Sam Carter/Jack O'Neill Ship Discussion Thread

[leiasky]

Wow, nicely thought out! Good, meaty stuff to think about. Though, I don't think I can really compare much when it comes to the movie (intended to be a one shot) and the series, which is an inspired by spin off. Some things you just can't examine closely and try to keep to 'canon'. Canon, really, starts not with the original movie, but with Children of the Gods.

Just wondering, where is Vala in your pretty graphic? If you're going to put Cam in, shouldn't Vala be there, too?

[VSS]

Ooh yay, it's started! I'll jump in...



I'm with you on this, the movie now really is just showing you where it all started, but in terms of canon, is only partially accurate I guess - since if you're coming to it as an SG1 fan then you have to make the choice to value SG1 canon over movie canon (or accept that there are irreconcilable differences!).

That's what I think, as well. If there's a conflict, SG-1 canon obviously wins out. If there's not, or if SG-1 doesn't even touch on it, I can accept it.
Things not canon (not exhaustive):

• Great distance to abydos
• Jack's son's name is Tyler
• Jack's relationship with Kawalsky isn't very close at all
• Characteristics of the goa'uld

So I would expect to see some of that in the movie. There's one Jack-like line, the 'give my regards to King Tut, a******' line, that I can hear RDA's Jack saying, but otherwise nada.

There's one point near the end when he's face to face with a Jaffa, and he winks. Which throws off the Jaffa and he kills him. I thought that was funny but it's not Jack humor, KWIM?

But I think this is arguably one of the biggest successes of the Sam/Jack relationship, that they take what begins in a relatively cliched manner (the sparks and the conflict), and manage to show that this isn't just a case of hero and heroine and tension until they give in, and create a love story between two people who are not perfect, but who understand each other and connect on a level beyond superficialities.

I think the writing improved substantially in later seasons and they had the incredible good luck of getting literally years to develop the relationship. Which made it seem very realistic.

I think that the pictures, and the lingering on of the Sara and Charlie storyline, subconsciously plant the idea of Jack as a very loyal man, and one who might not love easily but certainly doesn't give that up easily either.

Yes. He didn't give up on Sam, either, until the (almost!) bitter end.

Wow, nicely thought out! Good, meaty stuff to think about. Though, I don't think I can really compare much when it comes to the movie (intended to be a one shot) and the series, which is an inspired by spin off. Some things you just can't examine closely and try to keep to 'canon'. Canon, really, starts not with the original movie, but with Children of the Gods.

Just wondering, where is Vala in your pretty graphic? If you're going to put Cam in, shouldn't Vala be there, too?

Thanks!

I think here's a ton of canon in the movie- everything about Catherine and how the gate was found, for instance. SOme of that comes up later on- Continuum was even based on it. But if there's a conflict between the movie and the series, from my vantage point in the Stargate universe, the series is "right".

As for the pic, well, I didn't make it. As my mom taught me, "Beggars can't be choosers." I thought it was pretty

[Sappho]

Woo-hoo! The re-watch begins...

One of the hardest parts about watching this movie was a Jack O'Neil (ONE L!) who wasn't portrayed by Richard Dean Anderson. Rick MADE Jack who he was. If I recall correctly, he asked for the Cold Lazarus show so his character could deal with the grief and move on. I think he said he didn't have the desire or ability to pull off that kind of hard a** character (he also mentioned he wouldn't have been able to pull off the hair! LOL.)

And are these two Jacks really different- or is O’Neil simply Jack at his lowest point- closed off from the world (including his wife) and suicidal? He’s sent through the gate with Daniel with orders to blow up the gate if there was any sign of danger. We don’t know it, but it’s to be a one-way trip for Jack. Daniel assures them he’ll be able to figure out the glyphs on the other gate, to which O’Neil replies “He’s full of sh**” Turns out Jack is more or less correct, and they’re stuck on Abydos.

I watched closely, looking for signs of "our" Jack, and I think he's still there. RDA did a good job of melding the two characters, while still bringing his own spin and humor to the man. For example, smoking in uniform, while not as frowned up on fifteen years ago as it is today (many AF bases have banned smoking in uniform altogether!), smoking in DRESS BLUES in the middle of a high level meeting, while standing back against the wall -- very irreverent, but in a much more serious way than RDA handled the irreverence. Notice he's the only one you ever see smoking on base, and he admits smoking is "stupid" later on to Skaara. He's doing it to make a point, not because he needs to.

Also, the entire film speaks as to how low Jack has gone. He's hit bottom. He wants to die. There is nothing about being recalled to duty that is going to fix that. Having "been there" myself a few times in my life, I can tell you that at that point, the humor is gone. It's sucked from you, nothing in life seems funny. Everything has gone flat and lifeless; nothing matters when you're at that point. Look at Jack in 'Abyss' when he again reaches the point of wishing for death, the point of begging Daniel to intervene so he can die. Humor: gone. It doesn't surprise me that the Jack from this film is so different from the Jack in the series. A year or more has passed between the two, and when recovering from a trauma and depression, a year can turn you into a very different person.

Sha’re helps Daniel find the set of glyphs they need to get home. Before they can do that, Ra returns and kidnaps Jack and Daniel.

Spoiler:

Against Ra's wishes, one of the guards kills Daniel- but he is resurrected in a sarcophagus. Better get used to it, Daniel!

Jaye Davison as the androgynous Ra is really a sight to behold and honestly, if you can rent it just to watch him, it’s worth it. None of the goa’uld theatrics even come close to this guy! But the child slaves really creep me out. I don’t like the implications.

The child slaves really bothered me, too. Especially the way they were willing to give their lives for their "god." My husband asked during the film why Ra would have so many humans around, and after thinking about it, I think it was because humans were very much a hobby for Ra. He was, after all, the first of his kind (goa'uld or not) to take a human host.

Implications of this episode for Sam and Jack: Establishes Jack’s back-story including the death of his son and his subsequent deep depression, as well as his connection to Daniel and Skaara. Despite his grudging respect for Daniel at the end of the movie, I think this is how Jack acquires his dislike for scientists.
--------

I actually had a few flashes of Sam's presence during this film. Once when the dialing computers started to go. I kept thinking, "Sam should be here for this! This is her life's work!" and then again when Daniel accepts Share as his wife, I kept hearing Sam's outraged sputter of, "And you accepted?" from Emanipation, I think it was.

Also, can I say that this film really endeared me to the character of Kawalski? I have the extended version and there is a great scene in which Kawalski is apologizing to Kasuf for an overreaction by the team. He was adorable.

[I]Children of the Gods

The infamous briefing room scene. I’ll let other shippers expound on that.

Expound I shall: I think at this point, Sam comes into the room and she's been fighting for YEARS to get to go through the gate, and now that she's here, she's p*ssed. She's indignant. She's tired of being the girl, the woman, always being put last. And we all know, none of us are at our best when we're angry, Sam included. I love love love the way Hammond allows her to be so insubordinate. Is it because he's seen her grow up (he knew General Carter, after all) and is happy to see her finally where she deserves? Is it so the guys will know she's not one to mess with when they're off-world and there are no generals there to put them in their places?

I don't know. All I know is I have a real love-hate relationship with that scene. That, and I'd really, really like to see them arm wrestle.

And Jack's, "I *like* women," comment? SO gets me every time. I have to giggle girlishly at that. Love it.

Spoiler:

Another thing that is not clear to me is why Daniel uncovered the Abydos gate. He promised Jack he’d keep it buried, and if he’d kept that promise Sha’re wouldn’t have gone goa’uld. By then, he knew there were other gates, although we did not, and he was actively trying to dial out. I think curiosity once again got the better of Daniel, to the detriment of the people he was close to, and this is a theme that happens over and over. So, though no one ever comes right out and says it, Sha’re’s abduction is his fault. I wonder if he even realizes that. Is guilt part of his drive to find her?

In CotG, Sha’re truly seems like a bimbo. If she’d been more like she was in the movie, she’d have gone with Daniel to show Jack the glyphs. (But then she wouldn’t have been kidnapped). If you have only ever seen the SG-1 Sha’re it’s hard to know why Daniel fell in love with her. (BTW, MS’s imitation of James Spader is awesome to behold).

I, too, was in awe of how seamlessly MS was able to bring Spader's character to life for the series. I think Daniel unburied the gate because he thought Ra was the only big baddie out there. I mean, we know he saw the gate addresses in the other cavernous room, but he seemed genuinely surprised to hear about the Ra-look-alike coming through to the SGC. I think what he did yes, did put Share and the rest of the Abydonians at risk, but I think it mostly shows his naivete -- which will indeed become a running theme in SG: SG1.

And why did they rename Charlie? He was Tyler in the movie. Was it because of Charlie Kawalsky- to make him appear closer to Jack than he was in the movie? In the movie it seemed like they didn’t know each other at all. They weren’t that close were they? Or is it just another unfortunate slip up like the two Jonases and Sarah/Sara? I mean come on, at this point there’s hardly any canon to forget!

Actually, keep in mind that scene between Kawalski and Jack in the holding cell. Kawalkski says that the whole time they worked together on the mission to Abydos, he wasn't even aware Jack HAD a son. Grr.

This is actually one piece of canon that I choose to disregard entirely as a stupid line no one bothered to cut. Later on in the series we see that Jack and CHARLIE Kawalksi had worked together as far back as when they were Captains in 1982 (or was it '84) in East Germany. I find it hard to believe Kawalski would be so in the dark about Jack's personal life. Especially with Charlie named Charlie!

Spoiler:

I finally understand the meaning of Teal’c’ grabbing Jack’s watch and then his famous words; “Many have said that. But you are the first I thought could actually do it.” It’s a collective “you”- as in Jack O’Neill and the rest of the people of earth. Finally, Teal’c has found a civilization with the technology, backbone and system of ethics that could challenge the goa’uld. He figures all of that out in just a few moments spent with Jack, Sam and Daniel! Daniel may understand human cultures, but don’t you think it’s Teal’c who understands human beings?

A collective "you"! Yes, that makes much more sense.

I really loved Teal'c's introduction here. His show of emotion was so much more intense than anything he does for years after this. I think it goes to show what we as first-time viewers wouldn't have known:

Spoiler:

Teal'c is leaving his wife and child behind, and god is that a hard decision for him to have to make.

[Petra]

Ok, as I said, there's no chance I'll actually watch all those episodes, but I figure I can discuss them from memory. And VSS, you ask some excellent questions

These are exceptionally tough, dedicated men and even though Jack seems more laid-back in the series, I don't think this attitude ever goes away. Every now and then it pops up again, like in The Other Side. Does this affect his relationship with Sam?

And are these two Jacks really different- or is O’Neil simply Jack at his lowest point- closed off from the world (including his wife) and suicidal?

I agree with all of you who said he's the same Jack. Personality-wise, i don't have a problem here; well, I don't have a big problem. In the series we sometimes got the glimpses of this Jack, so I can buy his behaviour in the movie and reconsile it with Jack from the series.
As for the other question..yes, I believe it has an impact on S/J relationship. Firstly, Jack is very private and very closed off emotionally, even to those closest to him. In the movie he didn't care about apperances, in the series though he hides behind "dumb Jack' facade. Sam, not exactly open emotionally herself, will have/has to break his defences to really get to him..

Implications of this episode for Sam and Jack: Establishes Jack’s back-story including the death of his son and his subsequent deep depression, as well as his connection to Daniel and Skaara. Despite his grudging respect for Daniel at the end of the movie, I think this is how Jack acquires his dislike for scientists

Oh, yes, I agree, especially about Daniel. I'd add to that, that the movie establishes Jack has suicide tendencies..it's not exactly explored in the series (maybe with the exception of Abyss), but for me it's an important part of his character. Under all this bravado, toughness, jokes and humour lies a very fragile, deeply wounded psyche and this is probably another obstacle Sam - or rather both of them together - have to overcome.

PS. I'm really happy I'm not the only one who's not a fan of the movie..

Does anyone else have trouble posting? I've been trying to post this little piece for the last hour or two...

[Petra]

Expound I shall: I think at this point, Sam comes into the room and she's been fighting for YEARS to get to go through the gate, and now that she's here, she's p*ssed. She's indignant. She's tired of being the girl, the woman, always being put last. And we all know, none of us are at our best when we're angry, Sam included. I love love love the way Hammond allows her to be so insubordinate. Is it because he's seen her grow up (he knew General Carter, after all) and is happy to see her finally where she deserves? Is it so the guys will know she's not one to mess with when they're off-world and there are no generals there to put them in their places?

Sappo, this is a great post, but I really want to put things straight. Hammond knowing Sam since her childhood is pure fanon. Actually canon contradicts it. When Jacob is first introduced in season 2's "Secrets" Sam is genuinely surprised to see they know each other, and they both have to explain to her that they've been friends for years and served together. If Hammond really was "uncle George" don't you think Sam would know all this?

Sorry, it's nothing against you, it's just this little detail always incredibly annoys me. Besides to some fans the implication is, Sam got her position thanks to this connection and family/friendship ties, and this is not true.

You guys have just had an excellent discussion of canon, and I think we can all agree that what is shown/said in the actual episode is canon. So, Sam and gen. Hammond had not known each other prior to the Stargate Program.

[Sappho]

Sappo, this is a great post, but I really want to put things straight. Hammond knowing Sam since her childhood is pure fanon. Actually canon contradicts it. When Jacob is first introduced in season 2's "Secrets" Sam is genuinely surprised to see they know each other, and they both have to explain to her that they've been friends for years and served together. If Hammond really was "uncle George" don't you think Sam would know all this?

Sorry, it's nothing against you, it's just this little detail always incredibly annoys me. Besides to some fans the implication is, Sam got her position thanks to this connection and family/friendship ties, and this is not true.

You guys have just had an excellent discussion of canon, and I think we can all agree that what is shown/said in the actual episode is canon. So, Sam and gen. Hammond had not known each other prior to the Stargate Program.

Thank you! It's been so long since I've watched any of season two. I am a total canon whore. In asking "Is it because he's seen her grow up ..?" I was really asking. Couldn't remember if he had seen her grow up or not, just that Jacob and George knew each other prior. You won't find any Uncle Georges in my fics.

Although... now that I think of it, how are we dealing with the canon fact that the team went back to 1969 (not my favorite episode) and met George Hammond there? Would he have remembered Sam from that short meeting and recognized her importance to Stargate Command?

[JenniferJF]

Okay, I tend to lurk here, but I had to put in my way-too-long 2 cents on the canon issue.

In most fandom circles I've been in, Canon is whatever you see occur before you in the intact and released versions of the film or TV show you are watching, or the publication of the book/short story you are reading. Book make into a movie can both be canon to the source and tends to get called movie!canon book!canon. Alternate universes, alternate timelines, all canon if you can read/watch it in the source. (AT and AU becomes insane for comic fandoms).

<clip>

Which is why, at the end of the day, canon is silly. And debates about canon worthless. Because anything, really, can be interpreted differently by different people and what is absolutely obvious to one person may have an absolutely different meaning to someone else and only personal canon is truly significant. This is why there are libraries full of books interpreting Shakespeare and hundreds of philosophies trying to understand the same reality and a thousand other examples. Its the fine line between art and science. Art is always open for different interpretations by different individuals, it's why the very study of Literature is possible. If there were *right* answers, there'd be no point. Television (and other media) when done WELL are no different.

So. I don't think there is canon. There's only evidence to support a particular interpretation of the art. And while I (and most people I assume) tend to think the art itself the best primary source of that information, and most interprepretations should center on that art, I also tend to think artist intent and comments made by the artist and other works of art related to that one etc. are all useful in interpreting the art. So while the Trio scene didn't actually air, I think it (and the comments made about it) are useful in interpreting the status of Sam and Jack's relationship.

For me.

And, frankly, in many ways, I don't care two figs what other people think. I'm not in their heads. And it's not a contest, either.

EDIT: And in general, canon *facts* like Hamlet was the prince of Denmark, like the Stargate is a worm hole allowing travel to other worlds, aren't open for interpretation, they're also not really the story but merely the framework on which the story happens. Though if I tried I could probably build an argument against both those 'facts'. But I've studied Quantum Physics

[VSS]

<snip> Notice he's the only one you ever see smoking on base, and he admits smoking is "stupid" later on to Skaara. He's doing it to make a point, not because he needs to.

Also, the entire film speaks as to how low Jack has gone. He's hit bottom. He wants to die. There is nothing about being recalled to duty that is going to fix that. Having "been there" myself a few times in my life, I can tell you that at that point, the humor is gone. It's sucked from you, nothing in life seems funny. Everything has gone flat and lifeless; nothing matters when you're at that point. Look at Jack in 'Abyss' when he again reaches the point of wishing for death, the point of begging Daniel to intervene so he can die. Humor: gone. It doesn't surprise me that the Jack from this film is so different from the Jack in the series. A year or more has passed between the two, and when recovering from a trauma and depression, a year can turn you into a very different person.

That's a very interesting point about the smoking. I didn't realize it was such an irreverent thing to do in uniform, and that puts a new spin on it to me. I'm not sure "our" Jack would ever do that, although I do tend to agree that this really is the same Jack- Russell does play the tough jerk better than RDA, but it's an extension of the same character. And gratefully, Jack is different in CotG but I see that as the natural evolution of the character over the year or so since the first mission. Where he actually did something good to help humanity, and perhaps feels as if his life does have some value after all. I also agree that he'll always have that tendency. He will always have a higher risk of depression and higher risk of suicide than the average guy.

Also, can I say that this film really endeared me to the character of Kawalski? I have the extended version and there is a great scene in which Kawalski is apologizing to Kasuf for an overreaction by the team. He was adorable.

Yes, I have that version, and I totally agree. It made a lot more sense later when Kawalsky (different spelling, just like O'Neil/O'Neill, lol) talked about "our kids" or "the little soldiers." I liked him quite a bit more than Ferretti. Kawalski gave himself up as a hostage to save them.

Expound I shall: I think at this point, Sam comes into the room and she's been fighting for YEARS to get to go through the gate, and now that she's here, she's p*ssed. She's indignant. She's tired of being the girl, the woman, always being put last. And we all know, none of us are at our best when we're angry, Sam included. I love love love the way Hammond allows her to be so insubordinate. Is it because he's seen her grow up (he knew General Carter, after all) and is happy to see her finally where she deserves? Is it so the guys will know she's not one to mess with when they're off-world and there are no generals there to put them in their places?

Absolutely. General Hammond not only lets her get away with it, he defends her, "..way smarter than you are, Colonel." He sets the tone immediately as a good superior officer should. And Kawalsky and Ferretti are over there snickering at Jack and he shoots them a look which I find hilarious.

And Jack's, "I *like* women," comment? SO gets me every time. I have to giggle girlishly at that. Love it.

Yeah, kinda gives you a little tingly feeling, doesn't it.

I find it hard to believe Kawalski would be so in the dark about Jack's personal life. Especially with Charlie named Charlie!

Yeah, that's a good point. Certainly there are bits of canon that completely contradict each other. Like the little almost kiss in The Ripple Effect.

So was Charlie named after Charlie Kawalsky(i)? I don't know. Is it odd that they would be that close when Kawalsky is a subordinate?

BTW, you don;t have to put info about future eps in spoilers (like Teal'c leaving his family). This is a rewatch.

Sappo, this is a great post, but I really want to put things straight. Hammond knowing Sam since her childhood is pure fanon. Actually canon contradicts it. When Jacob is first introduced in season 2's "Secrets" Sam is genuinely surprised to see they know each other, and they both have to explain to her that they've been friends for years and served together. If Hammond really was "uncle George" don't you think Sam would know all this?

See, I totally thought that, too! So, Hammond and Jacob are friends, but probably in the time before Sam was born. And I'm so glad that he didn't know her- it'd just be one more thing that would make everyone think she didn't get where she was on her own merit.

[Maine_Girl]

Hi - long-time lurker coming out of the shadows here.

I tend to discount the movie as canon for the series as it merely establishes that the Stargate exists, that travel through a wormhole exists, sarcophagi (?plural?)exist and provides a frame work for the "Children of the Gods".

One of the many reasons that I love Stargate SG-1 is that it exists in the present - not far into the future. Although a bit heavy handed, I appreciate the environment in the military at the time which prompts Sam to be confrontational - to challenge O'Neill's alpha male. I love that Sam shares her wonder with the event horizon - and we see the "down to business" Jack who pushes her through the wormhole.

To me, one of the most pivotal moments - one that never seems to come up in various AU's who seem to hinge upon Daniel being part of the Stargate program - is the moment when Jack appeals to Teal'c "I can help these people!". If Teal'c had not believed in Jack, there would be no SG-1.

Not my favorite episode, but oddly, one that I re-watch often. The first glimpses of SG-1 - knowing who they become and how they develop - still engages me.

I felt the connection between Jack and Sam beginning from the briefing room scene. Despinte Jack's mouth, he's intrigued.

[gater62]

<snipped>

So was Charlie named after Charlie Kawalsky(i)? I don't know. Is it odd that they would be that close when Kawalsky is a subordinate?

I don't know if this was addressed, but in the movie, Jack's son was named Scott (you see it on the frame). Do you think the name change to Charlie in the TV series was to imply a closer relationship between Jack and Kawalsky? I think so considering how the series goes on to show Jack and Charlie on earlier missions together. The name change maybe came in to imply Charlie the boy was named for Kawalsky. Otherwise, why not keep the same name from the movie?

PS And the mountain complex name changed too.

edit: I was very close to two of my Chiefs in the Navy. Our families hung out together off base and it was not a big deal. And all my supervisors thought of me as their little sister and treated me as such.

[VSS]

Hi - long-time lurker coming out of the shadows here.

I tend to discount the movie as canon for the series as it merely establishes that the Stargate exists, that travel through a wormhole exists, sarcophagi (?plural?)exist and provides a frame work for the "Children of the Gods".

One of the many reasons that I love Stargate SG-1 is that it exists in the present - not far into the future. Although a bit heavy handed, I appreciate the environment in the military at the time which prompts Sam to be confrontational - to challenge O'Neill's alpha male. I love that Sam shares her wonder with the event horizon - and we see the "down to business" Jack who pushes her through the wormhole.

To me, one of the most pivotal moments - one that never seems to come up in various AU's who seem to hinge upon Daniel being part of the Stargate program - is the moment when Jack appeals to Teal'c "I can help these people!". If Teal'c had not believed in Jack, there would be no SG-1.

Not my favorite episode, but oddly, one that I re-watch often. The first glimpses of SG-1 - knowing who they become and how they develop - still engages me.

I felt the connection between Jack and Sam beginning from the briefing room scene. Despinte Jack's mouth, he's intrigued.

Welcome!

That bolded part might be the most significant thing I learned on my rewatch of this episode. I'm starting to feel that Teal'c got shortchanged at times (including by me), and I am looking forward to getting to know his character better.

[VSS]

I don't know if this was addressed, but in the movie, Jack's son was named Scott (you see it on the frame). Do you think the name change to Charlie in the TV series was to imply a closer relationship between Jack and Kawalsky? I think so considering how the series goes on to show Jack and Charlie on earlier missions together. The name change maybe came in to imply Charlie the boy was named for Kawalsky. Otherwise, why not keep the same name from the movie?

PS And the mountain complex name changed too.

edit: I was very close to two of my Chiefs in the Navy. Our families hung out together off base and it was not a big deal.

Scott?? Scott?? I thought it was Tyler! Not that it matters- but one of us may have something wrong with our eyes.

But I agree that was the point they were trying to make, and I don't really see it happening. It's a little like what people were talking about with Keller and Carter in the Trio scene- it didn't feel right that a Colonel would be that close with someone in his/her command. I don't see it but that's clearly the point they were trying to make. And, of course, we'll find out why in the next episode.

[gater62]

Scott?? Scott?? I thought it was Tyler! Not that it matters- but one of us may have something wrong with our eyes.

But I agree that was the point they were trying to make, and I don't really see it happening. It's a little like what people were talking about with Keller and Carter in the Trio scene- it didn't feel right that a Colonel would be that close with someone in his/her command. I don't see it but that's clearly the point they were trying to make. And, of course, we'll find out why in the next episode.

No, you're right! I just had Scott on the brain!

[Sappho]

I don't know if this was addressed, but in the movie, Jack's son was named Scott (you see it on the frame). Do you think the name change to Charlie in the TV series was to imply a closer relationship between Jack and Kawalsky? I think so considering how the series goes on to show Jack and Charlie on earlier missions together. The name change maybe came in to imply Charlie the boy was named for Kawalsky. Otherwise, why not keep the same name from the movie?

PS And the mountain complex name changed too.

edit: I was very close to two of my Chiefs in the Navy. Our families hung out together off base and it was not a big deal. And all my supervisors thought of me as their little sister and treated me as such.

I think the name change must have been significant in that way, but then it has me wondering why on Earth they put in the line about Kawalsky not knowing Jack had a son.

And I think the mountain complex name was changed (from Creek to Cheyenne) once they got authorization to go film at the actual mountain complex for the series. (I've always thought that was awesome!)

Hi - long-time lurker coming out of the shadows here.

I tend to discount the movie as canon for the series as it merely establishes that the Stargate exists, that travel through a wormhole exists, sarcophagi (?plural?)exist and provides a frame work for the "Children of the Gods".

Welcome to the rewatch! And I think that's a great way to take the movie. It started it all, but there is so much more to the SG universe now, and since much of it contradicts the movie, I usually just use the movie as a jumping off point.

Scott?? Scott?? I thought it was Tyler! Not that it matters- but one of us may have something wrong with our eyes.

But I agree that was the point they were trying to make, and I don't really see it happening. It's a little like what people were talking about with Keller and Carter in the Trio scene- it didn't feel right that a Colonel would be that close with someone in his/her command. I don't see it but that's clearly the point they were trying to make. And, of course, we'll find out why in the next episode.

I don't find it too odd that he would be friends with someone under his command. After all, if I'm remembering Gamekeeper right, they were both captains in the AF at the same time. Not everyone gets promoted at the same time and so they probably served together at times...

[Mac Jackson]

I'm really starting to get excited about the new movie! I need that confirmation!