S10: Critique & Contemplation

[ReganX]

major mitchell can be enthusiastic. he can be goofy and OTT. he can make mistakes. he can be the 'who was that?' guy like jonas was. (anyone that watched s6 will remmber that jonas was often the ask the stupid questions to start off the exposition guy. lose mitch's 'memorized all the mission reports' and have him ask questions.

I thought that having Mitchell be the one to explain everything because he read all of the reports was a moronic move.

(a) He comes across as having a rather stalkerish side. He memorises their reports and then harasses them to rejoin his team rather than behaving with the maturity expected of a sane adult and choosing three of the available candidates.

(b) Even if Mitchell has memorised the mission reports, why on Earth is he telling the people who actually went through the missions and wrote their share of the reports in question what happened? He looked like a fool.

Having him ask questions would have been far more realistic.

lose the CMOH and just give him the air medal, which was far more realistic and let mitch be human.

Lose the whole Mitchell in the battle of Antarctica bit altogether. Have him transfer from another SG team after a year or so or have him join SG-1 fresh from the selection and training process. Don't have his place on the team be because of one act. Show his as somebody who earned his spot.

[saberhagen83]

yep. and major mitchell woulda gotten a freebie on pretty much every one of his faux pas.
major mitchell can be enthusiastic. he can be goofy and OTT. he can make mistakes. he can be the 'who was that?' guy like jonas was. (anyone that watched s6 will remmber that jonas was often the ask the stupid questions to start off the exposition guy. lose mitch's 'memorized all the mission reports' and have him ask questions. lose the CMOH and just give him the air medal, which was far more realistic and let mitch be human.

major mitchell can have some great ideas. he can shake up sg1 a bit. sometimes he's wrong. but other times he's right. he can have a new way of doing things, which sometimes work out and other times dont

there could have even been an ep where he and sam had separate opinions and daniel and teal'c get caught in the middle. who do they trust? sam who they've known for years or the new guy that has a good idea?

there could have been this subtle tension between all of them, nothing OTT, but enough to add some depth to the characters

Have you ever thought of writing for the show? I really like this, that kind of thing would be some great character development. And it would also make for some interestring interaction between the characters. There were a few eps back in S4 that comes to mind, where the team was a bit torn apart. Jack's orders didn't go very well with Daniel and/or Sam for example. I wish they would bring more of that into the show. I just feel it's too much a "happy family"...way to perfect IMHO.

[Zoser]

It's a shame that after 8 years in priding themselves in trying to have as realistic as possible, military characters in an unrealistic scifi setting, they chose to make the new characters as unrealistic and ridiculous as possible.

Down went the quality and the fans as well. No show can afford to lose 30% of its established ratings.

They have made my favorite show a joke and have mocked me in the process.

[RealmOfX]

Have you ever thought of writing for the show? <SNIP>

Unfortunately, Sky can't because ya know she's "a girl!"

Seriously though, it is interesting to note that Stargate has never had a major creative input from females BUT there always was SOME female writing input UNTIL Coop came along then nada. Meanwhile over on Atlantis they have some female writing input. Coincidence or not?

However, you do not need to have female writers to write a decent show. You just need to ask yourself some basic questions as you review the writing (YES, you do have to review the writing BEFORE filming is even thought of!!) - Who is my character (core values), what would they think / do in this situation, how does the plot affect my character, how does my character affect the plot?

S9 showed no evidence of planning or fore thought, IMO it has a very slapdash feel to it. My light scifi show was turned into superficial drivel and the characters and qualities I used to watch for were pushed to the side and ignored. S10 showed marked improvement but you still have two main characters who are caricatures and have no real reason for being on the team. It is evident that Brad (I'm assuming it was him) attempted to fix some of the problems from the previous season but found no firm foundations were laid in the first place and therefore they were doomed to continue to build on unstable ground.

Someone decided that the 18-24 male demographic was the way to expand the viewership. It appears that Brad and Coop were split up and Coop delivered the superficial nonsense that was S9. I find it amazing that any professional would

1. target a demographic that wasn't a major part of the channel broadcasting the show and neither was the demographic a major part of the viewers of the show
2. having selected a target audience that wasn't there - do nothing outside of the environment to promote the "new show" to attract the required demographic
3. assumed that superficial garbage (my opinion) would appeal to the required demographic
4. assumed that superficial garbage wouldn't chase away the existing viewers and start a chain reaction of "bad" promotion - I sure as hell don't recommend SG1 to anyone anymore, in fact I warn them about the change (does anyone else?)

<BIG SIGH> I miss my classic Stargate!

[Veritas21]

good point. ok, people from all but one fan group, two if you count s/j shippers separate from sam fans, will hate sam. some of them anyway

to each his/her own

I'm a Jack/Daniel slasher but I love Sam too. I do like Jack and Sam's friendship though to be honest I don't like it when they include ship on the show. But in any case, I don't understand the slashers that dislike Sam especially since Daniel and Sam clearly love each other so there's no reason to pit the characters against each other. Of course it goes both ways because I've also seen Jack/Sam shippers that dislike Daniel and will pull apart any Jack/Daniel scene they see.

Unfortunately though since we're talking about Amanda being hurt by mean comments...if she's referencing comments that are aimed at her rather than her character then it may have even been from people who do like her character. Because I've seen some Jack/Sam shippers who have made some very rude and uncalled for comments towards Amanda herself when she has commented on the J/S relationship in a way that differs from the way that shipper sees it (I remember one recent time being where some people tore her apart for saying that she liked David DeLuise's kisses on the 200th episode special.) Fandom can be so harsh sometimes and while I don't care for certain characters, I'd like to think that I don't allow myself to get personal towards that actor playing them.

[esoap524]

Very true.

That and a lot of fans don’t realize that actors have to work with what their given. Writing is the backbone of ANY show. You don’t have the writing and any show can make a B actor look great and an Emmy award winning one look terrible. The writing is the key to any show.

I don’t blame any of the actors for the lack of development. I lay the blame squarely on the writers shoulders for that. BB and CB are working with what their given.... which isn’t much. BB dealing with writers that have absolutely no idea what approach or nitch they want Mitchell to fill in the group. CB is dealing with a character that the writers are switching around to a different cliché every week. AT has to deal with and work with them making Sam dumb as a post to push the plot along, ect.

It’s none of the actors fault. I wish people would lay the blame on the writer’s shoulders where it belongs. (Though the directing and editing in recent episodes really IMHO hasn’t been spectacular either.)

Considering that particular albatross of bad writing, it's a credit to the actors themselves that I still tune in every week. They have to sell it; to sell it, they have to convey that they believe it, whether they do or not.

A so-so actor can look brilliant with great writing. It takes a good actor, and a professional one to boot, to sell some of the plot stuff (Sam coughing up the codes to Ba'al, Mitchell pushing a button when he shouldn't, Vala coming off as not very smart) and still manage to make a viewer not completely pitch in the towel. This particular set of actors has a certain charm that, for me, anyway, can carry me over some of the rough spots

I also refer to them as professional because I'm sure all of them have thoughts about how it could be better or different but they are professionals and they're not going to go out there and bite the hand that feeds them, so to speak. I have some respect for that as well.

[Skydiver]

I also refer to them as professional because I'm sure all of them have thoughts about how it could be better or different but they are professionals and they're not going to go out there and bite the hand that feeds them, so to speak. I have some respect for that as well.

they're smart enough to know that you don't piddle in the sandbox, especially in a small community like vancouver

it's not always an actor's skill that gets them a job, but their personality as well. If i was a director and i had a choice between a good actor with a great personality or a great actor with a bad personality, i'd likely go for the former, just to save myself an ulcer and the stress

[esoap524]

Unfortunately, Sky can't because ya know she's "a girl!"

Seriously though, it is interesting to note that Stargate has never had a major creative input from females BUT there always was SOME female writing input UNTIL Coop came along then nada. Meanwhile over on Atlantis they have some female writing input. Coincidence or not?

However, you do not need to have female writers to write a decent show. You just need to ask yourself some basic questions as you review the writing (YES, you do have to review the writing BEFORE filming is even thought of!!) - Who is my character (core values), what would they think / do in this situation, how does the plot affect my character, how does my character affect the plot?

S9 showed no evidence of planning or fore thought, IMO it has a very slapdash feel to it. My light scifi show was turned into superficial drivel and the characters and qualities I used to watch for were pushed to the side and ignored. S10 showed marked improvement but you still have two main characters who are caricatures and have no real reason for being on the team. It is evident that Brad (I'm assuming it was him) attempted to fix some of the problems from the previous season but found no firm foundations were laid in the first place and therefore they were doomed to continue to build on unstable ground.

Someone decided that the 18-24 male demographic was the way to expand the viewership. It appears that Brad and Coop were split up and Coop delivered the superficial nonsense that was S9. I find it amazing that any professional would

1. target a demographic that wasn't a major part of the channel broadcasting the show and neither was the demographic a major part of the viewers of the show
2. having selected a target audience that wasn't there - do nothing outside of the environment to promote the "new show" to attract the required demographic
3. assumed that superficial garbage (my opinion) would appeal to the required demographic
4. assumed that superficial garbage wouldn't chase away the existing viewers and start a chain reaction of "bad" promotion - I sure as hell don't recommend SG1 to anyone anymore, in fact I warn them about the change (does anyone else?)

<BIG SIGH> I miss my classic Stargate!

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of things pander to the male demographic. Males seem to dominate movie characters, even in good movies (The Departed, for example). I'd rather watch television shows--The Nine, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Grey's Anatomy--that actually have male and female characters in various roles that aren't necessarily gender dictated.

That being said, though, as a woman of 40something age, I never found SG1 to be a show aimed at women. The majority of its characters are male. It's more of an adventure oriented show, and not so heavily into characterization as some other shows.

I'm not ragging on it and saying that's bad. I'm just saying that from my female perspective, this wasn't a show that appealed to me because I didn't see it as being significantly different from all those other male dominated sci fi shows of my youth. So, for me, it's a little ironic that people now think a leather bustier'ed Vala is targeting the male demo. It seems to me that they've always targeted the male demo; they've just decided to sex it up because everyone else is doing it (there's loads of sex on Battlestar Galactica, for example). That's what it seems like to me.

And I agree, you do not need to have female writers to necessarily write female characters well. It certainly helps to have the female perpsective, but I've seen plenty of good female characters written by men, just like there are plenty of good male characters written by women.

I agree, too, with your analysis of characterization. It seems like the first basic question--who is my character--was never fully answered, which made the others--what would they do, how do they operate within this story--impossible to answer. If you don't know who you're dealing with, you'll have no idea what they'll do; in essence, you are making it up as you go along.

[esoap524]

they're smart enough to know that you don't piddle in the sandbox, especially in a small community like vancouver

it's not always an actor's skill that gets them a job, but their personality as well. If i was a director and i had a choice between a good actor with a great personality or a great actor with a bad personality, i'd likely go for the former, just to save myself an ulcer and the stress

Indeed. Just like in RL--if you're an employer, are you going to hire the genius who can't interact with your customers or co-workers, or are you going to hire the smart guy who also has the necessary personality skills to do the job.

All things being equal, you're always going to go for the person who's likeable. And I do think the likeability quotient is high for all these actors, no matter what goofy things they're being made to do.

In this case, I think they have talented actors but I also think they have actors who are easy to work with, who understand the genre and are willing to do what the writers/producers ask them to do, no matter what their personal feelings.

I've seen too many SG1 Ben Browder interviews where he says he does what he's asked to do, and he wouldn't feel right telling them what Mitchell should do. He had that latitude on Farscape--I've heard it in commentaries--but everyone on FS had that latitude, to the point of chaos, sometimes, not just Ben because he was THE STAR. I'm sure he has an opinion but it's not his place to state it, publicly, anyway, even if he does so in private.

[Skydiver]

I agree, too, with your analysis of characterization. It seems like the first basic question--who is my character--was never fully answered, which made the others--what would they do, how do they operate within this story--impossible to answer. If you don't know who you're dealing with, you'll have no idea what they'll do; in essence, you are making it up as you go along.

I, quite obviously, can't speak with the pov of someone who's written a tv show, or even a pro writing, but i can speak as a hobbyist that writes. When i write a fic, i know what is in and not in character for my characters. And i fully acknowledge that 'in character' can be a relative term since each person will see that character with eyes colored by thier own life experiences.

but if i'm gonna have sam...kill jack for example, i have to come up iwth a good reason for her to do it. I have to rationalize it in my mind before i can put it down on paper. I also have to have a standard of behavior for each character that will govern how i write them.

if it's a ship fic, then Ship Jack will be different from Gen Jack in his actions and attitudes. As will Ship Sam.

This is something i choose to do and i've had fic get hung up for days as i try to rationalize why one thing will happen or why another has to happen, or trying to close a plot hole. If i'm gonna have jack shoot sam on page 38, then i better put that gun in the scene on page 2, or folks are gonna wonder where in the hell it came from.

Everytime a character does something, they need to do it for a reason. and that reason has to be a rational and believable one. If jack is written a Gen Jack in pages 1-37, and then snogs, shags and professes his undying love to sam on page 38, something better explain that sudden change

a lack - or preceived lack - of explanation seems to plague the show. in s9, vala showed up, their only experience with her was when she STOLE a ship from them...and they just let her walk in and welcomed her and started to follow her around the universe. and we never really got an explanation for why the sgc, who used to be paranoid to the point of obstinance, all of a sudden just welcomed thieving aliens with open arms and let them have free run of the base.

that lack of explantion did nothing to help the character. Just like the lack of explantion of cam's position did nothing for him. WE went from 'i don't care how many years of experience vasilev (or whoever he was in lockdown) has, he's not good enough to lead a team since he's never been through the gate' to any rookie with connections gets a team in a flash.

it's unrealistic and a total 180 from how they used to be. It's like no one ever sat down to even consider how these actions would be preceived, they just blundered along, doing whatever they wanted, and expected everyone to just blindly accept it.

I personally consider that sloppy writing. It's something i would never do in my fic, and i'm just a lowly unpaid hobbyist. I would expect the pros to be held to a higher standard, after all writing isnt' just a hpbby to them, it's their living

[Skydiver]

I've seen too many SG1 Ben Browder interviews where he says he does what he's asked to do, and he wouldn't feel right telling them what Mitchell should do. He had that latitude on Farscape--I've heard it in commentaries--but everyone on FS had that latitude, to the point of chaos, sometimes, not just Ben because he was THE STAR. I'm sure he has an opinion but it's not his place to state it, publicly, anyway, even if he does so in private.

there is probably also a huge difference between being on a rogue little production in aussie land where you've been there since day one and being the new kid on the block on an established show in a city that's rife with actors who'd love to step into your shoes.

[Rogue]

you know sometimes I think that reading comments about what fans think about you is just not worth the effort. I am saying that maybe it is better for her to just concentrate on being the best Sam Carter she can be with what they give her to work with. It is so cliche to say that-and maybe the therapists on this forum know what I am talking about-maybe everybody else does to and we can all chuckle about it-but the fact that there are some mean spirited people out there and some of them cannot separate the actor from the character can really cause a lot of emotional and spiritual pain.

I have strayed once in a while into the anti-forums and cannot believe some of the stuff that people can actually voice.

the meaness of some people still really upsets me-and as old as I am, I shouldn't really be surprised. i have told my children, that there are people in this world that feel so bad about themselves that they have to make other people feel bad in order for them to feel good about themselves.

Not knowing her personally I would only hope that she would just turn off the computer and go back to her real life with her husband and her daughter and leave the delusions to those that can't see past them.

I remember reading a link to a post in the anti Sam/Jack thread after Threads aired. It was so bad that even the most avid anti Sam/Jack posters condemn it. It called Sam a stalker, amoung other things, for sitting outside Jack house. It was so ridculous I stopped reading it less than half way through. Alot of fans see Sam in the way of what ever Jack pairing they favor. Maybe it is even some fans that have a thing for RDA. But you know, it wasn't Sam's head that popped out of the covers at the beginning of the show.

Your right, AT should just ignore the ignorant and enjoy her family. That is what counts. She can only do so much with a crappy storyline.

[esoap524]

I, quite obviously, can't speak with the pov of someone who's written a tv show, or even a pro writing, but i can speak as a hobbyist that writes. When i write a fic, i know what is in and not in character for my characters. And i fully acknowledge that 'in character' can be a relative term since each person will see that character with eyes colored by thier own life experiences.

but if i'm gonna have sam...kill jack for example, i have to come up iwth a good reason for her to do it. I have to rationalize it in my mind before i can put it down on paper. I also have to have a standard of behavior for each character that will govern how i write them.

if it's a ship fic, then Ship Jack will be different from Gen Jack in his actions and attitudes. As will Ship Sam.

This is something i choose to do and i've had fic get hung up for days as i try to rationalize why one thing will happen or why another has to happen, or trying to close a plot hole. If i'm gonna have jack shoot sam on page 38, then i better put that gun in the scene on page 2, or folks are gonna wonder where in the hell it came from.

Everytime a character does something, they need to do it for a reason. and that reason has to be a rational and believable one. If jack is written a Gen Jack in pages 1-37, and then snogs, shags and professes his undying love to sam on page 38, something better explain that sudden change

a lack - or preceived lack - of explanation seems to plague the show. in s9, vala showed up, their only experience with her was when she STOLE a ship from them...and they just let her walk in and welcomed her and started to follow her around the universe. and we never really got an explanation for why the sgc, who used to be paranoid to the point of obstinance, all of a sudden just welcomed thieving aliens with open arms and let them have free run of the base.

that lack of explantion did nothing to help the character. Just like the lack of explantion of cam's position did nothing for him. WE went from 'i don't care how many years of experience vasilev (or whoever he was in lockdown) has, he's not good enough to lead a team since he's never been through the gate' to any rookie with connections gets a team in a flash.

it's unrealistic and a total 180 from how they used to be. It's like no one ever sat down to even consider how these actions would be preceived, they just blundered along, doing whatever they wanted, and expected everyone to just blindly accept it.

I personally consider that sloppy writing. It's something i would never do in my fic, and i'm just a lowly unpaid hobbyist. I would expect the pros to be held to a higher standard, after all writing isnt' just a hpbby to them, it's their living

I get what you mean. I do a lot of fan fic writing as well (even two SG1 fics, one of which I'm sure is badly characterized), along with original stuff, and you do spend a lot of time finding motivation. Writing is a lot like acting. Why would this person do this, say this, etc. And you know exactly when it doesn't work and you can tell when the writers have written themselves into a corner.

From what I've heard, SG1 is a tight set. I mentioned the chaos that was FS and my impression is that SG1 is not this at all. So it must be doubly frustrating (and somewhat ironic) that there's a lot of "throw it agains the wall and see what sticks" mentality to the writing and characterizations. As a viewer, I find it frustrating to see two of my favorite actors ill used, especially when their previous characters were absolutely fascinating. I'm sure other people feel the same about their favorites.

I don't know...I sort of feel the same about a show called "Jericho". It's got good actors and, in this case, an interesting premise, but there's just something off about the writing, something I can't even name. That's how I feel here.

there is probably also a huge difference between being on a rogue little production in aussie land where you've been there since day one and being the new kid on the block on an established show in a city that's rife with actors who'd love to step into your shoes.

Indeed there is, and that's his point. This is not his ballgame. He's come into it late in the game and it's not his place to say what they should or shouldn't do. You can see it in the on air bits he's done and the interviews he's given.

Ahem! I don't know that I'd refer to FS as a "rogue little production." Well, rogue for certain, but the show was produced by The Jim Henson company (no MGM, true), worked on by directors and costumers from things as various as The Matrix and King Kong, and directed by Australian film directors and required hundreds of people on set just to get it right. Blame it on the puppets

I think that rogue tone also gave it the opportunity to break out of the mold.

But...I digress

[ReganX]

Alot of fans see Sam in the way of what ever Jack pairing they favor.

I think part of that resentment stems from the fact that Jack is acknowledged to care more for her than he should and that there have been more than a couple of shippy episodes.

If Jack never showed any indication of giving a damn about Sam except as a member of his team, then while there might be some unkind remarks about her wasting her time on a man who wasn't interested in her, she would be able to more or less pine after him to her heart's content as long as it was completely one-sided. When it is hinted, quite strongly, that Jack returns her affection, the situation changes.

Sam's feelings for Jack are not a threat to a Jack/Daniel, Jack/Sara, Jack/Whoever pairing. However, Jack's feelings for Sam are.

As well as that, with Jack as the lead character I think for some there was a perception that whichever character he was closest to would get more screentime so, for example, some of those who loved the character of Daniel and/or the Jack/Daniel friendship might see a Sam/Jack pairing as a threat, even if they didn't want to see a Jack/Daniel ship, because they feared that less screentime would be devoted to Daniel and/or the Jack/Daniel friendship.

[Rogue]

I think part of that resentment stems from the fact that Jack is acknowledged to care more for her than he should and that there have been more than a couple of shippy episodes.

If Jack never showed any indication of giving a damn about Sam except as a member of his team, then while there might be some unkind remarks about her wasting her time on a man who wasn't interested in her, she would be able to more or less pine after him to her heart's content as long as it was completely one-sided. When it is hinted, quite strongly, that Jack returns her affection, the situation changes.

Sam's feelings for Jack are not a threat to a Jack/Daniel, Jack/Sara, Jack/Whoever pairing. However, Jack's feelings for Sam are.
As well as that, with Jack as the lead character I think for some there was a perception that whichever character he was closest to would get more screentime so, for example, some of those who loved the character of Daniel and/or the Jack/Daniel friendship might see a Sam/Jack pairing as a threat, even if they didn't want to see a Jack/Daniel ship, because they feared that less screentime would be devoted to Daniel and/or the Jack/Daniel friendship.

Your right. Good post. I would green ya, but gotta spread it around first.