Sam Carter/Amanda Tapping Discussion/Appreciation

[SG1Poz]

That really breaks my heart , she's been with MS and CJ since the beginning of the show, working together for 9 years, and she didn't know if she belonged

I think she meant that she wasn't there when the new group bonded.
I can understand where she's coming from. To be honest that's how I kind of felt here when I first de-lurked and began posting a little more. The group of folks who frequented here since it's beginning have really 'bonded' but with the warm welcome and common interest (AT and Sam! ) I now feel settled in and comfortable.

[minigeek]

The group of folks who frequented here since it's beginning have really 'bonded' but with the warm welcome and common interest (AT and Sam! ) I now feel settled in and comfortable.

LOL - and my approach was far less admirable. I just showed up, took a quick look around and promptly burrowed in like a hungry tick until I got my share of the blood. ;p Ha, no illusions there!

[Mandysg1]

I also got the feeling of "if you can't say something nice..." I also wonder if she has been reading this thread because she seemed to talk about things we have discussed here

[Myrth]

Thankyou mini.... I was pondering how best to address those same points and as usualy you've done it for me

We can't turn around and say she's "party lining it". I'm not sure Amanda really party lines anything. As mini said she highlights and promotes the positive aspects. There is a difference.

Although we may not agree with all points, Amanda is actually as entitled to her opinion of the show as much as anyone else.

I'm glad she's enjoying it still to be honest with you. I'd be more concerned if she weren't...

and the breast pump visual... lol.. oh dear [shakes head in amusement].. meanwhile when did they invent a 4am? Is that Canadian thing

but that's part of what I love about Amanda. She's real.. and she has thoughts and feelings on this the same as the rest of us do, but she also has inside info we'll never be privvy to. Let's have some respect for her view point before accusing her of being insincere... I'm sure we'd all want the same courtesy.

One of the many things I admire greatly about Amanda is the fact that she's always has class and grace in her words, where by comparison I often don't. It's easy to point out the flaws, true grace comes in finding the good. It's one of those things I'm trying to learn.

Guys, you have to also figure in that she's got a role to play as an ambassador to both the series and whatever direction her character is going in, too. Lets say (for the sake of argument) that she had issues with some of the stories and/or that she wasn't as thrilled with this season's arc or character development than in previous seasons - there's no way she could or would ever use a mainstream magazine interview as a platform for that, it would be unprofessional of her. Amanda can be honest in these interviews in so far as she talks about the things she does see as potentially (or practically) positive, and that she doesn't talk about the things she isn't as thrilled about. In that way, she can express herself without purjoring herself or compromising her integrity, while still fulfilling her role as an ambassador for SG-1 (the series). That's what these interviews are about. PR.

Having said that, I think Amanda always tries to look at what can be positive, from what I've seen and read of everything she's ever said. She seems to want to help be a part of whatever good can come from whatever situation arises, so she'll try and affect that optimisim forward, and that's both a healthy and an admirable quality to have. If she dislikes her role or the series itself, one would have to ask why she'd continue, after so many years. These folks are her family, and she wants them to succeed, she wants things to work out - for everyone - and so she's going to give them all the support she can to help make that happen. Again, a really admirable quality to have, if you ask me.

As to the tone of the article, when I read it, it seemed to me almost as though she felt she needed to defend some of the decisions that were made; as though the inference went without saying that "it wasn't as good as" or "it wasn't as deep as" - hence she made a point to say, "Well, we're going in a new direction so..." or "We're developing a new dynamic, which is why...", or "We couldn't do things (this way) so we had to do them (that way)..." - read between the lines and know that they're all struggling with how best to keep the show fresh and maintain its impact and its enjoyability. But they all also seem to get the fact that it isn't "what it was" (in any respect, really). So maybe there's hope for season ten after all.

The optimist in me would love to think so, anyhow.

minigeek

[chocdoc]

Guys, you have to also figure in that she's got a role to play as an ambassador to both the series and whatever direction her character is going in, too. Lets say (for the sake of argument) that she had issues with some of the stories and/or that she wasn't as thrilled with this season's arc or character development than in previous seasons - there's no way she could or would ever use a mainstream magazine interview as a platform for that, it would be unprofessional of her. Amanda can be honest in these interviews in so far as she talks about the things she does see as potentially (or practically) positive, and that she doesn't talk about the things she isn't as thrilled about. In that way, she can express herself without purjoring herself or compromising her integrity, while still fulfilling her role as an ambassador for SG-1 (the series). That's what these interviews are about. PR.

Having said that, I think Amanda always tries to look at what can be positive, from what I've seen and read of everything she's ever said. She seems to want to help be a part of whatever good can come from whatever situation arises, so she'll try and affect that optimisim forward, and that's both a healthy and an admirable quality to have. If she dislikes her role or the series itself, one would have to ask why she'd continue, after so many years. These folks are her family, and she wants them to succeed, she wants things to work out - for everyone - and so she's going to give them all the support she can to help make that happen. Again, a really admirable quality to have, if you ask me.

As to the tone of the article, when I read it, it seemed to me almost as though she felt she needed to defend some of the decisions that were made; as though the inference went without saying that "it wasn't as good as" or "it wasn't as deep as" - hence she made a point to say, "Well, we're going in a new direction so..." or "We're developing a new dynamic, which is why...", or "We couldn't do things (this way) so we had to do them (that way)..." - read between the lines and know that they're all struggling with how best to keep the show fresh and maintain its impact and its enjoyability. But they all also seem to get the fact that it isn't "what it was" (in any respect, really). So maybe there's hope for season ten after all.

The optimist in me would love to think so, anyhow.

minigeek

Great points, minigeek.

I read her comments in a similar way. I don't see AT singing high praises for the show (I don't think she has yet in an interview), actually, but she is suggesting some postives about the show, as I would expect her to. She is coming back in season 10, and I think it would be her job to say some positive things. It is the Stargate Magazine afterall. She also mentions some things she had hoped for in terms of interactions, but did provide an account of why we won't see these things in Season 9 because of the time spent on the new storylines, etc. I think she is hoping for more personal interactions in the future---she didn't say that directly but it seems logical that she would hope for that in the future since it didn't happen in season 9.

I also didn't think she meant that she hopes there is Sam/Mckay ship. I think she likes the banter with David Hewlett. She has fun with him, but I don't think that equates with wanting Sam to have any actual romantic involvement with McKay. I could be wrong though. I don't see that ever happening in between them. But they do have fun together. I could see why AT probably liked playing "Sam" in Grace Under Pressure. She could be snarky with McKay.

[minigeek]

I also got the feeling of "if you can't say something nice..." I also wonder if she has been reading this thread because she seemed to talk about things we have discussed here

Unfortunately Mandy, we're not the only ones discussing the new dynamic(s) of season nine. We may, however, be nicer about it than a lot of the other folks, offline as much as online in these forums (as ouch-worthy as that may sound). Everyone who watches the show has a point of view, and where there's one point of view there are usually several thousand others behind it.

[Uber]

Unfortunately Mandy, we're not the only ones discussing the new dynamic(s) of season nine. We may, however, be nicer about it than a lot of the other folks, offline as much as online in these forums (as ouch-worthy as that may sound). Everyone who watches the show has a point of view, and where there's one point of view there are usually several thousand others behind it.

Samanda is my happy place...but I have issues (big ol' HONKIN' issues) with Season 9 and I'll vent over at the anti-thread. That way I can keep my happy place...HAPPY.

As for Amanda? I don't think she can do party line. It goes against her ooey gooey goodness. I do think she'll focus on the positives though and that just makes her a good ambassador for the show.

[golfbooy]

As to the tone of the article, when I read it, it seemed to me almost as though she felt she needed to defend some of the decisions that were made; as though the inference went without saying that "it wasn't as good as" or "it wasn't as deep as" - hence she made a point to say, "Well, we're going in a new direction so..." or "We're developing a new dynamic, which is why...", or "We couldn't do things (this way) so we had to do them (that way)..." - read between the lines and know that they're all struggling with how best to keep the show fresh and maintain its impact and its enjoyability. But they all also seem to get the fact that it isn't "what it was" (in any respect, really). So maybe there's hope for season ten after all.

The optimist in me would love to think so, anyhow.

minigeek

You're absolutely right regarding the tone of the article. It's not as if it can be expected that Amanda Tapping or anyone who is working for Stargate can come right out and say that things have gone to pot. This is as diplomatic as AT can possibly be regarding season nine. It says alot that rather than effusively praise all things Stargate she instead tries to explain away some of the deficiancies regarding character interaction.

And, yes, I'm sure that everyone involved is acutely aware that many, many fans are diappointed and displeased with the current state of things. It's not the same show as we've been getting for eight years. And a lot fans have made no secret of the fact that they find it to be a vastly inferior, exceptionally flatter show. This is especially true for the last few weeks. That said, it's also worth noting that this interview is ass-achingly old. I know that this is how genre magazines tend to work, but there is little point in holding on to things so long that they become irrelevant. This interview took place before GABIT, before the Gateworld interview AT did, and certainly before contract stuff was hammered out. This interview is intended to be nothing but end of the year fluff. It hits all the highlights--new dynamic, great energy, new baby, new show, check out my Atlantis episode, Whoo hoo 200th episode, etc. It's nice, but it's old and it's relatively pointless.

[majorsal]

I also didn't think she meant that she hopes there is Sam/Mckay ship. I think she likes the banter with David Hewlett. She has fun with him, but I don't think that equates with wanting Sam to have any actual romantic involvement with McKay. I could be wrong though. I don't see that ever happening in between them. But they do have fun together. I could see why AT probably liked playing "Sam" in Grace Under Pressure. She could be snarky with McKay.

i actually didn't think 'ship' until amanda talked about this 'great' sexual tention between them. not seeing it. or, i see it one-sided from mckay

the last time i ignored *signs*, i got hit across the face with it shortly afterwards.

i need to get laid






sally

[golfbooy]

By the way, I've tried to green various individuals (I'm looking at you NearlyCircular) over the past few days to no avail. Does anyone know exactly how much green jello you're allowed to give out, how long you have to wait in between greening people, or how many different people you're supposed green before greening the same person again?

[minigeek]

One of the many things I admire greatly about Amanda is the fact that she's always has class and grace in her words, where by comparison I often don't. It's easy to point out the flaws, true grace comes in finding the good. It's one of those things I'm trying to learn.

I admire that in her as well. A great deal. Plus, when you consider what it would be like to work on something (anything - a project, a career, an idea) with the same core family of people for a decade, you also realize pretty quickly that it doesn't really matter whether there are downs (or pitfalls) from time to time, you support your own. You look towards helping make things work for your people and your gig. We can't really expect that there's going to be an air of clinical or analytical detachment from the artists or the crew, because they're the ones producing the outcome, it's their baby as much as it belongs to the writing team or the network. They're going to want it to work and they're going to support it as best they can, because they're all in it together. As opposed to "the fans" - who may adore the product and the artists - but who can also step back a great deal more easily and take a hard, objective look inside. Nature of the relationships involved. The creator(s) and the beneficiar(ies)

[KatG]

When I think of the mega-watt smile, it involves lots of teeth. I looked at caps from Ripple Effect, and I didn't see any teeth in that particular scene (although, it may just be that I couldn't find any caps showing them...). The closest thing I found was at the beginning of the scene with Martouf. She's definitely smiling (although her teeth, thankfully, are not nearly as blindingly white as Martouf's ), but as I recall the scene, her joy at seeing him was tempered with a great deal of angst, and therefore I didn't think the smile quite qualified as mega-watt... Close... but not quite.

Judge for yourselves:
http://www.stargatesg1971.com/ripple.../PDVD2977.html

Of course, Sam's mega-watt smiles never even approach the level of Amanda's super mega-watt smiles.

I don't have a screencap, but I think one of the best examples of the "megawatt" smile is in "Small Victories" in Sam's lab, when Jack looks at her through the microscope and says "Whatcha doin'?" Her face just lights up.

Another great example is when she's teasing Cassie about Dominic at the end of "Rite of Passage".

And no, I don't think we've seen it at all this season.

[Myrth]

Yup exactly, and part of that is that Amanda will defend the show. She's put 10 years into it. In the grand scheme, Stargate is still a far better show than many in my opinion. But more importantly, regardless of issues we may have right now, the potential for more is always there while the doors are still open.

I admire that in her as well. A great deal. Plus, when you consider what it would be like to work on something (anything - a project, a career, an idea) with the same core family of people for a decade, you also realize pretty quickly that it doesn't really matter whether there are downs (or pitfalls) from time to time, you support your own. You look towards helping make things work for your people and your gig. We can't really expect that there's going to be an air of clinical or analytical detachment from the artists or the crew, because they're the ones producing the outcome, it's their baby as much as it belongs to the writing team or the network. They're going to want it to work and they're going to support it as best they can, because they're all in it together. As opposed to "the fans" - who may adore the product and the artists - but who can also step back a great deal more easily and take a hard, objective look inside. Nature of the relationships involved. The creator(s) and the beneficiar(ies)

[SG1Poz]

Guys, you have to also figure in that she's got a role to play as an ambassador to both the series and whatever direction her character is going in, too. Lets say (for the sake of argument) that she had issues with some of the stories and/or that she wasn't as thrilled with this season's arc or character development than in previous seasons - there's no way she could or would ever use a mainstream magazine interview as a platform for that, it would be unprofessional of her. Amanda can be honest in these interviews in so far as she talks about the things she does see as potentially (or practically) positive, and that she doesn't talk about the things she isn't as thrilled about. In that way, she can express herself without purjoring herself or compromising her integrity, while still fulfilling her role as an ambassador for SG-1 (the series). That's what these interviews are about. PR.

Having said that, I think Amanda always tries to look at what can be positive, from what I've seen and read of everything she's ever said. She seems to want to help be a part of whatever good can come from whatever situation arises, so she'll try and affect that optimisim forward, and that's both a healthy and an admirable quality to have. If she dislikes her role or the series itself, one would have to ask why she'd continue, after so many years. These folks are her family, and she wants them to succeed, she wants things to work out - for everyone - and so she's going to give them all the support she can to help make that happen. Again, a really admirable quality to have, if you ask me.

As to the tone of the article, when I read it, it seemed to me almost as though she felt she needed to defend some of the decisions that were made; as though the inference went without saying that "it wasn't as good as" or "it wasn't as deep as" - hence she made a point to say, "Well, we're going in a new direction so..." or "We're developing a new dynamic, which is why...", or "We couldn't do things (this way) so we had to do them (that way)..." - read between the lines and know that they're all struggling with how best to keep the show fresh and maintain its impact and its enjoyability. But they all also seem to get the fact that it isn't "what it was" (in any respect, really). So maybe there's hope for season ten after all.

The optimist in me would love to think so, anyhow.

minigeek

Wow great post Mini! I wish I could post like that but alas, I've always been a thinker more so then a speaker.

[NearlyCircular]

Honestly, I only took the time to read Amanda and Claudia’s interviews, but I went back and skimmed some of the others. I've typed up some of BB's and MS's interviews. I did just glance at CJ's interview,and his seemed to contain more of the cheerleading type of fluff than the others did. (oh, and he says that he's curious to see how Vala and Teal'c's relationship develops next season )


In light of all our discussion about Mitchell on this thread, here’s some of Ben Browder’s take on Mitchell.

“Mitchell has been busier in the second half of the season. In the first six episodes they were not yet a team so there was no team to lead. There was less adventuring, as it were. So, once you get the team back in place, there’s more for all of SG-1 to do, in a way. As team leader, if SG-1 is busy, then Mitchell is busy.

He doesn’t really have a standard interaction with any of the characters. He has a fairly clear response in a different way to each. So, depending on the situation and who he’s interacting with he has a very different way of operating. For the team as a whole the question is where is Mitchell’s place, what is his voice? He is kind of back to the roots of the show, in his enthusiasm for getting out there, and a certain naivety and innocence, even though he is neither particularly naïve or innocent. So it’s fun to play, because you have characters he’s surrounded by who have saved the world 160 times. So for me there’s a fun element in being able to go, ‘Wow! Check that out!’

He’s an interesting sort of hybrid leader. His leadership style within the context of the team is not how most people perceive the military to be, which is a regimen of orders. His leadership style is more akin to what occurs in elite teams like Delta units, where everyone participates to the fullest of their abilities and when you need a specialist, you defer to the specialist, and defer quickly. It’s an interesting thing because Mitchell doesn’t have much in the way of technical expertise above and beyond any of the other characters. The only thing he has is enthusiasm and the ability to be a pivot point for the team. That’s an element in all forms of leadership. When you’re dealing with a team it has to do with adjusting to the team. A really good coach is always adjusting his form of leadership. Mitchell is in a very unusual situation, and he has a rather unusual team to ostensibly be leading. Hopefully he’s done a good job of it.”

And here’s some of Micheal Shank’s interview, with his views about Mitchell.

“We’re also breaking in a new colonel, so to speak. Ben [Browder] and I have talked about this. As much as his character being the leader of SG-1, it’s kind of in title and theory only, because in actuality he doesn’t lead by dictatorship, he leads by suggestion. He ‘s leading a group of people who are far more experienced than he is, one of which is equal rank with him in the military, one’s an alien and one’s a civilian. So there’s not really a lot of hierarchy for him to draw on because of his lack of experience in certain sectors. With O’Neill, Daniel was able to trust that [the action] side of things was looked after a lot more. So Daniel’s had to take a little bit more of a leadership role in certain sectors of the storytelling, not just as an advisor who sits back and watches but to make sure and saying, ‘No, we’re not going to do it that way, we’re going to do it this way, I understand your point of view but you don’t really know the lay of the land.’ It’s been a balancing act all season, I think, to find when those moments are. We’re also finding where those voices mesh together.

They did a very good job of making sure that Ben’s character didn’t walk in and was given too much assumptive knowledge. I think the audience would have rejected the idea that this person was just embraced wholesale. He’s got to earn his stripes, and both Ben and the character of Mitchell have slowly evolved that. This guy can hold his own, he’s got his own strengths. There’s a layer of reality in the characterization – we play these characters so many times for so much of the year that, obviously, some of our own personal dynamic has to take hold of these characters. I think that they did a good job of making sure that his character is as Ben is – very enthusiastic and gung-ho about stuff, but very uncertain about a lot and it’s up to us to advise him. It’s been a very natural dynamic.”

NC