S10: Critique & Contemplation

[RealmOfX]

Okay. I lose. I can't win, so I must lose.

Lightsabre is that you?

[KatG]

Okay. I lose. I can't win, so I must lose.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

That you would probably win.

[Melora]

Lightsabre is that you?

So you're experiencing a little déjà vu too, huh?


It's almost as good as having the WSL thread back again.

[Vladius]

Well, there's no convincing any of you that the writers are nothing more than sexist and mediocre in the way they handled seasons 9 and 10. Huah.

EDIT: I would like to hear of this person who does not know how to spell "lightsaber."

[EvenstarSRV]

Wow, I missed quite the conversation today. I don't have enough green for all of you guys, but consider this some virtual green.

Just a comment on Sam whumping, I made up whumping lists for the original 4 SG-1 characters last year (yes I do sometimes need to get a life ), and the Sam character has actually been shown getting injured more than any other in Stargate.

Well, there's no convincing any of you that the writers are nothing more than sexist and mediocre in the way they handled seasons 9 and 10. Huah.

I personally can't say whether the writers are sexist or not as I don't know any of them. But I do think the way they and the other producers/execs handled season 9 and 10 was quite mediocre.

[Ulkesh47]

Just a comment on Sam whumping, I made up whumping lists for the original 4 SG-1 characters last year (yes I do sometimes need to get a life ), and the Sam character has actually been shown getting injured more than any other in Stargate.

Wow, really? Even more than Jack???

[jckfan55]

No, they have zero problems with women in a leadership role. Stop seeing sexism where there is none. (Why would Elizabeth Weir and Samantha Carter be in charge of the lost city of Atlantis if that were true?)
.

SGA off-topic:

Spoiler:

The women who lead SGA didn't do much leading. They administrated. In Weir's case she was allowed to be -and was- over-ruled by Shep any time he decided it was a safety issue. Face it. The show was about energy-sucking aliens trying to eat humans. When *wasn't* it about safety? Sam was slightly better. But in an effort to integrate her they made to bend to Shep's knowledge too much. She listened to him, agreed with him and send him on his way. Whoop-de-do. Woolsey.. well at least they didn't allow him to lead either. But by that point imo they were just following the template set in earlier seasons. You know, the one where the Read Male Action Hero leads. At least on SG-1 Hammond was effective.

suse

Aack. you and I are sharing a brain again suse! give it back--I need it!

[Melora]

Well, there's no convincing any of you that the writers are nothing more than sexist and mediocre in the way they handled seasons 9 and 10. Huah.

I think the writers are very talented. I have never cared for a show as much as I cared for SG-1 and the stories and characters that the writers created have a lot to do with that. So, I would never say they are mediocre writers. Even though I didn't like the choices they made in Seasons 9 and 10, I still respect them and am grateful to them for eight wonderful seasons of the show. I can even understand and sympathize with the creative desire to try something new. That doesn't mean that I have to understand or like the choices they made. It also doesn't mean I have to like every character they create and every script they write.

I also don't think they are necessarily sexist. Hollywood caters to what they believe the viewing public wants. The studio executives have their own ideas about what they believe sells and what doesn't. Having a leading man in an action-adventure/sci-fi show was clearly what they felt would sell. They had a leading man and needed to replace him with another leading man. TPTB in Vancouver obviously felt the same way. They also felt, much like you, that the leading man needed to be in the position of power on the team. If you look at all of the Stargate shows, the leading man is always the one in the position of power - even when they put a woman in "command."

So... did they do this because they are misogynists who believe that women can't be leaders and should always be subordinate to men? I don't think so. If TPTB were misogynists, they would never have created such strong, independent female characters like Sam and Janet.

So I tend to think the need for a lead male action hero is the product of the inherent sexism that exists in Hollywood (and in the rest of the world for that matter). Hollywood won't change their ways until the viewing public in general realizes that women can be realistic and effective leaders - on screen and off - and that they can struggle, fall, get beaten down and get back up again just like men. Only then will we cease to see female characters solely in subordinate positions.

I do think times and attitudes are slowly changing. It was just disappointing that TPTB were never willing to go a step further and actively show a female character in a true position of power.

[suse]

For the last time, I read all of your posts. Stop calling me stupid.

How would you feel if I admitted that you guys won? Would you get any ounce of satisfaction? Would your day be any better?

Why do you keep insinuating I'm some kind of chauvinistic pig for not being as rabid about Sam?

And it's "all through the town," you admin abuser.

Example? Please point us all to the post(s) that called you stupid. PleasepleasepleasepleasepleasePLEASE.

suse

[Vladius]

I think the writers are very talented. I have never cared for a show as much as I cared for SG-1 and the stories and characters that the writers created have a lot to do with that. So, I would never say they are mediocre writers. Even though I didn't like the choices they made in Seasons 9 and 10, I still respect them and am grateful to them for eight wonderful seasons of the show. I can even understand and sympathize with the creative desire to try something new. That doesn't mean that I have to understand or like the choices they made. It also doesn't mean I have to like every character they create and every script they write.

I also don't think they are necessarily sexist. Hollywood caters to what they believe the viewing public wants. The studio executives have their own ideas about what they believe sells and what doesn't. Having a leading man in an action-adventure/sci-fi show was clearly what they felt would sell. They had a leading man and needed to replace him with another leading man. TPTB in Vancouver obviously felt the same way. They also felt, much like you, that the leading man needed to be in the position of power on the team. If you look at all of the Stargate shows, the leading man is always the one in the position of power - even when they put a woman in "command."

So... did they do this because they are misogynists who believe that women can't be leaders and should always be subordinate to men? I don't think so. If TPTB were misogynists, they would never have created such strong, independent female characters like Sam and Janet.

So I tend to think the need for a lead male action hero is the product of the inherent sexism that exists in Hollywood (and in the rest of the world for that matter). Hollywood won't change their ways until the viewing public in general realizes that women can be realistic and effective leaders - on screen and off - and that they can struggle, fall, get beaten down and get back up again just like men. Only then will we cease to see female characters solely in subordinate positions.

I do think times and attitudes are slowly changing. It was just disappointing that TPTB were never willing to go a step further and actively show a female character in a true position of power.

It's not necessarily inherent sexism. If you look at basic biological differences between men and women, it's clear that men are more aggressive, more muscular, and more suited to being beat up and beating other people up.

[jckfan55]

I personally can't say whether the writers are sexist or not as I don't know any of them. But I do think the way they and the other producers/execs handled season 9 and 10 was quite mediocre.

Whether it was the writers, producers or networks who made Mitchell the leader of SG1 when they had a woman with seniority who had held the position, does lead to the question as to why?

Do they believe that guys don't like to watch competent women in an action-y show? The way they handled Vala seems to reinforce that theory. She kept veering into silly. examples: Carrying a hair dryer on an offworld mission. The awful outfit in the class reunion episode.

The success of SG1 up to S9 with a competent woman as one of the lead characters seems to contradict the assumption that viewers don't want competent women.

One of my main issues, though with S9 &10 was the loss of the team feel. Sure there were periodic references to "the band" and Landry's cringe inducing "Teal'c is family" but the *feel* just wasn't there.

[Melora]

It's not necessarily inherent sexism. If you look at basic biological differences between men and women, it's clear that men are more aggressive, more muscular, and more suited to being beat up and beating other people up.

We must know different men.

All the men I know are not muscular, aggressive, and they couldn't beat someone up if they tried. Most women in the military could definitely beat up almost any guy I know. So the biological argument doesn't really hold water with me.

To me, when people say that women don't make good CEOs or leaders b/c they are biologically not as competitive or aggressive as men, or that they are naturally too soft-spoken and emotional, it strikes me as a way to justify sexism.

[suse]

I think the writers are very talented. I have never cared for a show as much as I cared for SG-1 and the stories and characters that the writers created have a lot to do with that. So, I would never say they are mediocre writers. Even though I didn't like the choices they made in Seasons 9 and 10, I still respect them and am grateful to them for eight wonderful seasons of the show. I can even understand and sympathize with the creative desire to try something new. That doesn't mean that I have to understand or like the choices they made. It also doesn't mean I have to like every character they create and every script they write.

I also don't think they are necessarily sexist. Hollywood caters to what they believe the viewing public wants. The studio executives have their own ideas about what they believe sells and what doesn't. Having a leading man in an action-adventure/sci-fi show was clearly what they felt would sell. They had a leading man and needed to replace him with another leading man. TPTB in Vancouver obviously felt the same way. They also felt, much like you, that the leading man needed to be in the position of power on the team. If you look at all of the Stargate shows, the leading man is always the one in the position of power - even when they put a woman in "command."

So... did they do this because they are misogynists who believe that women can't be leaders and should always be subordinate to men? I don't think so. If TPTB were misogynists, they would never have created such strong, independent female characters like Sam and Janet.

So I tend to think the need for a lead male action hero is the product of the inherent sexism that exists in Hollywood (and in the rest of the world for that matter). Hollywood won't change their ways until the viewing public in general realizes that women can be realistic and effective leaders - on screen and off - and that they can struggle, fall, get beaten down and get back up again just like men. Only then will we cease to see female characters solely in subordinate positions.

I do think times and attitudes are slowly changing. It was just disappointing that TPTB were never willing to go a step further and actively show a female character in a true position of power.

I can't give you another serving of green jello for a bit.

Absolutely brilliant post!

suse

[Vladius]

Whether it was the writers, producers or networks who made Mitchell the leader of SG1 when they had a woman with seniority who had held the position, does lead to the question as to why?

Do they believe that guys don't like to watch competent women in an action-y show? The way they handled Vala seems to reinforce that theory. She kept veering into silly. examples: Carrying a hair dryer on an offworld mission. The awful outfit in the class reunion episode.

The success of SG1 up to S9 with a competent woman as one of the lead characters seems to contradict the assumption that viewers don't want competent women.

One of my main issues, though with S9 &10 was the loss of the team feel. Sure there were periodic references to "the band" and Landry's cringe inducing "Teal'c is family" but the *feel* just wasn't there.

Teal'c is family.

I would agree on your point about the team, but I think that was for the better in some instances.

I also don't like Vala and her constant ditzy "i can haz sex" talk.

I think the audience in general is completely fine with a competent woman. But Sam didn't fit the archetype of a leader. Her personality isn't as outgoing. They could have had a female leader, but they... didn't.
There's also the matter, (I think), of AT not being available for the entire time. You couldn't exactly say "Oh, she's team leader, but she... just isn't here right now. Pretend she's here."

[EvenstarSRV]

Wow, really? Even more than Jack???

Yep, according to my count anyways. Jack has about 65 episodes where he was injured, Daniel and Teal'c each have about 70, and Sam has about 85. Of course Sam had about 3 extra seasons of episodes compared to Jack, so he probably still has the highest rate of whumping.