Anti-Vala thread - For complaints about the character ONLY!

[Darth Buddha]

I have to say I find your comments quite offending.

I think you mean "quite offensive". If you can demonstrate the to be substantially fallacious, I will consider your take on my comments seriously.

Just because we appreciate someone's acting talent doesn't mean we're taking everything that's written -good or bad- about Claudia Black at face value. We're very well aware of the mechanics of press and promotion.

And yet that is exactly what the posters in question were doing. I'm not quite to the point of doing a search on you and Kalliope to come up with further examples, but if push comes to shove, I'm sure I could come up with an interesting assortment. Just the ones I recall off the top of my head are perfect examples of taking at face value anything that confirms your prejudices, and scoffing at anything that contradicts your cherished beliefs.

Do you REALLy want to play that game? If you do, I'll start a thread.

You ask if we expect actors to talk negative about their peers in commentaries and interviews citing Star Trek as an example. Regardless of what they said in I&C's we still know that they didn't get along. If there's negativity and animosity it will surface somehow.

How many years after the fact did those animosities surface?

Remember, we are talking TOS in the first example, and the animosities between Cain and Hatcher and Duchovny and Anderson weren't in the gossip rags until the show had run several years.

So for now, all we have is the promotional and product bits.. which are essentially of no value whatsoever.

To implement that everyone -SG1 actors, producers and writers - would talk positive about Claudia Black only to sell the new season is a very cynical approach IMHO.

Stargate DVD commentaries themselves always seem pretty honest to me. They DO talk about things that didn't come out the way they wanted and about collaborations that weren't as enjoyable.

I don't really care if you think they are honest.

I've already made a pretty convincing (given the obscene amount of green I've gotten (unexpectedly) in this thread) argument that product and promotion are just that. You've yet to provide me with any rationale to believe that if there were any negatives they would appear in either, or even an example of such negatives appearing in promotional or product interviews.

Is it cynical? Of course it is. If you view promotional or product materials with anything other than cynicism, given they exist to PROMOTE THE SHOW, that any negatives would be counter to the interest of those doing the talking, and that any negatives would be POTENTIALLY ACTIONABLE, I think you are being more than just a little foolish.

I await a rebuttal more substantial than "IMO" and what you find offensive.

For observers, you'll note she is "taking at face value" product materials, arguing that such materials are "honest" based on her opinion, and nothing more.

[ValaMalduran]

*sigh* Whatever.


A.

[Darth Buddha]

I guess a substantial rebuttal will not be forthcoming.

[Lida]

I guess a substantial rebuttal will not be forthcoming.

Welcome back DB, nice to see you are still your sweet, lovable, honest self. We wouldn't want you any other way.

As for the question of Vala....which is the topic, while I have not truly enjoyed the first, is it 4 now, episodes of SG-1......it is not because of Vala. She, at least, has added a somethng new. The biggest turn off has been the lack of real story telling.....this isn't the "old" Stargate.....come on, the Ori, wow, really scary....NOT!

And now this new Allience of smugglers. If these are the new villans, I have severe reservations as to the longevity of the series, and NOT because of Vala.

Will I continue to watch? Yep...hope springs eternal, and AT isn't back yet!

[GhostPoet]

I don't know why they've put her on the show....She is stupid to death... she makes stargate looks stupid and non-serious.... Season 9 would have been good if she was not on the show.....

KILL VALA please!!!!
I praise the lord that she will never come back.....

I think some people need to grow a sense of humor.

[GhostPoet]

I think you mean "quite offensive". If you can demonstrate the to be substantially fallacious, I will consider your take on my comments seriously.


And yet that is exactly what the posters in question were doing. I'm not quite to the point of doing a search on you and Kalliope to come up with further examples, but if push comes to shove, I'm sure I could come up with an interesting assortment. Just the ones I recall off the top of my head are perfect examples of taking at face value anything that confirms your prejudices, and scoffing at anything that contradicts your cherished beliefs.

Do you REALLy want to play that game? If you do, I'll start a thread.


How many years after the fact did those animosities surface?

Remember, we are talking TOS in the first example, and the animosities between Cain and Hatcher and Duchovny and Anderson weren't in the gossip rags until the show had run several years.

So for now, all we have is the promotional and product bits.. which are essentially of no value whatsoever.


I don't really care if you think they are honest.

I've already made a pretty convincing (given the obscene amount of green I've gotten (unexpectedly) in this thread) argument that product and promotion are just that. You've yet to provide me with any rationale to believe that if there were any negatives they would appear in either, or even an example of such negatives appearing in promotional or product interviews.

Is it cynical? Of course it is. If you view promotional or product materials with anything other than cynicism, given they exist to PROMOTE THE SHOW, that any negatives would be counter to the interest of those doing the talking, and that any negatives would be POTENTIALLY ACTIONABLE, I think you are being more than just a little foolish.

I await a rebuttal more substantial than "IMO" and what you find offensive.

For observers, you'll note she is "taking at face value" product materials, arguing that such materials are "honest" based on her opinion, and nothing more.

I think the real question is...why should anyone care about this? It is extremely geeky to take something so serious to begin with. You are talking like you are debating some new scientific theory..it's a SHOW. heh

[Darth Buddha]

Hey, my brain works logically almost all of the time... show, no show, news, no news, science, no science.

Why object? We have fandom for this or that, and fandom against this or that. Why not have an anti-fandom type once in a while (that'd be me)?

What Kalliope and other Claudia Black fangurls don't get is that I actually like Ms. Black's acting. I think she's pretty good. I just find their fangurl extremity revolting. I also think the weak, lame, fallacious, and otherwise lacking arguments do more to inflame the anti-Vala-CB-fargater-whatever-the-devil-you-call-it elments than further their cause. Some nice, sensible, straightforward arguments would serve so much better. But somehow, that's never enough for fandom.

I'm a scifi fan, and vapid fandoming embarasses me for all fans of the genre. Trek United embarassed me for all Trek fans when it pulled the infamous "Al Vinci" nonsense and began feuding with scifi press. Farscape fandom embarassed me when they decided to lambaste other press reports. Now Claudia Black fandom is embarassing me because they can't keep their heads screwed on straight.

Really, enough of the fandoming, just stick to the Straight Dope and you'll do JUST fine.

I think fans of SG-1 should be THANKFUL there is a notable science fiction actress like Claudia Black available to step in while Amanda Tapping is out on maternity leave. Can you imagine what would happen to the ratings if they DIDN'T have somebody to step in to round out the team? The show could suffer, and it might even imperil the oh-so-desired-already-by-rabid-fandom Season 10.

Do I think the character takes full advantage of Claudia Black's talents? Nope. Do I like the character? Not particularly. She's a comic book cutout. Not much any actress could do with that. But at least you've got somebody with good comic timing who is easy on the eyes to do it.

All in all? Vala isn't so great. Claudia Black is just fine. And of course Vala is going to end. She's not a show regular, and the few guest spots she gets down the road isn't going to kill the anti-CB-fandom element.

[Lida]

I think some people need to grow a sense of humor.

If only if it were that easy......where do we get the seeds for "sense of humor"? You find the seeds and I'll provide the water and fertilizer. There's plenty of fertilizer available, why you could probably find enough on the Forum.

Just kidding........

[the dancer of spaz]

"A sense of humor" is rather subjective and relative, don't ya think?

Hi Lida!!!

[Furling God]

Do I think the character takes full advantage of Claudia Black's talents? Nope. Do I like the character? Not particularly. She's a comic book cutout. Not much any actress could do with that. But at least you've got somebody with good comic timing who is easy on the eyes to do it.

I suspect Claudia Black is into the major plan of compensating by an excessively female character her excessively virile character in Farscape.

So she doesn't get stuck in her later career in sort of Sigourney Weaver syndrome: the tough woman.

Masterful.... hat down....

[WhatFateAlmondRoca]

Hi, Lida:

I tried to leave you more green but I've gotta spread it around a bit. I agree Lucian Alliance ooh, bad, hurt me hurt me already. Gimme a Jaffa chase any day....

A sense of humor? I'd like to grow a sense of humor? Can I get Chia Sense of Humor down at Shop-Rite???

LOL just kidding.

[TheCorpulent1]

I agree Lucian Alliance ooh, bad, hurt me hurt me already. Gimme a Jaffa chase any day....

I was getting pretty bored of the Jaffa myself. The first couple of seasons they were a decent threat, but from about season 3 onwards, it seemed like 2 bullets from a handgun could kill them, despite all their armor and vaunted healing abilities. They were neutered a long time ago.

I like the Lucian Alliance for the fact that they broaden the picture of galactic politics in Stargate. I know a lot of fans don't like the political stuff because it takes away from the action and adventure and characterization of most SG-1 episodes, but I love it.

[WhatFateAlmondRoca]

I was getting pretty bored of the Jaffa myself. The first couple of seasons they were a decent threat, but from about season 3 onwards, it seemed like 2 bullets from a handgun could kill them, despite all their armor and vaunted healing abilities. They were neutered a long time ago.

I like the Lucian Alliance for the fact that they broaden the picture of galactic politics in Stargate. I know a lot of fans don't like the political stuff because it takes away from the action and adventure and characterization of most SG-1 episodes, but I love it.

Although I meant my whole post to be kinda tongue in cheek, you have good points. My cat could prolly offa few Jaffa. Plus the Jaffa outfits are SO 90's. Although it was kinda fun to see Wayne Brady as First Prime. But yeah, he got whumped pretty easy too.

[TheCorpulent1]

I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw Wayne Brady as a Jaffa. Sorry if I misinterpreted the intent of your post, but it brings up something that's bothered me. I've seen a lot of complaints that the new villains aren't scary enough, which makes me wonder, did anyone really find the Goa'uld or Jaffa very scary?

[Sum1]

I personally dislike Vala as a character from the 4 episodes I've seen her in (PU, Avalon I and II, and Origin), ans would be more than happy to see her disappear forever at this point. I haven't seen anything in her character that shows any real depth to her. All the depth people here always talk about seem to me to be things they are giving her, essentially inferring that she has, while in reality no real depth has been shown.

I personally think it's very sad that we lose excellent recurring characters like Janet Frasier and Jacob Carter for this kind of nonsense. Janet and Jacob had interesting dynamics with the rest of the cast and some real depth to their characters. Even much more minor characters in the past seemed to have more depth that Vala does.

Has anyone else here noticed that whenever Amanda is not in an episode we get to see this terrible type of character come on the scene? Granted, the only episodes she hasn't been in up until now have been Prometheus Unbound and the ones on right now, but it's still interesting. It's as though the writers think that without her, only some sexed up alien will manage to keep the ratings afloat.

I really am interested in reading the original plans for season 9 when Vala was not supposed to be in it, but Carter. Joe Mallozzi did answer a question about it on his thread and clearly stated she wasn't supposed to appear - sometimes fate can be very cruel indeed. I really hope she either gets some depth in her last few episodes or disappears along with Anise (now there's a dynamic that would be interesting to see - they can give each other advice on what to wear).

I shudder to think what would happen if Amanda Tapping decides to leave the show permanently - chances are we'd get more of this trash permanently and that's not only unfortunate for a show that has been successful for years without it, but also for Claudia Black for having to portray it.