Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you agree with any of this?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Do you agree with any of this?

    This article that I read on Stargate-Sg1-Solutions.com made me think. At first I was turned off by some of the ideas regarding the sexuality of some of the characters of Sg-1 (mainly Jack and Daniel), thinking it to be way off base. However I soon found myself nodding my head when I read of someone else expressing the emotional feel that Sg-1's earlier seasons held that the seasons of today seem to lack. I have to admit, I haven't read this article since February of 2005, so I'll have to read it again sometime to refresh my memory. When I read this I was not a member of Gateworld Forum and ever since I've joined here I've never got around to posting this thread to see what you would all have to say about it . Partly because I really am not an expert on pasting links to my post, but we'll see how it goes---http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/blog/?p=236 . Okay, so if this goes according to plan you can just click, read, and then discuss on this thread. It may take a bit of your time to read, but I think if you're a fan of Stargate, you'll find it was worth the time.
    For those of you who don't want to read the article: What I'd love to see discussed in this thread: Ideas and questions such as; has some of the emotion been lacking in the recent seasons of Sg-1? What's the reason for this? Why would you or would you not care? The nature of Jack's relationship with Daniel and Sam and how TPTB influence it. And basically anything that is in the article.
    I don't have time now to go into my opinions, but I'll give you this, I'm more on TPTB's side of things than anything.



    Sorry if this article has been talked about before. I clicked the white triangle by the "Search this Forum" and typed in the name of the article and nothing came up. If I did my search wrong please tell me because the search feature has, to my memory, not proven to be very useful to me, and if it is something I am doing wrong I would like to know.
    Last edited by !Dorentus!; 24 September 2005, 02:42 PM.
    Things I've learned about the Stargate Universe:
    1. Don't kiss a goa'uld.
    2. Don't shake hands with a Wraith.
    3. Whacko! are the Ori. It's their way or the hot way.

    #2
    Originally posted by !Dorentus!
    This article that I read on Stargate-Sg1-Solutions.com made me think. At first I was turned off by some of the ideas regarding the sexuality of some of the characters of Sg-1 (mainly Jack and Daniel), thinking it to be way off base. However I soon found myself nodding my head when I read of someone else expressing the emotional feel that Sg-1's earlier seasons held that the seasons of today seem to lack. I have to admit, I haven't read this article since February of 2005, so I'll have to read it again sometime to refresh my memory. When I read this I was not a member of Gateworld Forum and ever since I've joined here I've never got around to posting this thread to see what you would all have to say about it . Partly because I really am not an expert on pasting links to my post, but we'll see how it goes---http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/blog/?p=236 . Okay, so if this goes according to plan you can just click, read, and then discuss on this thread. It may take a bit of your time to read, but I think if you're a fan of Stargate, you'll find it was worth the time.
    For those of you who don't want to read the article: What I'd love to see discussed in this thread: Ideas and questions such as; has some of the emotion been lacking in the recent seasons of Sg-1? What's the reason for this? Why would you or would you not care? The nature of Jack's relationship with Daniel and Sam and how TPTB influence it. And basically anything that is in the article.
    I don't have time now to go into my opinions, but I'll give you this, I'm more on TPTB's side of things than anything.



    Sorry if this article has been talked about before. I clicked the white triangle by the "Search this Forum" and typed in the name of the article and nothing came up. If I did my search wrong please tell me because the search feature has, to my memory, not proven to be very useful to me, and if it is something I am doing wrong I would like to know.
    It's an interesting article. I would say that while it overstates its point, it does bring up some key aspects of the Jack/Daniel dynamic, among them that Daniel tends to get sidelined when they focus on the Sam/Jack ship. What they don't mention in the article is the fact that it also sidelines Teal'c. They also fail to mention the fact that there are other team dynamics besides Jack/Daniel and Jack/Sam.

    I have a problem with the article's unspoken assumption that open emotions in men equals homosexuality.

    I also have a problem with emphasis on heterosexual relationships being described as "troublingly sexist and latently homophobic." (The paragraph in question refers to late season seven.) While at least one s8 ep was sexist in its treatment of Carter, I don't think acknowledging the fact that she's a 40yo career woman who is trying to create a personal life for herself outside of work is sexist. In fact, it's the opposite because it acknowledges that a career woman in a male-dominated profession (as both science and the military are) does not have to be an imitation man. I also don't think the fact that two poeople, both attractive, both friends, who work closely together in dangerous situations are attracted to each other (Carter and O'Neill) is "unlikely." In fact, if any situation is going to bring out any latent chemistry, that one is.

    Yes, O'Neill fails to wail and moan at Daniel's death both at the end of season five and his apparent death near the end of season eight. What the article fails to mention, however, is that a) O'Neill prefers to bury his emotions deeply and rarely shows deep emotion unless he absolutely has to (and Daniel is usually the only one who can get him to do it) and b) when Daniel is presumed dead in season eight, Jack doesn't believe he's dead and so is not mourning for him.
    My LiveJournal.

    If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere.
    -Frank A. Clark

    An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
    -Michel de Saint-Pierre

    Now, there's this about cynicism. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of **** for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink to yourself in perfect peace.
    -Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Borders of Infinity"

    Comment


      #3
      I don't agree that emotion has been lacking on the show. We've just seen it expressed in different ways at times.
      sigpic
      MS - "Boy, wow that's a great question!"
      "...phu...ah..."
      "Anyone know what SENTIENT means???"
      Sunday is my favorite day for two reasons - Football and The Walking Dead

      Comment


        #4
        I think if there's one 'truth' in the article, it's that people see what they want to see. Most events and interactions in any tv show can be interpreted to see whatever you want to see and be used to 'prove' whatever you want to prove.

        I have seen people take the jack/teal'c scene from prometheus, i think, the one where simmons gets spaced to be the 'slashiest scene ever' due to the look between jack and teal'c...yet what i saw was a silent warrior to warrior 'you saved my butt dude!!'

        Another example is in 48 hours, when sam is in the control room and jack comes to see her to ask her about getting teal'c out of the gate.

        was he

        concerned that sam would work too hard trying to save her lover?
        concerned that his lover would work too hard trying to save his friend?
        concerned that his friend would work too hard trying to save his own lover? (ie jack/teal'c)
        concerned that sam would work too hard trying to save their friend?

        a person could make arguements for any/all of the above.

        they see what they want to see and interpret what they want to interpret.
        Where in the World is George Hammond?


        sigpic

        Comment


          #5
          So has anyone ever been to the site I mentioned above? Am I the only one to read this article? Well, Anyways I'll start off by saying the things I didn't like about this article and the things that I did.
          It was a well written article, and when I say that, I'm not talking about whether I agreed with it or not, just that it was interesting, easy to read, thought-provoking, and she expressed her viewpoint well, with decent form and all that good stuff (except for the ?=' problem). It hit home on one of the things that originally attracted me to Sg-1, the emotional connectivity of the characters. She, the Author, gave a good perspective on how the show has apparently changed.
          What did I not like about her article? First off, what's the deal with all the question marks instead of the apostrophes?(?='). On a more serious note, I think she exaggerated TPTB of Stargate's dislike of the expression of emotion between men. There is likely more reasons for the changes that she observed in the show than she addressed. She tended to stick to a one-sided argument instead of presenting the whole picture, i.e. the reasons for Daniel's departure were seen by her to be only a product of, say, Robert Cooper's lack of secure masculinity, made apparent by his inability to show his male characters having any deep emotions with each other, and/or fear of portraying them as homosexuals. Did I ever get the slightest idea of a homosexual attraction between Jack and Daniel? Absolutely not. During my writing of this post I read Beatrice's post, and instead of saying everthing I was planning to say, I will conserve my time, because I agree with Beatrice, and so I will quote.
          Originally posted by Beatrice
          It's an interesting article. I would say that while it overstates its point, it does bring up some key aspects of the Jack/Daniel dynamic, among them that Daniel tends to get sidelined when they focus on the Sam/Jack ship. What they don't mention in the article is the fact that it also sidelines Teal'c. They also fail to mention the fact that there are other team dynamics besides Jack/Daniel and Jack/Sam.

          I have a problem with the article's unspoken assumption that open emotions in men equals homosexuality.

          I also have a problem with emphasis on heterosexual relationships being described as "troublingly sexist and latently homophobic." (The paragraph in question refers to late season seven.) While at least one s8 ep was sexist in its treatment of Carter, I don't think acknowledging the fact that she's a 40yo career woman who is trying to create a personal life for herself outside of work is sexist. In fact, it's the opposite because it acknowledges that a career woman in a male-dominated profession (as both science and the military are) does not have to be an imitation man. I also don't think the fact that two poeople, both attractive, both friends, who work closely together in dangerous situations are attracted to each other (Carter and O'Neill) is "unlikely." In fact, if any situation is going to bring out any latent chemistry, that one is.

          Yes, O'Neill fails to wail and moan at Daniel's death both at the end of season five and his apparent death near the end of season eight. What the article fails to mention, however, is that a) O'Neill prefers to bury his emotions deeply and rarely shows deep emotion unless he absolutely has to (and Daniel is usually the only one who can get him to do it) and b) when Daniel is presumed dead in season eight, Jack doesn't believe he's dead and so is not mourning for him.
          I have to say, I couldn't agree more with all of this and that I was going to write about 3/4 of the above statements myself but now there is no need to. Thanks Beatrice.
          Things I've learned about the Stargate Universe:
          1. Don't kiss a goa'uld.
          2. Don't shake hands with a Wraith.
          3. Whacko! are the Ori. It's their way or the hot way.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by the fifth man
            I don't agree that emotion has been lacking on the show. We've just seen it expressed in different ways at times.
            I know that there have been some great emotional episodes in later years ("Heroes" comes to mind). However, it feels that there hasn't been as many, or the earlier seasons just effected me more because that's just how I'm wired. It could also be that back then I never read any spoilers. And during the back half of season 8 a devoured every spoiler I could get a hold of, so that, I'm guessing, ruined some of the fun. Consequently, after season 8 and season 2 of Atlantis I've been close to being spoiler free.
            If I watch a season 1 episode (SG-1) at 6:00 p.m. and then later on that night watch the new SCI-FI Friday lineup the difference in emotional quality (for lack of a better word) seems lack "night and day". Why this is, is another question, like I said maybe it's just the way I'm wired.
            Things I've learned about the Stargate Universe:
            1. Don't kiss a goa'uld.
            2. Don't shake hands with a Wraith.
            3. Whacko! are the Ori. It's their way or the hot way.

            Comment


              #7
              for me, personally, i attribute a lot of this to a differing in show runners.

              and i'm not trying to hijack this and start it into a pro/anti season whatever debate

              however, in s4 there was an addition of writers and some things/attitudes changed. in s7 there was another turn over, brad left and rob took over and again there was an alteration in attitudes. also in s6 the show changed networks and, in 6 and beyond, i think that there has been differences in now the network 'suggests' things for tptb

              to me, all of this has contributed to a differing in how people perceive the show.

              It's kinda like having a local mcdonald's and go to eat there over the course of 10 years and experience the new/different attitudes of different store managers.

              one might emphasize cleanliness, one speed, one service, one won't care about any of the above.

              all of that will effect you level of satisfaction and lead you to have a different experience everytime you walk through the door and almost make it feel like a totally different restaurant, even though the name over the door is still the same
              Where in the World is George Hammond?


              sigpic

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Skydiver
                all of that will effect you level of satisfaction and lead you to have a different experience everytime you walk through the door and almost make it feel like a totally different restaurant, even though the name over the door is still the same
                I see where you are coming from on this point. Of course changes in those running things on the show will effect the end product. I guess I just adapt easily.
                sigpic
                MS - "Boy, wow that's a great question!"
                "...phu...ah..."
                "Anyone know what SENTIENT means???"
                Sunday is my favorite day for two reasons - Football and The Walking Dead

                Comment

                Working...
                X