The Cam and Vala discussion thread

[Egraine]

Someone like that is usually enjoyed infrequently and only in small doses. They become grating very quickly.

Not to everyone. I like folks of varying personalities.....being around the same "type" all the time can be pretty boring.

Variety/diversity adds to the rich tapestry that is humanity.

[DEM]

Someone like that is usually enjoyed infrequently and only in small doses. They become grating very quickly.

Not to everyone. I like folks of varying personalities.....being around the same "type" all the time can be pretty boring.

I'm not sure how your proposition follows from Zoser's (read: "it doesn't"). Spice, sprinkles, frills, bells, and whistles are all well and good, but as accessories or supplements. I like action movies with lots o' explosions, and horror movies and musicals and psychological thrillers and anything featuring Kevin Bacon. However, I don't think I'd want to be bombarded with explosions and terror or Happy Dancing People™ Every.Single.Evening.

I also enjoy a good bourbon. I know that that is something to be enjoyed relatively sparingly (i.e., as compared to water).

[Farscapefan]

Not to everyone. I like folks of varying personalities.....being around the same "type" all the time can be pretty boring.

Variety/diversity adds to the rich tapestry that is humanity.

Well said Egraine

[The DJ]

1) Likes all seasons of Stargate, 1 to 10, not necessarily equally BUT close enough to actually plan on watching them all again on DVD or re-runs. The person can/may have some reservations regarding the way recent writing/directing has been handled, wishes some minor changes here and there, BUT ultimately still watches the show and "enjoys" it.

I enjoy to some extent every season. I have bought all that are on DVD in the past month and have been rewatching them and enjoying them as much as before. I love S9 and am chomping at the bit for Oct. 3 to roll around. I liked the new direction of the show and thought some of the episodes reached the quality of the middle seasons. BB and CB added some fresh blood and I think breathed some needed life into the show.

2) Likes all Stargate characters, Daniel, Hammond, Landry, Jack, Mitchell, Sam, Vala, Teal'c, Jonas etc. with the exception of maybe one or two minor characters (example of a minor character that is not liked perhaps Hathor or Anise).

I like them all. The only one I have any minor problem with is I tend to find Teal'c-centered stories to be my least favorite. I've been skipping most of them in my re-watching. 1. Daniel 2. Vala 3. Mitchell

3) Is sad that SG1 is not going to be renewed.

Sad? No. Incredibly pissed and annoyed that another great show is gone due to SciFi's incompetence? Indeed

4) Wants SG1 to continue in the form of another season, a new rebranded/renamed series, or movies etc. with the same current cast or with minor adjustments maybe add RDA or something similar, and the same Ori story till its conclusion. After that perhaps go on into other stories/arcs/villians.

Give me anything. Preferably a new series with at least MS, BB, and CB back. AT if possible, CJ is you've got some spare cash laying around.

Add my name to the list. Let the bashing of my opinions commence!

[scarimor]

Variety/diversity adds to the rich tapestry that is humanity.

Which is why you don't want one all the time, right? Small doses. This supports Zoser's observation.

[scarimor]

Sad? No. Incredibly pissed and annoyed that another great show is gone due to SciFi's incompetence? Indeed

I really don't follow this. SciFi brought Stargate to the screen for several years. If they hadn't we wouldn't have had it up til now.

I'm reminded of some of the early attitudes to Sky when it first appeared in the UK. Some people complained that Sky was preventing them from seeing certain shows (e.g. Star Trek:TNG) because they didn't subscribe to Sky. Of course, no terrestrial channel was prepared to buy it at the time, so in reality Sky were the only channel bringing it to our screens.

[Farscapefan]

Which is why you don't want one all the time, right? Small doses. This supports Zoser's observation.

Not at all. I bet by "small doses" Zoser meant several episodes in the season. But "small doses" can also be in EVERY EPISODE. I definitely prefer the second option

[The DJ]

Someone on some other thread said this and I think it is fairly appropiate. Sorry I don't know who it was to credit.

"If someone saves your brother from a car accident, and then shoots him in the face 5 minutes later, would you thank and praise him for saving him from the car?"

Just because SciFi picked up the show 5 years ago does not buy my undying loyalty when they start acting like trash. The reason I comment about SciFi is yes, they bought SG-1 after Showtime dropped it, but the whole attitude of "We don't want to pay for it, and as long as we live, no other US network will have it either" coupled with the fact that they announce this after the 200th is just very tasteless.

Therefore, I declare them incompetent. They bail instead of attempting to recreate the situation where it did well and see if they can make more money.

[gateslacker]

[QUOTE=KatG]If all four criteria must apply I have a feeling you're going to have a pretty short list. Very few people here, regardless of their opinion, meet all of those.

Short list or no, I know I belong on that list!

*heads back into lurkdom*

[smurf]

No, I'm not bothered by the backstory either, I guess what I meant (and should have said) was the introductory stuff and then the need to focus intensely on fitting the character in,(considering that he had such a pivotal role to play) instead of having someone who we already know and don't need to go down this path with, and yes, I agree, a character's personality is very important.

I quite in two minds whether this huge desire to make him some fully backstoried character was entirely necessary in order to make him fit. I can see the usefulness of doing it if this was an entirely new show (even though it was done really, really, badly), but on the other hand plenty of shows have managed to run perfectly well without having to infodump the character to the point I know what underwear they wear on Friday. Stargate: Atlantis, for example, gives us a lead who (after the first season) we knew little beyond that he's a bit of a maverick, who has disobeyed orders to save others, and lost friends in the Gulf(?) - the first two were first episode references which amounted to a dozen lines of dialogue.

The problem with Mitchell, I think, is that they tried to make him fit by showing us things he did separate to the show and the rest of the team, and saying "see, he's just as good as everyone else!" The greatest harm done to the character, for me, were those flashbacks. Traditionally flashbacks are used to inform us of why the character is who they are now - Why Jack was a misery guts at the start, why Sam doesn't get on with her father - but these weren't. They were used to inform us why he was here*, but not who he was and why he is like he is now.

If say, we saw in the flashbacks a hugely career orientated, completely militarily by the book character pre-crash, and then post-crash someone who decides there is more to life than being the best, and he would rather mess with his career by becoming a second in a field he is not entirely trained for than getting to the end of his life with regrets. Then his over excited, inexperienced, OTTness makes sense as part of his new lease of life personality. He could in fact still co-lead with this personality, because we would understand that if the excrement hits the fan he still has his underlying career military personality to fall back on.
Unfortunately what we got was; this is Cameron Mitchell, this is what he was like two years ago - what a hero! - and he's still like that now - what a hero!
Maybe I've watched too many films, too much television, and read too many books, but I expect some character growth reason for the flashbacks otherwise they are the equivalent to the "previously on"s at the start of the episode.

Sorry, that was a bit stream of conciousness. I suppose this should really be tagged under the writers no longer understanding the ABCs of their craft.

*The "I'm the hero of Lost City" idea was a huge mistake IMO. It just rings false. As a long time viewer I know he wasn't a hero in that battle, because I was there, I know who the heroes were, and I'm pretty certain Cam wasn't one of them.
Puts me in mind of Sight Unseen, when Vernon states he's a Gulf War vet but we find he worked in the motor pool. Easy to say you are a hero to people not in the know.

[Skydiver]

What is your source that Claudia Black was brought in as nothing more than a fill in for the boys or to suck in the Farscape crowd? I mean other than your own jaded opinion.

i never said it was anything but my opinion. THe other person however, stated her interpretation of events as a fact...scifi only reupped the show because ben and claudia signed.

cite the source...or is that just more opinion??

[gatebee]

I have not read any of the post. So if this has been mentioned, sorry.

I don't think Vala and Cam killed Stargate. I think it is a combination of things that killed Stargate SG1. The following are in no order of who killed sg1 most.

1. ptb... writers, producers and directors lack off ....
2. RDA leaving created a big hole.
3. Sam not being head of sg1 after Jack left.
4. Vala's over the top s9
5. SG1 being 10 yrs has become a very expensive production.
6. Sam and Jack ship no positive resolution, yet
7. ptb trying to please all the fans and loosing out in the end
8. Cam head of sg1

[Madeleine]

Ok I am curious to know who here belongs to the following segment of the fans (all items below must apply, not just one or two):

1) Likes all seasons of Stargate, 1 to 10, not necessarily equally

Me

2) Likes all Stargate characters,

'fraid not. Still don't like Landry, have gone off Lam.

3) Is sad that SG1 is not going to be renewed.

Me. Very.

4) Wants SG1 to continue in the form of another season,

Me.

Three out of four, not quite there

I don't think anyone's yet made it onto the list, besides you. I've no doubt that there are a number of other people who'd sign up if they were in this thread, but...

What's your point? I don't mean that as a challenge, I'm just curious - I'm guessing you think it has a bearing on who or what 'killed' Stargate, but I can't tell what that is. For instance, a lot of people who'd fail your criteria would still consider themselves ardent fans of the current and recent seasons. I'm thinking of all my favourite shows (B5, Farscape, Coupling, Green Wing, Firefly) and I'd fail to make the 'list' for each of those too, though I adore them all.

Or are you just curious too?

[scarimor]

Just because SciFi picked up the show 5 years ago does not buy my undying loyalty when they start acting like trash. The reason I comment about SciFi is yes, they bought SG-1 after Showtime dropped it, but the whole attitude of "We don't want to pay for it, and as long as we live, no other US network will have it either"

I agree with you on the part I've bolded in that that clause annoys the hell. Not incompetence on their part though - more like ruthless business savvy. Not that I like it

[scarimor]

Not at all. I bet by "small doses" Zoser meant several episodes in the season. But "small doses" can also be in EVERY EPISODE. I definitely prefer the second option

Well, I like "every episode in the season too" However, to paraphrase another poster on another thread - sometimes they go to the same well once too often.