S10: Critique & Contemplation

[Mandysg1]

Not quite. Sorry, I do not agree with you.
Maybourne was a "good guy". He was a member of the "good" military. And he turned out very, very bad. And also put the "dirt" on the other good guys.
That is viewed as much worse than Vala's action. Therefore, many countries on this planet punish treason with the death.

On the other hand Vala, she was forced to became the host. She started as the victim. After she was freed from the parasite, instead to receive treatment for the post-traumatic stress, she was rejected by her own people.
Let me try to explain, its like the victims of the child molesting, who end up being promiscuous. Can you, honestly, blame them for not being moral, after what they went trough?
The complex scaring left on the human psyche with the surviving traumas can led them to mistrust other people. Until that moment all they got was bad treatment from their surroundings, so why should they care about their surroundings. So what Vala did with the Pegasus, was to be expected. Until that point, no one ever show any compassion or care toward her. Why should she be kind toward the world who forced her to pass trough horrors and ended up punishing her for passing trough those horrors.

Of course, this is quite deep analysis, and I am not sure did the authors of the SG-1 actually took all this into consideration before deciding to introduce the Vala into the team. (they did not show inclination toward that in other instances).
But since I realize what kind of scaring the traumas Vala went trough can leave, I ended up liking the character.

You gave reasons for her behaviour, but still no reasons to trust her. She can not be trusted. And what Maybourne did was treason yes, he was a bad guy, yes. But he still didn't do anything worse than Vala; trying to kill a ship load of crewmen is worse. And taking Daniel hostage is another crime.

Vala's past while terrible, does not excuse her crimes, just like what people went through in their childhood, doesn't excuse them for crimes they commit as an adult. A child who is molested that grows up to molest other children, while sad is still guilty and will still have to pay for the crimes they commit.


Given her history of what she did against the crew of the Prommie, therefore against Earth, they should have arrested her when she stepped through the gate, or shot her.

[leksa]

I agree with what you said there. But the thing is that characters like that should get therapy, they shouldn't join front line teams that are responsible for protection of the galaxy! (And don't get me wrong, I like the basic of the characterization of Vala, I just have few issues with how it was all realized on screen)

True, they should put the character like that to therapy. I agree with you.
But the fact is that is not actually interesting to watch. So you will never get something like that in the show of this kind. I mentioned those reasoning only because I wished to explain why I found Vala so interesting character.

To be honest, I was also surprised that they put Vala on the team. Because, in those last seasons the authors started to insist very much on that evil-good difference. And someone so "flawed" as she is would not fit into "oh so perfect" team.
Also it was not hard to see that they introduced Ben and Claudia; only because authors of SG-1 hoped that their popularity from Farscape will give the show the boost. Not to mention that at the same time you got two more eye-candies.
Average viewer (not a fan) found the SG-1 getting repetitive after while. I know, myself, I would just skim over certain episodes because the pattern was so boringly same. Introducing Mitchel, another perfect character did not do anything for the show. Really. Perfect characters are not boring only in the kids cartoons. They do nothing for the plot. They are not deep, they are not really human. In the reality we do not have perfect people.
So, beside, Teal'c (who had a tad grayish past) the other characters are not actually real. Moreover, due to their perfection they cannot be deep either. Not much there to hold the attention for long.
Anyway, when Mitchel arrived the repetitiveness was still there. It was even worse, because that character seemed to me a bit stupid; too flat, even for those other perfect characters. Just cute to watch. Mind, I continued watching just because Ben's handsome and had nice behind. Really.
So they introduced Vala. First as a comic character. And I laughed my ass off at that first episode where she appeared. That episode really got my attention. And not only mine. And she got so popular that they returned that character.
And she got so popular because she was refreshingly different. And not perfect.
My guess was that authors decided to give her a treatment similar as Teal'c got at the beginning of the show, as general excuse. The real reason was to boost the show. And as much I know from talking with the average viewers, they succeed. The show ran for 2 more years. The show that was practically over with the seventh season.

Also, because Vala is not perfect character, they could give her depth. They could make her really interesting. And they did.
Sorry, I do not find interesting watching perfect Sam doing some more perfect things. Nothing surprising there, all flat, unexciting, all predictable. I like when there is a character that trying to overcome some problem, some internal flaw. I like when the character surprise me. When it's cheeky.

[leksa]

You gave reasons for her behaviour, but still no reasons to trust her. She can not be trusted. And what Maybourne did was treason yes, he was a bad guy, yes. But he still didn't do anything worse than Vala; trying to kill a ship load of crewmen is worse. And taking Daniel hostage is another crime.

Vala's past while terrible, does not excuse her crimes, just like what people went through in their childhood, doesn't excuse them for crimes they commit as an adult. A child who is molested that grows up to molest other children, while sad is still guilty and will still have to pay for the crimes they commit.


Given her history of what she did against the crew of the Prommie, therefore against Earth, they should have arrested her when she stepped through the gate, or shot her.

Yeah, I can see you do not like that character.
But that is not reason that you cite wrongly the episodes. She did not left the crew to die. She just left them in the crippled ship near other ship that could provide them spare parts.
The same logic you can apply to Teal'c character. He did things as bad as Vala as Aphopis prime.

Instead, be kind and say why exactly you do not like this character. It would be much easier for me to understand your point of view, so we will be able to avoid possible misunderstandings that can lead to arguments.

[jasminaGo]

True, they should put the character like that to therapy. I agree with you.
But the fact is that is not actually interesting to watch. So you will never get something like that in the show of this kind. I mentioned those reasoning only because I wished to explain why I found Vala so interesting character.

To be honest, I was also surprised that they put Vala on the team. Because, in those last seasons the authors started to insist very much on that evil-good difference. And someone so "flawed" as she is would not fit into "oh so perfect" team.
Also it was not hard to see that they introduced Ben and Claudia; only because authors of SG-1 hoped that their popularity from Farscape will give the show the boost. Not to mention that at the same time you got two more eye-candies.
Average viewer (not a fan) found the SG-1 getting repetitive after while. I know, myself, I would just skim over certain episodes because the pattern was so boringly same. Introducing Mitchel, another perfect character did not do anything for the show. Really. Perfect characters are not boring only in the kids cartoons. They do nothing for the plot. They are not deep, they are not really human. In the reality we do not have perfect people.
So, beside, Teal'c (who had a tad grayish past) the other characters are not actually real. Moreover, due to their perfection they cannot be deep either. Not much there to hold the attention for long.
Anyway, when Mitchel arrived the repetitiveness was still there. It was even worse, because that character seemed to me a bit stupid; too flat, even for those other perfect characters. Just cute to watch. Mind, I continued watching just because Ben's handsome and had nice behind. Really.
So they introduced Vala. First as a comic character. And I laughed my ass off at that first episode where she appeared. That episode really got my attention. And not only mine. And she got so popular that they returned that character.
And she got so popular because she was refreshingly different. And not perfect.
My guess was that authors decided to give her a treatment similar as Teal'c got at the beginning of the show, as general excuse. The real reason was to boost the show. And as much I know from talking with the average viewers, they succeed. The show ran for 2 more years. The show that was practically over with the seventh season.

Also, because Vala is not perfect character, they could give her depth. They could make her really interesting. And they did.
Sorry, I do not find interesting watching perfect Sam doing some more perfect things. Nothing surprising there, all flat, unexciting, all predictable. I like when there is a character that trying to overcome some problem, some internal flaw. I like when the character surprise me. When it's cheeky.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. I don't think any of the characters was perfect. Far from it. They were all complex character with layers upon layers to explore. They made mistakes, choose the wrong options, faced the consequences of those mistakes and worked to fix them if it was possible. I really wanna know where you found Sam perfect. Her crush on her CO? Her messed up relationship with Pete or men in general? Getting herself fooled by RepliCarter? To name just few...
The writers didn't need new characters to bring freshness into the show, they could have explored and broadened the old ones. I mean look at Teal'c. After 10 years! the only story he got was 'Jaffa revenge'. Yeah, we've never seen that one before. I fact the new characters took away from the old ones. Babylon should have been a Teal'c story. Instead we got Mitchell's poor version of the Last Samurai.

What I always loved about Stargate and the characters in it was the realism that was put into them. At least as real as a SciFi show can get. They were everyday people dealing with everyday problems in a not so everyday situation. And I could see these people becoming unexpected heroes of the galaxy. Vala and Mitchell (in the way that he was shown, inexperienced and reckless) I could not.


And I'm gonna agree with Mandy that Vala did left the Prometheus crew to die. What if they couldn't fix the ship? What if some enemy came along before they were able to fix the ship? Their blood would have been on her hands, and at the time Vala didn't seem to care much.

[leksa]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. I don't think any of the characters was perfect. Far from it. They were all complex character with layers upon layers to explore. They made mistakes, choose the wrong options, faced the consequences of those mistakes and worked to fix them if it was possible. I really wanna know where you found Sam perfect. Her crush on her CO? Her messed up relationship with Pete or men in general? Getting herself fooled by RepliCarter? To name just few...
The writers didn't need new characters to bring freshness into the show, they could have explored and broadened the old ones. I mean look at Teal'c. After 10 years! the only story he got was 'Jaffa revenge'. Yeah, we've never seen that one before. I fact the new characters took away from the old ones. Babylon should have been a Teal'c story. Instead we got Mitchell's poor version of the Last Samurai.

What I always loved about Stargate and the characters in it was the realism that was put into them. At least as real as a SciFi show can get. They were everyday people dealing with everyday problems in a not so everyday situation. And I could see these people becoming unexpected heroes of the galaxy. Vala and Mitchell (in the way that he was shown, inexperienced and reckless) I could not.


And I'm gonna agree with Mandy that Vala did left the Prometheus crew to die. What if they couldn't fix the ship? What if some enemy came along before they were able to fix the ship? Their blood would have been on her hands, and at the time Vala didn't seem to care much.

OK, I see you also do not like Vala. Nice. Everyone has right to its own opinion.
Also I can see we both define term perfect differently. The stuff you mentioned as Sam's imperfections are not what I would call imperfections. Those are only errors. Perfection, to me, does not mean that someone is capable to see the future (that would be necessary to fit what I got as your definition of the perfection -no errors at all). I meant perfect character in the sense of its personality, basic core characteristics, the motives for the actions.
So now Sam. Look at her more carefully, she is a military officer, a scientist, beautiful, and act as the "proper" woman should act toward her male colleagues. She's almost a super-hero. She's almost the every male dream. Not real. Someone like her does not exist in reality. It cannot.
I am real female, I'm real scientist so I know what I'm talking about. So she's not real character and she is presented as some kind of super-hero. In the reality one cannot have a military and scientific carrier together. Both carries are too demanding and most of all demand completely different sets of personalities. And also, females in either of field will not behave as Sam does in the show. Sam is too passive in her relationships with the male colleagues. The both female doctors were behaving more realistically than Sam. So Sam is not everyday person. She is completely invented. Not even the background story they gave on her was not used to give her some real flavor. It was just ignored as irrelevant to her personality.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Daniel started as proper scientist, but later they transformed him into something less real and more perfect too. Again, perfect as the person, not as his actions. Please, mind the difference.

About the Teal'c. Yes, you're right. They did not develop that character enough. It had a potential, at the beginning. But, with the time they turned him into another samurai-like perfect character. And then, what could they explore more about him? Show some more martial art moves he did not demonstrate previously? There were no surprises within him either at that stage in the show. He was free from the parasite, he was highly moral character, perfect warrior, his son was doing fine, becoming exactly the same perfect character and his people got free. What possible exploration there was left to do? What problem was there left to solve? Nothing. Teal'c was stuck in the mould and made in the way he can react only in certain, highly moral way. We could not question his actions, his motives, we could not be surprised by either of them. His story arc was complete. You cannot have interesting story about the character that is content. There is no inner struggle.


And now back to Vala. I have impression that you think if something is not given completely - so that you do not have to do anything to complete the thing - you think it is not given at all?
No one but your parents will give you things like that. In the best case you'll get chance, a chance to prove yourself. Nothing more.
{mod snip} in the real world a chance is usually the best you get. And in that light, Vala did not left them to die, she gave them a chance. More then you are ready to grant her.

[Melora]

OK, I see you also do not like Vala. Nice. Everyone has right to its own opinion.
Also I can see we both define term perfect differently. The stuff you mentioned as Sam's imperfections are not what I would call imperfections. Those are only errors. Perfection, to me, does not mean that someone is capable to see the future (that would be necessary to fit what I got as your definition of the perfection -no errors at all). I meant perfect character in the sense of its personality, basic core characteristics, the motives for the actions.
<snipped for space>

I don’t know about anyone else, but I think I would prefer the people defending my country and planet to be as close to perfect as possible. SG-1 is an elite team of people who are the best in their respective fields. Since they are also the people who save the planet on regular basis, this seems pretty realistic to me. It would be completely unrealistic for the Air Force to put a bunch of incompetent (although interesting) screw-ups in charge of such important matters.

I think you will also find that there are many brilliant scientists who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. In the U.S., the government will pay all or a big portion of your college tuition if you join the military. This makes it a very attractive career field for a lot of really smart people who would otherwise not be able to afford college or graduate school. In addition, the Air Force is a huge employer of scientists especially in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, physics, and engineering. I know of quite a few people who got their Ph.D.’s by joining a branch of the military. So again, it’s not all that unrealistic to be both a scientist and a soldier.

In terms of personality, perhaps Sam, Cam, and Daniel are a bit perfect. They are all nice, have high standards of morality, and try to do the right thing. They do make mistakes, but you're right - mistakes are not personality flaws. And yet, all of them also have very distinct and realistic personality flaws too. Sam is a workaholic who sometimes finds it difficult to open up her heart to other people. She sometimes lacks self-confidence and doubts herself too much. Daniel is a bit self-righteous and judgmental. He sometimes has little patience or understanding for those he believes to be wrong. Cam is a little hot-headed and tend to get frustrated easy. He often doesn't have the patience to think things through. While you might see these flaws as minor, they are still flaws at the very core of the characters' personalities. Again, I don’t think this makes them boring – it makes them realistic. Besides, I doubt the Air Force would allow an unstable, narcissistic person with major psychological issues on a front-line team that was responsible for saving the planet.

I don't know many people in real life who act like Vala. Most people I know are much more similar to Daniel, Sam, and Cam. Perhaps that's what makes Vala so interesting for you - the fact that she isn't realistic. You aren't going to run into a lot of people like her in your everyday life. She's unusual in her behavior and attitude and that is central to what makes her an interesting character. But the very things that make her an interesting character are the same things that make her presence on the team unrealistic.

[CaramelMonkey]

I don’t know about anyone else, but I think I would prefer the people defending my country and planet to be as close to perfect as possible. SG-1 is an elite team of people who are the best in their respective fields. Since they are also the people who save the planet on regular basis, this seems pretty realistic to me. It would be completely unrealistic for the Air Force to put a bunch of incompetent (although interesting) screw-ups in charge of such important matters.

I think you will also find that there are many brilliant scientists who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. In the U.S., the government will pay all or a big portion of your college tuition if you join the military. This makes it a very attractive career field for a lot of really smart people who would otherwise not be able to afford college or graduate school. In addition, the Air Force is a huge employer of scientists especially in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, physics, and engineering. I know of quite a few people who got their Ph.D.’s by joining a branch of the military. So again, it’s not all that unrealistic to be both a scientist and a soldier.

In terms of personality, perhaps Sam, Cam, and Daniel are a bit perfect. They are all nice, have high standards of morality, and try to do the right thing. They do make mistakes, but you're right - mistakes are not personality flaws. And yet, all of them also have very distinct and realistic personality flaws too. Sam is a workaholic who sometimes finds it difficult to open up her heart to other people. She sometimes lacks self-confidence and doubts herself too much. Daniel is a bit self-righteous and judgmental. He sometimes has little patience or understanding for those he believes to be wrong. Cam is a little hot-headed and tend to get frustrated easy. He often doesn't have the patience to think things through. While you might see these flaws as minor, they are still flaws at the very core of the characters' personalities. Again, I don’t think this makes them boring – it makes them realistic. Besides, I doubt the Air Force would allow an unstable, narcissistic person with major psychological issues on a front-line team that was responsible for saving the planet.

I don't know many people in real life who act like Vala. Most people I know are much more similar to Daniel, Sam, and Cam. Perhaps that's what makes Vala so interesting for you - the fact that she isn't realistic. You aren't going to run into a lot of people like her in your everyday life. She's unusual in her behavior and attitude and that is central to what makes her an interesting character. But the very things that make her an interesting character are the same things that make her presence on the team unrealistic.

*cough cough*

You're forgetting one tiny detail.

She's an alien! No wonder why she's apparently "unrealistic."

Now, did you happen to mention Teal'c in your argument? Maybe you can relate to the three human characters because, well, they're human. We don't know much about Vala's past, so her "behaviour and attitute" can't really be judged. We all know she's been bruised a lot in the past, and that's probably morphed her into the kind of person she is today. She does what she has to do. At least...what she thought she had to do. But Vala's changing, while staying on Earth. Not completely though, which is understandble. No one changes that much.

But we have to remember that this IS a T.V show! Vala has awesome interaction with the team, she comes up with really good plans sometimes (Beachhead), she stopped Daniel from going to Atlantis (which means she stopped us from losing him...) , she's pretty funny, and she can sweet talk her way out of things! She can also use her skills from her previous life to the team's advantage, so...yeah.

She was put on the team, because they all trusted her. She has skills, believe it or not, and people, especially Daniel, understood what it was like to have someone you cared about (doesn't matter if she's the Orici) out there. I figured Vala wanted to stop her daughter from doing anymore damage. She felt responsible for letting the baby live, even though she knew the Ori had given it to her. It was still her daughter.

After that was over, Vala still wanted to stay. The team was happy with that, (you could see how much they cared about her in Memento Mori) so...she stayed as a member! A valuable one at that. She's done a lot for Earth.

She's one of my favourite characters, so I may be a little biased, but...y'know. That's my opinion.

[Melora]

*cough cough*

You're forgetting one tiny detail.

She's an alien! No wonder why she's apparently "unrealistic."
<snipped for space>

Well, SG-1 came across a lot of aliens in their travels and I don't think they ever met anyone quite like Vala. Perhaps "unique" is a better term than "unrealistic" in this case. I have no problem with Vala being "unique." I was merely responding to a post that stated that she was more realistic than the other characters b/c she is flawed and the others are "perfect." I just don't happen to see it that way. I think Sam, Cam, Daniel, and even Teal'c are very deep, very realistic, and very interesting characters.

I didn't talk about Teal'c b/c the OP wasn't making the same argument about him. But like the other characters, I happen to know some people that have a similar personality to Teal'c, even though I think they might talk a bit more than he does.

I also happen to believe Teal'c is very realistic based on what we know about Jaffa culture. Vala, however, is one of a kind. Look, I like Vala. I think she's an entertaining character. I just disagree with the argument that she is more interesting than all of the other characters combined and that the other characters are like cookie-cutter heroes with no personality just b/c they are not as messed up emotionally as Vala. That's all.

I do feel her addition to the team was unrealistic based on the show's previous canon. No one at the SGC or in the Air Force would have put a unrepentant former thief/con artist with no specialized training or skill on the flagship team. JMHO.

[EvenstarSRV]

I see your point. And I have to say that I completely forgot to take her independence into the account.
You are right there. She would be really reluctant to gave up that freedom she had before and fall into the rigid military rules.
I have to say that I had to stand corrected.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to 'correct' anyone, just offering a different opinion on the subject.

On the other hand, I would not actually saw that alternative relationship would be as the one with the Maybourne. They despised the guy, most of the time. And there were no same feeling toward Vala. It was quite obvious that Daniel was taken by her. And other team members were more-less indifferent. The only negative feelings came from the commander of the SGC. (sorry I forgot the spelling of his name.)
So she was in more trusted position than Maybourne.
Or you have different view about this as well?

I do. Yes, SG-1 despised Maybourne, they didn't trust him any more than they absolutely had to and that was shown in their interactions with the character. Once he lost their trust by committing treason, there was no way he'd ever fully regain it.

IMHO, Vala should have received similar treatment in Avalon. At that point, in the only interaction they had with the character she hijacked their ship, beat up Daniel, and seriously threatened the lives of the entire Prometheus crew. The SGC had absolutely no reason to trust Vala when she returned in Avalon, and even less reason after she tricked them with the bracelets.

That's why I think not making Vala a team member would have been better, because it would've allowed her to interact with the team while staying more true to her characterization as a savvy, self-sufficient, often untrustworthy rogue.

I meant perfect character in the sense of its personality, basic core characteristics, the motives for the actions.
So now Sam. Look at her more carefully, she is a military officer, a scientist, beautiful, and act as the "proper" woman should act toward her male colleagues. She's almost a super-hero. She's almost the every male dream. Not real. Someone like her does not exist in reality. It cannot.
I am real female, I'm real scientist so I know what I'm talking about. So she's not real character and she is presented as some kind of super-hero. In the reality one cannot have a military and scientific carrier together. Both carries are too demanding and most of all demand completely different sets of personalities. And also, females in either of field will not behave as Sam does in the show. Sam is too passive in her relationships with the male colleagues.

I also have to disagree with a few things here. For one, I think it's very possible to have both a military and scientific career. The most popular major at the Air Force Academy is engineering, and you have whole military agencies like DARPA devoted to science and technology. And I do think both fields also cater to similar driven, over-achieving personalities, so I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a military scientist along the lines of Carter.

I also disagree with the characterization of Sam as perfect, but this post is long enough so I'll defer that to another time.

Daniel started as proper scientist, but later they transformed him into something less real and more perfect too. Again, perfect as the person, not as his actions. Please, mind the difference.

I also have to disagree with Daniel being perfect as a person. He even said so in Unending and with the character being one of the more self-reflective on the show, I'm inclined to believe him.

Also, I don't think you can separate labeling someone as perfect but also have them acting imperfectly. How else can we judge someone's perfection, or personality and characteristics for that matter, except by their actions? How does a perfect person act imperfectly, unless they actually were, in some ways, imperfect?

About the Teal'c. Yes, you're right. They did not develop that character enough. It had a potential, at the beginning. But, with the time they turned him into another samurai-like perfect character. And then, what could they explore more about him? Show some more martial art moves he did not demonstrate previously? There were no surprises within him either at that stage in the show. He was free from the parasite, he was highly moral character, perfect warrior, his son was doing fine, becoming exactly the same perfect character and his people got free. What possible exploration there was left to do? What problem was there left to solve? Nothing. Teal'c was stuck in the mould and made in the way he can react only in certain, highly moral way. We could not question his actions, his motives, we could not be surprised by either of them. His story arc was complete. You cannot have interesting story about the character that is content. There is no inner struggle.

And I also have to disagree about Teal'c. I don't think he was shown as a perfect warrior, or as a highly moral character. His past as First Prime suggests that he's had to do some terrible things in service to his God, things that many would probably not consider to be moral.

As for what problems were left once his people were free, well what do they do with that freedom? After millennia of slavery, how do you build a free society? Season 9 showed some of those growing pains of the Free Jaffa Nation, how would Teal'c feel about his dream teetering on the brink of catastrophe? And what about the inner struggle he'd have between his loyalty to his people and his loyalty to the SGC and SG-1?

Now, did you happen to mention Teal'c in your argument? Maybe you can relate to the three human characters because, well, they're human. We don't know much about Vala's past, so her "behaviour and attitute" can't really be judged. We all know she's been bruised a lot in the past, and that's probably morphed her into the kind of person she is today. She does what she has to do. At least...what she thought she had to do. But Vala's changing, while staying on Earth. Not completely though, which is understandble. No one changes that much.

Personally, I can relate more to Teal'c than Vala, even though their both aliens.

But I do think we know quite a bit about Vala's past. Her father was con artist who was rarely at home, leaving her to be brought up by her mother, who was a strong woman who could hold a grudge. Her father apparently remarried at some point, since she named Adria after her step-mother. At some point she was taken by Quetesh, ruled over several planets until captured by the Tok'ra and freed, after which she returned to a minor mining colony and continued to impersonate Quetesh. She left after some point and began a life similar to he father's, running cons and stealing, eventually attempting to steal the Prometheus and con Daniel.

Personally, I think Vala's backstory is sufficient to be able to judge her attitude and behavior, and I feel that it is one of a rather selfish, savvy, independent rogue/thief.

She was put on the team, because they all trusted her. She has skills, believe it or not, and people, especially Daniel, understood what it was like to have someone you cared about (doesn't matter if she's the Orici) out there. I figured Vala wanted to stop her daughter from doing anymore damage. She felt responsible for letting the baby live, even though she knew the Ori had given it to her. It was still her daughter.

That's a bit of a sticking point for me, because I don't think it was believable for the team to so completely trust her. And I would buy the importance of Vala being Adria's mother more if that relationship had been shown to actually contribute to the Ori's defeat, but it wasn't.

What I also found strange about Vala joining the team and everyone apparently trusting her in Momento Mori, was that that sentiment was contradicted immediately afterwards in Company of Thieves, where Daniel spent the majority of the episode doubting and second-guessing almost everything she did.

[jckfan55]

I also happen to believe Teal'c is very realistic based on what we know about Jaffa culture. Vala, however, is one of a kind. Look, I like Vala. I think she's an entertaining character. I just disagree with the argument that she is more interesting than all of the other characters combined and that the other characters are like cookie-cutter heroes with no personality just b/c they are not as messed up emotionally as Vala. That's all.

I agree with you. The main reason I watched the show was for the characters.

I do feel her addition to the team was unrealistic based on the show's previous canon. No one at the SGC or in the Air Force would have put a unrepentant former thief/con artist with no specialized training or skill on the flagship team. JMHO.

Right. I had trouble buying the easy way they brought her onto the team. A source of info or an ally? ok. On the team, no.

I also think fans' versions of Vala tend to be better than what we actually saw on the screen. IMHO, she was inconsistently presented--too often veering into the territory of innuendo and "sex kitten" behavior *after* they tried to show her having moved beyond that (coping mechanism?)
Even if they had her backslide they could have had one of the team actually call her on it. imho that would have helped make her a character I'd be interested in.

[leksa]

Well, first I'll assume that you put the Arrakis because you like the original Dune books (by F. Herbert), and for me that means that you are interested in the deep analysis of the characters and what they can do.

Also I have to add that I do not consider any of the Gate shows deep enough to even begin to compare to the work as it is Dune (just original FH books).
I'm not a real fan of SG. I watched it because due to moving form one country to another I did not had a tv, nor reestablished proper social life. So my point of view might be similar to the one of the average viewer.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to 'correct' anyone, just offering a different opinion on the subject.

If the insight is nice and had sense, why should not I accept it? This is a just a show, and we are basically discussing how we saw it, how we interpret it. It is bound to happened that someone else saw something interesting what I missed. When I do not agree with your opinion, I will say so; and offer the reasoning for my point of view. That's the whole point of the discussion, isn't?

I do. Yes, SG-1 despised Maybourne, they didn't trust him any more than they absolutely had to and that was shown in their interactions with the character.

Yes, and you have to also take into the account that in the show they tried to portray the military as the extremely positive and good thing. Hence, the character as Maybourne had to be despised; just to match that picture. The show itself prefers the show situations that are glorifying the heroes and at the same time portray the villains as inhuman as possible. That is especially visible in the last seasons of the show and it's spin off.

IMHO, Vala should have received similar treatment in Avalon. At that point, in the only interaction they had with the character she hijacked their ship, beat up Daniel, and seriously threatened the lives of the entire Prometheus crew. The SGC had absolutely no reason to trust Vala when she returned in Avalon, and even less reason after she tricked them with the bracelets.

Quite opposite. Vala started as bad character, someone completely untrustworthy. An outside character. Her behavior, attitudes did not impact the image of the SG teams in anyway. They stayed good boys! And they got even better boys by accepting such a character into their confidence, by giving a such a bad character a chance for becoming one of them, the "good one".
You see, the first reaction of the people on such development is that Vala is the bad one. No one even said that the team is stupid for accepting her. So the authors goal was achieved. They put a new, funny character that attracted attention of the average viewer, and at the same time they did it in the way to make the team looks even better.

I assume, from the talking with the other members on this forum (not on this thread), that before they put Vala in the team, authors got complaints from audience that the moral and ethical standards in the show declined.
So my guess is that was the reason why character as Vala was introduced. And as I saw it, it did help. It did made team look a bit better.

I also have to disagree with a few things here. For one, I think it's very possible to have both a military and scientific career. The most popular major at the Air Force Academy is engineering, and you have whole military agencies like DARPA devoted to science and technology.

Sorry, you're wrong here. First, engineering is not science. Science and engineering are two completely different things. That's why scientist never can get a job engineer is doing and engineer cannot never do the scientist job.
Second, tell me this, if the Air Force has it's own "military scientists", then why do they give money to us real scientists? I'm just now working at the instrument that is funded (2/3 of it) by Air Force with the only condition is that we mention them in the acknowledgments in our papers. Nothing more.
And third, if that's true, then, how come that there is no, in the last 20 years a single published paper in astrophysics from someone who actually works for the military. As long as I read papers I could not find a single one that is written by someone who works for military. Here is the link for the official on-line archive of the scientific works from astrophysics. If you find a paper written by the person working for the military please let me know. I could not. That's why I said what I said.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
(you'll be able to access names of authors and institutions to which they belong, but for full access to a paper, go to the library of the university that has a astrophysical or astronomy department.)

fields also cater to similar driven, over-achieving personalities, so I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a military scientist along the lines of Carter.

I met those military personnel. They come by from time to time, to see what are we doing (scientific facilities are usually public and basically anyone can do this). I still have to meet a one with whom I can actually talk about science, not just explaining in simple terms what I'm doing, someone who actually do some scientific work. In the best case they just read some of the scientific papers so that they can talk with us. But that's it. Absolutely nothing more.

I also disagree with the characterization of Sam as perfect
I also have to disagree with Daniel being perfect as a person.
Also, I don't think you can separate labeling someone as perfect but also have them acting imperfectly. How else can we judge someone's perfection, or personality and characteristics for that matter, except by their actions?

OK, we are not talking here about the Muad'Dib (or his son Leto) who was genetically changed from us ordinary Homo Sapiens and was able to see the future. We are talking about the ordinary people, ordinary Homo Sapiens that cannot see the future, nor control his/her environment completely. So you have to give some slack for the errors. All the main characters in the show are supposed to be in the level of the abilities of us, homo sapiens, now. So that's why I say that I see them as a perfect homo sapiens. And that's why I can say that Sam is portrayed almost as super-hero, even if she has bad relationships in the show. The only imperfect, immoral lapse of that character was the fact that she override the security protocols of the stargate to make it work faster. But, the authors never, ever even exploited the character flaw that led to that action. We were left to believe that's just a minor mistake. And judging from the writers work at the show, it was a mistake, from the writers themselves. They never planed to introduce such a potentially serious character flaw into Sam.

And I also have to disagree about Teal'c. I don't think he was shown as a perfect warrior, or as a highly moral character. His past as First Prime suggests that he's had to do some terrible things

Yes, but where are the consequences? Where are his nightmares because of that, or why does not he has any? He is basically human. He has the same DNA as homo sapiens (that was the whole point of them incubating the baby-parasites) so he had to have all those psychological troubles that would plague us if we go trough what he went trough. But nothing, absolutely nothing from that was shown in the latest seasons. The only mentioning of that was at the beginning of the show, when he was on that trial. That's all. He was declared as changed, as good person, and that's it. The moment he joined the team, he was "reborn".
Don't you find this a bit annoying?

After millennia of slavery, how do you build a free society?

Oh, I agree, this is really interesting subject to explore. But does not fit to the show. It would require too much depth, too much analysis of the societies, of the human psyche (again Jaffa are mostly homo sapiens so their psyche is same as ours. That was not changed by Goa'uld ).
This show is simply not of that calibre. It is targeted for the audience who watch it not to think about it, but just to be simply entertained. That's obvious, at least to you, who are familiar with the Dune works.

But I do think we know quite a bit about Vala's past.

Yes, the only thing you omitted was that she tried to go back to her village once when she was free from the Goa'uld. And that those people tried to kill her. Then she went to do those other things.
This is actually the crucial point for the team reasoning to give her a chance to "mend her ways". And as you saw in the show, the team reasoning was correct. She ended up "corrected".

Personally, I think Vala's backstory is sufficient to be able to judge her attitude and behavior, and I feel that it is one of a rather selfish, savvy, independent rogue/thief.

Yeah, isn't she?
That's why we got so that kind of info about her past.
For me it's interesting that when they talked about the Teal'c they carefully fail to mention those orders and behavior he had as a prime, that might be seen as the negative. And he had to have them, otherwise, he would not be a prime. We got an example of those, just remember, obliterating the whole village just to cover his own error?
You see, both of the characters got exactly the right kind of the back-story for them to fit the general image of the team. The other complexities of the characters were simply ignored.

That's a bit of a sticking point for me, because I don't think it was believable for the team to so completely trust her.

That's because you consider the team to be realistic. It is not. Even the military, itself, is quite different from the picture they showed to us in the show.

What I also found strange about Vala joining the team and everyone apparently trusting her in Momento Mori, was that that sentiment was contradicted immediately afterwards in Company of Thieves, where Daniel spent the majority of the episode doubting and second-guessing almost everything she did.

It would not be a first, nor last contradiction shown in the show. I got a feeling that the writers of the show did not pay much attention to the previous episodes and consequences from those episodes when they were writing the new ones.

[RealmOfX]

Sorry, you're wrong here. First, engineering is not science. Science and engineering are two completely different things. That's why scientist never can get a job engineer is doing and engineer cannot never do the scientist job.

I heartily suggest you go look up the definition of the word science.

Second, tell me this, if the Air Force has it's own "military scientists", then why do they give money to us real scientists? I'm just now working at the instrument that is funded (2/3 of it) by Air Force with the only condition is that we mention them in the acknowledgments in our papers. Nothing more.

It's called outsourcing. Their main function is military and can't have a huge workforce dedicated to research, some of it yes.

And third, if that's true, then, how come that there is no, in the last 20 years a single published paper in astrophysics from someone who actually works for the military. As long as I read papers I could not find a single one that is written by someone who works for military. Here is the link for the official on-line archive of the scientific works from astrophysics. If you find a paper written by the person working for the military please let me know. I could not. That's why I said what I said.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
(you'll be able to access names of authors and institutions to which they belong, but for full access to a paper, go to the library of the university that has a astrophysical or astronomy department.)

Do you understand the concept of classified? Have you checked out NASA (the non classified stuff)?

(scientific facilities are usually public and basically anyone can do this).

{mod snip}. Are some scientific facilities public? To a certain extent, yes but a very high proportion of research scientific facilities, both private and military, are highly secure facilities.

[Mandysg1]

I do feel her addition to the team was unrealistic based on the show's previous canon. No one at the SGC or in the Air Force would have put a unrepentant former thief/con artist with no specialized training or skill on the flagship team. JMHO.

Right. I had trouble buying the easy way they brought her onto the team. A source of info or an ally? ok. On the team, no.

I also think fans' versions of Vala tend to be better than what we actually saw on the screen. IMHO, she was inconsistently presented--too often veering into the territory of innuendo and "sex kitten" behavior *after* they tried to show her having moved beyond that (coping mechanism?)
Even if they had her backslide they could have had one of the team actually call her on it. imho that would have helped make her a character I'd be interested in.

ITA, Vala's acceptance to the team was unrealistic to the canon of the show. I can see people who don't know the show's canon not having problems with Vala, but I do. Maybourne may have started out as a 'really bad guy', but the character grew on us. He was a character I came to 'love to hate', and even looked forward to seeing him interact with Jack even more. He was a fun 'bad guy'.

Vala, could have been a character like that, if they had kept the show true to conon. She could have been the annoying rougue, that viewers could come to enjoy. But did not (IMO) because they unrealistically (to the show's canon, not real life) added her to the team. Her character, no matter what she says, can't be trusted. She's a liar, con-artist, thief, slaver and attempted murderer, (and I would add unrepentant thief, because she still wants to steal things). SG1 from S1-8 would never add a character like that to SG1. It seems the SGC had to be dumbed down in S9 and 10 to allow Cam as leader and Vala as a member of SG1.

[EvenstarSRV]

Well, first I'll assume that you put the Arrakis because you like the original Dune books (by F. Herbert), and for me that means that you are interested in the deep analysis of the characters and what they can do.

I am a huge Dune fan. I've read all 14 odd books, though the original 6 by Frank Herbert are by far the best.

If the insight is nice and had sense, why should not I accept it? This is a just a show, and we are basically discussing how we saw it, how we interpret it. It is bound to happened that someone else saw something interesting what I missed. When I do not agree with your opinion, I will say so; and offer the reasoning for my point of view. That's the whole point of the discussion, isn't?

True, I guess I just didn't want to seem like I was saying an opposing opinion was 'wrong' and I was 'right', because since so much of this is interpretation no one is absolutely right or wrong.

Yes, and you have to also take into the account that in the show they tried to portray the military as the extremely positive and good thing. Hence, the character as Maybourne had to be despised; just to match that picture. The show itself prefers the show situations that are glorifying the heroes and at the same time portray the villains as inhuman as possible. That is especially visible in the last seasons of the show and it's spin off.

I agree that the show usually tries to portray the SG-1 team, and the USAF by extension, in a good, positive light, but it also doesn't ignore the fact that these people are fallible as well. Situations like The Other Side and Menace for example, do not glorify the heroes IMO, but show the less than ideal decisions they sometimes have to make. And I think they've done similar things in Atlantis with episodes like Michael and Miller's Crossing.

Quite opposite. Vala started as bad character, someone completely untrustworthy. An outside character. Her behavior, attitudes did not impact the image of the SG teams in anyway. They stayed good boys! And they got even better boys by accepting such a character into their confidence, by giving a such a bad character a chance for becoming one of them, the "good one".
You see, the first reaction of the people on such development is that Vala is the bad one. No one even said that the team is stupid for accepting her. So the authors goal was achieved. They put a new, funny character that attracted attention of the average viewer, and at the same time they did it in the way to make the team looks even better.

I can't agree that Vala joining SG-1 doesn't change the image of the SG teams, because they essentially allowed a persistently untrustworthy thief to join an elite military unit. I think there's a significant difference between giving a bad character a chance to redeem themselves, and lowering the standards of a SG team to force the acceptance of the character.

The writers may not have had the characters really questioning Vala's membership, but I as a viewer sure did because it contradicted the canon of the show as I saw it. I think they could have achieved the same goal of having Vala as a funny new character who's given a chance and not have her join SG-1.

Sorry, you're wrong here. First, engineering is not science. Science and engineering are two completely different things. That's why scientist never can get a job engineer is doing and engineer cannot never do the scientist job.

Well I agree with Realm here, engineering is very much a science, often heavily weighted in physics, chemistry, and math. You're right, engineers and scientists probably can't do the same job, but I don't think that means there's no science in engineering, just like there's sometimes engineering involved in a scientist's job.

Second, tell me this, if the Air Force has it's own "military scientists", then why do they give money to us real scientists?

I agree with Realm here too, the military like many other companies, will outsource certain jobs for a variety of reasons, sometimes as simple as budgetary reasons or because a civilian lab may already have better resources for certain projects.

This fact sheet for the AF Office of Scientific Research may also help:http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/fact...et.asp?id=8131

As well as this basic job description of an AF Science Officer: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...obs/bl61sx.htm

OK, we are not talking here about the Muad'Dib (or his son Leto) who was genetically changed from us ordinary Homo Sapiens and was able to see the future. We are talking about the ordinary people, ordinary Homo Sapiens that cannot see the future, nor control his/her environment completely. So you have to give some slack for the errors. All the main characters in the show are supposed to be in the level of the abilities of us, homo sapiens, now. So that's why I say that I see them as a perfect homo sapiens. And that's why I can say that Sam is portrayed almost as super-hero, even if she has bad relationships in the show. The only imperfect, immoral lapse of that character was the fact that she override the security protocols of the stargate to make it work faster.

For me, one of Sam's biggest character flaws is the tunnel-vision she gets on certain issues, especially her work. This manifests itself in wanting to watch the black hole footage in Matter of Time, trying to get the lock in Red Sky, the technology of the Eurondans in Other Side, fixating on the archway in Paradise Lost, and the potential humanity in her replicator double.

I think all the SG-1 characters are shown to have their own character flaws, Jack's holding grudges against people who he feels has wronged him and his resistance to trusting people, Daniel getting too caught up in a situation and not stepping back and seeing the bigger picture, Teal'c's Jaffa revenge tendencies, Mitchell's hotheadedness, to name a few.

Though I will add, even though Muad'Dib and Leto II could see the future in a way, I think they both still made mistakes and had character flaws. Dune Messiah is all about Paul's flaws and mistakes that lead to his fall.

Yes, but where are the consequences? Where are his nightmares because of that, or why does not he has any? He is basically human. He has the same DNA as homo sapiens (that was the whole point of them incubating the baby-parasites) so he had to have all those psychological troubles that would plague us if we go trough what he went trough. But nothing, absolutely nothing from that was shown in the latest seasons. The only mentioning of that was at the beginning of the show, when he was on that trial. That's all. He was declared as changed, as good person, and that's it. The moment he joined the team, he was "reborn".
Don't you find this a bit annoying?

I do wish they'd shown more of Teal'c emotional struggles, but the character was portrayed as more stoic, someone who absolutely did not wear his heart or emotions on his sleeve so visually showing his struggles is harder.

For times when Teal'c emotional difficulties were shown, I think Cor'ai did a good job to show his guilt and his willingness be take full responsibility for his actions. Another great moment for that for me was his speech to Tomin in Ark of Truth. And his struggles with his darker tendencies were well shown in Threshold and Talion, IMO.

Oh, I agree, this is really interesting subject to explore. But does not fit to the show. It would require too much depth, too much analysis of the societies, of the human psyche (again Jaffa are mostly homo sapiens so their psyche is same as ours. That was not changed by Goa'uld ).
This show is simply not of that calibre. It is targeted for the audience who watch it not to think about it, but just to be simply entertained. That's obvious, at least to you, who are familiar with the Dune works.

I agree Stargate, or any TV show for that matter, would have great difficult in matching the analysis of a novel or series because of the different storytelling medium. You put all the depth and analysis in Dune into a screenplay and you'd get a movie 10 hours long.

I also think that while Stargate is primarily meant to entertain, it can do so while also making its audience think. People still discuss the decisions made in episodes like The Other Side, Menace, Unnatural Selection, Gemini, Michael, and Miller's Crossing, to name a few.

Yes, the only thing you omitted was that she tried to go back to her village once when she was free from the Goa'uld. And that those people tried to kill her. Then she went to do those other things.
This is actually the crucial point for the team reasoning to give her a chance to "mend her ways". And as you saw in the show, the team reasoning was correct. She ended up "corrected".

While I agree the fact that her village turned on her was tragic, I doubt think that it excuses her later actions of continuing to impersonate Quetesh, and becoming a thief/con artist. Maybourne was given similar chances to change his ways in Chain Reaction, Desperate Measures, and Paradise Lost, but that did not necessitate him joining the team.

Yeah, isn't she?
That's why we got so that kind of info about her past.
For me it's interesting that when they talked about the Teal'c they carefully fail to mention those orders and behavior he had as a prime, that might be seen as the negative. And he had to have them, otherwise, he would not be a prime. We got an example of those, just remember, obliterating the whole village just to cover his own error?
You see, both of the characters got exactly the right kind of the back-story for them to fit the general image of the team. The other complexities of the characters were simply ignored.

In episodes like Cor'ai and Threshold, I don't think they shied away from portraying Teal'c actions as First Prime in negative light. He knows the terrible things he did and his mindset regarding that was wonderfully done in Ark of Truth:

It is simple. You will never forgive yourself. Accept it. You hurt others. Many others. That cannot be undone. You will never find personal retribution. But your life does not have to end. That which is right, just, and true can still prevail. If you do not fight for what you believe in, all may be lost for everyone else. But do not fight for yourself, fight for others—others that may be saved through your effort. That is the least you can do.

For me, the general image of the team is of people who have dedicated themselves completely to that ideal, to fighting for others and not themselves. IMHO, the Vala character was shown to be too selfish and self-centered to believably join SG-1.

That's because you consider the team to be realistic. It is not. Even the military, itself, is quite different from the picture they showed to us in the show.

I do personally to find the depiction of the team to mostly be realistic, with dramatic license taken when necessary because of the nature of a TV show. What I did not find realistic was a military unit like SG-1 accepting Vala as a member just to give her a chance.

It would not be a first, nor last contradiction shown in the show. I got a feeling that the writers of the show did not pay much attention to the previous episodes and consequences from those episodes when they were writing the new ones.

If they wanted me to believe that Vala had really changed and the rest of SG-1 trusts her, then show me and try to keep the new characterization as consistent as possible. The writers failed to do that, so I failed to believe she had changed.

[CaramelMonkey]

If they wanted me to believe that Vala had really changed and the rest of SG-1 trusts her, then show me and try to keep the new characterization as consistent as possible. The writers failed to do that, so I failed to believe she had changed.

Wow. Long thread. Long replies. My head hurts.

Anyways.

You honestly couldn't see the change in Vala? I mean, they can't completely change the character, because...well, then she wouldn't be Vala.

I think she's changed as much as she needs to. She's become much more serious, her innuendo's toned down (a bit ), and she's much less selfish. IMHO of course.

When I watch the last two seasons + the movies, I can see a big change in Vala. But maybe that's just me, since I tend to over think things...a lot.