General Ship ( Relationship) Discussion

[jdjunkie]

No, no, I never thought there was any ill intentions. It's just not something I've come across in my time here and was wondering about the etiquette. I tend to restrict my posting to a couple of threads, so I'm not sure about the wider forum.
The point I was trying to make (probably not very eloquently!) is that people tend to tailor their posts to the thread they are posting in, and posting elsewhere brings with it a danger of changing the tone and context, that's all.
I'm looking forward to the discussion, as the inveterate lurker that I am outside my couple of threads.

[KatG]

*MOD NOTE*

While I'm not sure if we have a specific rule on quoting from another thread etiquette would demand that you (general you) get permission from someone before posting their exact words in another thread. If what someone writes in another thread raises some ideas that you would like to discuss, you can rephrase those thoughts and post them here in your own words without bringing the other poster into it.

In the meantime, I'm looking into whether there is an actual rule on the books and if not, whether we need to modify the rules.

I now return you to your regular posting.

[jdjunkie]

Thanks for that Kat.

[Petra]

I get you jdjunkie

I just PMed Khentwakes about the whole thing, if she doesn't want it then I'll delete my post. Unless the mods decide it was against the rules and take matters into their own hands.

Once again I offer my sincerest apologies. It won't happen again.

[KatG]

Thanks for that Kat.

No problem.

I get you jdjunkie

I just PMed Khentwakes about the whole thing, if she doesn't want it then I'll delete my post. Unless the mods decide it was against the rules and take matters into their own hands.

Once again I offer my sincerest apologies. It won't happen again.

Not a problem. It raised a good question and made me do some research to clear some things up for myself for future reference. Basically, while there is no rule stating "you cannot post a quote from another thread without the posters permission" it is bad netiquette, so would fall under the "respect for your fellow posters" part of the CVS.

I'll leave your post for now, since you've already PM'd KK. If she doesn't have a problem with it being here, then it can stay, if she does, then I'll trust you to delete it and let me know, so I can "tweak" the post following it to make sense.

[VSS]

I actually do think the blocking thing ends up a bit obvious and annoying at times. I really notice it because I look at canon scenes for material for various ship pairings. There are times it seems like every single time Sam and Jack are present in a room together, they must stand right next to each other or sit next to each other.
But the fact is, if someone who ships it is noticing it as apparent, than those that are opposed to it are definitely going to notice it. Blocking them close means sometimes the bantering type dialog goes on between them only, like in some of the non-AT scenes in Continuum.

In defense of blocking I don't really see what other choice TPTB have, especially after Season 4. There's not supposed to be anything going on between Sam and Jack, they don't want to write any major scenes for it- they want to keep it subtle- and yet TPTB don't want to let it go. And after Season 8 especially there literally is so little screen time for Jack their options are once again limited. FOr better or for worse, that's what they've done. And while the blocking is annoying, for those who think that the S/J ship wasn't subtle enough, there is no more subtle a way to get it across.

Yeah, VSS counts how many times they sit next to each other in the briefings.
Huh, to be honest I've never noticed any blatant blocking. But my point still stands, it's rather an effect of their chemistry, not lack of it as the original poster suggested.

Yes, it's very entertaining (to me). And statistically significant even though we're only halfway through season 1, so you know it's not random chance that puts them next to each other all the time. But I agree it's chemistry. If nothing else, they look good together. Of course, that wasn't random chance, either.

I have to agree with this too. And that's why I feel like it disrupts the team dynamic. People often cite the way Daniel and Vala were paired up over season 9 and 10 (not the romantic "pairing up," just the fact that they shared many scenes with each other, and were often standing or sitting next to each other in group shots), but the same thing is true for Sam and Jack from about season 4-8. They were blocked together in the same way that Daniel and Vala were, from what I can recall.

Yes. That's an example of a scene where they consciously paired up Jack and Sam... and IMO, it seemed out of place and strange. Also... (discussion of Continuum)

Spoiler:

Since it was one of the last scenes of the movie, it felt like they were implying that Jack was only there as an arm decoration for Sam. And since the final scene had neither Jack nor Sam, it simply reinforced the division between the team. The "team" was Cam, Daniel, and Teal'c, in the end. Then there was Vala who apparently didn't fit anywhere. Sam was part of the team throughout the movie, but in the end she goes off with her man instead of interacting with her teammates.

Now you may think I'm making a big deal out of a small thing, but all they would have needed to do was have Cam, Daniel, Teal'c, Sam, and Jack in the final scene, maybe as they're walking through the corridors on their way to lunch. That would have brought back the team feeling. And since writers are usually very careful with their finals scenes (because they leave the final lasting impression on the audience), I can't see this as an innocent little writing/directing decision. IMHO, it was a conscious attempt to break up the team.

I wouldn't have been bothered by the way they blocked Jack and Sam together, if they had somehow reincorporated them back into the team at the end. But they didn't. Which is why the blocking interfered with my enjoyment of the team.

I quite agree with this. It's interesting that we both noticed the after-season 4 thing.
Regarding COntinuum, only Sam was next to Jack in the first scene, too. He was at the end of the line- I'm not sure he even talked directly to anyone but her, except for Ba'al. They also did blocking at the end of 200- again, one of the few times anyone saw Jack in the last few years (even though none if it is canon, I guess).

Quite frankly, there might have been less of this obvious pairing off if they had done a more blatant romantic scene with Sam and Jack, sometime in the last four years because then they wouldn't have needed the blocking. TPTB could have gotten it out of their systems so to speak, and the team could go back to being a team. As it was, if you were a new fan or maybe only caught the last couple of seasons of SG-1, and then watched Continuum, you'd have thought he was only friends with Sam.

No problem.



Not a problem. It raised a good question and made me do some research to clear some things up for myself for future reference. Basically, while there is no rule stating "you cannot post a quote from another thread without the posters permission" it is bad netiquette, so would fall under the "respect for your fellow posters" part of the CVS.

I'll leave your post for now, since you've already PM'd KK. If she doesn't have a problem with it being here, then it can stay, if she does, then I'll trust you to delete it and let me know, so I can "tweak" the post following it to make sense.

Can we link to an entire post? I've done that before, if someone has a good idea I don't want to take credit for. Mainly news items.

[KatG]

Can we link to an entire post? I've done that before, if someone has a good idea I don't want to take credit for. Mainly news items.

Linking to post that contains a news item should be fine.

What needs to be avoided is taking what someone posted in another thread where it may be in context and posting it in another for others to discuss where it may be out of context, if that makes sense.

[Callista]

<snip for space>
I guess it's a matter of perception and we'll have to agree to disagree. As I said for me S/J ship is one of the elements enriching the team and their interactions which is probably one of the main reasons I like it. It allows for team interactions. Perfect example is Teal'c comforting Sam in PL or Teal'c trying to get Jack to talk in Grace. And to compare: did we have scenes like that in relation to D/V, when some other team member comforted one of them because the other was in danger (apart from that painful scene in The Quest where Mitchell gives a speech on how hard is just watching others sacrificing themselves yadda yadda)?
<snip for space>

While I agree that this allows for team interactions, the problem I have with it is that it only goes one way. Teal'c comforts Sam in PL, but Sam doesn't comfort Teal'c that his friend is missing. Teal'c and Daniel try to talk to Jack about Sam in Grace, but Jack doesn't acknowledge that Teal'c and Daniel's friend is missing as well. After a while, it starts to come off (in my perception) as if only Sam's feelings are important when Jack is missing or in danger and only Jack's feelings are important when Sam is missing or in danger. The "friendship bond" seems to take second place to the "romance bond".

In Death Knell we do get a scene with Daniel talking about his friend Sam being in danger, but it's with Jacob, Hammond, another Tok'ra and a couple of Jaffa. It's not the same as if he were talking to Jack or Teal'c about it.

The comparable scene for Daniel and Vala that I can think of are Cam kind of comforting Daniel when Vala is missing in Memento Mori. The two scenes in The Quest I guess could be seen as comforting to Vala in a "tough love" sense...but those are a little different because they seem to me like the rest of the team is telling Vala that they do care about Daniel as much as she does, they're just not showing it in the same way. And that is something I would rather have seen in regards to Jack and Sam because I do think that Daniel and Teal'c care just as much about them as Jack and Sam care about each other....or at least, that's what I want to think but it becomes more and more difficult.

[Khentkawes]

Thanks, Kat for coming in to clear some things up. I was under the impression that it was against forum rules to quote someone from another thread without their permission.

Anyway, thanks aga for contacting me and offering to remove comments. If you hadn't PM'd me, I probably wouldn't have known that my comments were cross-posted (I don't always check back to threads where I post, especially if RL is busy... which it currently is). So thanks for letting me know and asking.

For the sake of thread cleanness, I don't see a need to have my comments deleted. I will stand by them (which does not mean I feel the need to engage in a detailed defense of them at this time), but I will respond to a few quick things, for the sake of clarifying and then allow everything else to stay as it stands. I think that's fair to everyone, but with that said, I do not intend to address Jack's retirement (or lack thereof) or season 9/10 again in this thread. Just so we're clear.

5 seasons? I'd say rather 3, because you guys always say seasons 5&6 didn't have any ship

Um... I never said that. At least, not precisely. As shippers are not a homogeneous group, neither are those who dislike a particular ship.

I guess it's a matter of perception and we'll have to agree to disagree. As I said for me S/J ship is one of the elements enriching the team and their interactions which is probably one of the main reasons I like it. It allows for team interactions. Perfect example is Teal'c comforting Sam in PL or Teal'c trying to get Jack to talk in Grace.

I'm honestly happy for you that you can see it that way. Unfortunately that's not how I interpret it.

I snipped your whole point on the blocking to save space, sorry.

I respect your opinion. You are consistently talking about the team, and I admire that Now, if the team was blocked together right from the beginning and then TPTB switched to S/J I would have agreed with you, despite being a shipper.
But the argument was, that at the beginning Jack and Daniel was constantly blocked together and after a few years they switched to J/S. So why is blocking J/D together teamy, and J/S not? It looks to me like double standards, especially since the whole point was brought up by J/D slasher (at least I think so; if I'm wrong I apologise). As long as her favourite pairing was blocked together things were great, when TPTB switched to other pairing it was suddenly a very.bad.thing.
The sad truth is, the team was never blocked together and blaming S/J for it is ridiculous.

Again, those who dislike a particular ship are not a homogeneous group. I do not classify myself as a slasher. I never said anything about Jack and Daniel, nor implied that it was more favorable to block them together. IMHO, the early seasons contained more variety. Sometimes they blocked Jack and Daniel, but sometimes they blocked Sam and Daniel, Jack and Teal'c, Daniel and Teal'c... I especially think of season 3, which I think was particularly strong in providing a variety of blocking techniques (I seem to recall briefing scenes where the directors varied who sat next to each other. Now, it's been a while since I last watched all of season 3, and I don't have a numbered list of who sat where and when. Nor do I feel the need to create one at this exact point in time. This is just based on my impressions from when I've watched the earlier seasons). So, for me, that's why the change was so noticeable, and that's why I felt it served to disrupt the team a bit more. And yes, that's just my opinion.

I have no problem with characters being blocked together in certain scenes, I just prefer there to be some variety, and for it to not always be the same two characters. And, as I believe my last post was intended to state, I think this is particularly important in final scenes, which set the mood for the how the audience will remember the episode/movie/series.

As for the stalker part - well, I believe he was (in Chimera) but I'm biased by my RL experiences. I knew a few guys behaving like him who turned out pretty nasty, so I'm a little oversensitive.

In that case, I completely understand why you might have reacted that way. I have never had that kind of experience, so obvious it's not going to affect me the same way. But I can see where you're coming from.

Again, I don't mean to offend, but for me it's this pesky double standard again. Sam being in love with a guy who happens to be her CO is demeaning to her character purely because he's her CO. But Sam putting up with a civilian guy who doesn't trust nor believe her, storms out of the house after she tells him she can't talk about her classified work, who does background check on her, follows her around and then crashes ambush at her work not only ending up injured himself but also endangering her teammates - is perfectly ok. No harm done. As long as the guy isn't her CO she can accept all this and it isn't demeaning to her at all. Right.

Okay, again, I don't think I ever said any of that. Maybe you're combining opinions that you've heard from various people? I never said that Pete was perfect, or that the situation wasn't written badly. IMO, it was written badly. But that's because they needed a reason for Pete to find out about the SGC, so they created a completely contrived and somewhat silly way of going about it. IMHO. I don't think Pete's actions in the last half of Chimera make any sense and I think they conflict with the way they wrote his character in general. Which I believe was mostly because it was a contrived way of forcing Sam to tell him about the SGC. Again, just my opinion. If you think that's a double-standard... well, I can't change your mind on that. But I don't see anything hypocritical about it. I accept that TPTB made multiple writing choices that I find poorly written, for various reasons.

Okay, I believe those are all my response to comments I made in this thread. As for cross-posted comments... a few quick clarifications before I let the whole matter go.

For the bolded part: do you have some examples to prove it? I'm just curious, because shippers see this the opposite way.

Honestly, I don't have time to go provide a list of examples for my opinion at this point in time. And I don't really think that this point is relevant to this thread... which, incidentally, is why I didn't post it here.

And to be fair, the whole idea of retirement came from RDA.

I know.

Having said all that, I agree with you that retirement wouldn't suit him and he'd go crazy within weeks doing nothing. That's why I'm one of few people who were very happy about his promotion. Besides he must be quite good at his job in Washington also, otherwise he wouldn't get another promotion while working there.

That's exactly what I think. I think the retirement thing came partially because RDA wanted to retire... and I can see where some fans are coming from in regards to Jack's retirement, but it's just not how I see Jack.

Actually they can I'm sorry but one of the reasons I don't like seasons 9 and 10 is utter lack of team feeling. I see collegues who work in the same unit. i don't see "team" we had during first 8 years. (ok, I get the team feeling with Daniel, Sam and Teal'c - that's why I kept watching).

Okay.... this right here is actually the whole reason that I decided not to ask that my comments be deleted, because I feel like I need to respond to this. No, you cannot tell me that there was no team in seasons 9 and 10. You can say that you did not see any team in seasons 9 and 10, or that you didn't see a team dynamic. That's your opinion, and I respect your right to have that opinion. But it is not a fact. Your opinion does not make mine invalid. I acknowledged that other fans disagree with me, but because I did see a team in S9/10 means that it's a matter of interpretation. And you cannot state that my opinion is wrong. That's why I worded that statement the way I did.

And this comment was rather out of context. I was replying to someone who mentioned that they didn't want to see RDA return, so I responded by talking about the forward progression of the show. It was not a comment directly related to ship, so I don't see why it would be relevant to this thread (come to think of it, it was probably just a wee bit off topic in the thread I posted it in ). That's all I am going to say on that subject, because I will not defend my right to enjoy season 9 and 10 on this thread (or probably any other).

Okay. Housecleaning done. We can move on now, right? Note to aga, I'm not offended or anything, so no hard feelings at all. Just clarifying. I'll PM you to make sure we're still good. And apologies to all for the absurdly long post.

[majorsal]

the only thing that changes about this discussion are the ppl.

[Callista]

the only thing that changes about this discussion are the ppl.

I kind of noticed that. On looking back at past posts, I see I said in one of my posts almost the exact same thing Lahela said almost a year ago!

[KatG]

Thanks, Kat for coming in to clear some things up. I was under the impression that it was against forum rules to quote someone from another thread without their permission.

Even though it's not specifically stated that "you must not quote someone from another thread without their permission" it does go against the principle of "respect your fellow posters" found in the CVS, so technically it is against the rules and will be moderated as such in the future, now that I'm clear on it myself.

{snip}

For the sake of thread cleanness, I don't see a need to have my comments deleted. I will stand by them (which does not mean I feel the need to engage in a detailed defense of them at this time), but I will respond to a few quick things, for the sake of clarifying and then allow everything else to stay as it stands. I think that's fair to everyone, but with that said, I do not intend to address Jack's retirement (or lack thereof) or season 9/10 again in this thread. Just so we're clear.

Then I shall leave it be. Again, my apologies for any confusion that was caused. When I tell someone they can't do something I like to make sure that I have a valid reason, so it went a little further than it should have while I was finding the answer.

[Melora]

While I agree that this allows for team interactions, the problem I have with it is that it only goes one way. Teal'c comforts Sam in PL, but Sam doesn't comfort Teal'c that his friend is missing. Teal'c and Daniel try to talk to Jack about Sam in Grace, but Jack doesn't acknowledge that Teal'c and Daniel's friend is missing as well. After a while, it starts to come off (in my perception) as if only Sam's feelings are important when Jack is missing or in danger and only Jack's feelings are important when Sam is missing or in danger. The "friendship bond" seems to take second place to the "romance bond".

In Death Knell we do get a scene with Daniel talking about his friend Sam being in danger, but it's with Jacob, Hammond, another Tok'ra and a couple of Jaffa. It's not the same as if he were talking to Jack or Teal'c about it.

<snip>

There are also gender biases at work here. Like it or not, in the world of television, female characters are the ones who are allowed to be more emotionally open and needy. The big, strong men have to comfort the woman when she is worried or sad. Hence, Sam cries more than any of the other characters and she tends to get comforted more. Sam also displays similar levels of grief and frustration when anyone on her team goes missing or is hurt. She gets just as upset when Daniel goes missing (or dies ) as when Jack goes missing or is hurt.

Jack, in contrast, doesn’t emote very much. He just tends to get overly snippy. Jack gets just as upset when Daniel goes missing as when Sam goes missing. Compare his reactions in “Icon” and “Grace.” He exhibits very similar displays of frustration.

Jack, Daniel, and Teal’c do not sit around talking about their feelings or crying when a teammate is missing because that is not what male action heroes do. Look at how they reacted in “New Order” when Sam was presumed dead. Jack played around with the lights, Daniel voiced one brief concern, and then it was business as usual. The stereotype is that guys don’t talk about their feelings and they don’t comfort each other except in extreme circumstances (like Jack comforting Daniel in “Need” or “The Light).

Do I think this is a good thing? Not exactly. But TPTB are not very inventive at bending and breaking the traditional gender stereotypes.

So why doesn’t Sam comfort Teal’c when Jack or Daniel are missing? Again, it goes back to wanting to portray the male characters as macho men and not wanting to lessen their “masculinity" in the eyes of viewers. Teal’c and Jack would not show the emotional need that would inspire Sam to comfort either of them. Come to think of it, the only instance of Sam comforting Jack that I can think of was in “Solitudes” and the only time I can remember her comforting Teal'c was in "Threshold." Both extreme circumstances when they were close to dying.

Perhaps the difference in the later seasons is that she doesn’t comfort Daniel as much as she did back in Seasons 1+2. I attribute this to Daniel becoming more closed off and distant with everyone after Sha’re died. Then again, I can’t recall a single instance of Daniel comforting Sam. He didn’t even come to visit her when she was dying in “Metamorphosis.” So why blame Sam for not showing comfort to him?


As a side note, I am glad this thread has been revived a bit. I hope people on both sides will continue to contribute to the discussion b/c it's nice to sometimes see things from different points of view.

[Callista]

Well, I wouldn't exactly put "Need" or "The Light" or "Metamorphasis" in the same category because those are all comforting a person directly for their own problems rather than comforting or needing comfort when a team-mate is missing or in danger. (I hope that's clear.) I didn't bring up the comforting in "Heroes" because I think that's an example of what you're talking about with the gender bias. Sam is seen getting more comfort than Daniel even though Daniel obviously is hurting as well, but Daniel goes off and hides in a corner where it would seem that Sam seeks out the comfort or at least doesn't hide from it. I see Sam and Teal'c as comforting each other in that one, too. To me, the comforting in those scenes doesn't have anything to do with ship. I also don't have a problem with Jack giving Sam a shoulder to lean on in Death Knell as I can read that as a team-mate letting another team-mate know they are now safe and if someone else wants to see that as shippy, it doesn't matter to me.

To be honest, I haven't rewatched New Order or Icon in quite a while. New Order is next up on the team rewatch thread, though, so I may have something to say about it in a couple of days. I do recall that Jack is kind of snippy in Icon, but I don't recall it really as being in response to Sam or Teal'c trying to "comfort" him....just Sam giving her report as leader of SG-1. Again, I may be wrong about that as I haven't watched that one in ages.

I have more to say but it's time to read to my daughter. I'll be back after she's all tucked in......

[Khentkawes]

Even though it's not specifically stated that "you must not quote someone from another thread without their permission" it does go against the principle of "respect your fellow posters" found in the CVS, so technically it is against the rules and will be moderated as such in the future, now that I'm clear on it myself.

{snip}

Then I shall leave it be. Again, my apologies for any confusion that was caused. When I tell someone they can't do something I like to make sure that I have a valid reason, so it went a little further than it should have while I was finding the answer.

No problem! I just thought I'd heard that somewhere... it doesn't really bother me either way. And no apologies are necessary. Both you and aga handled it well, so I'm not upset by anything. And I'm glad to know what the rules actually are, because clearly it's a fine line. So, carry on with the discussion as I slink back to my mountain of homework.

There are also gender biases at work here. Like it or not, in the world of television, female characters are the ones who are allowed to be more emotionally open and needy. The big, strong men have to comfort the woman when she is worried or sad. Hence, Sam cries more than any of the other characters and she tends to get comforted more. Sam also displays similar levels of grief and frustration when anyone on her team goes missing or is hurt. She gets just as upset when Daniel goes missing (or dies ) as when Jack goes missing or is hurt.

I agree that there is definitely a gender bias at work. I don't like it, personally, and I wish it wasn't there, but it's definitely a factor. Like Callista, I wish we could see the guys receiving comfort simply because I like the idea that, as a team, they can all rely on each other and comfort each other. But I do acknowledge that stereotypes about "macho men" make this very difficult.

Do I think this is a good thing? Not exactly. But TPTB are not very inventive at bending and breaking the traditional gender stereotypes.

and well said. I wish they would bend those stereotypes a little more often. I think it would make for some very interesting scenes.

Then again, I can’t recall a single instance of Daniel comforting Sam. He didn’t even come to visit her when she was dying in “Metamorphosis.” So why blame Sam for not showing comfort to him?

I've always thought that the scene in Jolinar's Memories was a nice moment of Daniel checking on Sam, asking if she's okay, and sort of offering to let her talk about stuff. It always struck me as a nice moment between them where he shows his concern, and she opens up a little.

He also brings her flowers at the end of In the Line of Duty. That could be more from the team as a whole, I suppose. He also tried to visit her in the infirmary in Broca Divide... before Jack kicks the stuffing out of him. Those are the only examples that come to mind at the moment, however. Oh, and none of those are comfort because a teammate is in danger, either... so maybe it's not relevant to the discussion.