Sam Carter/Amanda Tapping Discussion/Appreciation

[Osiris-RA]

she does sometimes put words out there to provoke a reaction (like the 'TPTB told me that don't know what to do with Sam') but you know what? I trust her judgement enough that when she does ocasionally choose to make a provocative statement like that it's for a damn good reason

I think that statement she made, in and of itself proves that there's something fishy going behind the writing desk of SG1 - and no doubt, Amanda's on to it. That kind of deliberate character sabotage would drive me - if I were an actor - far away from a show, but then again and more importantly, one does have to get paid. *shrug*

[AmberLM]

I think that statement she made, in and of itself proves that there's something fishy going behind the writing desk of SG1 - and no doubt, Amanda's on to it. That kind of deliberate character sabotage would drive me - if I were an actor - far away from a show, but then again and more importantly, one does have to get paid. *shrug*

Yeah, I take my hat off to Amanda for continuing with that amount of hostility and male chauvinism. I seriously doubt it has much to do with needing the paycheck, I'm pretty sure that if SG-1 is anything like The X-Files (or any other major show for that matter) money is by now not an issue for any of the original cast and writers. I think it comes down to more about making a statement that she won't be pushed around by the "boys' club" and I applaude her no end for that. EDIT: I also agree with Uber in the next post, I think for all the problems she has with the current character direction and behind the scenes politics she does seem to enjoy working there!

(I don't want to get into a debate about how much the actors get paid BTW, it's none of my business and, quite frankly I'd be ashamed to even ask. A friend of mine did that to someone from a TV cast that was filming at my school a long time ago and it was really cringe-worthy to observe both of their reactions! )

[Uber]

I think that statement she made, in and of itself proves that there's something fishy going behind the writing desk of SG1 - and no doubt, Amanda's on to it. That kind of deliberate character sabotage would drive me - if I were an actor - far away from a show, but then again and more importantly, one does have to get paid. *shrug*

Sure.

And she's said that she enjoys the security provided by not having to pound the pavement, knowing that she's tied so strongly to such a successful franchise.

I also believe though that she honest to goodness truly loves being there. She loves the cast. She loves the crew. I don't believe that she'd subject herself to unfair treatment (my perception here) if she didn't have such strong bonds with the people.

I don't see Amanda, for instance, as a doormat.

I believe she is incredibly savvy and knows what to release to fandom about her situation. I believe she was spot on to open her heart and share her feelings about certain misgivings at GABIT last year. On the heart side, she needed the emotional support her fans gave her. On the business side, she had to know there'd be a response but I'm guessing that she was surprised at how vehemently opposed fandom was to the potential lessening of Carter as well as how some sites actually mis-reported what she said.

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.

Now, as you saw, I focused on the secondary issue I have with how Sam is being written because I don't believe for a SECOND that they'll do her justice with regard to why they wrote away her command. Frankly, I'm only minimally hopeful that they'll conclude her Jack arc with any finesse or poise.

But then, finesse and poise aren't really funny, are they and SG-1 is a comedy now, don't you know. Or haven't you all been reading your memos?

[Linwelin]

I know...I was joking.

Oops ! Should have guessed !

I came in after it was over. Looks like we missed a good 'un!

Well, yes...

Sure.

And she's said that she enjoys the security provided by not having to pound the pavement, knowing that she's tied so strongly to such a successful franchise.

I also believe though that she honest to goodness truly loves being there. She loves the cast. She loves the crew. I don't believe that she'd subject herself to unfair treatment (my perception here) if she didn't have such strong bonds with the people.

I don't see Amanda, for instance, as a doormat.

I believe she is incredibly savvy and knows what to release to fandom about her situation. I believe she was spot on to open her heart and share her feelings about certain misgivings at GABIT last year. On the heart side, she needed the emotional support her fans gave her. On the business side, she had to know there'd be a response but I'm guessing that she was surprised at how vehemently opposed fandom was to the potential lessening of Carter as well as how some sites actually mis-reported what she said.

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.

Now, as you saw, I focused on the secondary issue I have with how Sam is being written because I don't believe for a SECOND that they'll do her justice with regard to why they wrote away her command. Frankly, I'm only minimally hopeful that they'll conclude her Jack arc with any finesse or poise.

But then, finesse and poise aren't really funny, are they and SG-1 is a comedy now, don't you know. Or haven't you all been reading your memos?

I still have hope, but that may be my eternal optimism...

[Osiris-RA]

I also believe though that she honest to goodness truly loves being there. She loves the cast. She loves the crew. I don't believe that she'd subject herself to unfair treatment (my perception here) if she didn't have such strong bonds with the people.

That's true. When one has such a cool family like that for so many years, it doesn't really matter where the show goes, really, as long as you get to hang out with them. And I'm sure on a level, it's still great fun for them to make the show - even if it's a painful show to watch.

I guess I'll have to suck it up and be optimistic too, huh?

[AmberLM]

That's true. When one has such a cool family like that for so many years, it doesn't really matter where the show goes, really, as long as you get to hang out with them. And I'm sure on a level, it's still great fun for them to make the show - even if it's a painful show to watch. :-S

I guess I'll have to suck it up and be optimistic too, huh?

Count me in for some of that, Osiris! I sort of know what you mean, I've just left high school and I'm gonna miss my friends terribly but I was at the point where I hated almost everything about the school system in general; I just felt like I had to apologise for who I was, I either fitted in with the straight A students or my school wasn't interested. It's not quite the same situation but I think with my friends it was the same kind of feeling, in some ways I don't really want to leave school because it was the place I got to see my amazing friends.

[ForeverSg1]

Regarding Seasons 9+ and the leadership of SG-1

Spoiler:

ShimmeringStar said it wonderfully in her post

They are following a formula

The Lead Male Formula

AT said that Shephard is the mirror of Mitchell in terms of their roles on Atlantis and SG-1. The article recognized their positions (lead males of their respective shows).

Ben Browder is actually given the number '1' on his scripts. AT is given the number '2', CJ is '3', etc. I would venture to guess that MS is '4' (to go along with his one season departure and then return).

AT said that her role as Carter is the mirror of McKay. (I really hate that comparison, but I think she's referring to the 'science geek'/technobabble role... ...

TPTB said that they wanted to 'go back to the early years of SG-1'... who had a clue that that meant putting Sam back into the role of following the Lead Male CO/leader of the team?

I thought it meant exploring new worlds through the Stargate, team missions, team episodes, fresh new enthusiasm, cools stories, etc. I was blindsided by the fact that they meant the Lead Male in Charge Formula (they started the series with RDA as their one actor who was well known, and banked on his name and popularity to help draw in viewers).

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:

not having command, and for Mitchell retaining it. That they want to see how and why Carter would be OK with such a thing.

I disagree with this vehemently.

The fact that it *hasn't* been nicely packaged and sold to the viewers is the *only* honest thing about this nastiness.

It shouldn't be rationalized away in the script.
It shouldn't be written away that Carter somehow is OK with it or doesn't want to lead the team.

It wasn't done for Carter.

It was done because they were following a Lead Male Formula.
That's the honest truth.

And you can't write that into the script, so please don't let them write in some other garbage - because once they do, a lot of folks are going to accept it. Once it's in the script, it becomes canon - and it's going to get thrown into the faces of Carter fans repeatedly and continuously. Carter's not in command because she doesn't want it (yeah, right). Carter's not in command because she's not the best qualified... Carter's not in command because Mitchell's more qualified.... Carter's not in command because she wants to concentrate on her science... ya dee ya dee yah! Gag! All just contrivances because the show's PTB wanted to follow the Lead Male Formula and they didn't have the guts to write a show where the team was led by a female!

Please, please don't let it be allright that they write something into the scripts that somehow 'explains' or 'justifies' what they did to the character when it was truly something that had nothing to do with the character's development and everything to do with their perception of $$$.

-------

Quite often AT will let the fans in on stuff that she uses to help herself understand a scene or an episode - the 'backstory' that she will create... such as Grace being Sam's inner child, or that the house in Ascension was once her fathers/her family home...

But not once has AT said what she uses to explain to herself why Carter would be OK with Mitchell having command of SG-1 instead of Carter.

I like that honesty.
I like it a lot.

It lets the truth stand on it's own.

ETA (Edited To Add): putting a rationalization into the script would allow them to effectively 'sweep this under the rug' - and that would be deplorable. As long as it's not rationalized into an episode script, then it's not hidden, it's not 'swept under the rug', and folks can't truly justify what was done to the character, or in terms of the message regarding women in leadership roles. If they rationalize it within the episode scripts, then they get to duck the reality of what they did - they would get off with little or no consequences, without having to even admit what they did (unless they felt magnanimous enough to do so).

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. They completely ignored the fact that she was once the leader of SG-1 or refused to even hint that Daniel and Teal'c still respected and supported her. In fact, Sam's been written to show absolutely no interest or concern for her old position at all. So why on earth would the writers even attempt to make Sam leader of SG-1 again?

One can say that's it's all about timing. They didn't have time to write a decent explanation regarding Sam because they were forced to introduce a whole new enemy. Well you know what? We had five freaking episodes with Daniel and Vala that really told me very little about the Ori other than the fact that they are the new bad guys.

Spoiler:

Now we know that Michael will be away four episodes this year due to family leave and from what I have read the writers haven't simply written him out of the storyline line with no explanation. We won't simply hear from one of the guys that Daniel is off on a special archeological dig. No from what I have read they have written the storyline around his absense so that Daniel's absense has purpose and I can almost guarantee you when Daniel finally does return he will be welcomed back to SG-1 in the position he had before he left and the characters will show an interest in what happened to him.

In the meantime, the writers will continue to rewrite Sam's life in order to make her appear even more unworthy of the position she once had on SG-1. They will continue to dumb her down and put her in situations where instead of saving the day, she will be the one in need of saving and they will continue to ignore all the important things that made Sam such a great character. Because in my mind, they just don't consider her worthy of their time any longer. They really don't know what to do with her character anymore.

So while I completely understand what you are saying Astro, I don't agree with it. Because in my opinion, Sam might as well have been invisible for the past two years because that is the way they have treated the character. They have overlooked every wonderful quality she used to have and ignored her as if she were invisible. And as long as the writers continue to ignore all these aspects about Sam, then she will continue to be invisible and unworthy.

[the dancer of spaz]

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.

Yes! Thank you for posting that. It is quite disturbing that there's been so much press, yet none of the journalists seem to have a vested enough interest in the show to point that minor detail out.

Spoiler:

It would seem to me that the journalists have just kept to the status quo in this situation. Either they don't care enough to mention it, or they don't see a problem with it. Either way... You'd think that, in this day an age, there'd be a journalist SOMEWHERE (at some small, little paper that had nothing to "lose"), who'd watched the show for years, and who'd be ready and willing to call the people at Bridge on this little move.

It'd be great to see how TPTB would respond to it.

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

Spoiler:

not having command, and for Mitchell retaining it. That they want to see how and why Carter would be OK with such a thing.

I disagree with this vehemently.

The fact that it *hasn't* been nicely packaged and sold to the viewers is the *only* honest thing about this nastiness.

It shouldn't be rationalized away in the script.
It shouldn't be written away that Carter somehow is OK with it or doesn't want to lead the team.

It wasn't done for Carter.

It was done because they were following a Lead Male Formula.
That's the honest truth.

And you can't write that into the script, so please don't let them write in some other garbage - because once they do, a lot of folks are going to accept it. Once it's in the script, it becomes canon - and it's going to get thrown into the faces of Carter fans repeatedly and continuously. Carter's not in command because she doesn't want it (yeah, right). Carter's not in command because she's not the best qualified... Carter's not in command because Mitchell's more qualified.... Carter's not in command because she wants to concentrate on her science... ya dee ya dee yah! Gag! All just contrivances because the show's PTB wanted to follow the Lead Male Formula and they didn't have the guts to write a show where the team was led by a female!

Please, please don't let it be allright that they write something into the scripts that somehow 'explains' or 'justifies' what they did to the character when it was truly something that had nothing to do with the character's development and everything to do with their perception of $$$.

-------

Quite often AT will let the fans in on stuff that she uses to help herself understand a scene or an episode - the 'backstory' that she will create... such as Grace being Sam's inner child, or that the house in Ascension was once her fathers/her family home...

But not once has AT said what she uses to explain to herself why Carter would be OK with Mitchell having command of SG-1 instead of Carter.

I like that honesty.
I like it a lot.

It lets the truth stand on it's own.

ETA (Edited To Add): putting a rationalization into the script would allow them to effectively 'sweep this under the rug' - and that would be deplorable. As long as it's not rationalized into an episode script, then it's not hidden, it's not 'swept under the rug', and folks can't truly justify what was done to the character, or in terms of the message regarding women in leadership roles. If they rationalize it within the episode scripts, then they get to duck the reality of what they did - they would get off with little or no consequences, without having to even admit what they did (unless they felt magnanimous enough to do so).

Wow. You know... I never thought of it like that before, to be honest. But, now that you've put it into perspective, I do agree. Now that they haven't taken the time to rationalize, let them deal with it later. Let them deal with the truth for what it is.

Spoiler:

A large part of me hopes to see this issue thoroughly addressed in future documentaries on the franchise. If the mother show is ending on a complete 180 degree turn of how it started, I hope people will analyze the series just as people have analyzed Trek, and see what happened during the last two years of the series' existence. If that's partially how they're all remembered, that's no one's fault but their own.

Wishful thinking? I dunno. It's so blatantly obvious now... I'd imagine it'll be obvious five or ten years from now, too.


ETA: I understand what you're saying too, Forever. I had to skim through a bit of what you said, because I didn't want to get too bitter before I edited this post ( I'm just being honest here).

Spoiler:

A lot of what they've done is ridiculous - and, by a lot, I mean 98%. It's a waste of a perfectly good character, and it's negated the hard work AT has put into that character. Essentially, just as they've ignored the character's contribution to the team, it would seem that they've ignored the actor's contribution to the series/franchise. It's not right. And, as passive as this sounds, I honestly believe that what goes around, comes around.

By the time everyone in charge fully realizes what they've done (if they haven't already *scoff* ), I'd like to think that AT will be far, far, far away from Bridge, Sci Fi and MGM. Because that's where my beef comes from - what they've done to Carter, they've done to AT.

*shrug*

Whatever. I'm perfectly content with Seasons 1-8, anyway. If I want to see Stargate SG-1 (the real one), I can just pretend like the series finale was "Moebius, Part 2." The last two seasons were the third spin-off, "Starship: TNG" or some other nonsense.

[Osiris-RA]

Count me in for some of that, Osiris! I sort of know what you mean, I've just left high school and I'm gonna miss my friends terribly but I was at the point where I hated almost everything about the school system in general; I just felt like I had to apologise for who I was, I either fitted in with the straight A students or my school wasn't interested. It's not quite the same situation but I think with my friends it was the same kind of feeling, in some ways I don't really want to leave school because it was the place I got to see my amazing friends.

Quite what I'm saying! People like to hang with people who make them feel good and who are awesome to be around. That feeling was one of the first things that that drew me to Stargate actually. You could - and sometimes still can - feel the chemistry just oozing through the screen. I could understand braving a hostile situation if there's a reason to stick around.

And ditto with you on school. I hated my high school with a vengance. Some of my friends are the only thing that got me through that experience.

[RepliCartertje]

ok it is here already the 3th of august so...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TJ

[Gate gal]

Amanda who?

Funny!

[the dancer of spaz]

*peeks around corner and pounces TJ*

Happy Birthday, Tracy Jane!!!!

[golfbooy]

Yes! Thank you for posting that. It is quite disturbing that there's been so much press, yet none of the journalists seem to have a vested enough interest in the show to point that minor detail out.

Spoiler:

It would seem to me that the journalists have just kept to the status quo in this situation. Either they don't care enough to mention it, or they don't see a problem with it. Either way... You'd think that, in this day an age, there'd be a journalist SOMEWHERE (at some small, little paper that had nothing to "lose"), who'd watched the show for years, and who'd be ready and willing to call the people at Bridge on this little move.

It'd be great to see how TPTB would respond to it.

Well, you've got to understand that 99% of the interviews and articles we get on Stargate come from the likes of SFX, Dreamwatch, or even The Official SG-1 Magazine. These magazines exist solely because shows like SG-1 continue to be made. You're never going to see a hint of dissatisfaction or conflict put out in those magazines, period. And that's nothing personal; it really is just business. To be perfectly honest, I'm shocked that Titan Publishing is even able to pull a profit given what I assume is a very small, albeit dedicated, readership. As for TV Guide, it's sort of the same thing. Perhaps you're more likely to see something in there after the show stops being made, but for now they're like everyone else. In fact, they're even worse in a way. For years SG-1 was shunned by TV Guide, only to have the show never go away or be dismissed by the fans, no matter what derrogatory comments got printed. It's only recently that TV Guide has begrudgingly accepted that SG-1 does indeed have to be reported on. It's longevity and staying power can't be ignored. To do so at this point would only make TV Guide look foolish and out of the loop. So for now, particularly during the 200 episode bonanza, Stargate really is cool. The addition of the Farscape darlings to the show has allowed the folks at TV Guide a small excuse for it's newfound coverage, but that excuse is about as thin as Kate Moss after a three week cocaine binge.

The only reason that Michael Shanks' departure from the show got the attention it did has to due with the manner in which he left. I guarantee that if MS hadn't made a concerted effort to slam the show, then no magazine or interviewer would ever have spoken ill of the great financial beast that is Stargate. Even during that fiasco, journalists were very careful to remain neutral, strictly documenting comments made without the slightest bit of editorializing. Like it or not, Stargate's existence has become very, very profitable for many people. Much wrong will be forgiven and ignored in order to for that to continue. The growing sense of a "franchise" is far too sexy and momentous for magazines to get in the way of, especially if the perpetuation of that franchise helps ensure years of content down the line.

Also, I feel the need to be clear. I'm in no way passing judgement on anyone here. I can't say that I'd do things any differently if I had as large a financial stake in SG-1 as all of these people do. This is just the way things are, for good and bad.

I'll shut up now.

[AmberLM]

Well, you've got to understand that 99% of the interviews and articles we get on Stargate come from the likes of SFX, Dreamwatch, or even The Official SG-1 Magazine. These magazines exist solely because shows like SG-1 continue to be made. You're never going to see a hint of dissatisfaction or conflict put out in those magazines, period. And that's nothing personal; it really is just business. To be perfectly honest, I'm shocked that Titan Publishing is even able to pull a profit given what I assume is a very small, albeit dedicated, readership. As for TV Guide, it's sort of the same thing. Perhaps you're more likely to see something in there after the show stops being made, but for now they're like everyone else. In fact, they're even worse in a way. For years SG-1 was shunned by TV Guide, only to have the show never go away or be dismissed by the fans, no matter what derrogatory comments got printed. It's only recently that TV Guide has begrudgingly accepted that SG-1 does indeed have to be reported on. It's longevity and staying power can't be ignored. To do so at this point would only make TV Guide look foolish and out of the loop. So for now, particularly during the 200 episode bonanza, Stargate really is cool. The addition of the Farscape darlings to the show has allowed the folks at TV Guide a small excuse for it's newfound coverage, but that excuse is about as thin as Kate Moss after a three week cocaine binge.

The only reason that Michael Shanks' departure from the show got the attention it did has to due with the manner in which he left. I guarantee that if MS hadn't made a concerted effort to slam the show, then no magazine or interviewer would ever have spoken ill of the great financial beast that is Stargate. Even during that fiasco, journalists were very careful to remain neutral, strictly documenting comments made without the slightest bit of editorializing. Like it or not, Stargate's existence has become very, very profitable for many people. Much wrong will be forgiven and ignored in order to for that to continue. The growing sense of a "franchise" is far too sexy and momentous for magazines to get in the way of, especially if the perpetuation of that franchise helps ensure years of content down the line.

Also, I feel the need to be clear. I'm in no way passing judgement on anyone here. I can't say that I'd do things any differently if I had as large a financial stake in SG-1 as all of these people do. This is just the way things are, for good and bad.

I'll shut up now.

No, please don't shut up, you make a very excellent point!

[Lizlove]

Only because I can. Want it or not

Happy Birthday Tracy!!!!