Whispers & Stargate Fandom / Unusual Reception

[Klinjon]

Jumper31 you have certainly not offended me. Your post is appriciated, and I'm glad that people are realising that "negativity for the sake of negativity" as you put it is "not a good thing". I definitely don't feel quite so alone in the comments I made in my opening post of this topic.

I'd just like to thank Moderator Skydiver for responding to my PM and re-opening the thread. I'd like to clarify that this thread was intended as a debate topic dealing with the fandom reaction to both "Whispers", and the reaction of fandom in general to Stargate episodes. We have now agreed that this topic is in the right place in the boards. As long as we keep on track, things are now all sorted. My thanks again for everyones contributions and Skydiver's support.

[trekie]

I enjoy stand-alones just as much as arc related stories if these reach a certain standard which clarifie for me as a good episode. Whispers didn't reach that, it happens, and it'll probably happen again. (hope not)

That being said I know that there are people who only come here to bash the episodes. They use a kind of 'hit-and-run' tactic, which means that they say their disgust about something and after that, don't really pay attention to others' opinion. BUT there are also people out there who value others' opinion and can make reasonable arguments. That's why I come here, to read others views about a subject I like, and I usually get that.

About the Pro/Anti threads, I can only say that they are there for a reason. You can't stop the people who are not statified with the TPTB, characters, plot developments or relationships in the show to voice their opinions as well. So this separation makes it easier for readers to avoid the topics they are not interested in and gives a place to discuss for those who are on the other side of that fence.

Regarding the general episode discussion is another matter though. I agree that when you write a review you sholud mention both the negative and positive stuff and support both with actuall points. Not just getting stuff out there like "It was a total crap" or "Best episode ever" without giving proper reasons why you feel that way. Basicly that's what makes it a real review. But I also think that you can be buyest on a certain level, because, well, that's what the forum is for, to express your personal opinions, not just the facts.

So when I say, I didn't like Whispers, it's not because it wasn't an arc related episode, - and I did liked The Seed btw - I had whole different reasons for not liking it. And there were bits that I did liked. Oh, and the funny thing is that the stuff I liked about it, are reasons to some other people for not liking it. I guess people just different that way.

[Khentkawes]

That being said I know that there are people who only come here to bash the episodes. They use a kind of 'hit-and-run' tactic, which means that they say their disgust about something and after that, don't really pay attention to others' opinion. BUT there are also people out there who value others' opinion and can make reasonable arguments. That's why I come here, to read others views about a subject I like, and I usually get that.

About the Pro/Anti threads, I can only say that they are there for a reason. You can't stop the people who are not statified with the TPTB, characters, plot developments or relationships in the show to voice their opinions as well. So this separation makes it easier for readers to avoid the topics they are not interested in and gives a place to discuss for those who are on the other side of that fence.

I'm not sure that the bolded statement is either fair or accurate. The users who seem to "bash" are not doing so just for fun. If they didn't care about Stargate in some way, they wouldn't even be here. Some of them have legitimate criticisms. They may not always express their opinions in a balanced way, but let's be honest, who does? We all say things that are reactionary and unbalanced a times. There was a lot of that with "Whispers," either fans saying they hated it or shyly admitting that they thought it was great.

But while we're talking about balanced viewpoints, in addition to the "negative posters" (and I don't really like labeling them that way, but I will for the sake of the discussion) there are also "positive posters" who come to the forum to exclaim about how great the show is and don't want to listen to any criticism.

But keep in mind, a user might post a negative comment one day and a positive one the next. They may change their minds. They may think back and say "oh, that episode wasn't as bad as I originally thought" (or wasn't as good as I originally thought). So we can't really say that the majority of users are negative or positive. It just doesn't work to label people that way.

My point (and I think I have one somewhere in all this) is that people make reactionary comments. I know I do. Whether on the internet or in real life. We all say things that we don't take time to analyze. As Trekie points out quite nicely, the Complaints/Compliments threads do serve a purpose. They let fans get out those kinds of immediate reactions/feelings. On the other hand, the discussion threads (which, as I understand it, includes every other thread on the board) are for discussion... and many, many users do post balanced reviews where they discuss the good and bad elements of an episode as they see it.

I for one, like to analyze episodes. Sometimes that analysis may sound negative, but usually that's because something about an episode irritated or bothered me and I want to figure out why. Which is, I think, one of the purposes of discussions.

[dasNdanger]

Guys

I can see where this is a valid topic. The fandom and the fandom's reactions to a particular episode. And, as long as it stays in this area, this thread can be valid.

Thanks so much! It is a good discussion, and I appreciate your re-opening it!

I disagree with calling him that.

Awww...you'll get over it, you always do. Never said he looked like Frankenstein's monster, just that he's an indirect represention of the monster in that he was a creation of the Lanteans, much like the monster was a creation of Dr. Frankenstein.

I may have gone off topic in my previous posting it seems. My apologies. Most of my criticisms have to do with particular aspects of the episode "Whispers" and not with SGA as a whole.

I do agree that if someone has objections to a particular episode they should have specific things with which they disagree rather than just making blanket statements...I.E. "This episode was terrible!" ...with no explanation as to why.

I still believe that horror in general as a main theme has no place in the Stargate universe. If there IS horror, I think it should remain as perhaps an element in a particular episode. Horrific things actually do occur in real life. But whole episodes devoted to a horror genre don't interest me in the slightest.

I was also, perhaps, a bit harsh in my criticism of Joseph Mallozzi and his writing. I don't like it that he felt the need to incorporate his "inspiration" from reading horror novels in a book club into his writing for Stargate Atlantis.

I also still feel that some of the writing was, indeed, sloppy for that particular episode.

But you are quite right. Negativity for the sake of negativity is not a good thing. And so, I apologise if I have offended anyone in this thread.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe SGA has always been about horror. Light horror, but horror nonetheless. With the introduction of 'space vampires' in The Rising 1&2 - not to mention the 'crawling hand' in the same premiere (another horror flick staple that I failed to mention earlier) - SGA established it was more than a simple space-adventure sci fi show, but one that was exploring the horror genre as well. So, while SG1 focused on religious mythology, SGA focuses on horror mythology - vampires, zombies, creepy bugs - that sort of thing.

So, I don't fault Mallozzi for writing a story that is horror-based, especially since the episode didn't take itself too seriously. It was creepy in a fun, 'popcorn' kinda way, not the total gross-out newer horror flicks have become. I enjoyed it, though I can understand that some don't. To each his own, as they say.

...That being said I know that there are people who only come here to bash the episodes. They use a kind of 'hit-and-run' tactic, which means that they say their disgust about something and after that, don't really pay attention to others' opinion. BUT there are also people out there who value others' opinion and can make reasonable arguments. That's why I come here, to read others views about a subject I like, and I usually get that....

I'm not sure that the bolded statement is either fair or accurate. The users who seem to "bash" are not doing so just for fun. If they didn't care about Stargate in some way, they wouldn't even be here. Some of them have legitimate criticisms. They may not always express their opinions in a balanced way, but let's be honest, who does? We all say things that are reactionary and unbalanced a times. There was a lot of that with "Whispers," either fans saying they hated it or shyly admitting that they thought it was great.

I agree with the other comments you both made, but I just want to touch on this one point.

There are several posters here who - like on other forums (especially IMDb) - try to 'push buttons' by posting very harsh, negative comments. They tend to pop up in the 'what's wrong with Stargate'-type threads, but often jump into other discussions with their negative comments, some of which are so negative you wonder why they even bother watching the show.

Now, that's not saying that the majority of posters are negative - but there certainly are some who tend to dwell on the negative, and sometimes do so in a way that is obviously meant to rain on other people's parades (The "this show sucks" types). I'm sure the worst of these - especially the trolly hit-and-run kind - are dealt with by the mods. But, while some don't say anything particularly harmful, they never seem to add anything positive to the discussions, no matter the subject.

Now that people are upset about the cancellation, such negativity seems to have increased...as if people are trying to justify the cancellation by blaming it on the quality of the productions. Now, while that might have a small bearing, it's certainly not the reason. No series ever produces at 100%, and even the best of the best have had real duds. But the passion in this particular fandom seems a bit more intense than in some others I've been involved with, and I'm amazed at how much negativity is thrown at a show that people are supposed to be fans of. I dunno about anyone else, but if a show doesn't satisfy, I move onto one that does.

Right now, I think it would be nice to see people set aside the knee-jerk reactions to things they don't like, and think about the future of this show. It's changing format from a weekly series, to - perhaps - a yearly movie. If people are hating it so much now, then who's even going to bother to watch the first movie? And if the first movie isn't well-supported, than that WILL be the end of SGA.

So, if folks want to continue to see their favorite adventurers from the Pegasus galaxy, maybe it's best to try to keep a balanced opinion about the episodes - realizing they are just meant to be a bit of entertainment at the end of the week, not some life-altering experience.

das

[BubblingOverWithIdeas]

What’s wrong with just being entertained by an episode of the show when it features these elements in obvious abundance?

Nothing at all, if you found it to be an entertaining episode with good elements. I didn't.

[the fifth man]

As long as I enjoyed the episode, that is all that matters to me. Over the years, I've learned to ignore much of the excessive negativity.

[Khentkawes]

Now, that's not saying that the majority of posters are negative - but there certainly are some who tend to dwell on the negative, and sometimes do so in a way that is obviously meant to rain on other people's parades (The "this show sucks" types).

Okay, I have seen posts like that (the really short posts that just say "I hate X "). I tend to read them, laugh, and forget about them. If they're not going to discuss, then all they're doing is stating their opinion without explaining their reasons... so I ignore it and move on.

In general, though, I haven't seen the hit-and-run bashing that you're talking about. I can't say it doesn't happen, but maybe it falls into the category of things that I ignore. I am also pretty selective about the threads I hang out in, so maybe that's why I don't see as much bashing. I usually pull out of conversations that become too heated or polarized.

Now that people are upset about the cancellation, such negativity seems to have increased...

Yeah, it has definitely been volatile around here lately. And there is more negativity about SGU than I think is justified (which is actually a topic for a different thread entirely, so I'll just leave it at that). Clearly it will be a while before everyone calms down from the cancellation news (maybe in 2010 when we're watching season 2 of SGU, our second SGA movie, and our fourth SG-1 movie. Optimistically speaking )

Right now, I think it would be nice to see people set aside the knee-jerk reactions to things they don't like, and think about the future of this show.

I can definitely get behind that sentiment. It would be nice. I usually hope that people will stop to think about their initial reactions so they can explain why they hold their opinions. But like I said earlier, that's a pretty high standard, and I accept that no one is going to maintain a balanced perspective 100% of the time.

maybe it's best to try to keep a balanced opinion about the episodes - realizing they are just meant to be a bit of entertainment at the end of the week, not some life-altering experience.

Well said. I totally agree.

[Klinjon]

Some fantastic comments on this page so far. Khentkawes beat me to picking out some of the most profound.

I think it has become a matter of perspective, in that it's one thing to be dissatisfied with an individual episode, comments made by the producers or writing staff, or the direction of the show in general. But, it's a whole different story when the consensus of the fandom is to without justification, heap praise or negativity on an episode for no purpose other than to insight aggressive responses and endless disagreements. I just don't find it as easy as others to ignore the blanket negativity because of the way in which it is being expressed (the "this episode sucks" example that someone else has already given and explained).

My argument here began with the notion that this is a show for entertainment purposes, first and foremost, and this sentiment has been echoed by many others over the course of this topic. More importantly, this particular show has a very devout and loyal fanbase, one that isn't afraid to break down the decisions made in an episodes production and sometimes, very meticulously, analyse their significance and worth. It is the method with which this is achieved that I disagree with, and such methods have also been thoroughly discussed thus far.

I still don't understand why this forum insists on separating "Compliments and Praise" and "Complaints and Misgivings" into separate threads, believing in the notion that this fandom is incapable of debating their points and personal views on both in one unified thread (which does exist at the same time!) in a respectful and intellectual manner. Although considering the negative tone pervading this forum as of late, the irony is that those threads are now more needed than ever in order to maintain some level of decorum.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get to a point where all the members of these boards could debate points objectively, as well as include their own personal opinions at the same time, because I too am prone to instinctive reactions based on my own thoughts should they conflict with an opposing view. That's only natural (as I believe someone has already pointed out). Having said that, someone has already made the comment that this is "the internet" after all, and such unification would be quite impossible. A disheartening realisation that, after I read it back...

I must say again, some excellent replies here, very insightful. My inane ramblings have purpose! On a "Whispers" episode analysis note, I must say... those lights were cool! But hey, someone’s already made a dedicated thread about them so I'm in the wrong place!

[Klinjon]

I read something very interesting on Joe M's blog this morning:

"... also, given that I wanted this episode to follow the traditional horror flick structure, I felt that a scare off the top was a terrific idea".

I find that a really interesting statement, in that he, from the outset, structured the episode like an atypical Hollywood horror flick. It might not have a turned out a more sophisticated Atlantis episode that some, if not the majority, of the fans are after in the shows final season, but it was a unique departure for the series. And given the budget and history of the show (Brad Wright himself has said that, in the context of the SG1 movies, “we did a lot with what we were given, but give us a little more and we can do awesome stuff... like submarines, arctic scenes, and fighter jets!”), I think "Whispers" was a visually striking and unique episode. Sure, the casting may have been a tad off in places and the scares not very "traditionally scary", but most of the acting was spot on and the visuals, as always, impressive. I definitely don't think therefore this was the "terrible" "waste of time" "worst episode ever" that some are making it out to be, but at the same time, as an experiment in a different kind of Atlantis storytelling, it was not a resounding success.

[Linzi]

I can't pretend to be a regular on these forums (as my post count clearly reflects) but having spent plenty of time reading the kinds of opinions and topics bouncing around these boards, I find myself really, really perplexed by the attitude of some fans. Never before have I encountered a show where the fans seem to want it both ways. I shall attempt to explain before I run the risk of getting "flamed" (not sure if that's the correct use of the term but I'll throw it out there regardless).

I agree with you, and I think I'm guilty of wanting things both ways sometimes. Not necessarily as far as standalone episodes is concerned, because they've never really bothered me and have always been a part of what makes up Stargate. However, I certainly do sometimes want things one way, and then the other too! I think I'm just contrary sometimes!

The timing of this post comes after reading the initial reaction to Whispers. Phrases like "standalone", "bottle show", and "contributed nothing" seem to be flying around a fair bit. Now, the fact that I disagree is one thing, but for me, this is symptomatic of a larger issue, one that I'm sure others have touched upon (my argument here isn't admittedly very original you see, but I present it anyway because I feel very passionately about this).

Some of my favourite episodes have been bottle or standalone episodes, so I personally don't have a problem with them generally. Often, even though an episode might seem as if it's standalone, it isn't. Mainly because there could be some small element of another episode or a story arc which links it. For example, in Whispers, we have another Michael lab, plus Sheppard making a reference to the previous episode, Search and Rescue, when saying he doesn't want another few million tonnes of rubble on his head again Sorry, that's the whumper in me letting loose!

I don't really know what qualifies as an "arc" or "major story" episode these days, but it seems as though no episode is “decent” or "worth watching" if it doesn't advance the Atlantis story in leaps and bounds. I guess it comes down to the fact that I have no problem with episodes like "The Seed" and "Whispers" just because they don't necessarily deal with or advance all the major story threads being dangled. I really don't think there's anything wrong with the Atlantis producers and writers pacing the season and padding them out by telling different kinds of stories.

Sometimes I don't even know what is considered to be an arc really. It depends on the poster/fan's individual opinion of what that constitutes. I thought The Seed wasn't that standalone or bottle-ish, spoilers for The Seed:

Spoiler:

because it dealt with new hive ships being created, very much part of the Atlantis mythology, and it didn't look as if it was a cheap episode - especially with the tendrils and the 'jumper punching a hole in the side of a tower!

So for me, I have no idea how some people think that episode is entirely standalone. I found Harmony and Trio to be more standalone. Harmony I liked, I know I'm in the minority, and Trio I didn't. I didn't like Trio because I didn't like the plot at all, though I enjoyed the characters. But the fact that it was standalone didn't worry me, personally. As I said, it was the plot.

It just amazes me that an episode like "Broken Ties" receives a generally average reception from fans when the parts of it that, in my mind, are crucial to making episodic television successful, regardless of the genre (quality of writing, pacing, and most importantly, the acting) were fantastic. Surely this cannot be disputed in the case of “Broken Ties”? What’s wrong with just being entertained by an episode of the show when it features these elements in obvious abundance?

I loved Broken Ties. I didn't think it was a standalone episode because it was linked to Reunion and had the wraith in it. It also dealth with

Spoiler:

wraith feedings, wraith worshippers and I feel that's very part of the mythology and arcs which run through Atlantis, starting with Common Ground, then Travelers, and in fact linked to Rising when we saw our very first wraith feedings

There is nothing wrong with being entertained by any episode, IMO. That's the whole point of the show. However, in the fandom we are VERY critical sometimes. I don't know why, but I certainly find myself over-analysing episodes sometimes and taking the enjoyment out of them in doing so. I just can't help myself. I suppose I watch each episode a few times and start to see the odd plot hole. It's an annoying habit, I'm the first to admit!

Other standalone episodes, like “Whispers”, were tightly written (some nice exchanges between Carson and Porter, Dusty was pleasantly irreverent), well paced (nice gradual introduction of the bad guys, and in terms of canon, were not just random angry zombies prancing around for the sake of throwing them into a story, but instead, an earlier form of Michael’s hybrids.. “canon” I believe is the correct phrase), and well acted (good bunch of actresses making up the squad, Nicole De Boer was awesome as always, and Carson and Sheppard were a nice double act). Writing, pacing, and good acting. I ask the question again: What’s wrong with just being entertained by an episode of the show when it features these elements in obvious abundance?

There's nothing wrong with that at all. But you have to understand that people have different likes and dislikes. I liked Harmony, and large part of the fandom didn't. Who knows why? It happens sometimes. I didn't like Trio. Others loved it. It's because we're all different. I suppose some fans might like only certain types of episodes? Or like episodes with many vis effects only? Or maybe episodes which feature certain characters? Also, what one person thinks is good writing, another might not. Same for acting. It's all very subjective.

And to be perfectly honest, I've never understood this generalisation with "standalone" episodes that they are never as good as the so called "arc" episodes. A criticism of them that leaves me the most confused is when people say things like "contributed nothing to the overall story". In the case of both "The Seed" and "Whispers", not only did the stories both involve the Wraith in a big way (the series' primary bad guy, or have I not been paying attention since The Pilot?), but provided useful information that has significantly broadened our knowledge and understanding of them. In the case of the former, that they use human hosts to grow Hive ships. In the case of the latter, that even Michael couldn't control the earliest forms of his hybrid experiments.

I don't have a problem with standalone episodes, so I can't answer why others might. I can often see links with other episodes in so-called standalones. As Atlantis isn't a serialised show, I don't think there can ever be episodes which are all arc driven. That's not the nature of the show and never has been. However, I have felt at times that the writers could have referenced past events more. I think they're doing it more now, but at one time it was rarely done.

Now, you present that kind of information within the framework of episodes that are either visually distinctive (“Whispers” certainly hits the mark here), contain high drama and difficult choices (Woolsey in “The Seed” without a doubt), are well paced (“The Shrine” was fantastic in this regard), cleverly written (“Ghost in the Machine” managed to believably present the Weir character without the need for Torri to be involved) and impressive and believable acting (“Jason Momoa” in Broken Ties surely?!) and you've got, in my mind, a successful episode, "standalone" or not, of Stargate Atlantis, or (if you want to view this in the broader context), episodic television.

Or am I completely alone in these views and share nothing with the critical consensus of Stargate fandom?

I think you make some very valid points here, and I certainly do share some of your views I've played in this fandom for a long time now, and sometimes you have to understand that fans just like different things. Some people like pineapples, some can't stand them. Who knows why that is? It's human nature, and if we were all the same, we'd have no pineapples left and who'd eat the peaches? (That'd be me because I'm not that keen on pineapple but adore peaches )

[trekie]

I'm not sure that the bolded statement is either fair or accurate. The users who seem to "bash" are not doing so just for fun. If they didn't care about Stargate in some way, they wouldn't even be here. Some of them have legitimate criticisms. They may not always express their opinions in a balanced way, but let's be honest, who does? We all say things that are reactionary and unbalanced a times. There was a lot of that with "Whispers," either fans saying they hated it or shyly admitting that they thought it was great.

Yes, it was probably not the best wording on my part, what I actually meant by it, is more like what you have written below...

Okay, I have seen posts like that (the really short posts that just say "I hate X "). I tend to read them, laugh, and forget about them. If they're not going to discuss, then all they're doing is stating their opinion without explaining their reasons... so I ignore it and move on.

...so yes, these are the posts that I'm not cool with.

In general, though, I haven't seen the hit-and-run bashing that you're talking about. I can't say it doesn't happen, but maybe it falls into the category of things that I ignore. I am also pretty selective about the threads I hang out in, so maybe that's why I don't see as much bashing. I usually pull out of conversations that become too heated or polarized.

Well, I'm not much of a hate person myself, so yes I don't participate in those discussions either. And don't get me wrong, I personally don't get too upset because of these posts, I've just simply acknowleged the fact in my previous post that they do exist.

But while we're talking about balanced viewpoints, in addition to the "negative posters" (and I don't really like labeling them that way, but I will for the sake of the discussion) there are also "positive posters" who come to the forum to exclaim about how great the show is and don't want to listen to any criticism.

I completly agree with that, there are two sides to this phenomenon. And if you only stating how totally, undenialably awesome an episode, actor, etc. were, without giving reason, then you're no better than the people who do the exact opposite.

I for one, like to analyze episodes. Sometimes that analysis may sound negative, but usually that's because something about an episode irritated or bothered me and I want to figure out why. Which is, I think, one of the purposes of discussions.

There again, I totally get that. It's natural that when you overall like an episode then your analysis will sound on a more positive note, while when you don't, then it comes off more negative. People can't be objective all the time. Your personal likes has to define how you see an episode.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe SGA has always been about horror. Light horror, but horror nonetheless. With the introduction of 'space vampires' in The Rising 1&2 - not to mention the 'crawling hand' in the same premiere (another horror flick staple that I failed to mention earlier) - SGA established it was more than a simple space-adventure sci fi show, but one that was exploring the horror genre as well. So, while SG1 focused on religious mythology, SGA focuses on horror mythology - vampires, zombies, creepy bugs - that sort of thing.

Hmm, I've never thought about this, but I guess you're right, SGA does kinda sounds like a light horror show if I consider your points.

Sometimes I don't even know what is considered to be an arc really. It depends on the poster/fan's individual opinion of what that constitutes. I thought The Seed wasn't that standalone or bottle-ish, spoilers for The Seed:

Spoiler:

because it dealt with new hive ships being created, very much part of the Atlantis mythology, and it didn't look as if it was a cheap episode - especially with the tendrils and the 'jumper punching a hole in the side of a tower!

So for me, I have no idea how some people think that episode is entirely standalone.

Yeah, I know how you feel and I share your opinion, it's hard to tell apart which considered to be which. The Seed and Whispers are perfect examples for that.

There's nothing wrong with that at all. But you have to understand that people have different likes and dislikes. I liked Harmony, and large part of the fandom didn't. Who knows why? It happens sometimes. I didn't like Trio. Others loved it. It's because we're all different. I suppose some fans might like only certain types of episodes? Or like episodes with many vis effects only? Or maybe episodes which feature certain characters? Also, what one person thinks is good writing, another might not. Same for acting. It's all very subjective.

All of the things you mentioned has to appeal to some people. Everybody has their own personal preferences, and these can change between a million various things. So when I like something it's not always reasonable and yes, different people have different likes and dislikes, so to prove this point, I have to say that I did loved both Harmony and Trio, while Broken Ties didn't do a thing for me. I know, I'm wierd that way. But just because I loved a certain episode I'm not going around and praise it in threads without admitting it's faults too. And because Broken Ties wasn't my cup of tea, I'm not gonna say how Jason Momoa is a crappy actor or unnecessairly comments like that, because that's just not the way to handle things.

I've played in this fandom for a long time now, and sometimes you have to understand that fans just like different things. Some people like pineapples, some can't stand them. Who knows why that is? It's human nature, and if we were all the same, we'd have no pineapples left and who'd eat the peaches? (That'd be me because I'm not that keen on pineapple but adore peaches )

I agree with you and I'm all for peaches too, so we could totally share.

[Flyboy]

Oh, on the contrary. I would have no problem, whatsoever in getting in Joseph Mallozie's face and telling him his work sucks. Because it does.

Myself, I love the neo-serialised format that shows like Heroes are adopting, it's nice to see the "tv novel" as some people call it. If the story above all else is the primnary thing it means that the show is less likely to remain stale and stagnant with little change. It means that for story purposes, main characters can and will die, and it's less of a problem for people.

However, part of me worries that if Stargate moved towards that format, leaving behind the episodic format it has now, we'd lose gems like Crystal Skull, and Wormhole X-Treme, Nightwalkers, and Sight Unseen.

[kymeric]

I've never really gotten all that involved with the boards, because there are an extreme amount of negative people.

This.

My ignore list is huge because its usually the same people saying the same things. Nothing harshes your buzz after really enjoying an episode than the same people hating on it.

I hate BSG, so i dont watch it. I couldnt fathom watching it every week just for something to troll about. Maybe i just dont care enough to be cool?

[Khentkawes]

There is nothing wrong with being entertained by any episode, IMO. That's the whole point of the show. However, in the fandom we are VERY critical sometimes. I don't know why, but I certainly find myself over-analysing episodes sometimes and taking the enjoyment out of them in doing so. I just can't help myself. I suppose I watch each episode a few times and start to see the odd plot hole. It's an annoying habit, I'm the first to admit!

To put a positive twist on it, technically having critical fans is a good thing. Would we take the time to explain our criticisms if we didn't believe there was something great/fun/wonderful/promising/original/etc. about the show? I don't think so. When otherwise normal fans get critical, it means they are invested in the show and taking the time to really think about it. Which, I imagine, can be both frustrating and encouraging for the creators.

Personally, I have years of university training in how to over-analyze (and I actually think it's fun to over-analyze.. yeah, I know, I have issues). But I only take the time to analyze if I think something has merit. In other words, I have to enjoy/appreciate something before I even bother to analyze/critique it.

Yes, it was probably not the best wording on my part, what I actually meant by it, is more like what you have written below...

...so yes, these are the posts that I'm not cool with.


Well, I'm not much of a hate person myself, so yes I don't participate in those discussions either. And don't get me wrong, I personally don't get too upset because of these posts, I've just simply acknowleged the fact in my previous post that they do exist.


I completly agree with that, there are two sides to this phenomenon. And if you only stating how totally, undenialably awesome an episode, actor, etc. were, without giving reason, then you're no better than the people who do the exact opposite.


There again, I totally get that. It's natural that when you overall like an episode then your analysis will sound on a more positive note, while when you don't, then it comes off more negative. People can't be objective all the time. Your personal likes has to define how you see an episode.

So, Trekie, in retrospect, I think you and I are in total agreement.

What I wanted to point out is that not all users who post negative comments succumb to the "blanket negativity" we were talking about. But now I see that we agree on that!

I have a lot of complaints about Atlantis... but to be honest, when I was most irritated by the show (season 3 and 4) I didn't come online to post about it. I only post when I want to discuss, and I usually only want to discuss if I find the act of discussing entertaining... usually because I found something entertaining in the episode itself.

So yeah. I don't know why you would come online specifically to blast a show... unless you just want to blow off steam.

I hate BSG, so i dont watch it. I couldnt fathom watching it every week just for something to troll about. Maybe i just dont care enough to be cool?

Totally agree on all counts. Watching BSG just to bash it would be torturous... not to mention a waste of time. I don't have to watch it every week or discuss it to know that I hate it. I don't think it has anything to do with being cool though.

Slightly off-topic, but this whole discussion is playing into my little crusade to promote Optimism! Personally, I feel like lately there's been way too much negativity directed at TPTB and SGU. And that seems uncalled for. So on that front, I firmly believe that it's time to ditch some of the negative energy floating around the boards.

[Klinjon]

Slightly off-topic, but this whole discussion is playing into my little crusade to promote Optimism! Personally, I feel like lately there's been way too much negativity directed at TPTB and SGU. And that seems uncalled for. So on that front, I firmly believe that it's time to ditch some of the negative energy floating around the boards.

You couldn't be more on topic with this comment.

Thank you so much, I absolutely, 100% agree. This is essentially what I've been trying to say, but in my own, inane, personally branded, roundabout way.

And to everyone else who has contributed to this thread, you're all awesome. The quality of this debate has made for such good reading, and has proven very enlightening. If anyone else would like to share (or continue to provide) their thoughts, then please do carry on.