Announcement

**the dancer of spaz** · 02 August 2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by NearlyCircular

IMO, you're right, Roush's turnaround was based on his love of Farscape and the addition of CB and BB. But you know, these guys are the people that sing the praises of Battlestar Galactica for being so dark and at the same time love Prometheus Unbound for being such a light-hearted romp.

They claimed that SG-1 was too compilicated, but BSG is complex and layered, therefore good. I don't get it.

NC

Yes. Stargate SG-1 has been given a hard time for a long time, and they still prevailed above the criticism to have a great eighth season. That's why, when people keep complaining that the competition has increased and that the show hasn't been promoted, I kinda laugh.

(Spoiled for whinge-ish statements)

Spoiler:

**L.A. Doyle** · 02 August 2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by the dancer of spaz

(Spoiled for whinge-ish statements)

Spoiler:

If you create something that people care about, they will want to be there to see it. If it's ho-hum....then hey, why not miss an ep for the summer blockbuster? And even though I do have issues with the current situation, I still want to watch. I went to see that movie myself-on a Saturday.

**jckfan55** · 02 August 2006, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Agent_Dark

But there are still some of us (male and female

) who would also add 'plus she's hot'

I loved in that one season preview special where AT is reading stuff from the internet and reads "Carter is hot!" in this surprised (and delighted) tone.

I am somewhat in awe of her looks & so appreciate the "thunky" photos in a platonic way, but as the other women have been saying, the character has been such a non-cliche (particularly in SciFi)--her looks aren't the focus of her character. Sam is tough, smart, caring etc. AT makes her a believable scientist and soldier. How often have we seen models or other good looking actresses trying to play scientists & being completely unbelievable? Or they make the scientist totally geeky and unattractive.
AT totally pulls off the whole package. Too bad B@B seem to be taking her for granted lately.

**Uber** · 02 August 2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by jckfan55

I loved in that one season preview special where AT is reading stuff from the internet and reads "Carter is hot!" in this surprised (and delighted) tone.

I am somewhat in awe of her looks & so appreciate the "thunky" photos in a platonic way, but as the other women have been saying, the character has been such a non-cliche (particularly in SciFi)--her looks aren't the focus of her character. Sam is tough, smart, caring etc. AT makes her a believable scientist and soldier. How often have we seen models or other good looking actresses trying to play scientists & being completely unbelievable? Or they make the scientist totally geeky and unattractive.
AT totally pulls off the whole package. Too bad B@B seem to be taking her for granted lately.

Originally posted by jckfan55

Yes, you can always count on AT. As for the rest of season 10, the lowered expectations thing is working for me. As long as an episode's not a complete train wreck, I'll probably find it ok. Which is not to say that I won't find fault with certain characters ( CM & VM) & there will likely never be enough Sam for me. I'm not even going to mention a certain inordinately handsome silver haired gent that I miss so much.

Aw. Looks like you need some lurve.

Spoilers for Off Topic Content Meant to Make jckfan (and me) SMILE:

Spoiler:

**L.A. Doyle** · 02 August 2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by jckfan55

AT totally pulls off the whole package.

Ain't that the truth!

**L.A. Doyle** · 02 August 2006, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by ÜberSG-1Fan

Spoilers for Off Topic Content Meant to Make jckfan (and me) SMILE:

Spoiler:

And LAD. *has big goofy grin plastered on face*

**Rachel500** · 02 August 2006, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by astrogeologist

<snipped for space>
Many folks keep saying that they want the writers and TPTB to provide a rationalization for Carter

Spoiler:

Originally posted by ForeverSg1

I understand what you are saying Astro, but by not giving any explanation at all it just confirms that Carter wasn't worth their time to come up with a solid reason for her absense. Nor was she worth it to write a storyline justifying her demotion to a 2IC position.

When Michael left the show in S6, we were giving an explanation as to what happened to Daniel. An entire episode revolved around his injury, his death, his ascension, and his teammates loss. We continued to see him throughout season six and when Michael returned they spent several episodes explaining what had happened to his character. When Corin left the show, they again wrote several episodes explaining what happened to Jonas.

However for Sam, even though she was gone for nearly two months, all we were given were a couple of lines of dialogue. No grand story. No worry or concern. No fallout. Just a couple of little lines in the first episode to explain where Sam had gone and then an "Oh hi Sam", when she finally returned in Beachhead. I understand you feel that by putting a voice to what happened on the show that it shows that Sam was not worthy of command, but in my opinion by not giving some sort of explanation they are basically saying Sam was not worthy period. Forget the leadership issue. We all know it will never be changed. Whether it was sexist or not. Whether we agree with it or not, I seriously doubt the writers will ever remove Mitchell from his position as leader and why would they?

They've managed to totally ignore the fact that Sam was gone for nearly two months and they even managed to take an episode that should have celebrated the return of Sam and turned it into one that glorified Vala.
<snipped>

Originally posted by NearlyCircular

But should we be surprised at the lack of back story or explanations for Sam compared to the other characters? It’s been happening since the very beginning. I looked back at the first two seasons, and it wasn’t until the ninth episode of season two before we learned as much about Sam as the rest.

My view...

Spoiler:

I can appreciate why people don't want to see the leadership of Mitchell given credence by Sam accepting it on screen (beyond the 'accepting' that is implicit in the storylines to date) or provide fodder for those extolling Mitchell as the person who should lead by providing a backstory explanation for why she moved on and came back that would do so (I don't think a backstory would necessarily do this but then who knows what we would actually get from the writers). But I agree with Foreversg1 - not to provide an explanation does more disservice to the character than providing a decent story to deal with it especially since its a given that they are never going to remove Mitchell from the leadership (although actually a storyline where the character did something so impetuous and hotheaded that he did lose the leadership would (a) be great character development for Mitchell and a great storyline for BB to play, and (b) move the leadership back to where it should be) and I would rather have something that made sense of why the character is seemingly 'fine' with it.

For me the whole Sam arc (or actually lack thereof) was one of the major weaknesses of the story-telling in S9. There is no doubt that instead of using AT's absence to create a great development moment for Sam, they treated it as an after-thought with the additional benefit that it allowed them to shuffle the character out of the leadership more easily. I personally cannot stand the fact that Beachhead seems to be written not primarily as Sam's return story but as Vala's exit story (and I quite like Vala as a character). It is poor story-telling. I also don't accept the excuse that they had a lot going on otherwise which meant they couldn't spend the time on Sam's character backstory - hey, that's the job and as writers they should be able to cope with all of the different characters and ensure they all get treated with equal respect.

I think S9 was one of the worst, if not the worst, in terms of balancing the characters in the history of the show. Interestingly I have the same view about Teal'c as I do about Sam - I find the explanation for his return to the SGC and the Tau'ri wishy-washy and not believable.

I do think in S1 there were stories that provided insight into Sam's backstory(The First Commandment, her comments about her family in Cold Lazarus, her opening scene in Children of the Gods) - in fact IMO, I think beyond COG and his wife getting kidnapped, it was Daniel who actually got less character development in terms of backstory then any of the rest.

I personally don't want to see a backstory explanation that writes the problem away but rather something that just makes sense of Sam's decisions and I also want for Sam (and Daniel and Teal'c) having a real problem with Mitchell's command on screen where the scene doesn't end with Mitchell going 'well I'm right we're doing it my way' and them all rolling their eyes and letting him do it regardless of their concerns.

On the subject of Sci-fi journalism not picking up on the blatant discrimination - my only comment is that its a sad fact that such blatant discrimination can be overlooked by the world but not surprising - it happens to women every single day in the workplace and nobody notices.

**jckfan55** · 02 August 2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by astrogeologist

Regarding Seasons 9+ and the leadership of SG-1

Spoiler:

OK, so now that they went and did what they did for Season 9

Spoiler:

Am I the only one who's stunned that there are *no* headlines (that I have found) where anyone is expressing outrage or surprise at the sexism displayed and promoted by the Stargate francise?

I am stunned. I find it difficult to believe that there aren't any articles out there denouncing what was done in terms of the leadership and the messages that it sends and promotes.

I have noticed and seen more articles promoting Stargate over the past couple of years that I had ever noticed before. Now that Star Trek is no longer producing new shows, it seems like Stargate is all over the TV Guides and the newspapers and the internet (AOL, etc.). It's being called 'The Hot New Show' and such. They've made much out of the 10th season and the 200th episode, and the record for the longest running scifi show, and the additions of the actors from Stargate, new blood, etc.

But I haven't seen anyone speak up and point out what was done in terms of the leadership of the flagship team of this 'Hot New Show'.

And, frankly, I find that weird and disturbing.

It makes me wonder if... the folks writing the articles in TV Guide, for AOL and such... haven't truly watched the series.... But rather, they are jumping on the publicity band-wagon of the longest running scifi show... I mean, it *must* have some redeeming qualities to have been around so long and to be able to still keep going when workhorses like Star Trek are closing up shop? Right?

In other words, are the folks who are writing these articles in TV Guide, for AOL and such, are they actually viewers of the show - who've watched the past 9+ years of episodes, or are they just working from a few pieces of episodes that they've caught?... or just trailers and teasers?... or are they just working from the publicity releases?

Because, if there were truly writers out there who had been watching the show over the years, then surely at least *some* of them would be commenting on the choice to write Carter out of command in Season 9! At least *some* of those writers would pose questions to the public - and put it out there where it belongs - in the light.

---------

Many folks keep saying that they want the writers and TPTB to provide a rationalization for Carter

Spoiler:

Excellent point, Astrog. She was robbed. And here I am twisting my brain into knots to think of rationalizations for B@B.

**Skydiver** · 02 August 2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by NearlyCircular

IMO, you're right, Roush's turnaround was based on his love of Farscape and the addition of CB and BB. But you know, these guys are the people that sing the praises of Battlestar Galactica for being so dark and at the same time love Prometheus Unbound for being such a light-hearted romp.

They claimed that SG-1 was too compilicated, but BSG is complex and layered, therefore good. I don't get it.

NC

well, if you notice, People magazine touts much of what is on NBC or MSNBC. that's cause people is owned by the same folks that own NBC.

wonder who owns TV Guide???

**the dancer of spaz** · 02 August 2006, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by golfbooy

No, no, I get what you're saying. I think that a small newspaper or such could print something. Sadly, it seems that the vast majority of those newspaper articles are written by folks who know (and only care to know) Stargate solely as "the show that MacGyver is on". I don't believe that the Farscapers have garnered SG-1 any more attention in most quarters than it's gotten throughout its run. TV Guide seems to be the expception in that regard. As far as most publications go, Richard Dean Anderson is still the face of Stargate. I think that that was made painfully obvious during the 200th episode festivities. So, unless it's going to be a news snippet about him, I don't see anyone else getting serious newspaper coverage at this point.

Hehe.

Spoiler:

As an aside, I think that this is one of those instances where certain media are well behind the public at large. I think that Stargate is a big deal worldwide, and I think that in the past three or four years Stargate has become more of a big deal here in the states. Given Scifi, syndication, and almost constant reruns, I think most people are well aware of the show and that the actors, while not "famous", are very recognizable. I mean, come on, at one point SG-1 was on like 15 times a week or something. As far as American media go, Stargate is probably always doomed to be "the little show that could".

You make a really good point. "The little show that could" continues to get ignored, while it makes MGM and Sci Fi quite a bit of money for its troubles. I remember the days when SG-1 was on all the time. It spoke of Sci Fi's confidence in their new baby. Living within their means, so to speak, they pimped the show for all it was worth.

Now, as they've grown tired of SG-1, I bet they're wishing they had 100+ eps of their new faves, BSG and Eureka, to run throughout the week at their leisure. It's amazing how much a network can milk from a series, when the showrunners and another network have done all the initial heavy lifting for them.

I hope that everyone involved in those two series enjoys it on top while it lasts. Sci Fi has been predictably fickle since they kissed Farscape goodbye.

And, for all my annoyance with TPKTS (a little homage to bink there), I do feel bad that they don't get the recognition or accolades they've earned from either Canadian or American critics. Even after all they've done to the show over the past year and a half, I don't understand why mainstream publications don't take a harder look at their influence on pop culture around the globe. Maybe, if more newspapers and mags had really studied Stargate's influence, TPTB would've been more willing to look inward when they made the decisions they did last year...

**Uber** · 02 August 2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by L.A. Doyle

And LAD. *has big goofy grin plastered on face*

It's the smirk that kills me every time. Man I miss him so.

**the dancer of spaz** · 02 August 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Skydiver

well, if you notice, People magazine touts much of what is on NBC or MSNBC. that's cause people is owned by the same folks that own NBC.

wonder who owns TV Guide???

Yep. That's exactly what I mean...

My first guess was AOL/Time Warner, but I'm not sure why I picked them.

It's definitely something to look into, because SG-1 has been in TV Guide a lot these days.

However, if that IS the case, it would explain why AOL is touting Stargate now.

Hmmm....

**jckfan55** · 02 August 2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by ÜberSG-1Fan

I continue to believe that, like I said before, she has been given a raw deal regarding several different things. On top of it all reigning supreme as one of the biggest slights to the actress and the character would be the leadership thing. But I'd also like to add "ship" to that list. Having it be a perpetual mystery makes Carter look wishy washy and while I enjoyed her angsty struggle as she tried to nail down how she felt and if her feelings were legitimate, they already did all that, focused on that and I think had her realize the feelings were legit and allowed her to want to explore something with Jack once the option was legally open to her.

Amanda will never hear an end of "will they or won't they" questions until they finish that story. NEVER. My perfect scenario would include an onscreen confirmation where those who appreciate it know that it's happening offscreen and those that don't have to see it. And then MOVE ON.

As much as I wish they had never gone down that road (and I occasionally use Jack's trick of putting my fingers in my ears and humming loudly to avoid it

) for the characters' sakes--and especially Sam's-- I think they should go with your scenario. Sam and Jack are together. Now MOVE ON.

**L.A. Doyle** · 02 August 2006, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by jckfan55

Excellent point, Astrog. She was robbed. And here I am twisting my brain into knots to think of rationalizations for B@B.

Robbed is right. I've read that TPTB had wanted BB for a long time. (I've got nothing against BB, this is a mini rant to TPTB) So they finally get him. AT is conveniently off having a baby. Instead of holding her and her character's rightful position, they give it away. Amanda has invested years of her life to the show! Her character worked hard and deserved to (still)lead. But they needed to have BB. They just had to have him! I almost feel like they've kick Amanda to the curb. I know they haven't-she's still on the show and doing a great job with what she's been given. But talk about a lack of respect.

**Tok'Ra Hostess** · 02 August 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by majorsal

can't green you

BRAVO! BRAAAAVOOO!!

we've went from the ocean depth of seasons 1-8 to a little kids' wading pool!

sally

Yup, ssshhhhhaaaallllooooow.

Gawd! I never used to be so negative about the show. It's just... so... frustrating to see such interesting concepts so poorly realized.

I prefer Atlantis to SG-1 now precisely because, in amongst all the action and SFX and stuff, the main cast actually get to react to each other.

Announcement

Sam Carter/Amanda Tapping Discussion/Appreciation

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment