Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So that was pretty much the most underhanded thing we've ever done

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by P-90_177 View Post
    Squeaky clean heroes are sooooo 20th Century.

    They're also very dull.
    Squeaky clean they are not. I still can't believe that Stargate Command was willing to go to those lengths.
    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


      #17
      I can definitely see people like Telford, Maybourne or even Young being prepared to go through with the mission.

      But for Jack O'Neill to authorize a mission like that, just flies in the face of 17 years of character development.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Flying Officer Bennett View Post
        That is not why I watch. I like watching realism in my sci-fi. Realism in terms of how people and institutions act.
        Hear, hear! Was it a devious move on the part of Homeworld Security? Hell yes. And General O'Neill himself signed off on this. Was it a shrewd move? Hell yes. And Woolsey himself pointed out of course that sovereign states serve their own interests. Do I condone the act? Definitely not. But at the same time it was great to see SGU bring that kind of realism to the screen. Let's be real here. The entire Stargate program started off as black ops. In black ops, nobody keeps their hands clean. Whether he was saying this directly or not, Telford was all about the ends justifying the means.

        Edit: If SGU had gone forward past this season, I wonder about the political fallout of this incident with Langara and Earth's other allies in the Milky Way.
        Last edited by Cold Fuzz; 05 April 2011, 08:30 PM.
        sigpic

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Aurora24 View Post
          In Stargate we have several cases of our people doing something that is underhanded or in a morally gray area with the best of intentions. Take what happened with Michael for example. The people on Atlantis wanted to find a way to eliminate the Wraith as a threat by taking away their need to feed. That experiment blew up in their faces and the Pegasus galaxy suffered the consequences.
          I'd argue things were different. They were directly modifying an enemy, no different than when the SGC was experimenting on Goa'ulds. It raised some interesting moral questions once they became humans, though. However, they were at war, and facing annihilation, and thus their actions understandable. It was no more morally deplorable then shooting an enemy soldier.

          I don't mind morally gray heroes; Garak on DS9 was one of the fascinating characters I've ever seen. I really liked him. I have a problem with our SGC people dipping into that realm. Yeah, it may be cliche, but it seems to be all the rage these days to have morally gray heroes; SGU should not be trying to be BSG. Part of what made SG-1 and Atlantis stand out, was that they really tried to be the good guys.

          And everyone here did like that, because they liked SG-1 and SGA. Or perhaps we have some people here that weren't really fans of those two shows, but became hooked on SGU. ;p

          Comment


            #20
            I never thought i would say this

            But no wonder it was cancelled

            To plan a great episode and make it a steampile of a particular s word.
            Tst

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by spinny magee View Post
              I never thought i would say this

              But no wonder it was cancelled

              To plan a great episode and make it a steampile of a particular s word.
              Sauce?
              sigpic

              Comment


                #22
                I figured something like this was on the cards after that senator went to Destiny in a previous ep along with that scientist. Destiny is on the radar as a political tool on Earth and as such is gaining more importance. It is about a bit more than the lives of 80 people now.

                Also, I'm not sure about the skepticism about Earth's actions. This kind of thing has been on the cards for very long time, the IOA and NID proves it. Those forces couldn't have as great an impact before because people like Jack and Hammond had some ability to keep them out under the guise of no one else being qualified and being out of touch with how things are on the front lines. Those characters were a law unto themselves for the most part, so the perception of Earth was dictated by the morality and principles of a few people. Now however, they can no longer escape oversight, and the kind of political thinking that humanity really engages in is coming to the forefront. Stargate Earth is not some enlightened society. It was never even truly worthy of the faith the Asgard put in it. Reality is setting in, and the milky way community will finally get a better picture of what Earth is really about. We look out for number one, first and always.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by DigiFluid View Post
                  Good lord. Our guys have done some underhanded things in the past, whether intentionally or not, but this is really a new low. Use the comm stones to take over a guard captain and president so you can experiment with a potentially world-destroying experiment (on a planet of thousands to millions of people!) when the locals have already said "hell no"? Holy hell guys.
                  Well, initially Homeworld Command thought the Langarans made a deal with the Lucian Alliance. That made them enemies. So, would it be morally questionable to do something similar to the L.A. themselves? Of course not. It wouldn't be possible, since the L.A. know what the stones are and wouldn't be tricked so easily, but that's beside the point. We'd do it in a heartbeat, if we could.

                  It was only later that they found out the Langarans had refused to help the L.A.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    They never had any solid proof that the Langarans made a deal with the Lucian Alliance. They had a few intercepted communications which were taken completely out of context.

                    They just didn't want to wait for several months while the Langaran scientists confirmed their findings, so they used incomplete and unconfirmed evidence in order to justify an act of aggression on a friendly world.

                    Originally posted by blackluster View Post
                    Also, I'm not sure about the skepticism about Earth's actions. This kind of thing has been on the cards for very long time, the IOA and NID proves it.
                    Why does everyone seem to think that the IOA are corrupt bad guys? More often then not, the IOA have advocated a much more reasonable solution to problems then what the military wants.
                    The IOA provides civilian oversight to the Stargate Program, the show tends to show them as bad because the main charcaters are military. But realistically, the military should not be allowed to run the stargate completely unchecked.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Egle01 View Post
                      Sauce?
                      Barbecue.
                      ~ When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take back the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that BURNS YOUR HOUSE DOWN! ~

                      ~ Burning people! He says what we're all thinking! ~

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Why does everyone seem to think that the IOA are corrupt bad guys?
                        Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I don't think that the IOA are corrupt badguys. What I'm saying is that they display a type of thinking that is common in political spheres but applied to a global level. Their actions are dictated by what is best for earth and earth only. We might look like badguys to other planets, but that isn't the ultimate concern of the IOA. They look out for Earth's interests. If that makes us look bad to others, so be it.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by MattSilver 3k View Post
                          Barbecue.
                          It was supposed to start with 's'.
                          Last edited by Egle01; 05 April 2011, 11:51 PM. Reason: Typo fail
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Anyone catch woolsey speaking in that little room, it was like SG:A vs SG:U.


                            I believe the conversation went like this:

                            W: I think I'm speaking for both of us (mckay) when I say we won't be okay with this.
                            T: What are you going to do? Give them a peace treaty?


                            SG:A v.s. SG:U, pretty much right there.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by blackluster View Post
                              Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I don't think that the IOA are corrupt badguys. What I'm saying is that they display a type of thinking that is common in political spheres but applied to a global level. Their actions are dictated by what is best for earth and earth only. We might look like badguys to other planets, but that isn't the ultimate concern of the IOA. They look out for Earth's interests. If that makes us look bad to others, so be it.
                              Yeah, I can definitely agree with that, the IOA certainly do bring a much more political attitude to Earth's dealings.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by UniGater View Post
                                I believe the conversation went like this:

                                W: I think I'm speaking for both of us (mckay) when I say we won't be okay with this.
                                T: What are you going to do? Give them a peace treaty?


                                SG:A v.s. SG:U, pretty much right there.
                                Like some folks like to speak for others? Okay-okay, I see your point.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X