. If they was going to, they would have done by now

[Torley]

Supersoldiers are by no means new -- if one traces things back to mythological golems, and even further. It's one of those things that constantly gets reinvented, like vampires and werewolves. And oh yeah, mad scientists... well, Dr. Frankenstein, although it should be noted that the original was not "mad", "merely" tormented

[Anubis]

I agree. Things like that are always been reintroduced

[VirtualCLD]

If you want to know a rip-off of RTCW, watch Hellboy! i think that was a heck of a lot closer to copyright infrngement than Anubis and his supersoldiers. Supersoldiers are a very common device. It might not be very original, but I don't beleive it even comes close to RTCW.
Personally, I don't know why Oma stopped Daniel. I know that the ascended Ancients are not suppoed to interfere, but they created this freak-of-nature by trying to force Anubis to descend. Therefore, all of his evil-doing is mostly their fault, especialy since he's using the knowledge he gained from when he was ascended. I think it's the Ancient's responsibility to have stopped Anubis, not the SGC.

[Torley]

Yeah, notice a common thread with these so-called Great Races? They all seem to be in denial in their own way... or are recluctant to be more open, likely given past history. The Asgard couldn't admit their technology and cloned bodies were failing them until SG-1 got really close, the Nox have this thing about remaining hidden and being reclusive in spite of their great power (clearly they have technological skillz as well, but they seem to more want to attribute it to "magic"), and the Ancients are SOOO in denial about assuming responsibility for galactic screw-ups!

[VirtualCLD]

The Tollan too, very reclusive. Whatever happened to: "With great power comes great responsibility"? Maybe they think hiding and keeping their "greatness" to themselves is responsible, but I don't think so.

[Torley]

Yes, I'm with you there, VirtualCLD. Welcome to Gateworld too, I see you're new.

A number of real-world Earth empires have historically been like that, and every single one of them eventually fell over the years, overrun by barbarians or some other fate.