Who was the most menacing threat?

[WraithRichard]

They used the same plot as they did with the Gou'ald.
Too much of a divide and conquer going on just with in the wraith ranks.
That and they Wraith never really produced a good regular bad guy leader to pull things together for them.

Todd's goal was to pull them all together. It kind of undermines the ominousness of the wraith unifying if the regular ally has that goal in mind.

[Gatefan1976]

Oh yes Kolya. Big fat oprea singer..
Gives me the whillies all the time.

J/K Koyla was a great villian on a personel level.

Must give green for goonies reference!!
Pity memories of kolya's death are tinged with memories of LL

edit:
Then again, memories of the Asurans are mixed with Charles Winchester so it may be a wash

[The Flyattractor]

Must give green for goonies reference!!

Wow. I knew that was a ref to something but I had forgotten what.

And as for the more menacing. I would think it would be which do you find worse?
Asurans:Immediate extermination
Wraith:Endless containment or not really being able to progress beyond the level of cattle.

[morrismike]

Todd's goal was to pull them all together. It kind of undermines the ominousness of the wraith unifying if the regular ally has that goal in mind.

Todd's goal was to aquire a couple dozen ZPMs.

[The Flyattractor]

Todd's goal was to aquire a couple dozen ZPMs.

I thought that if they weren't in Todd's alliance he would rather see them dead?

[WraithRichard]

Todd's goal was to aquire a couple dozen ZPMs.

No, he wanted to unite the wraith and felt doing to required them. He needed them for either a show of power to other wraith, a way to fight, or a bargaining chip with Atlantis.

[Snowman37]

That and they Wraith never really produced a good regular bad guy leader to pull things together for them.

This was the one thing I sorely missed about SG-1 that Atlantis just never got right. On SG-1, you had the Goa'uld System Lords, Goa'uld underlings, and the Jaffa. This allowed for great villains such as Apophis, Anubis, Heu'ur, Ba'al, and so on. The only recurring Wraith characters I can even think of are Michael and Todd. Beyond them, we simply got one-time villains. The Wraith were great, but I really wish we had more than two recurring villains.

[WraithRichard]

This was the one thing I sorely missed about SG-1 that Atlantis just never got right. On SG-1, you had the Goa'uld System Lords, Goa'uld underlings, and the Jaffa. This allowed for great villains such as Apophis, Anubis, Heu'ur, Ba'al, and so on. The only recurring Wraith characters I can even think of are Michael and Todd. Beyond them, we simply got one-time villains. The Wraith were great, but I really wish we had more than two recurring villains.

The wraith weren't as generally evil as the Goa'uld or Jaffa, either. They were usually just fighting for their lives while even no-names in SG-1 we knew were evil.

[Snowman37]

The Wraith are space vampires, they can wipe out whole worlds. How are they not evil? Anyway, that wasn't the issue I was trying to bring up. My point was that in five years, we only had two recurring Wraiths, Michael and Todd. When SG-1 finished it's fifth year, we had numerous well-established Goa'uld villains: Apophis, Hathor, Heru'ur, Cronus, and Nirti. Discounting newly-established System Lords, did I miss anyone? Anyway, you get the idea. Atlantis was great with recurring characters, but they got lazy when it came to recurring villains (individuals, that is).

[The Flyattractor]

Who knows. They could have done something with any of the queens but that might have meant killing females off and that aint pc.

Even the Defiant Wraith or the Big leader one from the Sateda ep could have had some story lines thrown at them but they killed them off quick. And even in the same way.

They could have explored the possibility of diff class of wraiths.

[WraithRichard]

The Wraith are space vampires, they can wipe out whole worlds. How are they not evil? Anyway, that wasn't the issue I was trying to bring up. My point was that in five years, we only had two recurring Wraiths, Michael and Todd. When SG-1 finished it's fifth year, we had numerous well-established Goa'uld villains: Apophis, Hathor, Heru'ur, Cronus, and Nirti. Discounting newly-established System Lords, did I miss anyone? Anyway, you get the idea. Atlantis was great with recurring characters, but they got lazy when it came to recurring villains (individuals, that is).

Because they are motivated by the need to survive, not subjugate.
Also, your logic is AMAZINGLY flawed. Atlantis had far more power than a fleet of wraith wipe out planets (the replicators DID wipe out planets), the Asgard wiped out hundreds of thousands of millions of lives). Those are far more capable than the wraith who DON'T wipe out worlds. We've seen three instances only, one where Michal replaced the Athosians with Mexican cavemen (and he didn't even wipe out the Athosians, he kidnapped them), an alternate future that didn't happen, and the crazy-stupid wraith after Ronan who destroyed most but not all of a tiny village.

At worst you have Sateda, which they viewed as a threat (lead only by the crazy one).

Most of them can just hiss at you.

[Snowman37]

Because they are motivated by the need to survive, not subjugate.

True, but you have to see both sides of the coin. On one side, they are just trying to survive. Their food source just happens to be people. On the other side, they are... feeding on people, an evil act, no?

Also, your logic is AMAZINGLY flawed. Atlantis had far more power than a fleet of wraith wipe out planets (the replicators DID wipe out planets), the Asgard wiped out hundreds of thousands of millions of lives). Those are far more capable than the wraith who DON'T wipe out worlds. We've seen three instances only, one where Michal replaced the Athosians with Mexican cavemen (and he didn't even wipe out the Athosians, he kidnapped them), an alternate future that didn't happen, and the crazy-stupid wraith after Ronan who destroyed most but not all of a tiny village.

At worst you have Sateda, which they viewed as a threat (lead only by the crazy one).

Most of them can just hiss at you.

I simply meant that the Wraith had the ability to wipe out whole worlds by parking a hive in orbit and culling the world below. I didn't say that others did not have the ability.

[WraithRichard]

I simply meant that the Wraith had the ability to wipe out whole worlds by parking a hive in orbit and culling the world below. I didn't say that others did not have the ability.

I have the ability to stab someone. Will I? America has the ability to wipe out cities with nuclear arms. Will it? Atlantis can destroy a planet far worse than the wraith can. Will either of them do it?

The Fallacy of ignorance is amazingly dangerous. We don't know if they will. We don't know what someone is hiding during a trial. We don't know if rescuing an infant from a burning car would mean letting them live to become the next Hitler. Same logic.

Would you kill millions of innocents we could save (gene or hormone therapy was canonically just beyond medical reach)? Would you murder someone just because he has had contact with a terrorist once and refuses to answer questions while on trial because he is afraid? Would you let the infant die?

Would you go up to them, watch them die, and tell them it's the moral thing to do to their face?

Would you enjoy a show where the good guys did that? It's the same logic and the same wording for all of those situations.

[Snowman37]

I simply said the Wraith are capable of taking out whole worlds (people, anyway) if they so chose to do so. You're response is to go on a rant about how violent people on Earth are. What's your point? If you're trying to say that the Wraith have the right to exist just like anyone else, I'm going to disagree. They eat people, people have the right not to be eaten, so... yeah... I don't even understand how this is an issue. The Wraith aren't like wild animals who only sometimes eat people. Humans are the Wraith's sole source of feeding, hence... evil!

[WraithRichard]

I simply said the Wraith are capable of taking out whole worlds (people, anyway) if they so chose to do so. You're response is to go on a rant about how violent people on Earth are. What's your point? If you're trying to say that the Wraith have the right to exist just like anyone else, I'm going to disagree. They eat people, people have the right not to be eaten, so... yeah... I don't even understand how this is an issue. The Wraith aren't like wild animals who only sometimes eat people. Humans are the Wraith's sole source of feeding, hence... evil!

You didn't even read what I posted did you? Go back, read the post again and answer the question. You're losing what moral stance you had by ignoring what others say.

At least you're finally trying to make a logical argument. Except you just get back to point fingers at humans more than wraith. Eating to survive isn't evil, though you can make the argument for human rights...until you get to the wraith's right to live to. Neither side is fair.

You have to be able to apply your logic to a threat on earth for yours to be valid. It isn't at all and you either know it, or you advocate human extinction (in which case you can't argue 'right to live'). None of this points out that wraith are the biggest threat. Since it takes action to be evil, never ability, they're pathetic.