Deep Space 9 Superior

[Starbase]

Fans hold grudges I know I still hold blame for the epic failure of Ent. But I must admit the 4th season of Ent was my favorite.

I was pretty bitter about the direction that the franchise took when they announced ENT to begin with. Going back in time to tell a story should have been a movie or a multi-part arc on TNG, not a whole series. What were they thinking. That all being said, I have grown to enjoy ENT, I wouldn't call myself a huge fan but I definetly have an appreciation of the show. And yes S4 was convaluted but not as bad as some think.

They could use some new producers while their at it. Wright is going the way of Berman and Braga. He'll be blamed if SGU tanks.

SGU?< did I miss something. What the heck is that brother FB.

[gopher65]

I absolutely agree. The event that kicked off the entire episode was something that Elizabeth would never have done. Ever. Not at all. I don't think I have been so pissed off at a show since "These Are the Voyages" or possibley SGA's "Irresistable". That's how epically bad I thought GitM to be. Force-feeding your characters to the "plot" (and at that not a very good one) like this is unacceptable.

I actually disagree a little bit here. Or a lot, depending on your point of view.

First off, GitM itself: I totally agree that GitM was a bad episode in many ways, and I didn't like it. I agree that they "had" to create a bad plot to fix the mess that they created when Torri left, and that everything felt forced.

Even with that restriction, it could have been done better with just a little bit of grace and humour added into the mix. For instance, Weir said that she'd been trying to fit into the collective. Why not use that as an excuse for her looking different? Maybe Oberoth thought that he'd killed her, but she'd downloaded herself into the collective at the last moment. In order to keep from being discovered she took a body to minimize her contact with others (which she'd have had in spades if she remained fully digitized), and she made sure that body didn't look like herself. But some of the others, the Ascendowanters, realized who she was. Yadayada. That would have explained away one of my biggest annoyances with the episode, without really changing anything.
_________________________________________________________

Second, plot controlling characters. This is where I disagree with you. You would claim, I think (based on what you've said), what RDM from BSG claims, that plot is secondary, and that the plot should twist and turn to fit character moments. I would claim the opposite: plot should be absolute, and it should be the characters who twist and react to elements of the plot.

Why? Because that just seems more natural. I want a *story*, not a random assemblage of character moments, however cool each one may be on an individual level. First you should write a story, then you should insert characters into it and then let them follow the logical course through the story. If a character dies, they die. If a character lives, they live. The plot demands it; it is narrative imperative (hehe, rhyme!).

If the plot has to twist to fit what the characters are doing, everything feels forced, or very convenient (like it does on Stargate, Star Trek, and BSG). Starbuck need to get back to the ship? No problem, she magically figures out how to fly a raider! Daniel need to be rescued from an unfortunate situation? No problem, a ship magically appears in orbit and beams him up! Awesome! Captain Picard needs to feel depressed for the movie to work? Hmmmm. I know, let's kill off his family, then never mention it again! Yay for plot devices being used to artificially create character moments!

I think what people like RDM and the producers of Stargate don't understand is just how... fake all of that feels over the course of more than a handful of episodes. IMO characters, and their cool moments, should *follow* from elements of the plot, rather than *leading* elements of the plot. And this is why I liked B5 (and Steven Moffat's Doctor Who stories). In B5 it normally felt, with a few notable exceptions, like the plot was leading the characters around by their noses, and that they were desperately trying to keep up with what was going on. Their desperation with elements of the plot was where the drama came from, rather than the desperation and excitement coming from their personal dramas.

I suppose it is something of a stylist choice, rather than being strictly "right" or "wrong". I prefer plot led stories, rather than character led stories.

[the Fifth Race]

I've enjoyed the first 3 episodes of SGA. I'm looking forward to seeing the Daedalus ad infinitum next. I'm mostly angered by how Shep's attitude of 'only I can save the day!' is always the one that saves the day. I'd honestly have loved to see Woolsey order him to drone Keller. The promised conflict with Woolsey has been minimal, and it seems the good Doctor's being played for comic effect.

What is with the love affair the writiers have with Shepard. At first it was all Rodney, now its all about Shep. They have shoved the fact that Shep has a mensa type IQ blah blah blah down our throats at every opportunity they get, so I guess that makes him the new genius with all the answers, poor Rodney.

God, the mass media is making me feel like approaching 30 is approaching death.

LOL, wait until you are at 40 brother nx.

Voyager should have been like 'Year of Hell' for a while: badly damaged ship, nowhere to get new parts, deuterium, etc., like the NX01 was at the end of season 3 of ENT. A whole season of the ship going from bad to worse, along with the interpersonal relationships, would have been great TV!

Agreed, or even if they would have done a half season arc about Voyager surviving.

The Ent D was a perfect ship, just out of spacedock, the flagship of the Federation. We miss you, Galaxy!!!

LOL, all hail the mighty Galaxy Class.

[nx01a]

Franchise fatigue... or writer fatigue... killed Trek on TV. I hope the same doesn't happen to SG. The whole 9th chevron thing seems a bit contrived, but retconning it as something the Ancients always intended [since this... Destiny ugh ship predates even Atlantis] but never got around to finishing like so many other things... that makes some sense. It all depends on how it's handled.

I've actually enjoyed the first 3 episodes I've seen this season. I'm dreading seeing Fran-Weir, but I'll buck up and watch it next week. The first 3 seasons were great, IMO. I simply LOVED the Asurans, but they were made into the Borg of SGA, with Atlantis as Voyager. They're not even called Asurans anymore, everyone's calling them Replicators, even Asurans themselves! WTF?! While many may have loved BAMSR, I hated it, from the plot to the CGI which I thought was subpar. They destroyed my fave SG enemies! It's not our fault you created a too powerful enemy and couldn't effectively deal with them except by massive deus ex machina planetary explosions...

[Freek]

Its gone down the pooper because its always "Disease outbreak = Keller solves problem just in time, Technology = Rodney solves it just in time, Fight = Teyla, Ronan and Sheppard play hide in seek in forest or have a tavern brawl (all the towns look the same).

That's why the latest episode is so good, it stands out. I don't think Universe will be any good, this whole "lets bring in a bunch of young people and make loads of shippers happy" doesn't seem a good premise for a show. Look at shows like Lost, Heroes and BSG. Why are they succesful? An overlapping storyline, and a sense of where its all going to end. With the stargate series the "end" is when the show is cancelled, not when they've told their story.

[nx01a]

I'm all for the JMS style of storytelling, as I've said many times: know where you want the show to go, throw in some stand alone episodes, but get the story told. One of TPTB said in a gateworld interview that he thinks the life of a show these days is down to 5 years. You can tell one hell of a great story in 5 years. If you CAN tell a great story.

[Trek_Girl42]

I actually disagree a little bit here. Or a lot, depending on your point of view.

First off, GitM itself: I totally agree that GitM was a bad episode in many ways, and I didn't like it. I agree that they "had" to create a bad plot to fix the mess that they created when Torri left, and that everything felt forced.

Even with that restriction, it could have been done better with just a little bit of grace and humour added into the mix. For instance, Weir said that she'd been trying to fit into the collective. Why not use that as an excuse for her looking different? Maybe Oberoth thought that he'd killed her, but she'd downloaded herself into the collective at the last moment. In order to keep from being discovered she took a body to minimize her contact with others (which she'd have had in spades if she remained fully digitized), and she made sure that body didn't look like herself. But some of the others, the Ascendowanters, realized who she was. Yadayada. That would have explained away one of my biggest annoyances with the episode, without really changing anything.
_________________________________________________________

Second, plot controlling characters. This is where I disagree with you. You would claim, I think (based on what you've said), what RDM from BSG claims, that plot is secondary, and that the plot should twist and turn to fit character moments. I would claim the opposite: plot should be absolute, and it should be the characters who twist and react to elements of the plot.

Why? Because that just seems more natural. I want a *story*, not a random assemblage of character moments, however cool each one may be on an individual level. First you should write a story, then you should insert characters into it and then let them follow the logical course through the story. If a character dies, they die. If a character lives, they live. The plot demands it; it is narrative imperative (hehe, rhyme!).

If the plot has to twist to fit what the characters are doing, everything feels forced, or very convenient (like it does on Stargate, Star Trek, and BSG). Starbuck need to get back to the ship? No problem, she magically figures out how to fly a raider! Daniel need to be rescued from an unfortunate situation? No problem, a ship magically appears in orbit and beams him up! Awesome! Captain Picard needs to feel depressed for the movie to work? Hmmmm. I know, let's kill off his family, then never mention it again! Yay for plot devices being used to artificially create character moments!

I think what people like RDM and the producers of Stargate don't understand is just how... fake all of that feels over the course of more than a handful of episodes. IMO characters, and their cool moments, should *follow* from elements of the plot, rather than *leading* elements of the plot. And this is why I liked B5 (and Steven Moffat's Doctor Who stories). In B5 it normally felt, with a few notable exceptions, like the plot was leading the characters around by their noses, and that they were desperately trying to keep up with what was going on. Their desperation with elements of the plot was where the drama came from, rather than the desperation and excitement coming from their personal dramas.

I suppose it is something of a stylist choice, rather than being strictly "right" or "wrong". I prefer plot led stories, rather than character led stories.

I should clarify. I love plot, plot is important. But there's a difference in creating a naturally progressing plot that characters react to in character doing things that they may or may not normally do, and creating a plot that you then force characters into acting unnaturally into just to get a plot point in there. That was what happened with Weir. Instead of creating a situation where she had to make a choice that she might not normally make, they created a situation where she initiated a choice that she would never have made unless absolutely forced to do so. I firmly believe that she would have died rather than even entertain the notion of doing what "she" did. There is a great deal of difference between forcing a character into a plot and into a role written so generically that they could conceivably stick any character in there who would have the same plot-necessary reactions leaving no room for character tweaks, and putting a character into a plot where they might just react differently than they normally would but with valid reasons and uniquely for the character- not being just a character "slotted in". (that sentence got away a bit.....hope it makes sense )

Ghost in the Machine was the absolute pinnacle example of the former.

[Lieutenant Colonel Davis]

They could use some new producers while their at it. Wright is going the way of Berman and Braga. He'll be blamed if SGU tanks. Fans hold grudges I know I still hold blame for the epic failure of Ent. But I must admit the 4th season of Ent was my favorite.

In the case of SGA, it wasn't their fault. SciFi just wants money, that is why the network is run by soulless minions of evil, heck it's why they have wrestling and really bad movies on the network. In the case of Enterprise, the fans share the blame on that one.

[Jumper_One]

In the case of SGA, it wasn't their fault. SciFi just wants money, that is why the network is run by soulless minions of evil, heck it's why they have wrestling and really bad movies on the network. In the case of Enterprise, the fans share the blame on that one.

actually it was. SCI FI did NOT cancel Atlantis

[jelgate]

In the case of SGA, it wasn't their fault. SciFi just wants money, that is why the network is run by soulless minions of evil, heck it's why they have wrestling and really bad movies on the network. In the case of Enterprise, the fans share the blame on that one.

Ah telemarketers

[Franklyn Blaze]

SGU?< did I miss something. What the heck is that brother FB.

SGU is Stargate: Universe. Wait, we're not calling it that?

actually it was. SCI FI did NOT cancel Atlantis

Really? I heard it was both of them together somewhere in that brad wright interview. I can't listen to the marshmallow man, lies hurt my ears.

[Jumper_One]

SGU is Stargate: Universe. Wait, we're not calling it that?

huh? why not?

Really? I heard it was both of them together somewhere in that brad wright interview. I can't listen to the marshmallow man, lies hurt my ears.

yeah right. they cancel Atlantis and 24 hours later SGU is announced. come on clearly SGA was offed to make way for SGU! of course Brad's saying that it was a mutual decision. check the ratings, they improved considerably and I'm pretty sure SCI FI would've renewed the show. but MGM wanted to produce SGU ASAP

[Freek]

It was a decision reached between the producers, SciFi and MGM. So it wasn't cancelled, but they just decided to end it. Cancellation is the term usually used when the network ends a show against the producers wishes and intent.

Still, there must've been a reason... I don't think SciFi was going to allow the series to run past season 5 or maybe stretch it to 6, otherwise the producers would have gone on. Because the Sci-Fi channel is losing both BSG and SGA in 2009 now, and spinoffs (eg. Caprica and Universe) are always a tricky thing.

Enterprise showed that for Star Trek, it was amazing it lasted as long as it did. Some networks would have shut that one down after a season or two. (not to say it was bad, I liked it quite a bit actually, and would have loved to see the show develop onward).

I think the problem with Atlantis is, that at the end of the day, everyone lives and nobody suffers any real consequences. They lost contact with earth god knows how many times, but every time eventually a ZPM turns up. They leave their planet, find a new one and they just set down and continue as normal. The whole Teyla-pregancy story was never as engaging either, because we never got to know the father, and thus the whole storyline lacked involvement for the audience. Not to say it was a bad show, I just think it was too stand-alone and lacked a certain sense of progression.

[Franklyn Blaze]

They should pen the entire series beforehand. You can tell if a painting is bad after its painted.

[Pitry]

I actually disagree a little bit here. Or a lot, depending on your point of view.

First off, GitM itself: I totally agree that GitM was a bad episode in many ways, and I didn't like it. I agree that they "had" to create a bad plot to fix the mess that they created when Torri left, and that everything felt forced.

Even with that restriction, it could have been done better with just a little bit of grace and humour added into the mix. For instance, Weir said that she'd been trying to fit into the collective. Why not use that as an excuse for her looking different? Maybe Oberoth thought that he'd killed her, but she'd downloaded herself into the collective at the last moment. In order to keep from being discovered she took a body to minimize her contact with others (which she'd have had in spades if she remained fully digitized), and she made sure that body didn't look like herself. But some of the others, the Ascendowanters, realized who she was. Yadayada. That would have explained away one of my biggest annoyances with the episode, without really changing anything.
_________________________________________________________

Second, plot controlling characters. This is where I disagree with you. You would claim, I think (based on what you've said), what RDM from BSG claims, that plot is secondary, and that the plot should twist and turn to fit character moments. I would claim the opposite: plot should be absolute, and it should be the characters who twist and react to elements of the plot.

Why? Because that just seems more natural. I want a *story*, not a random assemblage of character moments, however cool each one may be on an individual level. First you should write a story, then you should insert characters into it and then let them follow the logical course through the story. If a character dies, they die. If a character lives, they live. The plot demands it; it is narrative imperative (hehe, rhyme!).

If the plot has to twist to fit what the characters are doing, everything feels forced, or very convenient (like it does on Stargate, Star Trek, and BSG). Starbuck need to get back to the ship? No problem, she magically figures out how to fly a raider! Daniel need to be rescued from an unfortunate situation? No problem, a ship magically appears in orbit and beams him up! Awesome! Captain Picard needs to feel depressed for the movie to work? Hmmmm. I know, let's kill off his family, then never mention it again! Yay for plot devices being used to artificially create character moments!

I think what people like RDM and the producers of Stargate don't understand is just how... fake all of that feels over the course of more than a handful of episodes. IMO characters, and their cool moments, should *follow* from elements of the plot, rather than *leading* elements of the plot. And this is why I liked B5 (and Steven Moffat's Doctor Who stories). In B5 it normally felt, with a few notable exceptions, like the plot was leading the characters around by their noses, and that they were desperately trying to keep up with what was going on. Their desperation with elements of the plot was where the drama came from, rather than the desperation and excitement coming from their personal dramas.

I suppose it is something of a stylist choice, rather than being strictly "right" or "wrong". I prefer plot led stories, rather than character led stories.

I think it depends. Characters should be twisted to fit the plot only if the plot is good enough - and by good enough I mean fantastic, great, the best ever. I'm not saying the plot should always accomodate the characters - it should be done only if there're people behind it who really understand how these things should be done, adn done well - for example, the Doctor Who franchise where they usually have very very weak plots, but it doesn't matter cos that's not the centre of the story.

Sometimes Stargate manages to do that as wekk - the Shrine, for example, was a wonderful character-centric-with-dumb-plot episode. And I loved it to bits.

IT should be a balance though. And making characters out of character just to make a sotry works, like they did in GitM, disrupts this balance.