Least Favourite Episode of Season 7?

[MagnoliaAnaglypta]

EM, for me, was Daniel at his worst: smug, superior, self-satisfied and on a soapbox

I know everyone sees different things in different episodes, but how on earth does Daniel basically saying lets not kill these creatures because they were here first make him smug, superior, self satisfied and on a soapbox? He turned out to be right because he had more anthropological knowledge than everybody else there (which wasn't saying much - I agree with you that Edwards with his attitude should never have been allowed to go off world, never mind in command of a unit). The fact that he managed to arrive at an agreement in the end was - as he made perfectly clear at the time - not really down to him at all. He was a facilitator, but the actual agreement which saved everyones bacon was suggested by the leader of the 'primitives' thus proving that they were not nearly as primitive as everyone had assumed. I thought the episode was a superb one about how you make assumptions, and how those assumptions can lead you to take actions which have unintented and often tragic consequences.

I don't quite understand how you think Daniel *should* have behaved in this circumstance? He was quietly spoken, but didn't back down. That's Daniel to a tee. Should he have just shut up and gone away because what he was saying was inconvenient for the rest to hear? He told Edwards a few unpleasant home truths. Now Edwards shouldn't have been such a git that he needed to be told, but given that he was, someone had to tell him.

What annoyed me about this episode was everybody elses attitude and I found a great deal of satisfaction in the fact that Daniel turned out to be right, the problem was, he SHOULDN'T have been the only person saying those things. What was annoying about it was that everyone else automatically assumed they had the RIGHT to turn up on a planet, plant their flag, take what they wanted, and behave agressively towards the natives when the natives stood in their way. For me the episode was yet another clear demonstration of how the majority of people involved are not ready, no way no how, to be part of any kind of galactic community. You don't just decide that you 'need' something from someone elses sovreign territory and go get it because they are not strong enough to stop you. I thought it was quite a clever episode about how we basically don't learn from our own history.

Monumental anthropological blunder? These Unas's development had already been screwed-up beyond all recognition by the Goa'uld. They were not 'natural' Unas at all. What they were was a culture of intelligent beings who had already been introduced to technology and then left to die out when they were no longer any use to thier masters. Only, inconsiderately, they didn't. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, they couldn't go back to being what they would have been without that initial interference. What Daniel gave them was the chance to be a part of the fight against the Goa'uld on their own terms. (one assumes that refills for Iron-Shirt's 'gift' would have been supplied by a matter of course, since it is likely that it would have become one of the symbols of his authority and the humans would have wanted him to stay in authority since he was the one who made the agreement)

I did miss Dion as Chaka though - the actor who played him just didn't have the same rythmns and body language as Dion, and I really couldn't see him as Chaka.

[Dani347]

Yeah, what she said. (You are a she, MagnoliaAnaglypta, right?)

[MagnoliaAnaglypta]

Yeah, what she said. (You are a she, MagnoliaAnaglypta, right?)

I might be.....

[Gategrrl]

Hmm. Three way tie between:

Grace, Avenger 2.0, and 1/2 of Chimera. The Sam half.

Okay, okay, I think Grace really took the cake as worst, in that the story was a mess, the character of Sam was assasinated and destroyed for me in that ep, and a bleary eyed stare whilst moving food stores does not drama make. At least for me.

[san]

Enemie Mine - it was the very first episode that i coudn't see to the end. And i actually like the previews Unas episodes.

Besides the fact that it was boring what bugs me more is the way they treat the unas.

Infact they have been very incoscistence with the all Unas story. First we found they are one of the first species to be used by the gou'lds, then we see them as some kind of pre-storic clan, then we found then with a little more evolution but as labour animals - but with a degree of evolution superior of the first episode with Daniel and Chaka (?sp), and in the enemie of mine, we go back in time on the evolution and have the pre-storic clans, who act more like a pack of wolfs then the Unas from the third episode (sorry can recall the name).

San

[DarkQuee1]

Monumental anthropological blunder? These Unas's development had already been screwed-up beyond all recognition by the Goa'uld. They were not 'natural' Unas at all. What they were was a culture of intelligent beings who had already been introduced to technology and then left to die out when they were no longer any use to thier masters. Only, inconsiderately, they didn't. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, they couldn't go back to being what they would have been without that initial interference. What Daniel gave them was the chance to be a part of the fight against the Goa'uld on their own terms. (one assumes that refills for Iron-Shirt's 'gift' would have been supplied by a matter of course, since it is likely that it would have become one of the symbols of his authority and the humans would have wanted him to stay in authority since he was the one who made the agreement)

I'm not going to go into all the reasons why I found Daniel excessively annoying in this episode--which in part included BOB and the way the other characters were drawn; we will never see eye-to-eye on it and we will simply end up going around in circles.

However, the blunder to which I was referring: the Unas are a dominant-submissive culture; we saw that in "First Ones". And so did Daniel, and he certainly should have understood what he saw. Yet, instead of talking to the Unas at the end and indicating that we apologize for any perceived invasion of their territory and that we want to deal with them *as equals*, he insisted that Edwards and the others take a submissive posture. The problem this creates is that the Unas have now labelled us as "submissive" in the heirarchy. But the people who will be sent to that world will *not* be the submissive type; the SGC is composed of alphas, not omegas. Sooner or later, an Unas dominant will demand a submission gesture and he won't get it. At that point, conflict will began all over again.
As I said, I recognize the fact that the writer is *not* an anthropologist and probably hasn't read any monographs on the subject, but within the Stargate universe, we are left with this being done by Daniel. And it was a mistake.

J.

[MagnoliaAnaglypta]

However, the blunder to which I was referring: the Unas are a dominant-submissive culture; we saw that in "First Ones". And so did Daniel, and he certainly should have understood what he saw. Yet, instead of talking to the Unas at the end and indicating that we apologize for any perceived invasion of their territory and that we want to deal with them *as equals*, he insisted that Edwards and the others take a submissive posture. The problem this creates is that the Unas have now labelled us as "submissive" in the heirarchy. But the people who will be sent to that world will *not* be the submissive type; the SGC is composed of alphas, not omegas. Sooner or later, an Unas dominant will demand a submission gesture and he won't get it. At that point, conflict will began all over again.

And I think that's an over-simplification based on an earth model that simply may not be relevant in that situation. Yes, we've seen that there are dominant/submissive elements to the Unas's culture, but to assume that such a culture would follow exactly the same pattern as those studied by anthropologists on earth would I think be a mistake. Daniel himself initially in the earlier episode was 'made' to take a subservient posture with Chaka, clearly he doesn't have to any more, and somehow I doubt it's because he's proved himself more 'alpha-male' than Chaka.

Earlier in the episode we had seen Chaka, opening negotiations with ironshirt, assuming a submissive posture around the fire even though he subsequently seemed to treat with Iron-Shirt as an equal. Daniel was obviously taking his cue from the behaviour that he had observed between the two Unas earlier - which I would think was rather wiser than slavishly following academic models written by anthropological experts who had never even heard of a stargate.

[Osiris]

Enemy Mine was simply boring, especially the part with the Unas linguage! It's, indeed my least favourite episode.

And I really enjoyed Grace and Chimera (am I alone???): Sam's charatcter needed episodes like that to be realistic. I don't understand why some of you consider those episodes destroyed her character?! She's human: she must have a lovelife, feelings or frustrations! She doesn't have the right to get a life outside the SGC and/or a boyfriend?!

Grace was a very intelligent and introspective episode: apparently the audience of the show isn't as smart as the cast & crew thought...

Chimera was of course a very good episode, first of all because of Osiris, afterwards as Sam finally got a boyfriend (love and sexual life) after more than 6 years alone!!!

[Matt G]

Enemy Mine was simply boring, especially the part with the Unas linguage! It's, indeed my least favourite episode.

And I really enjoyed Grace and Chimera (am I alone???): Sam's charatcter needed episodes like that to be realistic. I don't understand why some of you consider those episodes destroyed her character?! She's human: she must have a lovelife, feelings or frustrations! She doesn't have the right to get a life outside the SGC and/or a boyfriend?!

Grace was a very intelligent and introspective episode: apparently the audience of the show isn't as smart as the cast & crew thought...

Chimera was of course a very good episode, first of all because of Osiris, afterwards as Sam finally got a boyfriend (love and sexual life) after more than 6 years alone!!!

I was certainly pro Sarah getting released from Osiris and I don't have a problem with Sam getting a boyfriend in theory.

But the way both plots were worked left the episode coming off soap opera ish and I'm not a soap opera fan.

I'd have had the Osiris part happen off world and the Pete part start off with him sniffing about. That would have been an SG1 ep.

[Dani347]

She's human: she must have a lovelife

Really, she must have a lovelife? So, before she had one, she wasn't human? And, while I think that idea is totally outdated, I really really hope you do mean human, and would feel the same way about Jack, Daniel, and Teal'c (yeah, yeah, Jaffa, but you get the picture) and don't mean that because Sam's a woman she must have a love life.

And, don't mistake what I'm saying. I'm not saying a love life is bad. I like Pete. I think he's great. But, I don't see that a lovelife is essential for anyone, because that's an insult to the people who are very happy being single. And, for years, Sam was a vibrant, interesting, happy character, even without a boyfriend.

Grace was a very intelligent and introspective episode: apparently the audience of the show isn't as smart as the cast & crew thought...

Ah, insults. Is that a sign of intelligence?

[Osiris]

It isn't an insult. I refer to some of RDA comments on the DVD extra. I'm just fed up with all those people complaining everytime. Don't take this for a personal attack.

Btw, You should be single for saying that there's people who are happy single. Life means nothing if you don't love and are not loved by someone. But that's again, my personal opinion. Jack had a wife and some "girlfriends", the same with Teal'c (Dreyau'c, Shanau'c & Ishta) & Daniel (Sha're & Sarah Gardner). Sam was always alone and there was any reference to her personal life for 7 years (except Jonas in The 1st Commandment). I think it was unfair. Now, her character is credible. That's what I meant by using "human": an emotional being, including Jaffa & Goa'uld or other races with feelings.

[Matt G]

Btw, You should be single for saying that there's people who are happy single. Life means nothing if you don't love and are not loved by someone. But that's again, my personal opinion. Jack had a wife and some "girlfriends", the same with Teal'c (Dreyau'c, Shanau'c & Ishta) & Daniel (Sha're & Sarah Gardner). Sam was always alone and there was any reference to her personal life for 7 years (except Jonas in The 1st Commandment). I think it was unfair. Now, her character is credible. That's what I meant by using "human": an emotional being, including Jaffa & Goa'uld or other races with feelings.

Speaking as a single male - yes 'loving and being loved' would make me slightly happier. Does it mean that I am not emotional? No. I have other things in my life that make me happy, family friends, SG1 etc etc. I assumed pre-Chimera that science and motorbikes and stuff like that made Sam happy. We did not need an entire ep setting up Sam with a guy.

[GateGipsy]

Grace was a very intelligent and introspective episode: apparently the audience of the show isn't as smart as the cast & crew thought...

But then you say earlier in the post:

Enemy Mine was simply boring, especially the part with the Unas linguage! It's, indeed my least favourite episode.

And then in a post that shortly followed you say:

It isn't an insult. I refer to some of RDA comments on the DVD extra. I'm just fed up with all those people complaining everytime. Don't take this for a personal attack.

Osiris I feel that it is a personal attack, in a general kind of way. This isn't a moderation because what you said wasn't specifically aimed at any one person. However, I do feel extremely strongly about things like this, because one thing I believe in more than anything is people's right to freedom of speech. Let me explain what I mean.

What you've said essentially, even if you didn't mean it to come across that way, is that you're fed up with people not liking what you like - and you've chosen to call that complaining. I say 'chosen' to because it isn't complaining - it is people expressing their opinion about an episode that they didn't like in the same way you expressed your opinion of Enemy Mine.

I utterly defend your right to dislike Enemy Mine and tell people you don't like it as much as you like. If anyone said "Osiris stop complaining about that episode" I'd defend you, because you have your right to your opinion. I know a lot of people for whom Enemy Mine is their favourite season 7 episode. And I'm not surprised that some people like it and some people dislike it - heck we're all different and we all like different things! It is what makes the world a great place to live.

What I do object strongly to is people being told that they're wrong to express an opinion. If you disagree with what people say about Grace, for example, then disagree with them. But you, nor anyone else, has the right to tell them that they're wrong to express an opinion.

[GateGipsy]

Life means nothing if you don't love and are not loved by someone.

woah now, so you're saying that if someone chooses to live their lives without a partner, they're nothing?

True a life without love isn't much of a life - but by that I mean any love at all. Romantic love I believe someone can live without and still have a life full of meaning.

While I no longer subscribe to the catholic church I've known quite a few nuns who've had amazing lives dedicated to helping others, and who've made a huge impact on me as well. Does their lives 'mean nothing'?

Two of my aunts lived their entire lives without a partner, they travelled, they had jobs they loved, they had family that loved them, they had very full lives. Would you still say that their lives 'mean nothing'?

And heck I'm not even going to go into the numerous friends I've known over my life who have all made a life choice to be single.

Personally, I too chose not to have a partner. I loved my life, and everything I was doing, and felt no need at all to have a partner to enhance that. I met my husband and fell in love, but I wasn't looking for a partner to complete my life and in fact, worried more that getting married would make my life less perfect. But I didn't need my partner to complete anything - I was complete without him. (We've been very happily married for just over 12 years).

Likewise, I've always thought Sam didn't 'need' anyone - that if she ever found a life partner it would be because it just happened, not because she wasn't complete in some way without a life partner. And if she didn't find a life partner then I always thought her life would still be perfect without one. For that reason Grace just didn't fit with the character I've always known, so I would have to say that's my least favourite of Season 7 for that reason.

[MagnoliaAnaglypta]

[QUOTE=GateGipsy]

Personally, I too chose not to have a partner. I loved my life, and everything I was doing, and felt no need at all to have a partner to enhance that. I met my husband and fell in love, but I wasn't looking for a partner to complete my life and in fact, worried more that getting married would make my life less perfect. But I didn't need my partner to complete anything - I was complete without him. (We've been very happily married for just over 12 years).

QUOTE]

Thank you Gipsy, for that, very well put. Too many people take being loved by someone as a substitute for self-esteem and self-respect - that's why there are so many battered and abused spouses in our society. But if you don't have those two things first, then all the love in the world heaped upon you isn't enough to enable you to feel truly complete and contented.

Like you, I have many friends who have chosen to live single and are completely happy with that choice. I find it an incredibly old fashioned attitude to assume that a person cannot be complete without a sexual partner. You would probably be very surprised at the number of people who choose to live celibate and are perfectly happy with that choice.

There are many different kinds of love in the world apart from love of partner; love of children (shock horror, doesn't always go hand in hand with love of partner...) love of parents, friends, love of duty, love of God - I put last that which many religious people would state as first and most important. But a choice to dedicate ones life to a cause or a principle or a belief is just as valid as a choice to have a partner.