GateWorld Podcast Feedback!

[TameFarrar]

Sky, no one mentioned anything of the sort, this is coming from no where but your own imagination. If you want an example, the long discussion about the nude scene in the first episode would be a good one, using images of the actual subject matter would have helped people to illustrate points, but as it happens the site is PG, so we're not allowed, we all have to be good little children. I suppose there's an argument that the site wants to appear friendly to all ages, but then why are we allowed to post scenes of graphic violence? I can't help but think that this has more to do with the prudishness of the people who run the forum than anything else.

I could have an in-depth discussion about that scene actually discuss the body parts being shown AND stay PG so I am not sure what the point of all of this is.

There is not really any topic that can't be spoken of in terms that are non-offensive (or PG if you will) even nudity on a show

[kusanagi]

I could have an in-depth discussion about that scene actually discuss the body parts being shown AND stay PG so I am not sure what the point of all of this is.

There is not really any topic that can't be spoken of in terms that are non-offensive (or PG if you will) even nudity on a show

Exactly. It's not what you say but how you say it.

[bluealien]

Sam and Teyla were probably my favourite stargate females.. I never found Sam perfect or a Mary Sue... she was a beautiful intelligent lady who pretty much held her own surrounded by a bunch of men... in the space of 10 years Pete was really only Sam's one love interest and yet we are saying that the women are only defined by their relationships.... I never found any of them (except for Keller) to be like this... not even Vala... Vala was a hell of a lot more than just a flirty women.. so she usued her "womanly wiles" to get her own way at times... but she had a lot more going for her than that... and there are many women who use their feminine wiles to their advantage.. just as many men do..

Teyla definitley worked for me on Atlantis and again I get so sick of the fact that because she sparred showing a tiny bit of midriff that automatically means she is there for only one purpose.. Teyla was pretty much covered from head to toe when she went on missions and she proved an invaluable asset to the team, but yet because she dares to show some skin suddenly that must mean she can only be some sex kitten..

Why can't women be portrayed as sexy, beautiful and intelligent. Why should they be labled and put into some box if they happen to portray one of the above ..why can't they be all of the above. and if they do have all qualities they are then too perfect and Mary Sues..... Teyla was more more than a sexy female, she was wise, strong and a warrior and Rachel portrayed that side of her character beautifully..... yes she was underused... yes we didnt get near enough development for her, but it wasnt only the women that suffered from that... all the characters were more or less stereotypical.... the men probably worse than the women at times..

The writers lacked imagination for all their characters.. even McKay.. they lived vicariously through him, and Keller was defininitly only brought on board to be McKays love interest.. but IMO she was the exception... If there were hints of feelings between John and Teyla it certaintly didnt define either of their characters.... Teyla had no love interest for 4 years and probably wouldn't have had any except for Rachels pregnancy and a fabricated lover was concocted for her.... this was just bad writing ... and I think it would have been just as bad if it was the guys.. look at the Larrin fiasco and how Sheppard acted...


I loved the women of Stargate... they all brought (um except Keller .. sorry!) something amazing to the show... yes I would have loved for them to have been developed a bit better.. I would have loved to have seen Teyla get more to do, but what she did get she brought grace and wisdom to her role...

Teyla had a great balance imo...and she shouldnt be defined by one aspect of her character or her looks.... her potential as a character was never properly realised because the writers were more interested in writing for those they identified with... this didnt seem to happen in the early days of SG1.. the writers had more of a balance between the characters and I was pretty happy with how Sam was written.... until the Pete thing and again thats just because the writers didnt know how to do relationships....

But if the writers had a sterotypical view of women they also had for the men... but even with the limiting development most of the SGA cast got, they rose above those stereotypes and for me anyway became rich and wonderful characters....

..

[Skydiver]

Sky, no one mentioned anything of the sort, this is coming from no where but your own imagination. If you want an example, the long discussion about the nude scene in the first episode would be a good one, using images of the actual subject matter would have helped people to illustrate points, but as it happens the site is PG, so we're not allowed, we all have to be good little children. I suppose there's an argument that the site wants to appear friendly to all ages, but then why are we allowed to post scenes of graphic violence? I can't help but think that this has more to do with the prudishness of the people who run the forum than anything else.

my point was, people have been discussing that nude scene for years. It's not forbidden.

why would someone need visual aids to discuss how they feel about a scene of full frontal nudity?

[KEK]

I could have an in-depth discussion about that scene actually discuss the body parts being shown AND stay PG so I am not sure what the point of all of this is.

Maybe you could, but I don't see your point. For starters why would you? And even then, why would you try to impose such a bizarre rule on everyone else? Do you genuinely not see how screen caps of the subject at hand could to add to the discussion, or else help illustrate someone's point?

There is not really any topic that can't be spoken of in terms that are non-offensive (or PG if you will) even nudity on a show

So you're saying parts of the show are offensive and shouldn't be shown here, correct? Can you not see how ridiculous that is? This is a forum dedicated to a show that isn't PG, yet we're to assume that non-PG material is offensive to the people here? Also, your argument is contradicted by the fact that graphic violence is allowed to be posted freely, images that many would find offensive but the admins have no problem with. So let's just be honest Tame, this isn't about stopping people from 'offending the community', it's about protecting the rather prudish sensibilities of the people in charge.

my point was, people have been discussing that nude scene for years. It's not forbidden.

why would someone need visual aids to discuss how they feel about a scene of full frontal nudity?

For the same reason people use images to make a point during any other discussion. Not sure why you'd ask this though, as your issue clearly isn't with images being used, it's with these images being used.

[Skydiver]

Kek

'Keep it PG' is a rule set by Darren. He pays the bills. Whether you, or anyone, likes it or not, that's how it will be.

So if someone wishes to discuss the COTG scene (and i recall a thread that went on for 20ish pages or so last year) they can. They will just discuss it in an adult (as in calm and rational, not adult as a rating) manner. There will be no crude words or terms and it will be respectful to the actress.

If that's not how they want to discuss it, go and find a forum where you can be as crude as you want and link as many screen grabs as your bandwidth allows.

Now, this thread's topic is podcast feedback, not your views on 'Keep it PG', so this particular topic thread is over please.

[Melora]

I think the short discussions about Weir and Teyla were fairly balanced, even if I didn’t agree with some of the points made. I think that’s my main problem. There wasn’t any balance about the SG-1 women – both of the commentators agreed on almost everything and they both focused only on what they perceived to be Sam’s negative qualities and Vala’s positive qualities.

The only positive comments made about Sam were that Tame loved brainy women and how Sam was one of her favorites before Vala came along and Louisa saying that she actually liked Sam a little bit better on Atlantis and she didn’t really know why. I think Tame also mentioned how she liked AT as an actress and how she thought that was maybe one of the reasons why Sam used to be one of her favorites. Otherwise both just talked about how Sam was too perfect and one-dimensional and how Vala was so nuanced, realistic, and complex.

I know that they were both just expressing their true opinions, and they have every right to do so, but how can there be a fair discussion of the women of SG-1 when both of the commentators find only fault with the main female character of the franchise and spend the majority of the time pointing out every perceived negative quality about the character? And when David asked both of them about all of the many negative fan criticisms of Vala, they both ignored the comment and moved on to talk about how great she was. No one addressed the reasons why there are some people in fandom who might dislike the character and think she was poorly executed.

I also agree that it is not a cure-all to have a woman on the writing staff. It wouldn’t even be a cure-all to have an equal number of women to men on the writing staff. They did have a female writer right from the start. She wrote what is largely considered to be one of the most stereotypical depictions of female characters in the whole series – the episode Emancipation. Female writers can be just as bad or worse than men at depicting women. Just look at some of the fanfiction written by women out there. It’s shocking how some women depict Sam as a helpless victim who wants Jack to dominate and control her and some write her as a heartless and self-centered witch who is always mean and cruel to Daniel. In fact, the crazy idea that she is responsible for Janet’s death in Threads was made up entirely by a group of female fans in order to condemn the character - it was not an idea created by the writers or any male fans that I know of. IMO, some female writers are just as guilty or more so of only using the male gaze and identifying mostly with male characters as male writers are. In fact, most of the slash fanfiction that is written primarily by women tends to marginalize and/or exclude the female gaze entirely.

And male writers sometimes get it so very right that you almost want to hug them. I was watching 2010 yesterday and it was amazing how beautifully depicted both Sam and Janet are in that episode. They are emotional, strong, smart, and yet very human and flawed. And although Sam figured out how to save the day in the end, no one can argue that she was perfect in the episode. She, along with everyone but Jack, made the biggest mistake that anyone had ever made up to that time. And the thing is, Sam was depicted just as complexly in a multitude of episodes for over ten years. Sometimes male writers can identify with and understand female characters even better than many women can.

[Skydiver]

It's not the gender of the writers that determines how 'good' they are at writing women, it's the skill. now, of course, it'd be easier for a male to identify with the 'white male action hero' or the 'geeky sidekick'. (that's two stereotypes that are in the shows even today, Jack and Daniel, Sheppard and Rodney, Scott and Eli) but while these current writers have issues identifying with females, others don't.

I doubt the entire writing staff of The Closer are all women, or Cold Case, or Dexter (which has some great females, Rita, Dexter's wife, Debra, his sister, La Gardia, his boss, all females, all flawed, all with attributes. none are 'perfect' but they try, and none of the males are perfect either. Heck the main character of the show is a sociopathic serial killer )

So it's not the gender of the writers, but their skill.

To use fanfic as an analogy, every author out there has his/her favored characters. Mine is Sam, others is Daniel or Jack...Teal'c kinda gets ignored

But, my point is, there are some authors who ONLY write one character. A person that only writes Jack centric fic, or only writes Daniel centric fic, or only Sam, etc.

And there are others that try other characters and do a relatively good job of writing more than one. They can write something from Teal'c's pov, and then Sam's, and then Jack's. And i think, in the long run, those that write more than one character tend to write more rounded fic.

Another thing i notice is, those that tend to write only one character sometimes have a habit of assassinating the others to make their favored one look better. or the others 'die of neglect' when they are just names in a fic that don't do much while the favored character carries it all.

I think it is the same with the show writers. when you had people on staff that wrote several characters decently well, you got more rounded episodes. But when the current writers seem to pick and play favorites, then while they are having fun with their favorites, the others either get ignored or get assassinated to make a plot work. (such as Rodney is my favorite, so let's make sure that someone else futzes up so that rodney can save the day and make a plot work)

Or we also end up with cases such as in the episode where Sam was taken hostage by Ba'al. One of the first things you do when someone is compromised like that, you cut off their computer/network access. You lock them out, because they are now a security risk. (kinda like if a person's wallet is missing, you cancel the credit cards just in case someone tries to use it)
but Landry didn't do that (largely because the plot was that Ba'al needed the info to make a plot for a later episode work), but does Landry get blamed for it? No. It was sam's fault for doing what she wouldn't have been allowed to do had Landry followed protocol and locked her out.
but the writers didn't see that, because their focus was 'let's make my story work and who cares if a character gets caught in 'friendly fire' filling our plot hole.

So we have a combo of writing their favorites 'better' than others, coupled with sacrificing the character to make a plot work and you end up with a mess where the favorites come out better than the ones that aren't, but also an overall weakness when the ultimate goal isn't 'let's use these characters to tell a story' but rather 'tell my story, no matter what'

[siles]

It's not the gender of the writers that determines how 'good' they are at writing women, it's the skill. now, of course, it'd be easier for a male to identify with the 'white male action hero' or the 'geeky sidekick'. (that's two stereotypes that are in the shows even today, Jack and Daniel, Sheppard and Rodney, Scott and Eli) but while these current writers have issues identifying with females, others don't.

I doubt the entire writing staff of The Closer are all women, or Cold Case, or Dexter (which has some great females, Rita, Dexter's wife, Debra, his sister, La Gardia, his boss, all females, all flawed, all with attributes. none are 'perfect' but they try, and none of the males are perfect either. Heck the main character of the show is a sociopathic serial killer )

So it's not the gender of the writers, but their skill.

To use fanfic as an analogy, every author out there has his/her favored characters. Mine is Sam, others is Daniel or Jack...Teal'c kinda gets ignored

But, my point is, there are some authors who ONLY write one character. A person that only writes Jack centric fic, or only writes Daniel centric fic, or only Sam, etc.

And there are others that try other characters and do a relatively good job of writing more than one. They can write something from Teal'c's pov, and then Sam's, and then Jack's. And i think, in the long run, those that write more than one character tend to write more rounded fic.

Another thing i notice is, those that tend to write only one character sometimes have a habit of assassinating the others to make their favored one look better. or the others 'die of neglect' when they are just names in a fic that don't do much while the favored character carries it all.

I think it is the same with the show writers. when you had people on staff that wrote several characters decently well, you got more rounded episodes. But when the current writers seem to pick and play favorites, then while they are having fun with their favorites, the others either get ignored or get assassinated to make a plot work. (such as Rodney is my favorite, so let's make sure that someone else futzes up so that rodney can save the day and make a plot work)

Or we also end up with cases such as in the episode where Sam was taken hostage by Ba'al. One of the first things you do when someone is compromised like that, you cut off their computer/network access. You lock them out, because they are now a security risk. (kinda like if a person's wallet is missing, you cancel the credit cards just in case someone tries to use it)
but Landry didn't do that (largely because the plot was that Ba'al needed the info to make a plot for a later episode work), but does Landry get blamed for it? No. It was sam's fault for doing what she wouldn't have been allowed to do had Landry followed protocol and locked her out.
but the writers didn't see that, because their focus was 'let's make my story work and who cares if a character gets caught in 'friendly fire' filling our plot hole.

So we have a combo of writing their favorites 'better' than others, coupled with sacrificing the character to make a plot work and you end up with a mess where the favorites come out better than the ones that aren't, but also an overall weakness when the ultimate goal isn't 'let's use these characters to tell a story' but rather 'tell my story, no matter what'

Are Jack/Shep - white male action hero, Daniel/Mckay - geeky sidekick, Vala/Larrin - sexy, street-smart woman who uses her "female" attributes to have it her way stereotypes or really modern archetypes? (maybe taken a bit to the extreme)

[Petra]

Hey, before you get disappointed in me for finding out during a podcast that I actually agreed with many of the views of the other guest how about we attribute HER views to her and not to me. I did not say the above bolded part Nor did I even agree with it. In fact I meant to say something about it but the conversation moved on and I actually must say I missed an opportunity to say no I don't agree with that point. In fact most of what you wrote there were the views of the other guest and I just used her same descriptions to show the difference between Vala and Sam and why possibly some fans of Vala, myself included could feel an easier connection to her (Vala). It wasn't a slam against Sam, since I also stated how much I loved that character.

Tame, I never said that it was you who'd said that. I said that it had been stated on the podcast, period. Yes, it was Luisa who said: "She [Sam] is the reason Fraiser's dead. She abandoned her post and went after Jack when he was shot and that's the reason Fraiser died". It was stated as a fact (when it's a lie); and a fact is, no one protested/denied/set things straight so it came off as if you and David agreed with her. That's my problem. I'm glad that you don't think so, but I wouldn't know it from the podcast.

I will have to listen podcast again, but I know often I said I didn't agree, But maybe that was to David However, I don't recall any bias towards any character since I know I like all them. I know I stated that Sam was one of my favorite characters so if you are taking any of the various comments regarding how the writers handled that character as bias then I will have to respectfully disagree with you

I also realise that there was no intended Sam's slamming on your part and that you stated your sympathy towards her. But the fact it, you agreed with Luisa more often than disagreed, and because of that the podcast sounds very one-sided. As Melora pointed out:

I think the short discussions about Weir and Teyla were fairly balanced, even if I didn’t agree with some of the points made. I think that’s my main problem. There wasn’t any balance about the SG-1 women – both of the commentators agreed on almost everything and they both focused only on what they perceived to be Sam’s negative qualities and Vala’s positive qualities.

The only positive comments made about Sam were that Tame loved brainy women and how Sam was one of her favorites before Vala came along and Louisa saying that she actually liked Sam a little bit better on Atlantis and she didn’t really know why. I think Tame also mentioned how she liked AT as an actress and how she thought that was maybe one of the reasons why Sam used to be one of her favorites. Otherwise both just talked about how Sam was too perfect and one-dimensional and how Vala was so nuanced, realistic, and complex.

I know that they were both just expressing their true opinions, and they have every right to do so, but how can there be a fair discussion of the women of SG-1 when both of the commentators find only fault with the main female character of the franchise and spend the majority of the time pointing out every perceived negative quality about the character? And when David asked both of them about all of the many negative fan criticisms of Vala, they both ignored the comment and moved on to talk about how great she was. No one addressed the reasons why there are some people in fandom who might dislike the character and think she was poorly executed.

I totally agree with the above and that's why I stand by what I said: SG-1 part of the discussion was extremely unfair. Nobody listed even one positive quality of Sam apart from her being "brainy". Nobody mentioned how uneven Vala's writing was. That's the bias I mentioned.

You both focused on Vala's "sassy, sexy thief" persona and you ignored all the instances when she was written either as a comic relief, often demeaning to women, or a rather pathetic creature so dependent on Daniel that when he's gone she's reduced to dissolving into tears, tearing her hair out and letting him walk all over her once he's back. Is it realistic? Sure, there are women who behave like that. Is it how strong women behave or should behave? No. For the record, I think Vala from season 9, while not hiding her emotions at all, would nevertheless focus on doing something useful to help and give him a piece of her mind in Unending. But she wasn't written that way in season 10, was she? And finally, is this how a role model should behave? Absolutely not. There are no words to convey how much was I disappointed when I heard on the podcast that that's the case. (Before you say it, yes I know that again it was Luisa's words, not yours. But when you say in the very same podcast that you let people know when you disagree with them and then you don't react to such declarations the logical choice is to assume you agree, isn't it?)

I'm also at a loss of how to interpret your (or Luisa's, I don't remeber who said it) argument that Vala's a great character because CB is a great actress who'd previously played a great character on another series. What does it have to do with anything?

For the record I'd like to say that I loved Aeryn on Farscape and I do like Vala; or rather I like her as a con artist in season 9 and as mature and confident mother of Adria and Tomin's wife in season 10. Her other incarnations - not at all. I'm not one of those fans who have issues with Vala's sexuality - far from it. I do have issues with how she was portrayed in a romantic relationship with Daniel (interestingly enough, she was great with Tomin) and being the butt of writers' jokes, at best stereotypical and at worst sexist.

As for Sam being perfect, which was repeated ad nauseum - I strongly disagree, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if somebody would have said that that's how all main characters on Stargate were written. But nobody did. So according to this podcast, if a female character is smart, confident, pretty and likeable she's one-dimensional and "empty". But when a male character is smart, confident, handsome and likeable then these are just some of the qualities that make him an interesting and layered character. Double standards like that made listening to the latest podcast rather unpleasant.

And the funny thing is, I actually agree withyour assessment. I fully agree that women on Stargate are badly written (with the exceptions of Sam, Janet and possibly TJ). I agree that they often say things no woman would ever say or behave in a way only guys would think is realistic. I agree that, apart from these 3 exceptions, they are fairly stereotypical (although all actresses did what they could). I agree with what you said about women on SGA. And I agree that adding one or two female writers isn't likely to change things (but it is a good sign - yay SGU! )

But there's no way I can agree with your conclusions.

[mapsc]

Just chiming in to say I totally agree with Melora, Petra and others. Sam Carter continually makes the lists of all-time great female sci-fi characters, but you sure wouldn't know it from this podcast. Very disappointing. I won't bother listening to any future podcasts.

Mike

[TameFarrar]

Tame, I never said that it was you who'd said that. I said that it had been stated on the podcast, period. Yes, it was Luisa who said: "She [Sam] is the reason Fraiser's dead. She abandoned her post and went after Jack when he was shot and that's the reason Fraiser died". It was stated as a fact (when it's a lie); and a fact is, no one protested/denied/set things straight so it came off as if you and David agreed with her. That's my problem. I'm glad that you don't think so, but I wouldn't know it from the podcast.

Well that I can understand since I have since listened to the edited version. However, please know that when you have three folks in three different locations (two different states and one in a different country) you do try not to talk over each other so when the person leading the discussion moves on, you move on. I also realize that David made some various comments but overall he was *Moderating or Directing* the discussion and not necessarily trying to be a part of it or be a strong opinion in it. So if anyone deserves some flack for not standing up for her own opinions better in that podcast it would be me

I also realise that there was no intended Sam's slamming on your part and that you stated your sympathy towards her. But the fact it, you agreed with Luisa more often than disagreed, and because of that the podcast sounds very one-sided.

As I said previously I had no way of knowing Louisa's opinions prior to the podcast, nor did David know them so there was no way for us to know ahead of time we would have agreed or disagreed on any of the question topics. It would have been disingenuous of me to disagree with Louisa just for the sake of the podcast.
I can't believe that anyone would want me or any other podcast guest to be less than honest about their own personal opinions just to create a conflict for people to listen too. Had the podcast been set up to be a point-counter point from the start and the roles for each person assigned then that would have been different. We each then would have understood that one would be expounding one POV while the other would then be expected to expound on the opposite POV.

I totally agree with the above and that's why I stand by what I said: SG-1 part of the discussion was extremely unfair. Nobody listed even one positive quality of Sam apart from her being "brainy". Nobody mentioned how uneven Vala's writing was. That's the bias I mentioned.

You both focused on Vala's "sassy, sexy thief" persona and you ignored all the instances when she was written either as a comic relief, often demeaning to women, or a rather pathetic creature so dependent on Daniel that when he's gone she's reduced to dissolving into tears, tearing her hair out and letting him walk all over her once he's back. Is it realistic? Sure, there are women who behave like that. Is it how strong women behave or should behave? No. For the record, I think Vala from season 9, while not hiding her emotions at all, would nevertheless focus on doing something useful to help and give him a piece of her mind in Unending. But she wasn't written that way in season 10, was she? And finally, is this how a role model should behave? Absolutely not. There are no words to convey how much was I disappointed when I heard on the podcast that that's the case. (Before you say it, yes I know that again it was Luisa's words, not yours. But when you say in the very same podcast that you let people know when you disagree with them and then you don't react to such declarations the logical choice is to assume you agree, isn't it?)

All I can say here is that the podcast is a set time limit so they do keep things moving along, however, if I failed to state my own opinions about something I felt strongly then I only have myself to blame. However, I can also say hindsight is twenty-twenty and I have the luxury of sitting here and thinking about my responses to your questions and thoughts. That is not really the case during a podcast all the time. Is that good?? I don't know, the person who is editing the podcast tries to keep things moving and focused so they don't have to spend hours and hours chopping up things in order for it to fit in the already established time limits.
I know I tried to convey my thoughts about the discussion in front of me during the podcast...and the things you are stating now would have been wonderful points to have made...sadly I just did not think of them during the conversation.

I'm also at a loss of how to interpret your (or Luisa's, I don't remeber who said it) argument that Vala's a great character because CB is a great actress who'd previously played a great character on another series. What does it have to do with anything?

For the record I'd like to say that I loved Aeryn on Farscape and I do like Vala; or rather I like her as a con artist in season 9 and as mature and confident mother of Adria and Tomin's wife in season 10. Her other incarnations - not at all. I'm not one of those fans who have issues with Vala's sexuality - far from it. I do have issues with how she was portrayed in a romantic relationship with Daniel (interestingly enough, she was great with Tomin) and being the butt of writers' jokes, at best stereotypical and at worst sexist.

From my POV the reason I stated that was because I believed some of my bias regarding that character was because of how much I liked the actress from another show and I felt it was important that the bias I saw in myself be stated. So if you recall after stating that comment I did also state that I probably was carrying over some of my views on that character due to that very reason.

As for Sam being perfect, which was repeated ad nauseum - I strongly disagree, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if somebody would have said that that's how all main characters on Stargate were written. But nobody did. So according to this podcast, if a female character is smart, confident, pretty and likeable she's one-dimensional and "empty". But when a male character is smart, confident, handsome and likeable then these are just some of the qualities that make him an interesting and layered character. Double standards like that made listening to the latest podcast rather unpleasant.

This is going to be a point we just disagree on with regards to the podcast - I didn't say this and I don't feel this is what was conveyed overall by the podcast. I do believe at different points one of us on the podcast made the point that the writers did a better job writing the male characters in depth then the female.

And the funny thing is, I actually agree withyour assessment. I fully agree that women on Stargate are badly written (with the exceptions of Sam, Janet and possibly TJ). I agree that they often say things no woman would ever say or behave in a way only guys would think is realistic. I agree that, apart from these 3 exceptions, they are fairly stereotypical (although all actresses did what they could). I agree with what you said about women on SGA. And I agree that adding one or two female writers isn't likely to change things (but it is a good sign - yay SGU! )

But there's no way I can agree with your conclusions.

Thats okay the point of the discussion as far as I am concerned is to just discuss my own POV. I am not trying to win over anyone or change their perspective on something. However, many folks here have had some good discussion about the entire topic and that is more what the podcasts are meant to do overall. Generate discuss, what is your POV on the whole topic. Since the podcasts are just two or three people talking it is not ever going to match every single person's POV nor be in agreement on every single point. I also doubt any person will say everything you or I think they should as we listen. BUT it does make you think and discuss what you want to say about the topic and discuss your POV and that is what this forum is all about

And Petra....sometimes even I don't agree with my conclusions the next day

[TameFarrar]

Just chiming in to say I totally agree with Melora, Petra and others. Sam Carter continually makes the lists of all-time great female sci-fi characters, but you sure wouldn't know it from this podcast. Very disappointing. I won't bother listening to any future podcasts.

Mike

Well hopefully when we have a podcast about that topic you will change your mind

[Petra]

Thanks for replying and clarifying certain points. I'm also quite happy to agree to disagree on the double standards thing.

As I said previously I had no way of knowing Louisa's opinions prior to the podcast, nor did David know them so there was no way for us to know ahead of time we would have agreed or disagreed on any of the question topics. It would have been disingenuous of me to disagree with Louisa just for the sake of the podcast.
I can't believe that anyone would want me or any other podcast guest to be less than honest about their own personal opinions just to create a conflict for people to listen too. Had the podcast been set up to be a point-counter point from the start and the roles for each person assigned then that would have been different. We each then would have understood that one would be expounding one POV while the other would then be expected to expound on the opposite POV.

You are right, nobody, least of all me, would want that.

I think a lot of disappointment, at least on my part, came from expecting this "point-counter point" approach though. David and Darren had been talking on the previous podcasts that they'd get 2 guests with opposite opinions; IIRC at one point one of them even mentioned that it was proving to be more difficult than they thought but then they went ahead and said they did it. When they announced one of the guests would be Ms Robison, who had already implied what her opinions are in her first podcast about fanfiction I assumed the other guest would be very pro-Sam, to balance things out. As it wasn't the case...well, we got this storm.

I know I tried to convey my thoughts about the discussion in front of me during the podcast...and the things you are stating now would have been wonderful points to have made...sadly I just did not think of them during the conversation.

That's true, typing posts is certainly easier than talking live.

And Petra....sometimes even I don't agree with my conclusions the next day

Uhm, ok...I'm not sure if this is really comforting though.

Well hopefully when we have a podcast about that topic you will change your mind.

Does it mean you want to have podcast solely about Sam? Or about the greatest sci-fi heroines? Or am I reading too much into this cryptic statement?

[TameFarrar]

Thanks for replying and clarifying certain points. I'm also quite happy to agree to disagree on the double standards thing.

You are right, nobody, least of all me, would want that.

In truth I too expected to have more disagreement and I DO disagree that Sam is too perfect, does no wrong and blah blah.....so in the end Petra...the fact that I didn't stand up for my POV and my thoughts on that part of the discussion is definitely a valid criticism of my performance in this podcast.

I think a lot of disappointment, at least on my part, came from expecting this "point-counter point" approach though. David and Darren had been talking on the previous podcasts that they'd get 2 guests with opposite opinions; IIRC at one point one of them even mentioned that it was proving to be more difficult than they thought but then they went ahead and said they did it. When they announced one of the guests would be Ms Robison, who had already implied what her opinions are in her first podcast about fanfiction I assumed the other guest would be very pro-Sam, to balance things out. As it wasn't the case...well, we got this storm.

I think part of the issue here is that I myself was not really analyzing the characters in any specific episode and just on an overall basis and I truly don't feel that the performance is just on the shoulders of the actresses, but instead on the writer's more. So I hold the writer's 70% responsible for the character and the actress 30%..(that is just a quick % off the top of my head) SO I approached this discussion looking to discuss how the writer's did more then how the actress did.

We already know all of the actresses are wonderful so I didn't feel the need to get to deep into that side of things nor did I think I had to tell anyone that Sam was a great role model since that has been discussed quite often over the years...But the fact that you are saying something now tells me maybe I should have. Or I should have done a better job standing up for my POV and not just letting some things slide.

Uhm, ok...I'm not sure if this is really comforting though.

LOL I just meant that hindsight and more information always makes me and maybe others say.."Man..I wish I would said this or that" its always a bit later I think of all of the witty, intelligent things I SHOULD have said.....

Does it mean you want to have podcast solely about Sam? Or about the greatest sci-fi heroines? Or am I reading too much into this cryptic statement?

I actually have no idea but it is a GREAT idea isn't it...and maybe then I could say loud and clear that I do love Sam and I do think she is a wonderful character