VOTE! How would you rate 'Alliances?'

[Egle01]

I wish I could change my vote from 8 to 9. Doesn't really matter anyways, but re-watch made me appreciate the episode lots more.

[Skiznot]

Little too much like SG-1 for me but pluses for the gory leg and the interesting moral implications of sacrificing a body that isn't yours. I would have been a very different story if Wray hadn't realized they were already walking dead. More pluses for Wray doing the heroic thing. So I give it a 7.

[Skiznot]

Come to think of it, didn't Jackson and the farscape lady get the bodies they were using killed when the stones were first used in SG-1? That had to suck, I don't they they even knew it was coming because at that time it wasn't a swap. Memory is sketchy on that one.

[Python]

I feel asleep twice.

Yes, a 1/10.

And I thank those who do not try to delegitimize opinions, even with ostensibly acceptable phrases like "haters gonna hate."

[Petra]

I wish I could change my vote from 8 to 9. Doesn't really matter anyways, but re-watch made me appreciate the episode lots more.

I SO agree that Alliances is much more enjoyable on re-watch.

I was on a rollercoaster with this one. At first I was like: "OMG, Greer epiosode!!! That's gotta be worth a 10 at least!" but then I wasn't very impressed - my being half-conscious from exhaustion while watching it for the first time probably had something to do with it I was going to give it a 5-6 note but thankfully I rewatched it first and this time I found it to be very good.

Plot isn't the episode's biggest strength, but what it lacks in storytelling it makes up for with awesome character development. I mean, obviously you can't go wrong with anything Greer-related (I'm such a hopeless fangirl of his, LOL) but who knew I'd like Wray? Not that I disliked her before, but I was pretty meh about her. Alliances made me see her in new light and surprisingly left me rooting for budding Greer/Wray friendship. More of that please!

Plot B (or was it A?) on Destiny dragged a little, especially Michaels/Chloe stuff, but that's probably because I was more interested in Greer

All in all, I give this ep a solid 8. Not the best, but a notable effort nonetheless.

Come to think of it, didn't Jackson and the farscape lady get the bodies they were using killed when the stones were first used in SG-1? That had to suck, I don't they they even knew it was coming because at that time it wasn't a swap. Memory is sketchy on that one.

Yes, they did. This is actually my biggest beef with Origin. Vala and Daniel got Sallis and Harrid killed and didn't even bat an eye, let alone express any regret or shame or mention how utterly wrong it was. Actually the whole thing was swept under the carpet.

Which is why I find all these claims about SG-1 always doing the right thing and SGU characters allegedly being immoral in comparison so ridiculous, but that's for another discussion...

[Lainier]

7/10. Decent episode. I hope Destiny's communication with Earth will not be restored soon. To be isolated from home can be interesting.

[Janus]

5/10...The Earth stuff was good. The Destiny plot line was not.

[Egle01]

5/10...The Earth stuff was good. The Destiny plot line was not.

With stone episodes, it's usually been the opposite.

[Replicator Todd]

With stone episodes, it's usually been the opposite.

Honestly, I think I might of liked The Destiny plotline more even though I really enjoy the Lucian Alliance stuff.

[Python]

Lowest ratings of the entire series.

http://www.gateworld.net/news/2011/0...to-series-low/

Anybody else want to say that 1/10 is an exaggeration?

[Egle01]

Anybody else want to say that 1/10 is an exaggeration?

Yes.

A lot of people (based on comments and rates) liked "Twin Destinies" more than "Deliverance", but still TD had lower numbers.

[Petra]

^^^
Sanity prevails.

I don't understand this logic of "it had low ratings therefore it's a bad* episode". If anything, it means that the previous episode was seen as bad by general viewers since people simply didn't bother to tune in again.

*Just to make sure, I still maintain there is absolutely no correlation between good quality and viewership. maybe apart from "the better quality the less viewers" thing.

[Egle01]

*Just to make sure, I still maintain there is absolutely no correlation between good quality and viewership. maybe apart from "the better quality the less viewers" thing.

If anything, then intelligence doesn't tend to sell.

[Python]

I don't understand this logic of "it had low ratings therefore it's a bad* episode". If anything, it means that the previous episode was seen as bad by general viewers since people simply didn't bother to tune in again.

And that's not the logic I used. Just offering evidence in support. This was the lowest rated show out of all of them. Lowest.

And ratings don't work like that. If someone turns off the show during the middle, it's not counted. Someone can still come back the next week and be lost after the show starts.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

And that's not the logic I used. Just offering evidence in support. This was the lowest rated show out of all of them. Lowest.

And ratings don't work like that. If someone turns off the show during the middle, it's not counted. Someone can still come back the next week and be lost after the show starts.

The ratings seem to be getting lower every episode so I don't use ratings as a judge of quality.