Who's the more avid reader, Park or Scott?

[Jper]

I agree with that, those complications would be interesting. But romantic, I mean in the traditional couple sense of the word. I think we're on a similar page.

Oh we are probably pretty much on the same page.

However, just now, I would like to point out, that people always use the word "romantic", but it (for them) has lots of different meanings and all.

Me personally, am totally lost what it really means most of the time. You have the context, and I understand how when you're watching a love-comedy, a romantic comedy, or a romance, or whatever, that certain elements, can be considered romantic by some... However, isn't it interesting that sometimes it can totally not be? And it would also differ from person to person. No?

Like for example, naming a star after someone? Romantic?
Giving someone flowers? Romantic?
Having sex? Romantic?
Hugging? Romantic?
Watching a 'romantic' movie?
Watching the stars?
Kissing?
etc.

You can be really close to someone, without it being romantic? Right? Even for friends with benefits? Then there's what I mean with growing... You grow close to each other. It becomes exclusive. You start depending on each other. You trust each other. You share. Not only the good, but also the bad. You are there for each other. etc.
Romantic?

A lot of elements that can make a relationship, and even a marriage are there. However, none of it should be romantic? Yes? No?

Just something to think about I think. Something, I might add, SG's TPTB have been able to create sometimes maybe, but mostly it has gone wrong with either too much or not enough. Not really surprising though, as it already isn't easy in real life, can't be easy to get it on screen.

Or should TV really be an idealized image, or fantasy, depicting life as it should be, or is in an utopia, or fantasy-world. As to escape this one? As to be entertained? Then it also depends of course by what you are entertained I suppose.

[natyanayaki]

I agree with you, which is why I do think we're on the same page. I just think in this day and sex=doesn't have to equal romance it doesn't have to equal love. In fact, my biggest problem with the Scott and Chloe, wasn't that they slept together, it was that I felt like I was watching a "love" scene rather than a "sex" scene and I felt that it was too soon in the series, and too soon in terms of how long they knew each other for that to occur. I just think that in television, when a couple sleeps together, it's either because they're already in romantic-couple love, or that they'll eventually become a romantic couple (again in the traditional, soap opera, romantic movie sense), and I don't think that it's always applicable to today's society, especially today's US society.

So yeah, we're on the same page. I guess we're talking about friends with benefits vs. lovers. Now, in both scenarios the individuals involved could love each other, but there's a different feeling about the love. For instance, Gertrude could love Bob with all her heart, and they may be share physical benefits with each other, but we're not a romantic couple...they're just 2 people who love each other, who happen to sleep together, as opposed to Rose and Ramon who may not love each other, but share a chemistry which lead to a romance in the traditional sense, that includes a type of courtship, and they also sleep with each other but because of the chemistry, they're lovers.

Do I make sense?

Eta, I want to mention that as far as i know Gertrude, Bob, Rose and Ramon are figments of my imagination...

[Jper]

I agree with you, which is why I do think we're on the same page. I just think in this day and sex=doesn't have to equal romance it doesn't have to equal love. In fact, my biggest problem with the Scott and Chloe, wasn't that they slept together, it was that I felt like I was watching a "love" scene rather than a "sex" scene and I felt that it was too soon in the series, and too soon in terms of how long they knew each other for that to occur. I just think that in television, when a couple sleeps together, it's either because they're already in romantic-couple love, or that they'll eventually become a romantic couple (again in the traditional, soap opera, romantic movie sense), and I don't think that it's always applicable to today's society, especially today's US society.

So yeah, we're on the same page. I guess we're talking about friends with benefits vs. lovers. Now, in both scenarios the individuals involved could love each other, but there's a different feeling about the love. For instance, Gertrude could love Bob with all her heart, and they may be share physical benefits with each other, but we're not a romantic couple...they're just 2 people who love each other, who happen to sleep together, as opposed to Rose and Ramon who may not love each other, but share a chemistry which lead to a romance in the traditional sense, that includes a type of courtship, and they also sleep with each other but because of the chemistry, they're lovers.

Do I make sense?

Oh, sure you make sense. I just hope I make as much sense as you do...

However, you might have seen a tradition sex-scene between Chloe and Scott, what I saw was not a traditional sex-scene, or a traditional love-scene. To me it felt much more like a way for searching comfort, closeness, etc. again. And there's the sex doesn't necessarily equals romantic-love issue again.

Also, I don't think that in its context it was too soon. It might, it was hard for us, as we knew and know, etc that they were going to live and all, it probably was completely different for them. I have come to terms with that.

And indeed, you named, pointed out, the traditional problem, or way things are done. To me, it now seems as if TPTB don't know, or don't want to decided where to go with things, traditional or not. Which I might add, is rather realistic.

There's nothing really classic/traditional about this reverse-way of doing this, with Chloe and Scott, is there? You have the classic romantic-elements possibly, but shouldn't this Scott-having-a-child problem/item/thing be the first really obvious indicator that this isn't a real relationship until now, that they have done the sex and love thing first, but now have to deal with the actual relationship part?

[natyanayaki]

Oh, sure you make sense. I just hope I make as much sense as you do...

However, you might have seen a tradition sex-scene between Chloe and Scott, what I saw was not a traditional sex-scene, or a traditional love-scene. To me it felt much more like a way for searching comfort, closeness, etc. again. And there's the sex doesn't necessarily equals romantic-love issue again.

Also, I don't think that in its context it was too soon. It might, it was hard for us, as we knew and know, etc that they were going to live and all, it probably was completely different for them. I have come to terms with that.

And indeed, you named, pointed out, the traditional problem, or way things are done. To me, it now seems as if TPTB don't know, or don't want to decided where to go with things, traditional or not. Which I might add, is rather realistic.

There's nothing really classic/traditional about this reverse-way of doing this, with Chloe and Scott, is there? You have the classic romantic-elements possibly, but shouldn't this Scott-having-a-child problem/item/thing be the first really obvious indicator that this isn't a real relationship until now, that they have done the sex and love thing first, but now have to deal with the actual relationship part?

You do make sense.

Regarding Chloe and Scott, I meant the scene specifically because to me 2 people gaining comfort, or 2 people acting out of their mutual attraction is depicted differently. I found the way it was edited, the music, the presentation, to suggest something that IMO they it was too early for their relationship. So like I said, it's not the they slept together, it was the presentation, and the feeling I got from the presentation of that particular scene, adding the fact that in the Kinosode, Scott called Chloe his girlfriend, the holding hands, the feeling I got didn't feel right with the time-line. But again, these are my opinions, but I think there wasn't enough time or development between the 2 of them to get the kind of writing they're already getting.

[Jper]

You do make sense.

Regarding Chloe and Scott, I meant the scene specifically because to me 2 people gaining comfort, or 2 people acting out of their mutual attraction is depicted differently. I found the way it was edited, the music, the presentation, to suggest something that IMO they it was too early for their relationship. So like I said, it's not the they slept together, it was the presentation, and the feeling I got from the presentation of that particular scene, adding the fact that in the Kinosode, Scott called Chloe his girlfriend, the holding hands, the feeling I got didn't feel right with the time-line. But again, these are my opinions, but I think there wasn't enough time or development between the 2 of them to get the kind of writing they're already getting.

Yeah, it's the duality that's getting to you. And that I understand completely. There are imho two things that do need mentioning in that regard. First of all there's the thing where they might be fooling themselves and each other, subconsciously or not. Like they are pretending, believing to be something they are not. Like a crush, the jolly-of-love thing that happens. And secondly, like I said, TPTB are walking this fine line of having this duality later playing out realistically (hopefully) combined with the fact that they might want to keep this like this as to support several views, opinions, and also their own indecisiveness, or deliberatively created fuzzy-ness.

(About the time and development) And maybe that's just the point? They have this short of development, while the background is missing, which possibly has now (with the Scott's child thing) caught up or will catch up with them later. It's that and the fact that this is being typically stargate again, with the possibility of a lot of supposedly character-development off-screen and all.

[natyanayaki]

Yeah, it's the duality that's getting to you. And that I understand completely. There are imho two things that do need mentioning in that regard. First of all there's the thing where they might be fooling themselves and each other, subconsciously or not. Like they are pretending, believing to be something they are not. Like a crush, the jolly-of-love thing that happens. And secondly, like I said, TPTB are walking this fine line of having this duality later playing out realistically (hopefully) combined with the fact that they might want to keep this like this as to support several views, opinions, and also their own indecisiveness, or deliberatively created fuzzy-ness.

(About the time and development) And maybe that's just the point? They have this short of development, while the background is missing, which possibly has now (with the Scott's child thing) caught up or will catch up with them later. It's that and the fact that this is being typically stargate again, with the possibility of a lot of supposedly character-development off-screen and all.

There is that odd duality, and of course I don't know where the writers are going with this. I don't fully trust the writers, not because I have anything against them, but this is so far from their normal writing style, that I don't know if they'll be able to pull it off in a way that I would be satisfied. The reason I'm watching, however, is because I hope I am satisfied and I hope I won't be disappointed. And just to be clear (since I'm so often not) I do like the show, if I didn't I wouldn't be watching, I just wish the balance and the focus of the show would shift. At this point, it feels like we're seeing much more of Earth than of Destiny. I mean, for us to honestly be able to answer who is the more avid reader, I think we'd need more scenes aboard the ship, and I think switching in some of the Kinosodes onto the show, shortening some of the Earth-based scenes, would be awesome! I don't think we should need the Earth scene to learn about these characters, or see their development, their interactions, their emotions while aboard the Destiny, should be enough.

[Jper]

There is that odd duality, and of course I don't know where the writers are going with this. I don't fully trust the writers, not because I have anything against them, but this is so far from their normal writing style, that I don't know if they'll be able to pull it off in a way that I would be satisfied. The reason I'm watching, however, is because I hope I am satisfied and I hope I won't be disappointed. And just to be clear (since I'm so often not) I do like the show, if I didn't I wouldn't be watching, I just wish the balance and the focus of the show would shift. At this point, it feels like we're seeing much more of Earth than of Destiny. I mean, for us to honestly be able to answer who is the more avid reader, I think we'd need more scenes aboard the ship, and I think switching in some of the Kinosodes onto the show, shortening some of the Earth-based scenes, would be awesome! I don't think we should need the Earth scene to learn about these characters, or see their development, their interactions, their emotions while aboard the Destiny, should be enough.

Good points. Well said. Let's see how things pan out in the second half of the first season.