Lt. Matthew Scott /Brian.J.Smith Thunk/Discussion/Appreciation

[Atlantean2005]

Glad to have you back in here Mac! It hasn't been the same without you gracing our presence with your...unique posts!

[Mr.MacGadget]

Glad to have you back in here Mac! It hasn't been the same without you gracing our presence with your...unique posts!

Thank you! And LOL, unique as... dirty, filthy, kinky?

[Khentkawes]

I think it wouldn't have had the same shock value to tell you the truth. And, yes, I think that's part of the reason TPTB decided to show it.

While kissing someone and ignoring a superior officer while doing it is wrong and all that jazz, kissing can still be seen as sweet, cute, loving, all that fluffy stuff. People won't frown upon it as often. Sure they'll say Scott was bad for ignoring the order just to kiss his partner some more, but more often than not the sweetness factor will crowd in and people will make excuses for it.

Okay, I can see that, actually. Which is why I don't really have a problem with it (plus it is just one small aspect of Scott's character, so I don't see the point in making a big deal out of it either way... which I note we agree on ).

I should clarify that when I suggested that, I wasn't referring to a sweet little kiss. More like post-sex making out. My point was, I can understand why people wish it was shot differently.

Personally, I don't quite see the point in the shock value yet. Usually, if something is written to shock the audience, there's a purpose behind it... and I'm not sure what the purpose is yet... probably to show that Scott is young and a bit irresponsible at times. In which case, that's a theme that they need to follow up on (and I have great confidence that they will). That may be why some people are having problems with this scene. Because doing something for shock value only works if the shocking element is developed/expanded upon/dealt with later... and I'm sure it will be dealt with later. We'll just have to wait and see how.

[Madwelshboy]

I dont know what you talking about... *gigglesnort*

Spoiler:

HOT!!! Oh yes, even if he was with a girl , now I don't know why the underwear is black??? That didn't give us too much to see, to... explore... heehee , I hope next time it's gonna be ... blue... or... grey... or white... and shirtless obviously , so request from me to the creators: Lt. Scott in tight, blue underwear, shirtless....

Better, Mad?

That's the Mac we know

Glad to have you back in here Mac! It hasn't been the same without you gracing our presence with your...unique posts!

Someone want somthing!

Thank you! And LOL, unique as... dirty, filthy, kinky?

Yeh to put it kindly

[prion]

I haven't been keeping a tally on that one, but I do recall that the first shot of Rob Lowe in the West Wing--4 time Emmy winning Drama The West Wing--was in a bedroom with a woman with a woman he had picked up in a bar and who was smoking pot. He ended up discovering she was a high-priced call girl. (Oh, and if you're not familiar with the show, he worked for the President of the U.S.)

Seriously, do people thing Shepperd had too much sex? I've read the average American has sex three times a week. Was he getting it more often than that?

This is a very old topic. On-screen we really got only one confirmed act of sex with Sheppard, and that was on "Epiphany" and that was after being there six months! Sure, he flirted, kissed a few women, but that does not constitute sex.

Don't think I care who has sex or not, but geez, there is a time and place for it, and it's not while both participants are are on duty, which Scott definitely was. I think this is an NBC trend this season, as they did on Trauma in the back of the rig (yes, on duty again) and a doctor and nurse nearly did it in the drug storeroom on Mercy. I detect a pattern...

[Mr.MacGadget]

That's the Mac we know

Yeh to put it kindly

Pfft, naughty, kinky, dirty... isn't that enough??? LOL What, I'm the naughtiest thunker on GW, the dirtiest... ever! Sooooooo????

[amconway]

Personally, I don't quite see the point in the shock value yet. Usually, if something is written to shock the audience, there's a purpose behind it... and I'm not sure what the purpose is yet... probably to show that Scott is young and a bit irresponsible at times. In which case, that's a theme that they need to follow up on (and I have great confidence that they will). That may be why some people are having problems with this scene. Because doing something for shock value only works if the shocking element is developed/expanded upon/dealt with later... and I'm sure it will be dealt with later. We'll just have to wait and see how.

There was nothing in the scene that couldn't have been demonstrated with something less extreme. That being the case, it seems to have been included merely to demonstrate that the show itself is going to be more extreme, something I find shortsighted in that the only real effect that has is to alienate a portion of the audience unnecessarily.

I agree that his lack of experience, and the diffidence with which he approaches his new role, is interesting. I look forward to seeing how the character develops.

[FallenAngelII]

Seriously, do people thing Shepperd had too much sex? I've read the average American has sex three times a week. Was he getting it more often than that?

No. It was just annoying that he seemed to be the only one for the most part.

First of all, we are first introduced to Scott when he comes flying out of the stargate on the Destiny, but that's semantics. Secondly, I have no problem with the character; he's young and bored and away from home. What's wrong (or even out of the ordinary) with what he and James did?

Because it's out of place in what was otherwise a dramatic pilot fueled by drama and action.

First of all, we are first introduced to Scott when he comes flying out of the stargate on the Destiny, but that's semantics. Secondly, I have no problem with the character; he's young and bored and away from home. What's wrong (or even out of the ordinary) with what he and James did?

I guess this hinges on what you consider his "introduction". I got a lot out of his character well before that particular scene. He was, after all, the first person to tumble onto the screen.

I meant his backstory. Everyone else who got a flashback had a flashback establishing their character. Apparently, Scott's is that he likes having sex in closets?

Alright, I had to do it. I just went and rewatched that scene and timed it in iTunes. The entire scene (from beginning to him entering the hallway) is 25 seconds long. The actual sex is 15 (ish) seconds long.

Subjectivity aside, I consider 15 seconds to be quite brief.

Not in the Stargate franchise where I don't think we've ever actually had an actual sex scene. Just lots of hints. This was a pretty explicit one, too (as explicit as it can get without getting slapped with an M label).

Sadly, I think you let your bias against said sex scene ruin the plethora of other things we saw of Scott. How about the fact that he's incredibly uncomfortable with leadership? <snipped>

Backstories. In their flashbacks.

I predict there will be exceedingly few, but I certainly won't care either way. I happen to think the sex scene fit in context with the episode (especially with Scott's later interaction with Lt. James).

It fits the context? How? And how could this not have been done with a simple make-out scene?

Ummm...maybe that he likes to have sex? Yes, it tells us something about him. It could be that he likes sex.

And this is my concern. Will he be Sheppard 2.0? A lot of flirting, but also actual sex scenes? Will this be like Atlantis only instead of hints, actual sex scenes? And will we have to sit through these sex scenes?

Stuff.

You, and others, seem to somehow think that I claimed that Scott got zero character development besides the sex scene. This is not true.

My concern is that with the new "hip" and "young" approach that the writers have stated that they want to take, Scott's sexscapades will be more focused on. When I said that I could count previous sex scenes on one hand, I meant instances where sex is heavily implied.

This was the first actual sex scene in Stargate history. And it was in the pilot. I'm concerned that it will become a running "joke" for the writers. Scott will start not only flirting with but actually having sex with a lot of women (or just a few women, but a lot of sex). And we'll have to sit through a whole bunch of sex scenes in the season(s) to come.

Also, if it was done entirely for shock value, then it was done badly. You could've established Scott as irresponsible by having him simply make out with James. But a full-on sex scene will either be entirely out of place and feel like pure shock-and-awe and titillation if no more sex scenes follow it up or if a lot of them do start cropping up, then it'll alienate a large number of viewers who do not want gratuitous sex scenes.

[Atlantean2005]

Someone want somthing!

Ya know, with a post like that, it makes you wonder who REALLY has the dirty mind!

[Pandora's_Box]

And this is my concern. Will he be Sheppard 2.0? A lot of flirting, but also actual sex scenes? Will this be like Atlantis only instead of hints, actual sex scenes?

If TPTB decide to write a character who enjoys casual sex and it is vital to his characterisation, then yeah. Maybe there will be flirtation and even sex.

And will we have to sit through these sex scenes?

That all depends on how fast you can change the channel.

You, and others, seem to somehow think that I claimed that Scott got zero character development besides the sex scene. This is not true.

You said,

Scott, however... all we know is that he likes sex.

Did you mean to write something else?

But a full-on sex scene will either be entirely out of place and feel like pure shock-and-awe and titillation if no more sex scenes follow it up or if a lot of them do start cropping up, then it'll alienate a large number of viewers who do not want gratuitous sex scenes.

I'm confused. So in order for it to not be purely gratuitous, there need to be more sex scenes, but if there are more sex scenes then more people will get pissed off because there's sex?

It seems like a no win situation.

How about you just take it for what it is; a 30 second sex scene in the pilot episode.

[Coronach]

I meant his backstory. Everyone else who got a flashback had a flashback establishing their character. Apparently, Scott's is that he likes having sex in closets?

If that's all you get from it, sure. I got much more about Scott in the context of flashbacks than just that.

Not in the Stargate franchise where I don't think we've ever actually had an actual sex scene. Just lots of hints. This was a pretty explicit one, too (as explicit as it can get without getting slapped with an M label).

So it shouldn't be there because there's no precedence for it? We've known for a long time that SGU was going to be different in many ways. Why can't one of those ways be delving into more mature, explicit events in this regard?

Backstories. In their flashbacks.

Forgive me for reading it wrong, I guess I just focused on the "all we know is that he likes sex." part.

It fits the context? How? And how could this not have been done with a simple make-out scene?

It fits the context of the situation at the Icarus Base. Think about it, they have a bunch of soldiers on patrol each day, yet none of them seem to be pressed for actual work. In fact, this is reiterated in the fact that they are quite surprised by the sudden Lucian Alliance attack. So, really, I can't say I'm surprised that two bored soldiers are off having sex in a closet.

There may also be relationship context (regarding Scott and James) that has yet to be fleshed out more. That's speculative though, so I won't go into that really.

Lastly, my question is why is it the case that they should avoid sex just because something might (and I stress "might") work another way? People keep saying "it could have been done this way". Well of course it could have, but that argument can be made for almost any aspect of a plot.

And if you argue that "it wasn't appropriate for the episode", I'd wonder just when you would consider it appropriate. From what I can gather, most think it's just not appropriate to for the Stargate franchise in general, which I already addressed above.

I don't see why we (referring to those who didn't care about the sex scene) should feel compelled to explain why. I'd ask "Why not?".

[Mr.MacGadget]

Ya know, with a post like that, it makes you wonder who REALLY has the dirty mind!

I have!

[andrewag]

I dont know what you talking about... *gigglesnort*

Spoiler:

HOT!!! Oh yes, even if he was with a girl , now I don't know why the underwear is black??? That didn't give us too much to see, to... explore... heehee , I hope next time it's gonna be ... blue... or... grey... or white... and shirtless obviously , so request from me to the creators: Lt. Scott in tight, blue underwear, shirtless....

Better, Mad?

Thanks for the warm welcome Madwelshboy & Atlantean2005

Can't agree more with Mr.MacGadget!!

[Mr.MacGadget]

Thanks for the warm welcome Madwelshboy & Atlantean2005

Can't agree more with Mr.MacGadget!!

Hey andrewag! Welcome here! So now we have 2 Andrew in the thread? Cool!!

Glad you agreed. Heehee

[SoulReaver]

The entire scene (from beginning to him entering the hallway) is 25 seconds long. The actual sex is 15 (ish) seconds long.

Subjectivity aside, I consider 15 seconds to be quite brief.

yeah but if he replayed that scene several times, then it must have been quite long

And will we have to sit through these sex scenes?

of course not - you're welcome to try various positions



seriously though if u think that scene was too much then u sure wouldn't like BSG. lol