Joseph Mallozzi's Blog! (SPOILERS For All SG Shows and Dark Matter)

[Prior_of_the_Ori]

lol Joe has some great comments to make. Read some those that have been posted but this one is nice.

Lizzyshoe writes: “ Did you license the Ewoks for the 200th ep, or did you just steal them, change them a smidge, and hope for the best?”

Answer: In fact, the part of the Furlings in 200 were played by two delightful little woodland creatures, part of a pack that inhabit a heavily forested area near the Bridge Studios. Typically shy in nature, they were coaxed out of their natural habitat and enticed to take part in the production in exchange for various sweets (they demonstrated an affinity for O’Henry bars). All in all, they were wondrous creatures to behold, a true joy to work with, and I regret the production office’s decision to put them down once the episode had wrapped.

[prion]

I don;t think Joe reads the questions he answers....

http://josephmallozzi.blogspot.com/2...y-21-2007.html

Anonymous #6 writes: “ Out of curiosity, the Battlestar Galactica people have had no problem dropping whoppers of spoilers to the Chicago Tribune, which uses appropriate spoiler space, so why do you avoid questions regarding SGA spoilers that virtually every Stargate fan knows because those episodes aired in Canada (and probably spread like wildfire via 'alternate sources' on the web)?”

Answer: Because unfortunately, as a result of the new airing schedule, all of the questions being asked concern season 4 while the back half of season 3 - which has yet to air - is being lost in the shuffle.


I read the chicago tribune article and he was asked about season 3, definitely, and avoided answering specific questions. his blog is amusing, but not very informative.

[ForeverSg1]

Yea! I'm so glad about Ms. Byer and Hancock. I admit that I missed that they were hired because I was concentrating on SG1. Still that is for only one episode in several years on two shows.

The "stay at home Mom" comment doesn't fly because nowadays most Moms only stay at home temporarily and many women never become "stay at home Moms" at all. Even if they did, many writers work from home, even the men.

As for "Seventh Heaven" hiring a large percentage of female writers..Touche! At least some female writers are getting hired, but I was talking about Stargate. Personally, and I know I'm not the only one, I would like more female writers because:

1. I'm uncomfortable with the way the female characters are being written lately.

2. I'd like more female character centered episodes. Yes, Atlantis has had a few good ones, but I'd like more.

3. More freelance writers would lead to more original ideas on the show, whether the writer is male or female.

3. It's the right thing to do.

Finally, by male oriented, do you mean military? Look at the military today. There are women everywhere, and they are even Generals.

I do think that men can write drama. I also think that women can write drama just as well. They can write good science fiction, too. Look at D.C. Fontana and "Star Trek". I'm not asking that women writers take over writing for the Stargate franchise. I just think they should get a fair chance at it, and I'm not falling for the "We just couldn't find any good female writers." comment which Joe implied if he did not say it straight out.

Brad Wright is my favorite writer on the shows and Martin Gero is my second favorite writer. For the most part, they write well for women, too. If they hire more female writers, they will probably continue to stay my favorite writers. That doesn't mean that the show couldn't use the female viewpoint. One of those writers that was never hired could have contributed wonderful stories, but we'll probably never know.

In my opinion it's not truly even a matter of not having female writers so much as they feel the need to use so many male characters period. I mean how many System Lords or villians/guest spots in general have been written in a way that specified a particular gender?

Why did Colonel Reynolds, Colonel Emerson or Colonel Makepeace have to be a male?

There was absolutely nothing in their character backgrounds or history that would require them to be male and I find it very hard to believe that Sam is the highest ranking female officer in the USAF's space program or the SGC. So why couldn't those roles have been left exactly as they were and simply replaced with a female character?

IMO, that's what made Sam so interesting in the begnning because outside of a few unnecessary comments and episodes, Sam was written just as if she were another male character. There wasn't a need to constantly explain to the viewers that she was female. Sam just did her job. So I guess I don't understand why more female characters aren't being written this way. Instead we seem to be getting more than our share of busty eye candy who are simply used to entice the male leads or silly, screaming banshees.

[prion]

In my opinion it's not truly even a matter of not having female writers so much as they feel the need to use so many male characters period. I mean how many System Lords or villians/guest spots in general have been written in a way that specified a particular gender?

Why did Colonel Reynolds, Colonel Emerson or Colonel Makepeace have to be a male?

There was absolutely nothing in their character backgrounds or history that would require them to be male and I find it very hard to believe that Sam is the highest ranking female officer in the USAF's space program or the SGC. So why couldn't those roles have been left exactly as they were and simply replaced with a female character?

IMO, that's what made Sam so interesting in the begnning because outside of a few unnecessary comments and episodes, Sam was written just as if she were another male character. There wasn't a need to constantly explain to the viewers that she was female. Sam just did her job. So I guess I don't understand why more female characters aren't being written this way. Instead we seem to be getting more than our share of busty eye candy who are simply used to entice the male leads or silly, screaming banshees.

I think the best female guest character they've had, period, was Nirrti, and blast, they killed her.

And yes, far too many times females are 'eye candy' (as in they're dressed that way). I mean, to me, Shep is eye candy but he can eye candy just as he is. He doesn't need to be in less clothing to be appealing, which is how females are invariably portrayed in too much TV.

[Pitry]

Y'see I think this not taking themselves seriously - and I'm all for a bit of fun (emphasize "a bit") - is what is making it seem much more juvenile. It may always have been slightly cheesy, but playing it straight, with the odd well placed one-liner or bit of incidental humor, allows them to at least delve a bit more deeply than setting up the next (in-)joke.

There may be no naivity in the characters/show, but it doesn't mean they have to stop, and point out all the cheesiness. If they make a habit of going "Haha, we know this is silly. See we're having the characters point it out all the time" then all I will be left seeing is a joke show.
Also, I think it worked better in previous seasons since it tended to only be Jack who pointed it out whilst everyone else was fairly straight. This way it was just his character quirk.
Once everyone is at it then I have to ask how can I take the situations seriously when none of the characters do?

Hmm... well, you have your right, of course, to think it's juvenile. Personally, I get frustrated and annoyed pretty quickly with shows who keep going "oh, the anst1 oh, the drama" all the time - for me when the characters pass their running commentary on the situation, I get to eat my proverbial cake and yet keep it whole - which is one of the reasons I enjoy seasons 9 & 10 - they get to run their "it;s the end of the world!" plot, and yet it doesn;t come out pretentious and wannabe-ish. As for the character running the commentary - well, yes, it used to be Jack, and it stopped being solely Jack as RDA reduced his time on the show. The way I see it they had two possibilities: either stop the running commentary and become pretentious, or start handing it over. They chose the later, and I enjoy it - but I'd hardly think it makes my taste juvenile, does it? Just differnet - hey, for my taste, the pretentiousness of "this is the end of the world! the Angst!" is so juvenile.

[the dancer of spaz]

In my opinion it's not truly even a matter of not having female writers so much as they feel the need to use so many male characters period. I mean how many System Lords or villians/guest spots in general have been written in a way that specified a particular gender?

Why did Colonel Reynolds, Colonel Emerson or Colonel Makepeace have to be a male?

There was absolutely nothing in their character backgrounds or history that would require them to be male and I find it very hard to believe that Sam is the highest ranking female officer in the USAF's space program or the SGC. So why couldn't those roles have been left exactly as they were and simply replaced with a female character?

That's a good point. In the early days, they seemed to make an effort to show a few other token female officers on the base. For the past several years, it seems, you really have to look for them. They seem to be quite content to focus on the female leads - as if that proves parity, even though only one is in the military - but they still continue to focus on literally all-man teams when they show them. Somehow, that seems extraordinarily backwards to me. I would've expected them to show more women as the series progressed, not less.

That goes for Atlantis as well. All three (or is it four?) of the adversaries they've added at the beginning/end of every season has been male. Though that all makes sense, I suppose, considering each of them is a "name" actor in some respect...

[smurf]

Hmm... well, you have your right, of course, to think it's juvenile. Personally, I get frustrated and annoyed pretty quickly with shows who keep going "oh, the anst1 oh, the drama" all the time - for me when the characters pass their running commentary on the situation, I get to eat my proverbial cake and yet keep it whole - which is one of the reasons I enjoy seasons 9 & 10 - they get to run their "it;s the end of the world!" plot, and yet it doesn;t come out pretentious and wannabe-ish. As for the character running the commentary - well, yes, it used to be Jack, and it stopped being solely Jack as RDA reduced his time on the show. The way I see it they had two possibilities: either stop the running commentary and become pretentious, or start handing it over. They chose the later, and I enjoy it - but I'd hardly think it makes my taste juvenile, does it? Just differnet - hey, for my taste, the pretentiousness of "this is the end of the world! the Angst!" is so juvenile.

Why assume that just because I (for example) want less yucks it automatically becomes a requirement for angst? Both to me are equally juvenile, and both to me are not what Stargate is best at.
I'm not a teenager, drama does not equal melodrama. Life, the last I looked, is not all "So unfair. I hate you, I hate you. You've ruined my life!" stair stomping, door slamming. (Well, okay, it is a bit, but society these days huh? It's just me, me, me.)
In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone ask for more "angst" when asking for less "fun". Just less "fun".

It's not necessary to run from one extreme to the other. It's not necessary to completely remove one or the other element just because someone might feel (TPTB for example) that if it isn't a fun episode it must be miserable, and vice versa. Just keep the balance.
When Jack did it it was the odd line to lighten the moment - and Jack it should be noted did it, more often than not, at specific times to hide his fear making it a character trait - when you have pretty much every character doing it it, at any moment, you lose the balance.

SG-1, as far as I remember, for many seasons managed perfectly the need for light relief with the drama. But then I thought the show was primarily (but not wholly) a drama first and foremost, not a comedy.

In my opinion it's not truly even a matter of not having female writers so much as they feel the need to use so many male characters period. I mean how many System Lords or villians/guest spots in general have been written in a way that specified a particular gender?

<snip>

IMO, that's what made Sam so interesting in the begnning because outside of a few unnecessary comments and episodes, Sam was written just as if she were another male character. There wasn't a need to constantly explain to the viewers that she was female. Sam just did her job. So I guess I don't understand why more female characters aren't being written this way. Instead we seem to be getting more than our share of busty eye candy who are simply used to entice the male leads or silly, screaming banshees.

Two things:
Yes you're right it seems very much a mental block in the casting stage at the moment. There's become a default X is a solder/warrior/scientist therefore X must be male, and X can definitely not be female, because the script doesn't imply at any stage that X might be - ie. attraction to a male cast member.

Secondly, carrying on from that, I'm not one of those who thinks the writers need a female writer on staff to be able to write women. Simply because it shouldn't be about writing women. That should not be the most important aspect of the character (unless they're there to be Kirked ).
Sam and Dr Faiser worked as strong characters because they were not written as women. Same way that I think the best episode for female characters was Frozen, because none of the female characters couldn't have had their gender reassigned and the ep not work. This is much more natural in my experience, because women do not tend to walk around all day at work, or wherever, being actively female. We just are female.

Anise was conceived primarily with a view to highlight her feminity and is universally acknowledged not to have worked as a character. Nirrti wore as little as Vala's S9 appearance (maybe even less), but she worked (for me anyway) because that was not the entirety of her character. I'm being hard on Anise, but I always thought her character was interesting until it hit the stupid wall of "I must throw myself at the male character(s)". And show my assets whilst doing it.

What I think the writers have lost the ability to do is write a character full stop, rather than a female character.
(And this goes for poor Cam as well who, though not female, suffers from being written purely as a male (hero).)

[BJX]

Why assume that just because I (for example) want less yucks it automatically becomes a requirement for angst? Both to me are equally juvenile, and both to me are not what Stargate is best at.
I'm not a teenager, drama does not equal melodrama. Life, the last I looked, is not all "So unfair. I hate you, I hate you. You've ruined my life!" stair stomping, door slamming. (Well, okay, it is a bit, but society these days huh? It's just me, me, me.)
In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone ask for more "angst" when asking for less "fun". Just less "fun".

It's not necessary to run from one extreme to the other. It's not necessary to completely remove one or the other element just because someone might feel (TPTB for example) that if it isn't a fun episode it must be miserable, and vice versa. Just keep the balance.
When Jack did it it was the odd line to lighten the moment - and Jack it should be noted did it, more often than not, at specific times to hide his fear making it a character trait - when you have pretty much every character doing it it, at any moment, you lose the balance.

SG-1, as far as I remember, for many seasons managed perfectly the need for light relief with the drama. But then I thought the show was primarily (but not wholly) a drama first and foremost, not a comedy.

Superb post that I couldn't agree with more. That's been the biggest problem to befall SG-1 in later years. Everyone seems to want to do the Jack O'Neill one line and it all becomes too much and can kill the drama. If no character takes the situation seriously, how can the viewer take it seriously, which is the primary factor in a drama series, which like you I saw SG-1 as being. And again like you said, even when O'Neill did it, the seriousness was all preserved because as you said, he did to hide his fear.

[Pitry]

Why assume that just because I (for example) want less yucks it automatically becomes a requirement for angst? Both to me are equally juvenile, and both to me are not what Stargate is best at.
I'm not a teenager, drama does not equal melodrama. Life, the last I looked, is not all "So unfair. I hate you, I hate you. You've ruined my life!" stair stomping, door slamming. (Well, okay, it is a bit, but society these days huh? It's just me, me, me.)
In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone ask for more "angst" when asking for less "fun". Just less "fun".

It's not necessary to run from one extreme to the other. It's not necessary to completely remove one or the other element just because someone might feel (TPTB for example) that if it isn't a fun episode it must be miserable, and vice versa. Just keep the balance.
When Jack did it it was the odd line to lighten the moment - and Jack it should be noted did it, more often than not, at specific times to hide his fear making it a character trait - when you have pretty much every character doing it it, at any moment, you lose the balance.

SG-1, as far as I remember, for many seasons managed perfectly the need for light relief with the drama. But then I thought the show was primarily (but not wholly) a drama first and foremost, not a comedy.

I dunno about the "I hate you, you ruined my life" bit - but watching science fictino since th age of 5 or so, I kind of got the feelign the "the end of the world is neigh, the bad guys are coming" was standard in science fiction, not the extreme. And because it's standard, it's way too much of a cliche. And when I watch it, and find it cliche, I comment. I have 18 or so years' experience of watching this stuff, so I can't take it seriously- and when the cahracters enter grieving mode #379 because of it, I can't take it seriously either. Sicne I am not going to take The World Is Going To Be Destroyed Bt the Bad Guys - Again (TM) seriously at any rate, I appreciate it when there's acknowledgement from the show that they know I've seen it 503 times before, 30% of which in their own show. Takes the edge over the predictablity and dumbness hat can arise from the situation - and when this isn't done? It's pretentious, because it means the people behind the show actually think they're doing somethign new and exciting. They're not.
So, I'm not sure what you thought I meant in your response but this is what I had in mind.

As for losing the balance with the characters. If any single character takes on Jack's role, they'd be channeling Jack - you can see that with Daniel in the past 4 years, who got the main role of giving the running commentary. And when he gets the biggest part of it, you prolly haven't watche dit but Bad Guys does come to mind - he does feel like he's channeling Jack, compeltely and utterly. I'm the first person to say this is a natural evolution of hte character, and yet sometimes it's OOC even for me. You can't drop it all ont he new character, cos then you'd have all those people complaining - and justily so - he's a Jack clone and not a character for himself. So you have two choices, the way I see it, and I know I said it in my last post but I'll say it again. Either you lose the running commentary compeltely - which brings you to square one on the pretentious bit - or you let all the hcaracters have their share.

It's all nice and dandy to demand the writing of the show to be perfect but some things are beyond their control, RDA leaving is one of them. They do the best they can under the circumstances, but it;s much easier to blame them than to try and understand those circumstances.

Lastly, as for more drama than comedy. Again, I'm sorry, in the eye of the beholder. You know, I think season 9 and 10 are so much more dramatic than SG1 used to be, especiallly in seasons 1-5. There's more at stake; the losses are higher and hit more at home; and ti all has more meaning to me because it's a runnign plot rather than a story that ends when the 42 mintues are up. That's for the big moments of drama. The little moments of drama, those moments the character refl;ect true pain and grief and hardship? they exist as well, IMO. Just as much as they did in previous seasons. That the comedy became more prominent as well? yes, it did, just liket he drama got more prominent. And no, I don't have a problem with it, even tho I don't like all comedy episodes - much as I don't liek all drama episodes, depends on how well the episode is writen/ directed/ cut/ acted etc.

[Easter Lily]

I think the reason the storylines seem more juvenile is because THEY ARE. Watch "irresponsible" and you'll see. It's the writers who think it's funny, hence, they're more juvenile in their views.

Or did you mean Irresistable? Because then I agree. But it's just one episode of the whole last season. Not enough to make a point one way or another.

When people talk about Irresistible or Irresponsible, I can't help but think of Hathor... which I found more cringeworthy. My main problem with Irresponsible is that it was dull.

[smurf]

I dunno about the "I hate you, you ruined my life" bit - but watching science fictino since th age of 5 or so, I kind of got the feelign the "the end of the world is neigh, the bad guys are coming" was standard in science fiction, not the extreme. And because it's standard, it's way too much of a cliche. And when I watch it, and find it cliche, I comment. I have 18 or so years' experience of watching this stuff, so I can't take it seriously- and when the cahracters enter grieving mode #379 because of it, I can't take it seriously either. Sicne I am not going to take The World Is Going To Be Destroyed Bt the Bad Guys - Again (TM) seriously at any rate, I appreciate it when there's acknowledgement from the show that they know I've seen it 503 times before, 30% of which in their own show. Takes the edge over the predictablity and dumbness hat can arise from the situation - and when this isn't done? It's pretentious, because it means the people behind the show actually think they're doing somethign new and exciting. They're not.
So, I'm not sure what you thought I meant in your response but this is what I had in mind.

Well, to me, "the end of the world is nigh, the bad guys are coming" is merely the plot. You called this angst which it isn't. Angst is a dramatic style by which the plot is conveyed. In Stargate the plot - "Oh no, the ori are coming! It's the end of the world!" - is currently being conveyed by either ignoring it and having "fun", or regularly pointing at it and laughing. (Or sometimes with the overly angsty. "Oh woe, woe, woe!")
It is very possible to convey the plot, for example "Oh no, the Goa'uld are coming it's the end!", by acknowledging the cliche without bringing it to the level where it can't be taken seriously because the characters aren't.

As for losing the balance with the characters. If any single character takes on Jack's role, they'd be channeling Jack - you can see that with Daniel in the past 4 years, who got the main role of giving the running commentary. And when he gets the biggest part of it, you prolly haven't watche dit but Bad Guys does come to mind - he does feel like he's channeling Jack, compeltely and utterly. I'm the first person to say this is a natural evolution of hte character, and yet sometimes it's OOC even for me. You can't drop it all ont he new character, cos then you'd have all those people complaining - and justily so - he's a Jack clone and not a character for himself. So you have two choices, the way I see it, and I know I said it in my last post but I'll say it again. Either you lose the running commentary compeltely - which brings you to square one on the pretentious bit - or you let all the hcaracters have their share.

But why a running commentary? With Jack it might be the odd line every few episodes, in the early seasons at least.

It's all nice and dandy to demand the writing of the show to be perfect but some things are beyond their control, RDA leaving is one of them. They do the best they can under the circumstances, but it;s much easier to blame them than to try and understand those circumstances.

No one has asked for it to be perfect, merely better. Or as good as, or roughly equivilent in tone to, previous seasons. ie. Stargate-y.
I don't know what circumstances there is understand. RDA's intention was well sign-posted. It wasn't a sudden; MS wants to leave we have to figure out how to say goodbye before the end of the season. How you can't have bothered to plan what you are going to do about the leadership situation, the lack of character or direction in your new lead, the over reliance on a "fun" guest character, is somewhat beyond me.

Timeframe: RDA makes it clear S8 is the end. SG-1 renewed November. BB comes on board in November. Brainstorming starts end Nov/early December. First drafts written end of December. Shooting starts March.
Work wise it looks pretty similar to previous seasons. *shrug*

Lastly, as for more drama than comedy. Again, I'm sorry, in the eye of the beholder. You know, I think season 9 and 10 are so much more dramatic than SG1 used to be, especiallly in seasons 1-5. There's more at stake; the losses are higher and hit more at home; and ti all has more meaning to me because it's a runnign plot rather than a story that ends when the 42 mintues are up. That's for the big moments of drama. The little moments of drama, those moments the character refl;ect true pain and grief and hardship? they exist as well, IMO. Just as much as they did in previous seasons. That the comedy became more prominent as well? yes, it did, just liket he drama got more prominent. And no, I don't have a problem with it, even tho I don't like all comedy episodes - much as I don't liek all drama episodes, depends on how well the episode is writen/ directed/ cut/ acted etc.

The loses may be higher numerically, but emotionally? It doesn't seem that way to me.
In the end it is exactly as you are saying; YMMV. I just think they've driven a fair few miles between S6 and S9/10. And changed their ride along the way.

[prion]

When people talk about Irresistible or Irresponsible, I can't help but think of Hathor... which I found more cringeworthy. My main problem with Irresponsible is that it was dull.

I found "Hathor" more fun than "irresponsible", which was a ripoff of Mallozzi's own script, "It's Good to be King." Yawn. Plus they took a guest character everybody knows and hates and bumped him off as an afterthought. Sheesh, the showdown between Shep and that villain should have had its own episode.

[Pitry]

(yeah, I posted a long rant but decided to spare you in the end )

Wait... topic! JMs blog. Right. Cool artwork psoted today.
And I really dind't like the insinuation Elizabeth goes the same road as Carson, as in not reduced to recurring but dead.

[smurf]

JM has a blog?!
Wait, who is JM?

Hello? Hello?

What?




Well, I suppose dead means never having to reply to Ford/Jonas type questions.

[warmbeachbrat]

(yeah, I posted a long rant but decided to spare you in the end )

Wait... topic! JMs blog. Right. Cool artwork psoted today.
And I really dind't like the insinuation Elizabeth goes the same road as Carson, as in not reduced to recurring but dead.

Hmmm, I'd be interested in reading that--would it be possible to PM it to me?