"Stargate Universe" Discussion/Speculation (Spoilers)

[Eternal Density]

Naw...BJS

Unsurprised ED is Unsurprised.

[LtColCarter]

Unsurprised ED is Unsurprised.

Well, you shouldn't be surprised about my comment!

[Coronach]

Well, you shouldn't be surprised about my comment!

I'm certainly not, . Thought I have to agree with ED...Chloe should be there...at the University...so PG can say the following:

"Well, I'm not sure which chair she sat in, so I just decided to spend 30 seconds sitting in each one."

[Eternal Density]

Well, you shouldn't be surprised about my comment!

Yes. That's why I said I wasn't. Now we're both being redundant and are restating the obvious. And restating the obvious repetitively. And repeating repetitively restating the obvious. And now I'm stuck in a loop. And...

[LtColCarter]

Yes. That's why I said I wasn't. Now we're both being redundant and are restating the obvious. And restating the obvious repetitively. And repeating repetitively restating the obvious. And now I'm stuck in a loop. And...

Loops with BJS would be fun!

[Pandora's_Box]

LOL. Well, you've cut that plot down to its basic elements. Unfortunately it sounds more like the beginning of a bad joke than it does a serious plot about a complicated situation.

Because that's all we really know. I've cut it down because there is nothing else to mention. We haven't seen the episode nor read the script and the writers haven't told us all the details of said script so that is all we actually know.

Hey, why have the disabled person in the lesbian's body have/or almost have sex with a straight white man? Can't they find a gay black man or maybe an alien to spice it up a little?

Because the point isn't to mock ethics, but to examine them?

Not everyone wants to see dark, gritty characters who have trouble treating each other with any sort of kindness or decency. Sometimes it's refreshing to see heroic characters strive to do the right thing and support the people around them. There are actually people in real life who try to do that. I don't expect everyone to be a saint -- they're pretty boring. But there's nothing wrong with being likable or acting selflessly on occasion. I guess, it all depends on what you find entertaining, nothing irrational about it.

Of course there isn't and I wasn't suggesting anything to the contrary, but many people say that and yet we get the first real hint of something truly ethically questionable happening and the first reaction of most people is OMG!DO NOT WANT! RACISM!SEXISM!HOMOPHOBICNESSISM!

And I didn't say that not liking those things was irrational. I said calling the writers who write those things racist, sexist, etc... is irrational.

[Pandora's_Box]

Yes, and Michael Shanks is apparently there too!

A classroom? Daniel Jackson? Oh my God, maybe he's teaching something!! When I go back, I can imagine that I'm being lectured to by Daniel Jackson about boring Archeological stuff! Woohoo!!

As a one half History major, I take offense to that.

[PG15]

Hey, if Danny's teaching it, then it's still better than boring Physics stuff.

I'm certainly not, . Thought I have to agree with ED...Chloe should be there...at the University...so PG can say the following:

"Well, I'm not sure which chair she sat in, so I just decided to spend 30 seconds sitting in each one."

And I would so totally do that.

[Eternal Density]

Chloe + timeloop = no need to find a way to get out of the timeloop

[Cautious Explorer]

Because that's all we really know. I've cut it down because there is nothing else to mention. We haven't seen the episode nor read the script and the writers haven't told us all the details of said script so that is all we actually know.



Because the point isn't to mock ethics, but to examine them?

Is it? I'm not sure. There's no way to have an intelligent look at ethical dillemas without the contrivance of a lesbian, a body-swapping machine and a quadriplegic eager to experience sex in a borrowed body? Really?

Of course there isn't and I wasn't suggesting anything to the contrary, but many people say that and yet we get the first real hint of something truly ethically questionable happening and the first reaction of most people is OMG!DO NOT WANT! RACISM!SEXISM!HOMOPHOBICNESSISM!

And I didn't say that not liking those things was irrational. I said calling the writers who write those things racist, sexist, etc... is irrational.

It's not irrational to question rude and insenstive casting sides. To me it's an indication of the mind-set at Bridge Studios. It's not irrational to raise concerns about how writers I've become increasingly disappointed with will handle difficult issues when they've made so many flubs in the past (IMO). It's not irrational to rely on past experience with these same writers when it comes to interpreting their present work -- and as far as how they've handled their female characters, I don't think it's at all irrational to say theres a good deal of sexism there.

[Pandora's_Box]

Is it? I'm not sure. There's no way to have an intelligent look at ethical dillemas without the contrivance of a lesbian, a body-swapping machine and a quadriplegic eager to experience sex in a borrowed body? Really?

Okay, first off that's a conclusion you've decided to draw. What we were made aware of is that she's brought to The Destiny to help save the stranded people. Her entire goal in the episode (and in life) is not to have sex.

And even if it is...I would argue that that is the goal for the vast majority of people. I would imagine that a person who hasn't had sex in a long time (or ever) would be eager to do so.

Which isn't to say that's all she's thinking about, but human nature does lend itself to predictability.

Secondly, why not? This is a science fiction show not a sitcom.

It's not irrational to question rude and insenstive casting sides. To me it's an indication of the mind-set at Bridge Studios. It's not irrational to raise concerns about how writers I've become increasingly disappointed with will handle difficult issues when they've made so many flubs in the past (IMO). It's not irrational to rely on past experience with these same writers when it comes to interpreting their present work -- and as far as how they've handled their female characters, I don't think it's at all irrational to say theres a good deal of sexism there.

I will repeat 'cause apparently something is getting lost in translation.

I said it is irrational to call a writer racist and sexist for writing a character or who may be or a situation that could be described in that fashion.

As for how they've handled female characters, not knowing what to do with them does not equate sexism. No writer is a universally good writer.

[Cautious Explorer]

Okay, first off that's a conclusion you've decided to draw. What we were made aware of is that she's brought to The Destiny to help save the stranded people. Her entire goal in the episode (and in life) is not to have sex.

Well I hope not. But the casting sides suggest differently.

And even if it is...I would argue that that is the goal for the vast majority of people. I would imagine that a person who hasn't had sex in a long time (or ever) would be eager to do so.

Which isn't to say that's all she's thinking about, but human nature does lend itself to predictability.

At the expense of violating a body that's been loaned to you? I think most people have a stronger moral code than that.

Secondly, why not? This is a science fiction show not a sitcom.

What are you talking about? Sex is the main goal in many sitcoms.

I will repeat 'cause apparently something is getting lost in translation.

I said it is irrational to call a writer racist and sexist for writing a character or who may be or a situation that could be described in that fashion.

That all depends on how that character is treated. If none of the other characters see anything wrong with the racist/sexist character's actions, or if the racist/sexist character is meant to be one of the heroes of the show, then I do have a problem with it and I question what the writer is selling.

As for how they've handled female characters, not knowing what to do with them does not equate sexism. No writer is a universally good writer.

We're not talking about just one writer. We're talking about a group of writers. Somehow none of these writers is comfortable writing for women. Yet nothing is done to rectify this situation. Are they completely blind to their shortcomings? Or maybe it's just not important to them.

[PG15]

Well I hope not. But the casting sides suggest differently.

But the fact that the script is revised and changed a lot during production basically renders the sides' contents suspect, no?

We're not talking about just one writer. We're talking about a group of writers. Somehow none of these writers is comfortable writing for women. Yet nothing is done to rectify this situation. Are they completely blind to their shortcomings? Or maybe it's just not important to them.

What do you suggest they do?

[tinerin]

At the expense of violating a body that's been loaned to you?

And where has it been stated that this actually happens?

[Shan Bruce Lee]

I think they've handled the writing for female characters fine.