The Anti Season 4 Thread (Spoilers). For complaints and misgivings ONLY.

[mcbarr]

Congrats! Do share, if you want to of course.

Nah, I don't want to embarrass anyone, but let me give you a hint. One thinks I'm responsible for fandom infighting. The other has issues with women, and (I don't know why because I wasn't talking to him) felt offended with a comment I made in the PRO Cavanagh topic. Interestingly enough, I wasn't the first to use the controversial term in the thread.

I think the real test will be what the ratings are for next week. If the average viewier wasn't spoiled, he/she wouldn't have any idea of what was planned for Carson. The ratings for next week (Submerged ?) might be a better barometer of how viewers react to this week's episode.

Not sure. Maybe the viewers will tune in just to check if Beckett is really dead? I find SG-1 ratings surprisingly low though given the fact that the current season is the last one. Then some people think SG-1 is the answer to all their problems. Go figure!

*settles into couch for momentary, meandering rant, arms crossed peevishly*

You know, I can understand, and in some cases, agree with the criticisms of Weir as a character. I think they had her approve some of the worst plans of S2 and 3. If there were serious moral problems with the expeditions' actions in those plotlines (and I'd say there were—eugenics-like genetic manipulation, torture for information, attempted genocide-like destruction of enemies), she was one of the people in charge during those plotlines.

But I'm more than a little disturbed at the way in which this all gets put on Weir's head in particular. Is there any strong, anti-Beckett argument being made for his involvement in the main plot? Or anti-Sheppard? Anti-McKay? Any real animus toward those characters for their recent decisions? (I don't mean these questions entirely rhetorically, if anyone's heard one, I'd be interested to read it.)

I just don't get how it makes sense to criticize one character for something all the main characters are guilty of. I still like Weir as a character because I look at this as the writers' problem; it seems like we haven't been shown why she and Beckett and Sheppard and McKay decided to carry out a lot of the actions they did, so I have trouble judging the characters themselves.

And I don't even know how to talk about the fact that some of the arguments I've heard against Weir (talking with female friends, even) use gendered language to criticize her (i.e. she made this decision too "emotionally").

It's like somehow she's more guilty because she's a woman. Do the writers intend to imply that if she fails morally, she's more guilty than a male character who made the same moral mistake?

Then I look at the character they're replacing her with, and I'm more troubled. As much as I liked Carter when I watched SG-1, it did seem like as the seasons went on, the writers built her up into more of a perfect person than they let any of the other main characters be. And this reads to me like the other side of the Weir coin; if a female character's going to be likable, she has to be unquestionably, morally pure in a way male characters don't have to be.

Grah. I don't know. I find myself thinking, "maybe you're just expecting too much from Stargate," but I don't think I used to have such low expectations. The really sad thing is, watching recent SG stuff, I even start to doubt that what I used to enjoy was very good, but that probably is the pessimism talking.

Perfect! Green for you!

[nowvoyager908]

*settles into couch for momentary, meandering rant, arms crossed peevishly*

You know, I can understand, and in some cases, agree with the criticisms of Weir as a character. I think they had her approve some of the worst plans of S2 and 3. If there were serious moral problems with the expeditions' actions in those plotlines (and I'd say there were—eugenics-like genetic manipulation, torture for information, attempted genocide-like destruction of enemies), she was one of the people in charge during those plotlines.

But I'm more than a little disturbed at the way in which this all gets put on Weir's head in particular. Is there any strong, anti-Beckett argument being made for his involvement in the main plot? Or anti-Sheppard? Anti-McKay? Any real animus toward those characters for their recent decisions? (I don't mean these questions entirely rhetorically, if anyone's heard one, I'd be interested to read it.)

I just don't get how it makes sense to criticize one character for something all the main characters are guilty of. I still like Weir as a character because I look at this as the writers' problem; it seems like we haven't been shown why she and Beckett and Sheppard and McKay decided to carry out a lot of the actions they did, so I have trouble judging the characters themselves.

And I don't even know how to talk about the fact that some of the arguments I've heard against Weir (talking with female friends, even) use gendered language to criticize her (i.e. she made this decision too "emotionally").

It's like somehow she's more guilty because she's a woman. Do the writers intend to imply that if she fails morally, she's more guilty than a male character who made the same moral mistake?

Then I look at the character they're replacing her with, and I'm more troubled. As much as I liked Carter when I watched SG-1, it did seem like as the seasons went on, the writers built her up into more of a perfect person than they let any of the other main characters be. And this reads to me like the other side of the Weir coin; if a female character's going to be likable, she has to be unquestionably, morally pure in a way male characters don't have to be.

Grah. I don't know. I find myself thinking, "maybe you're just expecting too much from Stargate," but I don't think I used to have such low expectations. The really sad thing is, watching recent SG stuff, I even start to doubt that what I used to enjoy was very good, but that probably is the pessimism talking.

You make some excellent points. One of the reasons I like Weir is because she isn't perfect. She isn't some modern-day saint who always does and says the right thing. She makes mistakes and has doubts, and regrets some of the decisions she's made. But, she doesn't operate in a vacuum. Yes, she has the final say as the expedition leader, but her decision-making includes conferring with her team and taking their opinions into consideration before acting. I doubt she would act without the tacit agreement of Shep or McKay or Beckett . . . but they are never held accountable. As you say, its all on her head.

As an example, what was the episode where McKay's ego was responsible for the death of a crewman and the destruction of 3/4's of a solar system. What was his punishment? Shep didn't talk to him for an episode. LOL.

I especially like the comment in bold. I never thought of it that way, but it's obvious that, consciously or not, women leaders are held to a much different standard than male leaders (by both TPTB and many fans). Its the old "woman as Madonna" riff, with the woman being held captive on a pedestal of impossible standards. And if she doesn't meet those standards, she's forever damned. Poor girl can't win.

I also believe that many are just not comfortable with a civilian woman in charge. I think many fans are familiar with the SG1 concept, which was male-led and military. I've noticed that many fans seems unable or unwilling to embrace a different concept, and I think their frustration boils over to being critical, to the point of obsession, of a character that doesn't fit the mold. IMHO, the same actions by a male or a military commander would be viewed very differently.

A friend once joked that you should aim low so that you won't have far to fall when your expectations are not met. Doesn't seem like much of a joke when talking about the new and improved SGA. LOL.

[mcbarr]

I also believe that many are just not comfortable with a civilian woman in charge. I think many fans are familiar with the SG1 concept, which was male-led and military. I've noticed that many fans seems unable or unwilling to embrace a different concept, and I think their frustration boils over to being critical, to the point of obsession, of a character that doesn't fit the mold. IMHO, the same actions by a male or a military commander would be viewed very differently.

I agree. If a Caldwell-type character, or even Carter made the same decisions as Dr. Weir, they would be viewed as awesome, badass etc. On the other hand, when a female civilian makes tough decisions, she's automatically arrogant, irresponsible, blah, blah.

[parisindy]

man you guys have made some awesome posts

i would green you all if i could...

damn i'm going to miss her

well i guess in someways i won't cause i won't watch the new stuff..
in reality its all of atlantis that i will miss

[Falcon Horus]

well i guess in someways i won't cause i won't watch the new stuff..
in reality its all of atlantis that i will miss

What about the episodes that have Weir?

I'm already providing a free-of-Carter credits.

Cutting her out of the episodes will be slightly harder to do, but maybe I could give that a try as well. A way to preserve the original Atlantis-show.

[mcbarr]

Cutting her out of the episodes will be slightly harder to do, but maybe I could give that a try as well. A way to preserve the original Atlantis-show.

Harder, but totally worth it!

[Celcool]

Jerkface and nowvoyager908 great posts! Wish I could express myself the way you do. Greened ya.

I think the real test will be what the ratings are for next week. If the average viewier wasn't spoiled, he/she wouldn't have any idea of what was planned for Carson. The ratings for next week (Submerged ?) might be a better barometer of how viewers react to this week's episode.

Yes, you have a point, their plan is for Sunday to also provide ratings for all the rest of the episodes up to the finale and for the finale so the show will have more chances to be picked up for another season. How they figure that plan would work is beyond me. We'll see if Sunday will have the same effect on ratings as Irresponsible did. *lol*

Nah, I don't want to embarrass anyone, but let me give you a hint. One thinks I'm responsible for fandom infighting. The other has issues with women, and (I don't know why because I wasn't talking to him) felt offended with a comment I made in the PRO Cavanagh topic. Interestingly enough, I wasn't the first to use the controversial term in the thread.

I have an idea who those two are. But of course I can't know for sure.

[nowvoyager908]

Jerkface and nowvoyager908 great posts! Wish I could express myself the way you do. Greened ya.

Thanks. Unfortunately, I think I spend waaaay too much time thinking about a show I dont' really want to watch any more. LOL. Conventional wisdom would say - so get the hell out. But I have almost three years invested in this stupid show and I hate the idea of just walking away. Oh well, I guess my masochistic streak is alive and well.

[mcbarr]

I know what you mean. Maybe we should ask those three years back... Nah!

[parisindy]

What about the episodes that have Weir?

honestly i told my friends i would watch the ones with carson in it, and of course i adore weir. but as of right now i am feeling so disappointed in the whole thing,(the show and the fandom) i don't think i can watch 'the fall of elizabeth' if that makes sense... sort of like watching sunday all over again... just too sad. i realize that probably sounds completely irrational lol.

I mean heck i adore carson and weir but my fav is shep and i'm not even going to watch the show for him... its the 'team' dynamic that i loved.

but you never know... i will base my reaction on what you guys say... i let you guys do the pre-screening for me...

Thanks. Unfortunately, I think I spend waaaay too much time thinking about a show I dont' really want to watch any more. LOL. Conventional wisdom would say - so get the hell out. But I have almost three years invested in this stupid show and I hate the idea of just walking away. Oh well, I guess my masochistic streak is alive and well.

i got to agree 100% there i have tried to walk away no less then 3 times.. and yet i am still here, but i got to say you guys are the reason i am still hanging around

even though i was told by someone i wasn't welcome in the anti thread anymore... but one icky comment does not represent the group.
at least i hope not

[Falcon Horus]

but you never know... i will base my reaction on what you guys say... i let you guys do the pre-screening for me...

Then that is what we shall do.

even though i was told by someone i wasn't welcome in the anti thread anymore... but one icky comment does not represent the group.
at least i hope not

Don't you dare stay away from this thread?
I'll haul your a$$ back in, I swear. We've been saving you a seat in the couch.

[parisindy]

Then that is what we shall do.



Don't you dare stay away from this thread?
I'll haul your a$$ back in, I swear. We've been saving you a seat in the couch.

THANK YOU! you guys are the best

[Suzotchka]

even though i was told by someone i wasn't welcome in the anti thread anymore... but one icky comment does not represent the group.
at least i hope not

That's right. One not so nice comment does not represent the group.

Come sit on the couch!

[nowvoyager908]

even though i was told by someone i wasn't welcome in the anti thread anymore... but one icky comment does not represent the group. at least i hope not

No, of course not. One comment does not represent the group. It wouldn't be the same without your input. We need to stick together.

[Falcon Horus]

United we stand, divided we fall!