Elizabeth Weir/John Sheppard Appreciation/Ship/Discussion Thread

[Annelantis]

And why is it that the boring ones got all the attention?

I don't know. I think it was the ones who were more overtly sexy that got all the attention.

[Annelantis]

Right, heading to bed. Night-night, Sparkies.

[Sparky She-Demon]

I don't know. I think it was the ones who were more overtly sexy that got all the attention.

Since when does sexiness have to be overt?

[Eri13]

Since when does sexiness have to be overt?

Since certain types of people think that the only way you can get other certain types of people to watch Sci-fi is to have the characters in skimpy clothes and sweatily swinging sticks?

I can't quibble too much with the whole 'male demographic' argument because a lot of sci-fi franchises do offer up beefy or beautiful males for women nowadays.

smalltowngirl,

I totally agree with everything you said. Green for you.

I have been a shipper pretty much since the day I was born, though I only found out in the last year that there was a name for this compulsion I have. I have always been one as well who looked beyond the obvious and have been known for picking out couples in pilots, years before it was decided that they would get together.

John and Elizabeth was not the most obvious couple, it took me a few episodes to really see what was there but I knew straightaway that I didn't want John with Teyla. It was just boring and cliche.

I would, however, say that as a watcher of Stargate since the very beginning I am completely if the opinion that there is no stronger and more compelling female character in the franchise than Elizabeth Weir. She was incredibly intelligent, stood up for what she believed was right, was not intimidated by powerful figures, including the military, had common sense as well as heart and she was a civilian - she was one of us.

Her strength did not come from her ability to kick a*** or from technobabbly science that eventually saved the day. Her strength was her ability to use her words, to talk to people, to understand and to solve problems with discussion and negotiation. It was not something they utilised enough in the show, given that TPTW seemed far more interested in resolutions that involved blowing things up, shooting up the place or incomprehensible science (my personal bugbear of season 5 was the weapon that destroyed Wraith ships by messing with the frequency of their hyperdrives but did not bother to give any kind of explanation as to how this process also blew up stargates!)

She was an incredible character and could have been even more but TPTW created her and then didn't know what to do with her, in the end turning her into a glorified office manager. TH played her brilliantly as well. She was never over the top and her chemistry with not just JF but many of the cast was fascinating. I think it's a real shame that she has not been recognised for the work she did there and given something in the last few years that she can really get her teeth into - my personal opinion is that she would have played an incredible member of the team in Criminal Minds.

Look at me, this may have gone on longer than I meant it to. However, I'm not saying anything that I don't think is true. I just get a bit ranty when I get into this territory, particularly the treatment of women in Stargate land.

A LONGGGGGGGGGGG while ago I wrote an essay to JM about why Elizabeth was such an incredible character in the comments on his blog, and it's pretty much a lot of what you say here.

In sci-fi, traditionally I classify the women into 3 stereotypical categories: The Battle Babe,
The Beautiful sidekick, & The Leader who doesn't let her hair down. The first is the Teylas, who are put on shows to be kickbutt but generally they're not 'lead' in the sense they're sort of always there to assist. The second is very broad, but basically is any woman who is handy and helpful, but, again, never the lead.

The third is what I call 'the Janeway' and that's the woman who is the leader, but has a somewhat masculine aspect to her in order to be taken seriously. Like she has to be a member of the boys club and for that reason femininity is a weakness.

What I loved about Elizabeth is that she flat out denied all of those stereotypes. Each one, of course, is flexible, and there are some really great women who fit into those roles--like the women of Firefly--but with Elizabeth, there simply was no stereotype to define her. She was unquestionably the decision-maker of the expedition, but she wore her hair curly, and she smiled and flirted and was friendly and feminine, but was also smart, experienced and tough when she needed to be. She was, for what Stargate was, an amazingly complex character.

It's a shame that nobody seemed to recognize it. They had a model for a new type of female leader to use as a springboard, and no one really noticed. =\

I will say, however--I started watching Defiance, and while it has its weak moments, the relationship between the two leads--Amanda and Nolan--smells of John and Elizabeth. Amanda is another Elizabeth type leader. Nolan is the John Sheppard archetype with blond hair. They're not romantically linked yet, but I have a feeling they will be.

[Raelis]

I don't know. I think it was the ones who were more overtly sexy that got all the attention.

Out of curiosity, which SGA characters do you think qualify as overtly sexy? To me, the only characters that come to mind are Teyla and Ronon, but I thought it was general consensus that they were overlooked by the TPTB. Keller? Pretty, yes, but I would definitely not call her overtly sexy. Sam? Beautiful, but also not overtly sexy, and she didn't get all that much screen time either.

[Southern Red]

Since certain types of people think that the only way you can get other certain types of people to watch Sci-fi is to have the characters in skimpy clothes and sweatily swinging sticks?

I can't quibble too much with the whole 'male demographic' argument because a lot of sci-fi franchises do offer up beefy or beautiful males for women nowadays.



A LONGGGGGGGGGGG while ago I wrote an essay to JM about why Elizabeth was such an incredible character in the comments on his blog, and it's pretty much a lot of what you say here.

In sci-fi, traditionally I classify the women into 3 stereotypical categories: The Battle Babe,
The Beautiful sidekick, & The Leader who doesn't let her hair down. The first is the Teylas, who are put on shows to be kickbutt but generally they're not 'lead' in the sense they're sort of always there to assist. The second is very broad, but basically is any woman who is handy and helpful, but, again, never the lead.

The third is what I call 'the Janeway' and that's the woman who is the leader, but has a somewhat masculine aspect to her in order to be taken seriously. Like she has to be a member of the boys club and for that reason femininity is a weakness.

What I loved about Elizabeth is that she flat out denied all of those stereotypes. Each one, of course, is flexible, and there are some really great women who fit into those roles--like the women of Firefly--but with Elizabeth, there simply was no stereotype to define her. She was unquestionably the decision-maker of the expedition, but she wore her hair curly, and she smiled and flirted and was friendly and feminine, but was also smart, experienced and tough when she needed to be. She was, for what Stargate was, an amazingly complex character.

It's a shame that nobody seemed to recognize it. They had a model for a new type of female leader to use as a springboard, and no one really noticed. =\

I will say, however--I started watching Defiance, and while it has its weak moments, the relationship between the two leads--Amanda and Nolan--smells of John and Elizabeth. Amanda is another Elizabeth type leader. Nolan is the John Sheppard archetype with blond hair. They're not romantically linked yet, but I have a feeling they will be.

*high five sistah* I call that second female type the "magician's assistant." Sometimes they are there to divert attention from a whole host of things. I think Teyla was a combo, a leader who seldom led, a sexualized warrior and a compassionate teammate, but she never got her own niche. Ronon was a bit of the same in that he was whatever they needed at the moment.

I think Elizabeth scared them to death, so they threw up their hands and said they couldn't write her. That old chestnut that inexperienced writers use about their characters taking over is laughable when you are talking about professionals. Characters don't take over. You are the writer, write them differently if you want to.

Out of curiosity, which SGA characters do you think qualify as overtly sexy? To me, the only characters that come to mind are Teyla and Ronon, but I thought it was general consensus that they were overlooked by the TPTB. Keller? Pretty, yes, but I would definitely not call her overtly sexy. Sam? Beautiful, but also not overtly sexy, and she didn't get all that much screen time either.

Good question. I was always puzzled when people talked about Keller as being a "male fantasy" or the sexy girl. I see her as the girl next door who would be very approachable by guys. Well, unless you are dealing with severely socially inept dorks...

And Sam was the smart one. I missed the sexy with her too.

[Raelis]

Good question. I was always puzzled when people talked about Keller as being a "male fantasy" or the sexy girl. I see her as the girl next door who would be very approachable by guys. Well, unless you are dealing with severely socially inept dorks...

And Sam was the smart one. I missed the sexy with her too.

I just disagree with the claim that the overtly sexy characters were the ones who got the attention on SGA (and Stargate in general). Now, if we're talking other shows, then yeah, it's often true that the sexiest characters are at the forefront. I consider both Keller and Sam to be very attractive, but they're definitely not the Sexy Chicks. I mean, I do think they're sexy, but they are not sexualized by the show. I agree that Keller is the Girl Next Door type, and Sam is the Tomboy type.

[Eri13]

I just disagree with the claim that the overtly sexy characters were the ones who got the attention on SGA (and Stargate in general). Now, if we're talking other shows, then yeah, it's often true that the sexiest characters are at the forefront. I consider both Keller and Sam to be very attractive, but they're definitely not the Sexy Chicks. I mean, I do think they're sexy, but they are not sexualized by the show. I agree that Keller is the Girl Next Door type, and Sam is the Tomboy type.

I don't think the main 'sexy' characters were so much the problem as that a lot of the overt sexiness became a punchline when they really didn't need it to be. Like, how Amanda Tapping's endowments were often brought up as a punchline for the male characters (Oh Zelenka, the Transporter in Quarantine *headDESK*) or how John was constantly courted by the overtly sexy (Chaya, Larrin, princess in The Tower, etc).

What was funny about Stargate is how they created a host of groundbreaking characters but, at least from what I glean from outside interviews, they really didn't intend it. They seemed to think John being 'mensa' was a punchline for a good joke, when he could have been seen doing some of the mathematician's work. Or Elizabeth's female leader, or even Rodney, who did evolve from the jerkish persona he held on SG-1 could have been unique spins on the story, but I get the sense that a lot of that came by accident, not on purpose.

[Scary Kitty]

Good morning, Sparkies! Happy Pretty Friday!

Since certain types of people think that the only way you can get other certain types of people to watch Sci-fi is to have the characters in skimpy clothes and sweatily swinging sticks?

I can't quibble too much with the whole 'male demographic' argument because a lot of sci-fi franchises do offer up beefy or beautiful males for women nowadays.



A LONGGGGGGGGGGG while ago I wrote an essay to JM about why Elizabeth was such an incredible character in the comments on his blog, and it's pretty much a lot of what you say here.

In sci-fi, traditionally I classify the women into 3 stereotypical categories: The Battle Babe,
The Beautiful sidekick, & The Leader who doesn't let her hair down. The first is the Teylas, who are put on shows to be kickbutt but generally they're not 'lead' in the sense they're sort of always there to assist. The second is very broad, but basically is any woman who is handy and helpful, but, again, never the lead.

The third is what I call 'the Janeway' and that's the woman who is the leader, but has a somewhat masculine aspect to her in order to be taken seriously. Like she has to be a member of the boys club and for that reason femininity is a weakness.

What I loved about Elizabeth is that she flat out denied all of those stereotypes. Each one, of course, is flexible, and there are some really great women who fit into those roles--like the women of Firefly--but with Elizabeth, there simply was no stereotype to define her. She was unquestionably the decision-maker of the expedition, but she wore her hair curly, and she smiled and flirted and was friendly and feminine, but was also smart, experienced and tough when she needed to be. She was, for what Stargate was, an amazingly complex character.

It's a shame that nobody seemed to recognize it. They had a model for a new type of female leader to use as a springboard, and no one really noticed. =\

I will say, however--I started watching Defiance, and while it has its weak moments, the relationship between the two leads--Amanda and Nolan--smells of John and Elizabeth. Amanda is another Elizabeth type leader. Nolan is the John Sheppard archetype with blond hair. They're not romantically linked yet, but I have a feeling they will be.

I don't think the main 'sexy' characters were so much the problem as that a lot of the overt sexiness became a punchline when they really didn't need it to be. Like, how Amanda Tapping's endowments were often brought up as a punchline for the male characters (Oh Zelenka, the Transporter in Quarantine *headDESK*) or how John was constantly courted by the overtly sexy (Chaya, Larrin, princess in The Tower, etc).

What was funny about Stargate is how they created a host of groundbreaking characters but, at least from what I glean from outside interviews, they really didn't intend it. They seemed to think John being 'mensa' was a punchline for a good joke, when he could have been seen doing some of the mathematician's work. Or Elizabeth's female leader, or even Rodney, who did evolve from the jerkish persona he held on SG-1 could have been unique spins on the story, but I get the sense that a lot of that came by accident, not on purpose.

Brilliant posts! I think the fact that all these great characters with such amazing development potential coming about by "accident" is ultimately the real legacy, and the real disappointment, of SGA. All these years later, and it's still a source of tremendous frustration for me to watch and know that it could have been so much better.

But then, that's what we have SGA Rising for.

[Luz]

Good question. I was always puzzled when people talked about Keller as being a "male fantasy" or the sexy girl. I see her as the girl next door who would be very approachable by guys. Well, unless you are dealing with severely socially inept dorks...

I guess it was the whole Firefly thing. People just go gaga over Joss Whedon's shows and any young actress who's been on one of his shows gets branded as a "male fantasy" for life. I personally don't get it but that's how it works and that's why we have to put up with Whedon fanboys trying to insert their dream girls at every available opportunity.

Spoiler:

And I'm saying this as a very bitter Mentalist fan who's had to put up with a character who makes my blood boil because of tptb's crush on certain Firefly actress I'd rather not mention. It's like tptb think that because they're so in love with these actresses everyone else must be too.

[Southern Red]

I don't think the main 'sexy' characters were so much the problem as that a lot of the overt sexiness became a punchline when they really didn't need it to be. Like, how Amanda Tapping's endowments were often brought up as a punchline for the male characters (Oh Zelenka, the Transporter in Quarantine *headDESK*) or how John was constantly courted by the overtly sexy (Chaya, Larrin, princess in The Tower, etc).

What was funny about Stargate is how they created a host of groundbreaking characters but, at least from what I glean from outside interviews, they really didn't intend it. They seemed to think John being 'mensa' was a punchline for a good joke, when he could have been seen doing some of the mathematician's work. Or Elizabeth's female leader, or even Rodney, who did evolve from the jerkish persona he held on SG-1 could have been unique spins on the story, but I get the sense that a lot of that came by accident, not on purpose.

And sexy to them only meant a large bosom. Plus I'm still boiling about the Mensa joke.

Good morning, Sparkies! Happy Pretty Friday!





Brilliant posts! I think the fact that all these great characters with such amazing development potential coming about by "accident" is ultimately the real legacy, and the real disappointment, of SGA. All these years later, and it's still a source of tremendous frustration for me to watch and know that it could have been so much better.

But then, that's what we have SGA Rising for.

This.

[Eri13]

I guess it was the whole Firefly thing. People just go gaga over Joss Whedon's shows and any young actress who's been on one of his shows gets branded as a "male fantasy" for life. I personally don't get it but that's how it works and that's why we have to put up with Whedon fanboys trying to insert their dream girls at every available opportunity.

Spoiler:

And I'm saying this as a very bitter Mentalist fan who's had to put up with a character who makes my blood boil because of tptb's crush on certain Firefly actress I'd rather not mention. It's like tptb think that because they're so in love with these actresses everyone else must be too.

You can count me as a Whedon fangirl, because Firefly is one of my absolute faves and I will follow any of those character actors pretty much anywhere. But it's not because they're my 'dream people'. It's because the talent and chemistry they brought to that show was insane.

But I don't understand the labeling of Keller, either, because neither Keller, nor Kaylee, who Jewel played on Firefly, was portrayed as a sexpot. Unless, as I've heard criticized, you consider the fact she chose braniac McKay over beefy Ronon to be what makes her sexy. Young, pretty girl falls in love with uber-geek, that sort of thing.

[Luz]

You can count me as a Whedon fangirl, because Firefly is one of my absolute faves and I will follow any of those character actors pretty much anywhere. But it's not because they're my 'dream people'. It's because the talent and chemistry they brought to that show was insane.

But I don't understand the labeling of Keller, either, because neither Keller, nor Kaylee, who Jewel played on Firefly, was portrayed as a sexpot. Unless, as I've heard criticized, you consider the fact she chose braniac McKay over beefy Ronon to be what makes her sexy. Young, pretty girl falls in love with uber-geek, that sort of thing.

There are certain tropes that get sci-fi fans going. You may not see how these women may be considered sexpots but it's all about certain tropes that while not overtly sexual, in appearance, represent male fantasies of what a sci-fi babe is supposed to be.

[Raelis]

I don't think the main 'sexy' characters were so much the problem as that a lot of the overt sexiness became a punchline when they really didn't need it to be. Like, how Amanda Tapping's endowments were often brought up as a punchline for the male characters (Oh Zelenka, the Transporter in Quarantine *headDESK*) or how John was constantly courted by the overtly sexy (Chaya, Larrin, princess in The Tower, etc)

It bothered me, but I don't think it happened often enough to be a problem. Whatever problems the Stargate shows had (and then had alot of them), I don't think the sexiness of their characters (or lack thereof) was among those problems. In fact, I found these shows refreshing in that their casts consisted of nice-looking people in their 30s and 40s who weren't (for the most part) sexualized or turned into glamorous dolls.

[Brie]

Hello everyone! I haven’t been able to stop by this week because I suffered from a pretty bad eye infection (on top of already being sick) and the light from the computer made it close to impossible to even turn it on but I feel much better now.


But BTT, I just love, love, love what you all have written about Elizabeth and I agree with all of it. She is such an incredible character and TH deserves more than she gets for the way she portrait Elizabeth.