*sigh* Well, I just read the article thingamajig. Gad, what a mess. I know I'm just annoying myself by still paying any attention, but the dog's been keeping me up lately. That's my excuse for wasting time on the internet anyway. 
Does Sci-Fi magazine usually print fluff pieces like this? I've never read it before. It sounds a little bit like the old Nintendo Power "reviews"...
I really did like Tapping's performances on SG-1; even when the material was sparse, or a little hackneyed, I don't remember her ever phoning it in, which is more than I would say for one of her co-stars there. But I can't hold out much hope for her character, if this is all the storyline they can come up with.
I'm speculating here, but based on what they've said so far, Carter could be put in charge of Atlantis because the military wants a military leader for the possible
But why would any of the military higher-ups trust Carter with a position like that? SG-1 has always been effective, but not too good at following orders they disagree with.
While Hammond became more of a friend to the team, and often the voice of right-over-procedure as the show went on, it seemed like the writers often used the military bureaucracy as a villian/foil. Heck, the first episode with McKay reiterated that whole theme. Are these the people who are suddenly trusting not only Carter's judgment, but her ability to do a job she has no experience for? Guh...wha...why?
And even ignoring all that (which I presume they will...), where's the background that supports the premise Carter would have any problem dealing with the idea of being a leader (which the article seems to say was their selling point for bringing her over)? If anything, it seemed like on SG-1 Carter was infallibly likeable; Jack was the one who could be undiplomatic with strangers. I can see how Carter might be unprepared for the logistics of running a city full of people more intelligent than they are personable, but that doesn't seem to be what they're talking about.
I thought when they started Atlantis, that McKay was a bit like Carter could have been if they'd let that character be a bit more human—she could easily have been isolated by her work before joining SG-1, and as a result been somewhat arrogant and dismissive without realizing it. But since they've just used Atlantis to make McKay more and more likeable, I'd be dang surprised if all of a sudden they were willing to use this change to honestly look at the type of flaws Carter could have.
Ugh, I don't know. What really bugs me though, is the only way I can think to explain some of their statements and writing decisions about Carter and Weir is that they don't see a lot of potential in female characters. It's as if they assume, "Carter can't be a leader in the same way Jack or Mitchell can, so let's make her a behind-the-scenes, non-action leader." "Weir ultimately can't juggle the military and civilian sides of Atlantis, so let's push her even further out of power."
It even seems to me like the same thing they've done with Teyla. She started out as the Teal'c-like character—the wise alien, with different principles she was willing to defend, sometimes violently (remember how she decked Bates for suggesting she was a collaborator?). But they've made her more and more of a woman-there-to-pacify-the-men, giving Ronon all the justified but often undiluted anger at the wraith.
I don't mean to accuse them of deliberate sexism, because I sincerely doubt any of this is a conscious decision on the writers' part. But it does seem to be a pattern, and not one I'd like to continue witnessing.
Does Sci-Fi magazine usually print fluff pieces like this? I've never read it before. It sounds a little bit like the old Nintendo Power "reviews"...
I really did like Tapping's performances on SG-1; even when the material was sparse, or a little hackneyed, I don't remember her ever phoning it in, which is more than I would say for one of her co-stars there. But I can't hold out much hope for her character, if this is all the storyline they can come up with.
I'm speculating here, but based on what they've said so far, Carter could be put in charge of Atlantis because the military wants a military leader for the possible
Spoiler:
While Hammond became more of a friend to the team, and often the voice of right-over-procedure as the show went on, it seemed like the writers often used the military bureaucracy as a villian/foil. Heck, the first episode with McKay reiterated that whole theme. Are these the people who are suddenly trusting not only Carter's judgment, but her ability to do a job she has no experience for? Guh...wha...why?
And even ignoring all that (which I presume they will...), where's the background that supports the premise Carter would have any problem dealing with the idea of being a leader (which the article seems to say was their selling point for bringing her over)? If anything, it seemed like on SG-1 Carter was infallibly likeable; Jack was the one who could be undiplomatic with strangers. I can see how Carter might be unprepared for the logistics of running a city full of people more intelligent than they are personable, but that doesn't seem to be what they're talking about.
I thought when they started Atlantis, that McKay was a bit like Carter could have been if they'd let that character be a bit more human—she could easily have been isolated by her work before joining SG-1, and as a result been somewhat arrogant and dismissive without realizing it. But since they've just used Atlantis to make McKay more and more likeable, I'd be dang surprised if all of a sudden they were willing to use this change to honestly look at the type of flaws Carter could have.
Ugh, I don't know. What really bugs me though, is the only way I can think to explain some of their statements and writing decisions about Carter and Weir is that they don't see a lot of potential in female characters. It's as if they assume, "Carter can't be a leader in the same way Jack or Mitchell can, so let's make her a behind-the-scenes, non-action leader." "Weir ultimately can't juggle the military and civilian sides of Atlantis, so let's push her even further out of power."
It even seems to me like the same thing they've done with Teyla. She started out as the Teal'c-like character—the wise alien, with different principles she was willing to defend, sometimes violently (remember how she decked Bates for suggesting she was a collaborator?). But they've made her more and more of a woman-there-to-pacify-the-men, giving Ronon all the justified but often undiluted anger at the wraith.
I don't mean to accuse them of deliberate sexism, because I sincerely doubt any of this is a conscious decision on the writers' part. But it does seem to be a pattern, and not one I'd like to continue witnessing.
If not for Shep & McKay I wouldn't even try.
That's a complete shocker!!!!!!!!! 
Comment