Welcome to GateWorld Forum! If this is your first visit, we hope you'll sign up and join our Stargate community. If you have questions, start with the FAQ. We've been going strong since 2004, are we are glad you are here.
regarding your spoiled/whited out part: i didn't think sam behaved bad in that department. how/why did you?
sally
Strong words for my mild opinion:
Spoiler:
I was referring to Sam's comment and demeanor when she told Pete "I thought you'd react differently." As AT herself said and I agreed, that seemed callous for her character.
Just sayin', it still jars me when I watch that scene although I'm glad the deed was done.
Actually Ben does have a point in regards to how the military handles things. Case in point, my pop is retired Navy and as his dependant, my mom sees a military doc as her primary care doc. Just last night she informed me that yet again, she will have to go to a NEW doc due to the fact that her last one is no longer stationed at the Army hospital she goes to to see the doc.
The military (no matter what branch) does stuff like that all the time, regardless of whether or not there is a seasoned leader already there. Personally, it's all about politics if you ask me. Seems to be the same here.
BB is a great guy and very humble (sometimes...he can be a ham though. ). He has had nothing but praise for the cast/crew of the show. Trust me, if he didn't like someone on the show, he would be polite and that's about all. He wouldn't praise them, imho if he didn't think they were worthy of it.
sigpic
I prefer to be called Sunny, Sun or SK. Thanks.
Actually Ben does have a point in regards to how the military handles things.
Trying to play the "reality-of-the-military" card at the same time SG-1 has 'co-leaders' is an insult. If no-one's willing to talk about the real reason, they should just shut up about it.
you know, barrett would have worked, but *only* if they'd picked a different guy to play him. (would you say i have issues with who they pick to play sam's men? ) anyhoo, i just don't find that actor sexually stimulating, so i don't want to see it happening between sam and him.
but storywise, barrett 'would' have worked better. better for the storyline, and much, much better for the sam carter character.
sally
You have issues with Sam's men? No way.
Personally I think Agent Barrett is adorable. In fact if I wasn't married I'd take him myself.
Actually Ben does have a point in regards to how the military handles things. [snip] He has had nothing but praise for the cast/crew of the show. Trust me, if he didn't like someone on the show, he would be polite and that's about all. He wouldn't praise them, imho if he didn't think they were worthy of it.
Aw, Sunny, no defense of Ben is necessary. No one said Ben was being negative. Or that he was attacking fellow cast members. Quite the opposite in fact. He was very charming and understated.
As to politics in the military (I'm quite sure you're right about their prevelance). In this instance, however, I don't see the connection to canon.
Cameron Mitchell didn't get his posting at the SGC because of Washington politics. He got his position because of Network politics
Seriously.
Washington wasn't even involved (in so far as canon is concerned). If you recall, Jack O'Neill promised Cameron Mitchell any position he wanted after he recovered from his ordeal in the Antarctic. Mitchell then chose to join SG-1.
I'm fairly certain Jack didn't have the intention of placing Mitchell in a superior position to Carter on SG-1 at that time. It simply wouldn't have made sense. Especially since a) she'd already moved on to head up R&D and b) she had already held the military command position of SG-1 the year previous.
I do like the Cam Mitchell character well enough, but there's no justifyable way to say that it was somehow Washington or the Pentagon who dictated Mitchell's position with the newly assembled SG-1 (after the point that Sam Carter returned to the SGC). It was nothing more than a poorly contrived plot device dictated by a network point-of-view. The point-of-view which holds that a male action hero must be "in charge". Plain and simple.
I will add this. Since Pentagon-politics played no actual (canon) role in Mitchell's posting to the SGC, his 'leadership' simply didn't wash for me. Had they at least acknowledged there was Washington and/or Pentagon politics at play therein, I could have far more easily stomached the decision quite frankly. But they didn't. TPTB decided to make SG-1 a co-leader situation because even they were forced to acknowledge the truth of the rational inconsistency they'd given birth to.
At the end of the day (any day you choose), Sam Carter is still the better qualified (and inarguably the more experienced) team-leader for the SG-1 field unit. And with no (rational) explanation to the contrary, she really should be leading the team now that she's returned to active field-duty.
mini
Last edited by minigeek; 05 January 2006, 10:16 AM.
Live On Stage in Toronto - August 8,9,10 2008 ~all proceeds to benefit charity~
Trying to play the "reality-of-the-military" card at the same time SG-1 has 'co-leaders' is an insult. If no-one's willing to talk about the real reason, they should just shut up about it.
I think that particular card has LONG SINCE departed the 'deck'....those who want to apply that standard should apply it across the board, from ridiculous non-regulation tank tops to
Spoiler:
nepotism at the SGC to why Vala isn't in the brig for stealing Promethius....
1.)
Spoiler:
There's a serious conflict of interest having the Chief Medical Officer be the base commander's daughter in that she has the power to relieve him of duty.
2.) I realize Vala literally chained herself to Daniel but once that was over she should have been drop-kicked in the brig where Daniel could pinch her head on the monitor instead of trading inane/banal one liners. Instead she has access to top secret files in what is supposedly the 'world's most closely guarded secret facility'.
3. I could go on, but I think we've covered 'military verisimilitude' on this thread before....
Again, I appreciate BB towing the company line so to speak. But I'm finding that line to be a bit of an appeal to ignorance IMHHHHO. This is just my opinion though.
If you immediately know the ep stinks, the writers were cooked a long time ago
Member of Gategrrlz Gone Wild
proud Shore Leave 28 Attendee
Naughty Shore Leave 29 Attendee (sorry all but thanks for the rescue. many many thanks)
Sadly I think I may have been a Sam/Jack shipper at one time, but over the years I think I've become more of an Amanda/RDA shipper. Don't worry, it's not like I have this desire to see the two of them hook up or anything. I just believe that the things I actually enjoyed most about Sam & Jack's relationship in the earlier seasons were probably never really written to be shippy. It was just AT & RDA's natural chemistry that sort of bleed into the characters of Sam & Jack. Lord knows the things I always loved about them started to disappear as soon as the writers got their hands on the relationship.
In my personally opinion they should...either sh*t or get off the damn pot.
Maybe then we could all finally have some closure and move on.
You make some great points, Forever (as usual.) I would have been fine with a little hint of flirtiness that came from AT & RDA's chemistry but never having it directly addressed. I mean they're two very attractive people and not blind. I object to the cliche of the situation and ham handed treatment of the relationship that we got. Still if I can't deny it happened (but I *try* ) the phrase you used above has entered my mind more than once.
Re: Sam's handling of the Pete situation. I think her
Spoiler:
break up with him
was more clumsy than evil. If Pete had been written a bit differently, I would have bought more
Spoiler:
that she *wanted* him to be the one, but it ultimately wasn't going to work.
As it stood, I thought he would have been ok for a few dates and some social life for a change. Of course that would have to have been without the stalking...
Last edited by jckfan55; 05 January 2006, 12:20 PM.
Comment