Thank goodness for the Stargate universe….

[elgrey]

It was discovered that I had an ovarian cyst this year, unfortunately a big one that had twisted and done nasty things to my internal workings, so I had to spend time I would have usually have spent doing something a bit more active, either lying on my right side on a sofa drugged up to the eyeballs on painkillers or in and out of hospital having

Comments

[anonymous]

Yes, it told me last night that I'd wittered on at too great a length but I was ready for bed then so I cut the last paragraph and posted.

I think you nailed it with innocence - they seemed to be so thrilled to be travelling to new worlds and pushing those boundaries even if they were set on the journey by such horribly traumatic events. Of course the downside of innocence is that they sailed gaily into the event horizon without proper thought to the consequences. Was it in 'Brief Candle' Hammond said something along the lines of 'it finally bit us on the butt' when O'Neill started aging at an exponential rate? Still, it had a freshness of spirit I enjoyed, and maybe I was the one who grew too cynical rather than the show but after a while it started to get annoying that they couldn't foresee these situations coming because - hey! - did that one last season... and the season before that.. and and and.

I'm glad to hear you say you thought Jack was written and acted consistently because at the time there seemed to be so many complaints about RDA phoning it in, about his lack of care, humanity, whatever. Like you I thought he was dealing with it the same way as he dealt with the loss of Charlie only in a slightly healthier fashion than before - I couldn't imagine him ever taking on a suicide mission because Daniel was gone.

And Teal'c likewise. He was never going to be publically angsting over Daniel's loss. Even Sam - these people are all armed forces and they've all experienced such losses before. And yes, it had to hit harder because Daniel was closer to them than ordinary team mates and, I suppose, because he was a civilian. There must've been a different level of guilt there to losing fellow soldiers/airmen.

You're right, Jonas stood no chance with the way he was inconsistently written and because he was brought in to replace a fan favourite (although I always got annoyed - Michael Shanks chose to leave, it wasn't that they wrote him out for the sake of drama a la Beckett). I thought he was a good throwback to the first season, where everything was fresh and new and simply amazing, and a good counterpoint to the wearier views of the people we'd travelled with for 5 years at that point. And I did think that Corin Nemec was poorly treated by the producers (but that isn't new, is it? I have to keep reminding myself that it's showBUSINESS and their decisions are motivated by bottom lines)so that still bites a little even after all these years (don't ever ask me about Sam Seaborn! Oh boy, I could rant about producers there)

[kbtgirl]

Oops, that was me. Thought I'd better check for length and post but completely forgot I hadn't signed in. And yes, it was Abyss - thanks!

On to SGA. Beckett stood out to me at first because of the faux Scots accent. And then I discovered he was Scots born and bred - oh well, he and John Barrowman are both examples of ex-pats being away too long! Ignoring that though, I liked his interplay with Mckay and as I'd already decided McKay was the most interesting character... Thing is, I could buy Beckett as a leader of a team as well as a doctor, I could even buy him following a military line although sometimes it interfered with his own interpretation of morals and ethics, I could even buy him deciding he wasn't going to follow protocol because his compassion and humanity wouldn't let him. But I don't buy any of the above from Keller. I don't understand why she didn't get sent home when she stated very clearly she didn't like leading in the aftermath of Beckett's death. At the very least they should've brought in a new leader and put her back to being a team member. I don't buy either that someone on the Atlantis mission is so 'wimpish' for want of a better word! They surely have access to far better candidates than that... And she's just too damn young but maybe that says more about me than Atlantis. But then, I often think they're weak in writing for female characters and I suspect it's too do with wish fulfilment and an obsession of sorts with Sam Carter ( I think Torchwood is similar, at least S1 when RTD et al were obsessed with Eve Myles and therefore everybody had to LOVE Gwen). Ironically, I think they almost had it right with Elizabeth but then you get into company politics and why they decided to kill her off but it's best not to go there!

Sam was better than I expected on SGA. Like you I thought they'd have to drop her IQ 50 points or - and I feared this more - drop everybody else's IQ so that she could continue saving the day. Thank god, they didn't and I thought she played very well against the established characters, walking that fine line between (military) command and friendship, and knowing when to let people have their heads. As you say, someobody forgot to update the show bible so it was 'forgotten' that Sam had experience with nanites to allow someone else to shine, but consistency isn't always their greatest skill. (Btw, I'm glossing over 'Patsy Kensit' because that would be too much of a rant at a tangent).Not sure how to split posts so I'll send this and then start another.

[kbtgirl]

So, deaths in drama. I'm okay with them most of the time. I thought Buffy excelled - who'd ever forget Buffy's mother's death? Or Buffy's? And they fitted so well in the plotlines, a reminder that sometimes people die for reasons beyond the supernatural or simply outwith Buffy's control. But Beckett's death? And yes, they did it to make the point that jeopardy does sometimes result in tragedy and because they'd pulled off too many miraculous rescues, but I really really really wish they'd stand by their decisions instead of bowing to public pressure, or wanting to bring the actor back because they like him. I thought if they'd had real guts (and I would've hated it) they would've let Rodney ascend in 'Tao of Rodney' (and I always wished they'd killed off O'Neill instead of leaving him somewhere in limbo in DC just in case they ever needed him again). How can you buy into any kind of jeopardy for these characters when you know that, more than likely, they'll find a way to bring them back next year? Ugh. I think I'd just like to see real consequences instead of ones that can be rescinded.

What's not to love about Wesley? Cough.

I suppose we'd have to give Joss Whedon the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was forced to pack too much into the film because he wasn't sure he would ever get to finish his story otherwise. Mal was too damn heroic and other characters seemed to get short shrift so that the Mal and River stories could play out. I liked River but it was too much too soon for me because I saw the film before the series (my god, was I confused by Simon at first!). I still harbour a tiny hope for that second film even though I knwo I'm probably deluding myself. Star Wrs? Well, I loved it when it was released but I really have no desire to watch it again and haven't even seen the modern trilogy. Ironically I don't particularly care for sci-fi... I keep saying, it's the characterisations I'm there for (and sometimes the pretty).

So, didn't think I had as much to say as this. Nothing to do with the fact that we're so bored at work right now one of my assistants and myself watched the rain for a good ten minutes. Because we don't see it that often, right? Ha.