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

[g.o.d]

Spoiler:

Next time when you watch SG1 with Vala, stop watching it with the mute button on

why? I don't do it I like Vala's character. She's great

[Killdeer]

whats the worst episode of season 4?

For me? Probably Tabula Rasa and Missing. I need to rewatch TR because so many people keep saying how good it was, but I watched it twice, and something about it just doesn't work for me. Missing - well, it was mostly the obvious problem (Keller), which was a shame because this was the episode I was most looking forward to.

Looking forward to the second half, I can pretty much guess that Trio is going to be my worst of the season though. I hope I'm wrong - I have been before, but everything points to it being completely cringeworthy.

I can't recall SG1 having a season so bad.

I don't know that I agree, personally. SG-1 started going downhill in S7 IMO, maybe even S6 although I really can't remember most of that season (I have this vague impression that Jack was largely absent or acting depressed-I suppose I need to rewatch it). While I was as excited as anyone to get Daniel back, his return was handled badly, and the season didn't get better from there. And Season 8 was pretty awful. And while I didn't have the problems with Cam and Vala and Daniel that a lot of people did in S9-10, I did have some major problems with the writing and storylines. I didn't like the Ori, and the Ba'al clones storyline? Blech.

SG-1 would still come out with a great episode every few episodes or so, but the seasons as a whole? Not so good.

So I personally don't think S4 has sunk to that level yet. (sorry guys) My problem with S4 is not so much that it's horribly terribly bad, it's that it's just mediocre. I'd probably put it on maybe a S7 level. They have good ideas (except for the casting), but poor execution. It doesn't live up to the hype. Like Missing. That was a great idea! But how it was handled? Majorly disappointing.

[Integrabyte]

why? I don't do it I like Vala's character. She's great

Spoiler:

You won’t find a hotter or sexier alien warrior than Claudia Black’s Aeryn Sun character.

Now I know how it feels to be 12

Looking forward to the second half, I can pretty much guess that Trio is going to be my worst of the season though. I hope I'm wrong - I have been before, but everything points to it being completely cringeworthy.

I had high expectations at the end of S3 when they said Sam will come and save the day with her ship . A small aspect like that lowered S4 in my eyes. TMC? Wth? The only way to give Weir some air time? Hpmf...it wasn't even her . Don't wind me up...please

[Klenotka]

whats the worst episode of season 4?

I can´t decide between Travelers and Missing. I don´t like Teyla and I hoped we will see some background for Sheppard in Travelers, not another kirking.

And Larrin wasn´t charismatic or great as Vala. If someone thinks about this episode as about Prometheus Undbound 2, it didn´t work for me.
Maybe someone should finally explain to Paul Mullie that he is writing sci-fi, not sitcom.

[Killdeer]

Spoiler:

You won’t find a hotter or sexier alien warrior than Claudia Black’s Aeryn Sun character.

I love Aeryn. She's probably my favorite character ever.

I had high expectations at the end of S3 when they said Sam will come and save the day with her ship . A small aspect like that lowered S4 in my eyes. TMC? Wth? The only way to give Weir some air time? Hpmf...it wasn't even her . Don't wind me up...please

No I agree on both those points - TMC was a major disappointment - guess I should have listed that one. And I really would prefer Sam to be a ship captain - that role would fit her I think. But then I was disappointed that they didn't do that a year ago when they were talking about spitting her time (yes, I know I'm in the minority on that). I would have liked to have seen how that worked out.

[Gregorius]

The back is only big because it has the f302's attached to it. they could put them on the bottom and top instead of the sides, but that wouldn't overcome the supposed problem of the weapons not having a large arc. Who is to say they don't have Asgard weapons on the back? And plus they have the new improved railguns which have a pretty good arc of fire.

The SG railguns have problem to be toys that do little damage and are barely effective. As for Asgard weapons on the back, they barely have enough power to power the shields, are you expecting them to add more weapons, which draw a lot of power, and sacrifice shield strength?

As for the back, it just looks odd, makes for a huge target and screams out "HIT ME! I'm where the important stuff is!!!!". Not to mention it makes the launch and landing areas for the F302 extremely vunerable, I'd love to have the Earth ships against me if I were an enemy. I'd target the launch areas from the F302s, preventing those from launching, landing and re-arming. With those fighters out of the way I'd only have to focus on targetting the areas that are obvious to house control centres (They stick out) and I've disabled the ship without destroying it. Also, if I target the landing bays, where there is sure to be live ammo and fuel stacked, I could trigger a chain reaction and destroy the ship.

Plus the general design of the ships makes it nearly impossible to have the most powerful guns sliding over rails to gain huge firing arcs.

The thrusters on the front are beneath the 'narrow bit'. You can see them between the hangars here. And here.

I've seen those. They would be excellent if the ship were to be on the water where it can, in general, only move on two axis. For a spaceship, however, they're placed on a nearly useless position since they, from what I can tell, lack thrust vectoring (Besides in that position thrust vectoring is nearly useless because they can't propell in half a sphere because the narrow bit block propulsion directed upwards) which results in them propelling in only one direction. The same goes from the main engines. So the ship can accellerate and perhaps even brake, fun. Where are the small thrusters that allow it to manouver properly? Plus ... it shows a lack of redundancy, which is very important in spacecraft and especially in warships, the moment those engines are hit the ship can't stop since it, from what I can tell manouvering thrusters (With those thrusters you could try, in a desperate attempt to make a "looping" with the ship and then use the main engines to slow down).

And we don't know how thick the hull is. We have seen the ship take multiple Wraith blasts while unshielded and survive.

Which heavy damage, panels falling down, consoles exploding and if even does that with the shields on. Damn, that ship is surely well designed for a warship. Also, where are the outer layers of non-imporant hallways which can be sealed and used and protection for the vital parts?

I personally don't see what is so bad about them. They obviously do their job well as only one has been destroyed in the run of the class so far, despite the fact that they have gotten into loads of 'situations' and are usually out-numbered or face stronger opponents.

Personally I, and with me a lot of my friends, see what's bad about them. If we were to hand in such a design we'd fail our classes, can you guess what happens when an engineer at a military contactor hands in such a design?

They look good, at least that was the general concesus of everyone who cared when the design was first seen on screen. The show ain't a documentary, it's entertainment.

This show tries to be realistic thus its designs should emulate that. As for "everyone who cared", they probably have no background in engineering or the military. Making things looks good is only a luxery, the primary focus should be on what it is supposed to do and what would be the optimum design for it.

Just checked the BAMSR promo on the Stargate MGM site, and there is an Asgard laser on the underside of the 'narrow bit', so it does have a wider firing arc.

Time index of the promo where it's shown?

[SGFerrit]

The SG railguns have problem to be toys that do little damage and are barely effective. As for Asgard weapons on the back, they barely have enough power to power the shields, are you expecting them to add more weapons, which draw a lot of power, and sacrifice shield strength?

As for the back, it just looks odd, makes for a huge target and screams out "HIT ME! I'm where the important stuff is!!!!". Not to mention it makes the launch and landing areas for the F302 extremely vunerable, I'd love to have the Earth ships against me if I were an enemy. I'd target the launch areas from the F302s, preventing those from launching, landing and re-arming. With those fighters out of the way I'd only have to focus on targetting the areas that are obvious to house control centres (They stick out) and I've disabled the ship without destroying it. Also, if I target the landing bays, where there is sure to be live ammo and fuel stacked, I could trigger a chain reaction and destroy the ship.

Plus the general design of the ships makes it nearly impossible to have the most powerful guns sliding over rails to gain huge firing arcs.



I've seen those. They would be excellent if the ship were to be on the water where it can, in general, only move on two axis. For a spaceship, however, they're placed on a nearly useless position since they, from what I can tell, lack thrust vectoring (Besides in that position thrust vectoring is nearly useless because they can't propell in half a sphere because the narrow bit block propulsion directed upwards) which results in them propelling in only one direction. The same goes from the main engines. So the ship can accellerate and perhaps even brake, fun. Where are the small thrusters that allow it to manouver properly? Plus ... it shows a lack of redundancy, which is very important in spacecraft and especially in warships, the moment those engines are hit the ship can't stop since it, from what I can tell manouvering thrusters (With those thrusters you could try, in a desperate attempt to make a "looping" with the ship and then use the main engines to slow down).



Which heavy damage, panels falling down, consoles exploding and if even does that with the shields on. Damn, that ship is surely well designed for a warship. Also, where are the outer layers of non-imporant hallways which can be sealed and used and protection for the vital parts?



Personally I, and with me a lot of my friends, see what's bad about them. If we were to hand in such a design we'd fail our classes, can you guess what happens when an engineer at a military contactor hands in such a design?



This show tries to be realistic thus its designs should emulate that. As for "everyone who cared", they probably have no background in engineering or the military. Making things looks good is only a luxery, the primary focus should be on what it is supposed to do and what would be the optimum design for it.



Time index of the promo where it's shown?

I would love to continue this in the science forum or by PM, but after what happened last night I won't do it here.

[Gregorius]

Greg, you are looking for something that is not there. There is no rule of thumb in Sci-Fi that states ships need to have credible designs. Lucas hired a team of aerospace engineers for his ships. Take SW out of there because it is not a low budget series .

George Lucas did that right, it's how it should be done. Consult and hire the experts, they know what they're doing and it will add something extra to your series/film.

As for "looking for something that isn't there", I know I am ... but I can't suspend all of reality in order to have to watch a show.

BSG, if you see Exodus part II, you will see that there are some kinks with Galactica they need to straighten out.

Atmospheric jump? Galactica is a spaceship and therefore shouldn't have to be capable of re-entry. Anyway I need to rewatch those episodes and please tell me about the kinks.

Either way, we are wandering off topic. SCI-Fi is a genre that allows flexibility. I used to be very critical about these things in TV SERIES but nobody actually cares as long as they see bang boom crash and fantastic stories ...and I study aerospace

The genre does, but certain series don't. SG has always been promoted as a series that tries to be as realistic as possible. Then enter the Earth spaceships and suddenly all realism is gone and we've entered the wonderful world of fairy tales where a young, untrained, very obese, boy can defeat the well-trained and heavily armed bad-guy because he's on the side of good.

I can stand those things in a lot of SciFi shows, but not in a show that prides itself on its realism.

Sidenote: I also study aerospace and I have plans on getting a degree in physics.

[marielabbott]

As far as longest running sci-fi show ever, doesn't Doctor Who hold that title? I thought SG-1 was only the longest running American one.

I've never hated so many episodes in one season of SGA before, and we're only half way through. I thought the worst were Travelers, Reunion, the Seer, and TMC. Most people liked the Seer, but I found it incredibly dull and TMC just made me want to beat my head against a wall. Other than Weir's next episode, in which they will likely screw her character even more, I'm not looking forward to much in the back half. I'll probably keep watching, though I'm tempted to skip the really cringe-worthy looking episodes like Trio and Quarentine. Of course there is a kind of intellectual pleasure in watching a bad movie or show and taking it apart--this is what isn't working, this is not true to the character, this is a rehash of this--but that's not the kind of pleasure I used to take in SGA, nor the kind I'd like to take in it. I'd happily sing the show's praises if I could, but I just can't this season.

[Anuna]

And yes... S4 sucks.

[Gregorius]

Okay, a quick off-topic question: Who here is ruining my fun discussing by scaring away other members with false accusations?

Please refrain from this as you are ruining my fun and damage the image of antis even more. You can contribute to the discussions but don't start using "ad hominem" attacks, because that's pathetic and non-contributing.

[Anuna]

Okay, a quick off-topic question: Who here is ruining my fun discussing by scaring away other members with false accusations?

Please refrain from this as you are ruining my fun and damage the image of antis even more. You can contribute to the discussions but don't start using "ad hominem" attacks, because that's pathetic and non-contributing.

*scratches head*

Did something happen that i didn't notice?

[SGFerrit]

As far as longest running sci-fi show ever, doesn't Doctor Who hold that title? I thought SG-1 was only the longest running American one.

SG-1 is classed as longest consecutive running Sci Fi show, as Dr Who had a massive break, and then returned. It is classed as longest running SciFi show overall I think.

[Gregorius]

*scratches head*

Did something happen that i didn't notice?

From what I heard it did but Sky cleaned up the mess. I just got a PM stating that the dicussion couldn't be held it any longer because of the hostile atmosphere created by the allergic reaction some people have to them.

[SGFerrit]

From what I heard it did but Sky cleaned up the mess. I just got a PM stating that the dicussion couldn't be held it any longer because of the hostile atmosphere created by the allergic reaction some people have to them.

It doesn't matter anymore, it's over now. I'm sure everyone had their reasons, I can understand that, and I think we should just let things sort themselves out? We should just debate in the new thread