S10: Critique & Contemplation

[Ashizuri]

That's fine. Ultimately that still comes down to you and some other individual viewers not liking how x or y were handled. And I'm sure if we took a survey on every episode we'd find a great number of people didn't like a great number of things throughout the show. My point here is people start talking about the amorphous "us" who "all agree" and then list things like "bad writing" or "inconsistencies." And then when I ask for specifics things start coming up that we do not, in fact, all agree on.

It seems like a fine line I'm drawing. What I'm saying is individual viewers are always going to disagree on what they like and dislike, I find it without much meaning for people to start making general statements we can't confirm like "we didn't like that they did x" or "most of us felt that they should have been truer to y." I think any change after the end of season 8 was going to be big enough to negatively ruffle a lot of feathers. That's my honest opinion. I can ALWAYS see ways the show can be better, even parts of the show none of you are mentioning in this thread. I can see ways 9 and 10 could have been better, just like many parts of seasons 1-8. But I do also think that a lot of the things people throw around against 9 and 10 would have just been different complaints made by different people almost any other direction the show went at that point. Because it was such a different show given the changes by the end of season 8.

Well of course viewers are going to differntiate between what they like/dislike, which is why in this thread you'll notice a lot of phrases like: in my opinion, I think, it seemed to me, I feel like...etc. You said you didn't see how things could have been done better, some of us pointed out things we felt could have been done better. In our opinions.

I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb to say TPTB did something wrong to merit such a ratings decline. We might not all agree on what it was, but people don't just turn off/stop DVRing a show they enjoy.

Because she didn't even want the job.

Which, as I've said, I personally did not buy. Season 8 Sam wanted the job and there was a distinct lack of believable explanation for her sudden change of heart. IMO.

See above. Sam wound up being pulled back into SG-1, but leading an SG unit clearly was not her priority. She'd left SG work altogether at the time of season 9. Being on an SG team was clearly something Mitchell had fantasized about for years. He seemed as shocked as anyone when Landry told him "you're going to LEAD SG-1." Sam was not interested in a leadership position. And I see nothing in her personality to say for her to be credible she must have insisted on running SG-1, after leaving SG-1 altogether.

There's a definite difference between "who would be utterly ideal for the job" and "who wants the job."

I 100% refuse to believe that there were not more qualified people who wanted the job of leading SG-1. Refuse. And I'm sorry, but I just don't buy Sam, Daniel, or Teal'c (or Jack) not questioning the decision of allowing a rookie to the Stargate program to lead it's premier team. I just don't. That was the big disconnect for me regarding season 9. The set up didn't work for me. I'm sure it worked for others, but this girl wasn't buying it.

[slurredspeech]

I think people overestimate the general IQ of the viewing audience to point at ratings for seasons 9 and 10 and go "Hah! You see? People who watch Stargate are not fools. They noticed the lapse in the formerly exacting high standards of Stargate episode writing!"

Way to be condescending, dude.

ETA, so as to not double-post.

I said taking your personal opinion and pointing to nonspecific amorphous ratings dips which are based on a ton of factors and claiming it as objective proof...

But, that's the thing. As Ashizuri said, no one is. People have their own qualms with S9 and 10 and express them here, and not everyone will agree on everything other people have said. When people point at ratings it is merely to point out that something went wrong, there were things done badly the audience didn't respond to well. What that was, that's what we're here to discuss.
But simply implying it was Jack going away and the introduction of a new enemy/arc - especially since people have responded that that was not the case for them - is, well, obviously incorrect when it comes to a number of people around here.

[Ashizuri]

I think almost everyone here has tried to present their view in general terms as one "most/many" fans agree with. What I have maintained is that almost anything they did in 9-10 was going to ruffle a lot of feathers. People seem to generally dispute that, and when I ask for specifics, people give things I consider as small nitpicks or suggestions that I think would have (at best) pissed off just as many people and (at worst) been even worse than the Ori storyline.

Ok, so we're presenting our arguments using general phrases like many or most disliked x and you're argument is that no matter what happened in season 9 many or most of the audience was going to have a problem, yeah?

So, basically we're using the same type of argument but fighting from different corners.

Also, just because you think or you consider them to be small nitpicks or problems doesn't mean that's how everyone is going to view them, much like how the things I think are HUGE problems are not going to be seen that way by the everyone.

[RealmOfX]

<snipped>
See above. Sam wound up being pulled back into SG-1, but leading an SG unit clearly was not her priority. She'd left SG work altogether at the time of season 9. Being on an SG team was clearly something Mitchell had fantasized about for years. He seemed as shocked as anyone when Landry told him "you're going to LEAD SG-1." Sam was not interested in a leadership position. And I see nothing in her personality to say for her to be credible she must have insisted on running SG-1, after leaving SG-1 altogether.

There's a definite difference between "who would be utterly ideal for the job" and "who wants the job."

Duskofdead I'm not going to bother replying to most of your excuses for TPTB not acting like professionals and doing their jobs properly because I've said it all before and others here are doing an admirable job replying. However it is this particular excuse that Sam didn't want the job that is quite ridiculous.

The only reason that Sam wasn't leading SG-1 anymore is that the writers wrote her out of the position because they wanted a new male star for the show and of course the male star must lead. That they didn't bother to address this beyond "oh Sam's at Area 51" is simply attributable to the inherent sexism they display and they seemed astoundingly surprised that any could object to writing out the exceptionally qualified and experienced woman and replacing her with an inexperienced and unqualified male.

I'd disagree with ANYONE being treated like that regardless of gender or race or whatever. Having made the real world decision that they couldn't possibly have the actual leader of SG-1 doing that anymore because they have a new male star they should have taken the time to map out a realistic scenario for the replacement but it seems that they couldn't be bothered, just like they couldn't be bothered to at least attempt to integrate the new changes (to take the series in a new direction) and respect the framework of the existing characters and canon. That isn't professional and their slap dash approach lost them viewers.

The "Sam didn't want the job" is just so ridiculous an approach to take because for a high ranking officer to go from leading an elite small covert unit who regularly saved the world and galaxy to commanding a large Scientific R&D unit to going back to a nameless position where she used to be based with no command responsibilities is a career killer. NO officer would accept that situation with the attitude that the writers had Sam do, especially where she is supposed to work with a reckless, unqualified and inexperienced officer who regularly endangered himself and his team and not say anything about it.

[EvenstarSRV]

I agree with you. And I mentioned a slew of factors that I believe contributed on top of/in addition to, or even in many cases, INSTEAD of the reasons given here by heavy duty fans on a Stargate message forum. I think people here who are mad into Stargate underestimate how fickle the casual viewing audience is. I literally watched a couple eps of season 9 with people who went "Huh? Where's McGuyver? This blows." That was the extent of what disinterested them in the show. It's not really relevant if that isn't the reason people here blast 9 and 10. It is relevant as one of many factors as to why the show didn't do well in the mass audience.

I think people overestimate the general IQ of the viewing audience to point at ratings for seasons 9 and 10 and go "Hah! You see? People who watch Stargate are not fools. They noticed the lapse in the formerly exacting high standards of Stargate episode writing!" I'd also point out that 9 and 10 had a heavily ongoing story arc -- something that equally made BSG a difficult show for people to just "tune in and like" later on.

I count myself as a casual viewer of Stargate until about the summer of 2008 when I joined this forum. Until then, Stargate was just a show I caught when I could. The new episodes (end of S9 and all of 10) didn't hold my interest nearly as much as the reruns did, I didn't really care for the new bad guys, a couple of the new characters, etc.

IMHO, the fact that Stargate lost a significant amount of its viewership in the last two seasons suggests that for a wide-variety of reasons, a large number of people lost interest in the show. We can only speculate as to what some of those reasons may have been, which runs the gamut from RDA leaving, the new characters, the new bad guys, the writing, the VFX, etc.

Unless Cam's inexperienced fundamentally changed the storyline somehow, I see it as a minor detail and the sort of continuity break made all the time in sci fi. Besides, do we know the first thing about what "qualifies" people to be on SG teams or serve on Earth battlecruisers? I have no idea where 99% of those people came from. We saw that episode dealing with SG trainees but I'm assuming that was a newish thing-- clearly there were SG teams prior to extensive training programs about gate travel, otherwise we have a chicken and the egg problem.

Well, IMO, the SG team leaders should actually have experience going through the gate, just like a leader of a 302 wing should have experience flying a 302. The first two team leaders were Jack and Kawalsky, the only two military officers at the time who had that experience. After that, I'd imagine it was only common sense for the SGC to develop a specific training program for gate travel.

And IMHO, Mitchell's inexperience did affect the storyline, from Prototype when he released the Anubis clone, to Off the Grid when he botched the undercover mission, and to him saying he apparently didn't command anyone in Uninvited.

The Goa'uld, the Wraith, and almost no other big bad guy ever in Stargate did more than what you say the Ori did.

The Wraith yes, which is why I don't care for them as bad guys either. The Goa'uld, I'll just agree to disagree.

I think almost everyone here has tried to present their view in general terms as one "most/many" fans agree with.

*shrugs* From my reading of this thread, I haven't gotten the same impression.

An all powerful ascended enemy isn't good enough? Anubis wasn't even fully ascended and he was the most dangerous threat up until that point. I mean seriously if the Ori were not a good enough reason to recall all the "best vets" to the SGC I wonder what, exactly, you feel would have been a plausible alarm for them to return.

As a general reason sure, but in terms of personal motivation for the characters, not really, except for perhaps Daniel.

You're conflating. She doesn't care about rank and she never showed interest in SG-1 in leadership of an SG team. That doesn't mean she had no interest in working with the SGC or on an SG team on important threats to Earth. Two totally separate things.

Well like I said, she could have easily worked with the SGC and on an SG team as a civilian scientist, ala Daniel. The fact that she joined the AF, when she didn't really have to, suggests to me some interest in rank. And if she didn't care about leading SG-1, why didn't she just pass it up in S8 or the other missions where she led the team, Spirits, Nightwalkers, etc?

[Ashizuri]

The Wraith yes, which is why I don't care for them as bad guys either. The Goa'uld, I'll just agree to disagree.

I thought they were fairly similar as well, but I was hesitant to compare them as I've barely seen any Atlantis. Humans were just food to them is the impression I got.

[Duskofdead]

I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb to say TPTB did something wrong to merit such a ratings decline. We might not all agree on what it was, but people don't just turn off/stop DVRing a show they enjoy.

Of course you're not going far out on a limb. We might not agree on what it was is the key phrase. more than one person in this discussion has said it was poor writing 'and the ratings back that up.' As I said before I think some people may view it as a fine line or small point I am making, what I am saying is taking your one personal opinion of what contributed to the dips in 9 and 10 and saying "and the fact that the ratings dipped backs that up" is circular reasoning.

Which, as I've said, I personally did not buy. Season 8 Sam wanted the job and there was a distinct lack of believable explanation for her sudden change of heart. IMO.

Okay. I still think if this level of grievance is what ruined 9 and 10 for you then they still could have done vastly worse.

I 100% refuse to believe that there were not more qualified people who wanted the job of leading SG-1. Refuse. And I'm sorry, but I just don't buy Sam, Daniel, or Teal'c (or Jack) not questioning the decision of allowing a rookie to the Stargate program to lead it's premier team. I just don't. That was the big disconnect for me regarding season 9. The set up didn't work for me. I'm sure it worked for others, but this girl wasn't buying it.

Okay. See above.

But, that's the thing. As Ashizuri said, no one is. People have their own qualms with S9 and 10 and express them here, and not everyone will agree on everything other people have said. When people point at ratings it is merely to point out that something went wrong, there were things done badly the audience didn't respond to well. What that was, that's what we're here to discuss.
But simply implying it was Jack going away and the introduction of a new enemy/arc - especially since people have responded that that was not the case for them - is, well, obviously incorrect when it comes to a number of people around here.

This whole thing has exploded into tons of multi-responses because me simply pointing out what you *claim* no one disputes (that there are various non-mutually agreed explanations for what happened in 9/10 and the quality of 9/10) is simply a matter of subjective opinion and there is no one consensus or definitive flaw. For the sake of devil's advocate I've pointed out that many of the specifics people level against 9/10 can be equally applied to earlier seasons. In my opinion there was no solid consistency in continuity which just suddenly broke in season 9 and 10. People point out specific small details they *CANNOT* accept, and to me, as someone who noted but suspended disbelief on a lot of inconsistencies throughout Stargate, I do not understand why the only hit that hump of not being able to accept an inconsistency in 9 or 10 and not before. They were most certainly there earlier on as well.

I never said "people are only unhappy because Jack left and there was a new arc." I said that after 8, Jack left and they had to put in a new arc. And that at that point, there was no way to not ruffle many older fans of seasons 1-8. Let's go with the one alternative route someone gave me of "we could have introduced the furlings as an enemy." To me that sounds really stupid. So that arc would have pleased one person and pissed off another. That's the point I'm making. I don't think anything they could have done in 9-10 would have made SG more popular than 1-8. It was a 9-10 year old show that had lost one of its most critical cast members, built up a lot of fairly restrictive in-galaxy canon, eliminated MANY of the major players/interesting races, and completely ended the primary storyline built for 8 years. Anything after that point was going to feel like it was tacked on or shoehorned in.

Ok, so we're presenting our arguments using general phrases like many or most disliked x and you're argument is that no matter what happened in season 9 many or most of the audience was going to have a problem, yeah?

So, basically we're using the same type of argument but fighting from different corners.

I think making a list of general qualities that would have satisfied you in seasons 9 and 10 and actually perfectly implementing them in a 9-10 year old show that had ended its primary storyline and written out some of its biggest characters and races are two different things.

Also, just because you think or you consider them to be small nitpicks or problems doesn't mean that's how everyone is going to view them, much like how the things I think are HUGE problems are not going to be seen that way by the everyone.

Never said everyone had to view them as small problems; I do however question how the things you guys have offered so far as major unacceptable story breaks would "break" seasons 9 and 10 for you after you had watched all the inconsistencies in 1-8 without too much ruckus.

Duskofdead I'm not going to bother replying to most of your excuses for TPTB not acting like professionals and doing their jobs properly because I've said it all before and others here are doing an admirable job replying. However it is this particular excuse that Sam didn't want the job that is quite ridiculous.

Actually since your response was quite disrespectful, period, it would have been nice if you didn't respond at all. And since you did not really even bother to address what I was discussing and instead went off on a nitpick about what Carter wanted or didn't want (which while it was discussed is not really the main issue here) and I say Carter fits x and you say I'm "ridiculous" for thinking so, what is there to discuss? Thanks for your opinion that I'm ridiculous. I'm glad you didn't respond to my main point but chose to offer that into the discussion. I'm richer for it.

I count myself as a casual viewer of Stargate until about the summer of 2008 when I joined this forum. Until then, Stargate was just a show I caught when I could. The new episodes (end of S9 and all of 10) didn't hold my interest nearly as much as the reruns did, I didn't really care for the new bad guys, a couple of the new characters, etc.

IMHO, the fact that Stargate lost a significant amount of its viewership in the last two seasons suggests that for a wide-variety of reasons, a large number of people lost interest in the show. We can only speculate as to what some of those reasons may have been, which runs the gamut from RDA leaving, the new characters, the new bad guys, the writing, the VFX, etc.

In this you and I agree. But many of the same people claiming it's all just subjective IMHO's then attack my posts when I say their reason is not an exclusive or undeniable one. Like people getting bent when I say I don't consider their interpretation of what Carter wanted is the undeniably correct one.

Well, IMO, the SG team leaders should actually have experience going through the gate, just like a leader of a 302 wing should have experience flying a 302. The first two team leaders were Jack and Kawalsky, the only two military officers at the time who had that experience. After that, I'd imagine it was only common sense for the SGC to develop a specific training program for gate travel.

And IMHO, Mitchell's inexperience did affect the storyline, from Prototype when he released the Anubis clone, to Off the Grid when he botched the undercover mission, and to him saying he apparently didn't command anyone in Uninvited.

I think people on an intergalactic battleship should have experience on intergalactic battleships, but there has to be a first for everything doesn't there? I might point out that Jack was made leader of an SG-1 team after what, two trips through the gate?

Also, originally, Mitchell was going to be assembling an all-new team from scratch. He was interviewing people trying to join the Stargate program. It was going to be an all new SG team, basically. And presumably this has happened before since we know new SG teams were added here and there throughout the course of SG-1. And the SG teams DO perform joint missions. It's not like they would take four people who'd never been through the gate and send them off alone to sabotage a Goa'uld mothership or something. Mitchell prodded and pleaded for the old team to get back together presumably on a temporary basis and it wound up being permanent. If this was a show stopping enjoyment breaker for some people then I don't know what to say other than sorry, you missed two seasons that were pretty enjoyable and nowhere near as awful as a lot of other shows.

*shrugs* From my reading of this thread, I haven't gotten the same impression.

Just look at how bothered everyone is getting when I merely point out that they can't assert as some kind of objective or widely accepted interpretation that S9 and S10 failed because of "bad writing." I'm stuck here replying to what five, six of you now? If everyone agrees this is all IMHO's then what's the big deal? I'm only pointing out the obvious that things like canon inconsistencies or writing quality or how good the storyline was or what they did with the characters are only individual opinions and saying "the ratings back me up" isn't evidence of anything but a personal opinion. I entered this discussion saying that a ton of things influence rating, including age of the show, cast changes, time of day, timeslot, time of year the show plays, competition, etc. People who point to the ratings as objective proof of anything are wishful thinking evidence for their own opinion into existence from something that cannot be objectively regarded as proof of one subjective opinion.

As a general reason sure, but in terms of personal motivation for the characters, not really, except for perhaps Daniel.

You act like each member of SG-1 had to personally care about each mission? Daniel and Teal'c were far more personally connected to the Goa'uld than Jack or Carter and that doesn't mean Jack and Carter just ignored the threat they posed to Earth.

Well like I said, she could have easily worked with the SGC and on an SG team as a civilian scientist, ala Daniel.

But would you have preferred this? I wouldn't have, so I'm willing to overlook a questionably flimsy reason they gave for her returning.

[Skydiver]

Just out of curiosity... what makes you think they moved the location of Jack's cabin? I don't recall them mentioning specifically where it was in the episode.

They did refer to the "Silver Creek" Sheriff department... but according to google, there's a "Silver Creek" in Minnesota. So, I'm just wondering if I missed something in the episode that indicated that the cabin was in Colorado?

i'm not sure if they hunt elk in the mountains of minnesota
but there's also the fact that minnesota is 33 hours drive from colorado (give or take, having no concrete location on Jack's cabin that estimate could be +/- a few hours)

but i seem to recall seeing colorado license plates on some of the vehicles.

not to mention how did the critter get a thousand miles away from colorado?

[leiasky]

I think it all comes down to how much you want to focus on one detail that doesn't really make sense and make it a big deal.

My eyballs cross when reading most of your posts but this one comment stood out.

It wasn't one little detail. It was lots of little details. Details caught by the showrunners in seasons1-8.

Many of those details were the characters we knew and loved for 8 years acting very unlike how they were portrayed during those previous years.

Different things draw people to watch a show. The character relationships and their interactions drew me. When those fell to the wayside, I lost interest. When little details snowballed into big, huge rocks one could throw through a plot, well, then, that's just another thing to complain about.

Yes, these things existed in seasons 1-8 but they were not, IMHO, as series decimating as they were in 9 and 10.

Continuity is details. It's plot. It's characters behaving like the previous 8 years they've been written. Details hold a story together and tug at your inner fangeek (whether its plot details, relationship details or whatever). When it wasn't there, I lost interest.

[Skydiver]

'one little detail'

moving jack's cabin
having selmac/jacob talk about how many years he and selmac have been together, and get it wrong
have teal'c, in season one, try to bail on the sgc to keep ryac from getting implanted to 'save him from a life of slavery' to then have being implanted be a genetic imperative that Jaffa have no choice about

and there are others

[Khentkawes]

i'm not sure if they hunt elk in the mountains of minnesota
but there's also the fact that minnesota is 33 hours drive from colorado (give or take, having no concrete location on Jack's cabin that estimate could be +/- a few hours)

but i seem to recall seeing colorado license plates on some of the vehicles.

not to mention how did the critter get a thousand miles away from colorado?

That's why I asked... because I wanted to know if it was based on inference or if there was something specific. Since EvenstarSRV pointed out the license plates, I'm willing to accept that.

But the distance argument... well, it's really hard to judge distances on TV. After all, in season 8, Sam and Daniel go to meet Alec Colson in Seattle. They meet with him for less than half an hour and then drive away in a red convertible. The episode doesn't explain how they got to Seattle so fast, they're just suddenly there. Probably because addressing transportation issues isn't exciting. I assume the same thing happens here. But I guess that's just me. *shrug*

I don't recall all the details, but I believe the critter came from the alternate dimension accessed by the sodan cloaking device. So if the Trust operatives who stole the cloaking device were using it near the cabin to spy on Landry, that would be where the critter came from. It's been a while since I saw the episode, but I'm pretty sure that was the explanation.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue, especially since my question was already answered. I just wondered where specifically this whole thing was coming from. Colorado license plates is a specific enough answer for me. So, question asked and answered, and I will leave you all to your discussion.

[Duskofdead]

My eyballs cross when reading most of your posts but this one comment stood out.

It wasn't one little detail. It was lots of little details. Details caught by the showrunners in seasons1-8.

Many of those details were the characters we knew and loved for 8 years acting very unlike how they were portrayed during those previous years.

Different things draw people to watch a show. The character relationships and their interactions drew me. When those fell to the wayside, I lost interest. When little details snowballed into big, huge rocks one could throw through a plot, well, then, that's just another thing to complain about.

Yes, these things existed in seasons 1-8 but they were not, IMHO, as series decimating as they were in 9 and 10.

Continuity is details. It's plot. It's characters behaving like the previous 8 years they've been written. Details hold a story together and tug at your inner fangeek (whether its plot details, relationship details or whatever). When it wasn't there, I lost interest.

Of COURSE the character relationships were going to change.

Read a little bit about what happened when the cast of Golden Girls tried to continue with a new spinoff show with only 3 of them when Bea Arthur left.

They described it as "like trying to have a table with three legs."

Jack was like a brother to T'ealc, a sorta-romantic figure with Carter and a playful antagonist with Daniel. Of course those dynamics and the feel of the show (as a result) were going to change when you took him out and added in two all new people.

[slurredspeech]

Jack was like a brother to T'ealc, a sorta-romantic figure with Carter and a playful antagonist with Daniel. Of course those dynamics and the feel of the show (as a result) were going to change when you took him out and added in two all new people.

Relationships, yes. Characters morphing to a point of being barely recognizable half the time -- which did happen (from where I was sitting) and what I'll cautiously assume leiasky meant by "Many of those details were the characters we knew and loved for 8 years acting very unlike how they were portrayed during those previous years.". Nope, not acceptable.

I have a certain dynamic with my closest friends. I am, however, not a completely different person - with a different set of values, priorities, opinions, reactions - when I'm around other people. That's the difference, as I see it.

[Ashizuri]

Okay. I still think if this level of grievance is what ruined 9 and 10 for you then they still could have done vastly worse.

For me that was pretty low.

I think making a list of general qualities that would have satisfied you in seasons 9 and 10 and actually perfectly implementing them in a 9-10 year old show that had ended its primary storyline and written out some of its biggest characters and races are two different things.

Certainly those are two different things, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Never said everyone had to view them as small problems; I do however question how the things you guys have offered so far as major unacceptable story breaks would "break" seasons 9 and 10 for you after you had watched all the inconsistencies in 1-8 without too much ruckus.

Oh there is a lot of discussion about the other seasons and their flaws, particularly 6, 7, and 8, but as this is a season 9/10 thread those seasons are not really on topic. Though, they do often get brought up as the place where manyof our issues with the final seasons started. That being said, seasons 9 and 10 were what caused the fandom to fracture so naturally there will be more discussion about those seasons.

I think people on an intergalactic battleship should have experience on intergalactic battleships, but there has to be a first for everything doesn't there? I might point out that Jack was made leader of an SG-1 team after what, two trips through the gate?

In season one when there was no one really qualified for the job it was less of an issue for me, but even then, the only two military officers with any sort of experience were the ones chosen to lead the teams.

You act like each member of SG-1 had to personally care about each mission? Daniel and Teal'c were far more personally connected to the Goa'uld than Jack or Carter and that doesn't mean Jack and Carter just ignored the threat they posed to Earth.

I would argue that when the goa'uld took Ska'rra they made it very personal for Jack. It's been a while, but didn't he vow to get him back?

EDIT: Ska'rra? Skaa'ra? I have no idea.

[Duskofdead]

Relationships, yes. Characters morphing to a point of being barely recognizable half the time -- which did happen (from where I was sitting) and what I'll cautiously assume leiasky meant by "Many of those details were the characters we knew and loved for 8 years acting very unlike how they were portrayed during those previous years.". Nope, not acceptable.

I have a certain dynamic with my closest friends. I am, however, not a completely different person - with a different set of values, priorities, opinions, reactions - when I'm around other people. That's the difference, as I see it.

Okay. I didn't see this takeover by Dr. Jekylls that you are describing. Honestly didn't. Now in SGA, yes, I saw more of that. Didn't see it hardly at all in SG 9-10, other than all new dynamics because of a totally different team makeup.

Let's take Daniel-Vala as an example, the whole "immature" sexual innuendo/tension humor that people have so bemoaned about seasons 9-10. How at all was that inconsistent? If you watch Prometheus Unbound (I think that's the one where they meet?) that was the chemistry between them. How was it realistic for them to have sort of a sexually undertoned antagonistic relationship then and not later?

You could say "I wish they didn't bring in Vala because of those interactions", but you can't call them inconsistent IMHO.

That's just one example, but since I honestly don't know what people are talking about specifically, I'm stuck just responding to vague things thrown out in the air like "they weren't consistent." I have no idea what that means to you or what specifics you have in mind. Already me and half the board disagree about whether Sam wanted a command of an SG team or not, to the point where it totally didn't even register on my radar that Sam didn't push to take over SG-1 and to others it was a total deal-breaker. I'm sure similar disagreements between posters will come up whatever specifics we mention when trying to discuss something like "character inconsistencies."