Loose ends in SG-1

[TraK]

well he did kinda save the world 8 times, or 9. Whose counting?

[Jackie]

Under his command the SGC defeated the Replicators and freed the Jaffa.

It's against policy to be promoted in less than 3 years. It's against regulations.

The show never addressed it...just made him a major general so he would qualify for the position tptb gave him.

Hammond was a major general, Landry is a major general and Jack by all sane accounts is a brigadier general.

[suse]

well he did kinda save the world 8 times, or 9. Whose counting?

Teal'c.

I rally don't care about minor loose ends. And I;m pretty generous with the term minor. I don't need every plot detail wrapped up. (Major loose ends are just poor writing though.)

It's the ignoring of canon that drives me up the wall.

suse

[mapsc]

Teal'c.

I rally don't care about minor loose ends. And I;m pretty generous with the term minor. I don't need every plot detail wrapped up. (Major loose ends are just poor writing though.)

It's the ignoring of canon that drives me up the wall.

suse

Here's JM take on show canon from his blog dated 5/10/2007:

"Anonymous #1 also writes: “the command issue (newbie who never saw the Stargate versus 8 year veteran who spent 7 years as 2IC and 1 year as leader of SG-1); Vala’s childish, immature innuendo; the Landry/Lam soap-opera that begs the regs question; etc., were inappropriate and illogical within the Stargate history — the CANON of the show..”

Answer: The command issue obviously did not sit well with you, but it made sense within the narrative framework: Mitchell is charged with the task of putting together a new SG-1 team after the original members have gone their separate ways. Given my time online, I have to conclude that your dislike of the Vala character is an opinion not shared by the majority of fans. As for the “Landry/Lam soap opera” begging the regs - the situation was unique but not unprecedented. As for any of these creative decisions being inappropriate or illogical within the Stargate history and canon of the show - we establish show canon so, at the end of the day and despite your feelings otherwise, they are appropriate and perfectly logical."

Perfectly logical?

Mike

[suse]

Here's JM take on show canon from his blog dated 5/10/2007:

"Anonymous #1 also writes: “the command issue (newbie who never saw the Stargate versus 8 year veteran who spent 7 years as 2IC and 1 year as leader of SG-1); Vala’s childish, immature innuendo; the Landry/Lam soap-opera that begs the regs question; etc., were inappropriate and illogical within the Stargate history — the CANON of the show..”

Answer: The command issue obviously did not sit well with you, but it made sense within the narrative framework: Mitchell is charged with the task of putting together a new SG-1 team after the original members have gone their separate ways. Given my time online, I have to conclude that your dislike of the Vala character is an opinion not shared by the majority of fans. As for the “Landry/Lam soap opera” begging the regs - the situation was unique but not unprecedented. As for any of these creative decisions being inappropriate or illogical within the Stargate history and canon of the show - we establish show canon so, at the end of the day and despite your feelings otherwise, they are appropriate and perfectly logical."

Perfectly logical?

Mike

No. I don't see logic in that statement at all. *

He's flat-out wrong/in denial when he says anything they decide to change is "logical" because they create the canon. It doesn't work that way. It's not logical when it *throws out* established canon for no good(storyline) reason. Canon can be twisted with new facts added, but it can't kill the suspension of disbelief...

It's like if they said that in S9 zats disintegrate on the 4th shot even though we have 8 seasons of it on the third. Is it canon that now it's on the 4th shot because they say so?

Suspension of disbelief = Shot three times darnit!

I'll not derail the thread over this though.

ETA: * Please note I'm not saying Joe's a liar. I just don't agree with his conclusion.

suse