Slashdot Mirror
Trouble at Stargate SG-1
jonerik writes "Salon has this article today about the troubles behind the scenes for Showtime's "Stargate SG-1." Since Michael Shanks left the show in October (a result of his unhappiness with the show's change in focus to "X-Files"-influenced government conspiracy plotlines), women have been abandoning the show in droves. The problems come at a bad time. MGM, which produces the show, is looking to be bought out by a sugar daddy. And the Sci-Fi Channel, which is taking the program over from Showtime for its sixth and final season, can't be happy at the prospect of ending up with a troubled show with plummeting ratings and a fanbase in revolt. "
I have yet to see the more recent episodes, but several of the episodes
I have seen have been quite excellent (and some others well... weren't)
but I know a lot of people who consider SG1 among the best SciFi on TV.
Personally I'll take Lexx & Farscape over it, but its not bad.
w00t w00t!
"first fucking post" -- Eazy "Motherfucking" E
The Sci-Fi Channel's original television programs rarely air for more than one season before being cancelled.
There has to be a reason why Showtime is selling them ownership of the series, too; my guess is that they had anticipated this.
I've watched it a few times late at night (reruns); it didn't seem to be "the best of Sci-Fi," but it's certainly watchable and occasionally exhibits signs of intelligence among the writers.
Do you like German cars?
It's light entertainment, people. Get a grip.
"I have yet to see the more recent episodes, but several of the episodes I have seen have been quite excellent (and some others well... weren't) but I know a lot of people who consider SG1 among the best SciFi on TV" Hey Taco, ever heard of a period? jackass.
Salon.com was way ahead of you on this, and basically it boils down to MGM f'ing over female fans in the vain search for the young male demo.
raretshirts.com - cool vintage t-shirts
heterosexual disease!!!
A man chases a woman, catches her, throws her on the floor. He pulls
down his trousers, lifts her dress and removes her slip. He then starts to
stab her between her legs with his penis. He stabs her furiously, savagely,
bestially, viciously and perversely. He continues to stab her, stabs her
again and again and now and then insulting her with obscene words. He takes
vicious pleasure in seeing the woman at his mercy and enduring his perverse
sexual assault.
Heterosexuals are rapists and potential rapists. Heterosexuals are
stabbers of women.
Heterosexuals are really perverted, disgusting and repulsive.
Heterosexuality is disgusting and repulsive.
Heterosexuals are the excrement of the earth.
We always had a profound disgust and repulsion for heterosexuals and
heterosexuality.
You are a hetero fornicator, a hetero beast, a hetero rapist, a hetero
pervert, a hetero filth, a hetero thief, a hetero liar, a hetero bandit and
a hetero murderer.
Heterosexuals have always been on the offensive. They have always attacked
others without good arguments. Their attacks are based on lies, violence,
vulgarity and injustice. Gays and other groups of people have always been on
the defensive. This is why heterosexuals have become arrogant and
tyrannical. Gays and other groups of people should strike back more often.
They should counter attack They should be more on the offensive also. In
fact it is heterosexuals who have not respected others. They have oppressed
others. The others have the right to strike back. Heterosexuals have always
acted like terrorists. This is Heterosexual Terrorism. They should be
condemned.
Three articles are reproduced below to show how heterosexuals are murderous,
abnormal, perverted, sinful and dirty.
Heterosexuals are beasts and filthy
Heterosexuals like to criticise others when they have themselves many more
faults, defects, vices and perversions.
Heterosexuals are monsters. In 1999, in a few days heterosexuals committed
many monstrous crimes. In Egypt a man stabbed the lover of his wife 300
times and then cut his head. In Israel a man set fire to the house of his
wife, killing his wife and his children. In atlanta, USA a man killed his
wife and children and then killed 9 other people.
Heterosexuals are beasts. Heterosexuality is bestiality.
Some time ago, in belgium, a pastor and his daughter with whom he had
an incestuous relationship killed 10 people. 5 were members of their family.
The two heterosexuals got rid of their victims by dissolving their bodies in
acid. The heterosexual man was a pastor and a theology teacher.
In Gloucester, Great Britain, frederick and rosemary West who were
husband and wife, killed and buried 18 persons. Some were their children.
In the eighties, a heterosexual man in california raped, tortured and
killed more than 15 women. the man took sadistic pleasures in seeing the
women suffered. One of his methods was to cut them with an electric saw. The
man took pleasure in seeing the women shouting in terrible pain.
Several years ago in South America (Colombia) a heterosexual man raped
and killed more than 100 girls.
In France the parents of a 5 year old boy martyrized the little boy
for years. They beat him and imprisoned him in a little cage. They took
pleasure in seeing the little boy suffered.
A few years ago in France a Head of school killed the prostitute he was
frequenting because the prostitute no longer wanted him.
There are many other cases of heterosexual atrocities.
Stargate SG1 was a great series. I can't understand why everytime they get a great thing going, they try to imitate something else and end up a failed ripoff of another show's concept. Seems like everytime I find a show I like, they change it or cancel it. Meanwhile usless garbage like Crossing Over with John Edward is STILL on. I didn't buy it the first season. Who is watching that con man?
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
"My tastes are superior, but as far as you morons who like this show go, "It's not bad"."
I pity your woman.
_________________
EBAY SAFETY TIPZ!
"No copyright infringement intended." -- quote from http://www.savedanieljackson.com/ .
I really like that. We should probably all be putting that on anything we do, so the next person to be sued over the DMCA can at least say "but, look at my site, y'r'honour -- it was clearly unintentional, and I'm real sorry about the whole deal."
Hehe.
StarTrek has done it, Stargate should give it a go as well.
I am sure that people will find there is a lot of money in this sort of thing. I am sure you could have Stargate-AOL or something else. The possibilities are endless - Stargate Credit Card, Bank. You could even have a special log on for your favourite online services eg amazon, ebay, google?
Go out and get sailing!
Taco proposes marriage on valentines day, 12 hours later, hes posting stories on slashdot, rather than out spening a romantic evening with his new fiancee.
This, my frineds, is the alpha geek. Aspire to this, and learn from the master.
Shouldn't you be in bed with your fiance Rob??
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Hey Malda-
I can't believe you're submitting. It's Valentine's Day. Go stuff the porkster.
Drummer Mick Tucker from glam-rock band The Sweet has died. He was 54.
The musician lost a five-year battle against leukaemia and passed away in a hospital in Welwyn Garden City, Herts.
His wife Janet and daughter Aysten, 22, were at his bedside.
In its 1970s heyday, The Sweet achieved top-10 hits with Fox On The Run, Blockbuster and Hell Raiser. Another hit, Ballroom Blitz, featured in the 1992 movie Wayne's World, giving the band a minor resurgence in popularity.
Fellow band member Steve Priest paid tribute to his friend of 30 years, saying: "He was the best drummer England ever produced and it is a sad loss to the music world."
Speaking from his home near Los Angeles, Priest, 53, added: "It was a little bit sudden, to be honest. He was on the verge of leukaemia five years ago but had a bone marrow transplant from his brother which stopped him getting it, but he was never the same.
"He was supposedly clear of it but he had a job fighting infections."
His US agent Maureen O'Connor says Tucker, who lived in Chorleywood, Herts, died from complications of the cancer.
Formed in 1968 as Sweetshop, Sweet was one of Britain's glam-rock bands. They were said to pay more attention to their look than their music and, by 1973, the blatant nature of their lyrics and overt stage antics led to some British clubs banning them.
Lead singer Brian Connolly died of liver failure in 1997, while the fourth original member of the band, Andy Scott, lives in Britain.
I tried. I *really* tried to watch this show. It's creative, I'll give it that. Unfortunately, it's simply too bizarre and, quite frankly, too stupid for words.
IMO, that show is simply yet more proof that all it takes to keep a show alive is a little T & A.
Farscape is cool, but it grates on me at times. SG1 has been good, at least the little I saw. For now, I'll take Enterprise over all of them (excluding the theme song).
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
man....iv seen some bad shows...but come one. how the heck acn u guys be sad about this shows departure??? it was horrible. it gives u that dirty feeling u get from watching 2nd rate tv channels like UPN and TNT...cuz its such a pathetic rip off of x-files with worse acting and pathetic plotlines. thank god its done.
:) :)
Means that when we finally see the episodes in two years time down under, I'll be waiting for the episode where Daniel Jackson departs the scene.
If only it was the doctor whose character got killed!
No!!!
CmdrTaco: I have yet to see the more recent episodes, but several of the episodes I have seen have been quite excellent...
She's gotten to you already! And you just officially became non-single at, like, 9:45am this morning!
First, it's "No, honey, instead of watching Stargate or X-Files or whatever TV show that is, let's go to the new arts & crafts show at the mall".
Next, it'll be "Oh, Robby, could you be a doll and clean up the entire house? I'm not feeling too good this week. Don't forget the toilet and the shower."
Then, she'll be saying "Hey sweetie, don't go with Hemos to that Linux show again. You go every single year and I grow so lonely when you're away. Abandon your friends and let's go rent another movie from Blockbuster!
Finally, it may come to "Rob, quit it with that damn Slashdot crap already. And why haven't you changed your vulgar and perverted username yet?!"
;-)
My Slashdot Research
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Strap it on girls, lets get it on!
I'd so like to stick my tongue in the anal orifice of Laura Hall
I was amused that the Salon article makes such a big deal about women liking Michael Shanks's character (the archeologist) because of his intelligence and sensitivity.
Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, and then tell the audience that the guy is unpopular/sensitive/etc. When Michelle Pfeiffer plays dowdy characters, they stick glasses on her too, and the audience is supposed to believe that no one in the movie notices how beautiful she is.
So, Salon spends pages concocting a complicated explanation for why women find an attractive man attractive. Nice.
Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
Jon, this is your best article since "Junis". Keep up the good work! Just remember to log in and put it on the front page next time.
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
After making an ass of yourself by not proposing in person, getting down on one knee, and all that stuff that normal people do for a living, are you not getting laid? Is that why you are posting news right now? Fag.
Personally, I don't think the show'll be the same w/o Shanks...but, at the same time, IMO, even SG-1's worst episodes still aren't as bad as, say, the best of the current season of the X-Files...While the comparison can be made that Shanks leaving SG-1 is as bad as Duchovny leaving X-Files...
...on the X-Files there was only a main cast of two...on SG-1, there's still at least 3 other well-developed, very respectable characters to root for...
A thought just struck me (ouch), I grew up about the time TV was getting over the fascination of the new medium and starting to put together some decent shows. So I've been exposed to pretty much all of it, but it's still a young medium (compared to print and radio) and I get the feeling my indifference isn't so much in having seen 'it' all before or that the writing isn't so fresh, but that TV is really in a big decline. Profit margins, commoditizing, and some other things really have replaced the talented people that got TV started in the first place. As campy as some older shows are, they demonstrated some serious imagination and cooperative atmosphere to make them happen that seems missing in shows like SG-1, which seem utterly pointless.
It would be very interesting to see a live show where actors are handed a script and actually try to do something, rather than shows loaded up with male and female models as vacuous and passionless as the writing.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hello? Earth to CmdrTaco? You just proposed today. She said yes. WTF are you doing posting a story tonight?
Woops, sorry I've to go. My g.f. wants to know WTF I'm doing on the computer right now. (Actually, she asked me this 20 minutes ago; just answering e-mail, dear).
Oh shit, this is too weird. Now I really have to go. She just asked me again just before I could hit the submit button. Sheesh, they *do* have a sixth sense.
*It was where Daniel and some chick were locked up for fear of being embedded with some kind of assassination-inducing parasite.
Well, I'm a Yank, and they spoiled the (disappointing) surprise for me too. Since I don't have Showtime (I pay enough for cable, thanks), I have to get my SG-1 fix via late night showings on our local Fox affiliate. Thank god for TiVo, they can't hide it from me, no matter how late they show it at night and how many times they change the schedule.
Anyway -- I have to cast my vote for SG-1 being the best Science Fiction show. It's got great characters and they interact wonderfully. Pity Shanks is leaving over an attempt to make SG-1 more X-Files-y as X-Files is going down the tubes quality-wise.
Alas.
Catch all the episodes you've missed:
http://www.sg1archive.com/
(of course, now I've slashdotted the site, but I've already downloaded all the episodes...)
Michael Shanks was really the first star of StarGate. He played a major role in the movie and went for nearly 5 whole seasons in the TV spinoff SG1. So of course when he goes, he's going to be missed, and it's not just the women who will miss him either.
Teal'c and O'Neall are gung-ho militant, Carter is an astrophysicist, and Daniel Jackson was the expert on cultures and various languages. Always peaceful and good natured. He helped blanace the feel of the show, and kept it in a star-trek explorer's perspective.
I hope the show stays alive when Michael leaves, as long as his replacement does a decent job I don't think i'm going to stop watching anytime soon.
But I have to agree, SG-1 IS one of the best Scifi shows ever to hit tv. It's innovative, inspiring, and it tells a very deep story. I noticed alot of shows build on one another, the best way to watch SG-1 (IMHO) is from the first season to the 5th stright through. It's like a long chaptered story and keeps you waiting for the next episode.
I have the season 1 box set. I just hope that MGM still plans to release the rest of them, or i'm going to be
P-I-S-S-E-D.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
...so an attractive guy quits the show, so you stop watching. I thought only men did that. It is a good show, but who has time to watch TV anymore anyway.
But, rewatching the original movie, I was reminded again as to who the real central character of this story used to be. And what it used to be about.
It's very disappointing to see how far this series has strayed from the things that made it great. Dr. Daniel Jackson was the embodiment of everything that was great about Stargate. The rest of the characters were expendable. Granted, it wouldn't have been the same without them, especially Teal'c, but it could have stayed true to Stargate. Stargate without Daniel Jackson just isn't Stargate...
I'm very sorry to see this series go...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
this show sucks and so do its fans. you people have no lief and are unedukated.
I am glad to see that someone else has read Bored of the Rings.
-1 Offtopic
Rhapsody in Numbers
Apart from the fantastic initial writing, I know that the fundamental story is of a limited length (I assume 24 episodes :), the plotline is probably reasonably thought out to a dramatic end, and if they are smart, they will have another seperate self contained story line next season. If not, however, at least I've gotten a complete and interesting story out of it.
What are geeks doing watching television, anyway? Aren't they supposed to be too busy doing things that require the full attention of their mighty intellects, like whoring for karma and ranting about Microsoft?
I mean, I have a passable A/V rig, and I get my cable for free, but my remote has a thick layer of dust over the "Power" button...
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
The big screen original version, that is.
Clearly a light film, not much food for thought, but tied interesting "Leitmotifs" - aliens and sci-fi, Egypt and archeology, a different world with different people, lots of action and a little romance.
My kind of film.
The TV series blew it, but is still somewhat interesting - main problems, IMHO, are the worms (please!) and the vikings (PLEASE!!!).
Richard D. Anderson is ok. No Lawrence Olivier, but a good actor, I suppose.
This series could be a major hit, too bad such a marvellous idea got wasted without creative scripts.
Babylon 5, e.g., did much better with a lousy idea and first-class writer like its creator.
Jokes about CT being married became old at exactly 09:29AM.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
That's funny.
I quit watching stargate SG-1 about 3 weeks into the season since it quickly turned into a chicks show that chicks don't want to watch with guys. I really don't care if they change it back, it's still got the stigma attached.
I guess this proves that once you alienate an audience you don't get it back.
Personally I'll take Lexx & Farscape over it, but its not bad.
Personally, I'll take Botulism & Dysentery over Lexx.
The Salon piece focused mainly on how much female fans liked the Daniel Jackson character, but I've got to say he's one of my favorites as well. It's a tie between him and "Sam"; must be my identifying w/ geeks. I'm watching the syndicated broadcasts and am just now getting the switch to consiracy-theory type stories. They're ok every now and then, but definately not why I watch the show. This sucks.
yeah, i should have watched that show more often, i didn't even know they had skanks on it.
_________________
EBAY SAFETY TIPZ!
'cause I watch (and love) SG-1 on Fox (or is it CBS? I dunno, but god I love that my TiVo does) instead of Cinemax, and therefore am running a year or two behind the production episodes, I still have a year or two of good episodes left! Nyah, nyah!
And since none of my friends have Cinemax either (at least not ones who are SG-1 fans) I don't have to hear spoilers two years in advance...
Kevin Fox
He's either telepathic or contacting spirits, both of which are highly unconventional ideas in science, and both would require high amounts of brain activity. Personally, I think the guy's just telling the truth when he can say that he can contact spirits in the netherworld.
More studies should be conducted on him and other psychics who have been proven to be real. Why doesn't science have more of an interest in this stuff if there's at least some proof that it could exist?
Zodiac Survey
There is one woman on the board who tries to explain to the rest that it is not worth changing the plot just to pick up the disaffected X-files watchers looking for the next big conspiracy show.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
1. Main characters get into threatening situation
2. Use StarGate to go to X world
3. Battle inhabitants with aid of native rebels
4. Return to base with solution to problem
5. Repeat
Maybe the show got better after I stopped watching it, but that's how every episode I watched played out.
Seriously I think someone is taking production tips from Anime OVAs. They started a show and they knew exactly where and how it would end from the get-go. I'd like to see more shows written in this mini-series-esque way. It make for interesting plotlines.
"We had Gilgamesh, Ulysses, Beowulf, Don Quixote, David Copperfield and now Daniel Jackson,"
I liked the show, but if you want to experience fully developed characters that are complex, go read a book. Having read the books quoted, I don't consider the character "Danial Jackson" on the same level. How about read the Upanisad, baghavadghita, Ramayana, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the old testament, No exit, Faerie Queen, Cantebury tales, Don Juan, Hildebrant and Hadubrant (old german epic) or Frankenstein? I love TV, but people should read the "classics" and know where TV draws from.
I think Stargate is great, if usually somewhat light, entertainment. They hit many of the standard SF stories, but put good twists on them. E.g. in the typical episode where some of the characters are caught in a time loop, eventually they just get tired of living the same day over and over, and start having some fun -- hitting golf balls through the stargate, punching people, kissing people, etc. Or when about halfway through the episode they finally revealed that at the beginning of each time loop, Teal'c was getting hit in the face by a door, and was getting seriously sick of that. Ok, getting hit in the face by a door isn't the funniest thing in the world, but they stuck it into an episode that "should have" been very serious, but which started turning quite silly.
That's also what I like about Farscape. Often when I'm watching it, I think I know where the episode is going (having seen it on Star Trek, or Outer Limits, etc.), but then they end up turning in a direction I didn't expect. Sometimes funny, sometimes not.
Macgyver will always be better in Macgyver.
Kill your TV.
He doesn't predict anything. He says things like 'I'm thinking of a relative that starts with "E" or has "E" in it, or something with "E"'. Vanna White could do that. And if someone says he's wrong, he persists until they back down. CmdrTaco has more respectability than this guy.
Some points on this article...
There've been something like 10-20 conspiracy themed episodes out of the 109 they've shown. (I know, I have them ALL on DivX. Seriously, I'm an addict.) And conspiracy-heavy eps tend to have other themes mixed in with them, so its not just a complete X-Files rip-off. (Though I will admit the show became more 'political' than 'exploratory'.)
The latex-clad babe (I think they're referring to Anise) showed up in all of three episodes back in the middle of the 4th season. In general I've been happy with their limited use of sex symbols. At least Anise had some realistic premise for being sexy, unlike, say, Seven of Nine.
They killed off the Daniel Jackson character on the 2nd last ep of the 5th season. That's the season that just finished. So there's been all of one episode without Michael Shanks in it. Not quite a lot of time for anyone to abandon the show.
The character they're planning on replacing him with (Jonas Quinn, played by Corin Nemic) is almost like Jackson. Not the 'hunk' that the Wired article suggests. He's intelligent, moral, with sense of wonder... They may have some trouble making him different from Daniel.
Yes, Daniel has been under-used as of late. Though he has had episodes where he's focused, in the others he tends to be sidelined. And him leaving will be a hard hit. Jonas/Corin has big shoes to fill. But I think the article's exagerating the situation just a little.
In conclusion... I think they're mostly banging on about nothing.
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
I am dissappointed with the direction SG-1 apparently has taken. I see mostly the syndicated version on the local UPN, which apparently was the first several seasons. I liked many of the planetary expedition episodes. They had a slight star-trek feel without always the crappy technical solution.
I could never get into the X-Files. Frankly, the constant plot of a government conspiracy became tiresome. Occasionally (maybe once per season), it works ok, but I'm not surprised they too it too far.
Yes, Daniel Jackson was the best character on the show. Definately not for the "sensistive" reasons given, but that he was the most intelligenct and logical character. Anyone who liked the Spock/Data/Tuvok character sees that Jackson is the Stargate equivalent. And, of course, being a geek I can relate to how the character is portrayed. It is weird that shows are portrayeing the geeks as the sex symbols now (just look at the Vulcan on Enterprise).
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Embarrassing. Double 'r', double 's'.
I also disagree with your use of then. Than is used to be comparative. Then is indicative of expressions of time or timing and consequence.
Might I suggest a more heartfelt and serious way of proposal? What was the diamond on the ring? A penguin shaped imperfect piece of shit bought at the mall last minute? Zales? I doubt Mr. JUBEI machine knows an SI-J from a VVS1-E. You are very heavily 'included,' Malda. Can you think of s shittier and more cliché day to propose, or is Valentine's Day king shit of that Tird Island. She must be a lobotomized retard, otherwise you should have spat upon by your would be spouse.
Hey, loserboi, don't forget to invite Larry Wall to the wedding and write your vows in a Perl Script. Then you can "chomp" down on your cake.
You don't have to be a Kreskin to see the end of this loser elopement ending in the very near future.
This is crap, Malda. If I was an English teacher, and this was a 5 grader's half assed attempt at writing a romantic short story, I'd throw the script back in the kid's face and wonder who dropped him as a kid. This is pathetic. I feel bad for your wife.
When did Macgyver join the Air Force? Missed that episode.
Embarrassing. Double 'r', double 's'.
I also disagree with your use of then. Than is used to be comparative. Then is indicative of expressions of time or timing and consequence.
Might I suggest a more heartfelt and serious way of proposal? What was the diamond on the ring? A penguin shaped imperfect piece of shit bought at the mall last minute? Zales? I doubt Mr. JUBEI machine knows an SI-J from a VVS1-E. You are very heavily 'included,' Malda. Can you think of s shittier and more cliché day to propose, or is Valentine's Day king shit of that Tird Island. She must be a lobotomized retard, otherwise you should have spat upon by your would be spouse.
Hey, loserboi, don't forget to invite Larry Wall to the wedding and write your vows in a Perl Script. Then you can "chomp" down on your cake.
You don't have to be a Kreskin to see the end of this loser elopement ending in the very near future.
This is crap, Malda. If I was an English teacher, and this was a 5 grader's half assed attempt at writing a romantic short story, I'd throw the script back in the kid's face and wonder who dropped him as a kid. This is pathetic. I feel bad for your wife.
I went to see Stargate the movie opening day. At the end of the movie there was a brief applause, then most of the audience laughed and booed. The theatre was packed at one in the afternoon, we were starved for a Sci-fi film. The smoking slow-mo helmet. Terrible dialogue, inexcusable for a movie. All it had was a good concept, poor execution (Emeric & Devilen (sp?) have yet too make a decent movie).
The TV Show is infinitely better. Great cast chemistry. The stories are good and sometimes excellent. It's positive and has a good message and Amanda Tapping is a real hottie.
Scene: Patty and Selma's loungeroom. In the corner sits a robot Pierce Brosnan with a coat over the top and a sign reading "out of order". The television is on.
Patty: MacGyver is quitting stargate! He's abandoning us!
Selma: I'll never watch this program again!
Patty: Thank god for our collectors edition of MacGyver on DVD (fetches a disk and slaps it in).
Patty and Selma (lighting up): Aaaaaaaaah
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
She has nice, pipe-fitter lips. No disrespect, but trust me, my boy. There's two things I'm good at. That's pulling dents, and spottin' good blow jobs. And that sweetie has world-class blow job lips. Am I right, skipper?
I remember every blow job I ever got. How about you, you remember your first blow job? How long did it take for the guy to cum?! Did ya hear that? I said, "You remember your first blow job" you say, "Yeah." I said, "How long did it take for the guy to cum?"
--Metrollica
Whoever modded me down:
/your/ TV. Ever notice how people dress like their favorite television characters? I remember when 90210 was popular. People walking around wearing sideburns and other artifacts of the program. Now it's Friends, and all that crap. I saw 5 Courtney Cox's at the gas station today.
Kill
Television is kind of like a hamster wheel. Keep the inmates occupied so they don't look around and think of ways to escape. Ever watch a cat mindlessly chase a laser beam? Seems to awakens some primitive and nonthinking part of their brains. Amazing how they can be so engrossed with such a simple trick.
Ah, well. You're probably one of those people so far gone, that you consider skipping commercials as stealing from god.
more than 1,000 protests had been phoned into Cohen's office.
I knew these women were out there! CmdrTaco won't be the only one!!!
I wonder if Cohen kept any phone numbers...
I stole this Sig
Showtime may change one or two things about the show before passing it on to the Sci-Fi Channel, as evidenced by this recently leaked image.
---
"Sic 'em up, little buddy."
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
This doesn't look good. Full story is here.
I think Taco is still intoxicated from this
morning. SG1 is one of the worst scifi shows
that has ever been produced.
I mean it has it all, annoying characters, poor
unplausable plots, failed attempts at comic
relief and unoriginal story ideas. Oh wait, did
I mention _bad_ acting?
I was not able to watch more then 15 minutes
of this show at a time (and even that under
duress) without wanting to vomit.
The fact that this show has stayed on TV
and stayed popular for so long is only
a credit to the American public's _good_
taste in TV shows and their awareness of
quality SF.
I just hope this show dies as soon as possible
and frees up some air time, even if it's just
to play more of Martha Stewart's show.
They should have locked that time/warp gate thingy at the end of the Stargate movie. Now it seems MacGyver, who was hopelessly trapped in ancient egypt after the final season of "MacGyver", used a typical duct-tape-and-ball-point-pen-wormhole-trick to reappear in 2002 in a half baked sci-fi series.
Patty and Selma must be freaking.
to steal a line from a great character
.. but how many times can you redo that shit? .. jejus..
:( )
.. i'm downright bummed and pissed..
on another great show
"Weep for the future, Na'Toth. Weep for us all"
--G'kar
sigh.. gotta agree, Stargate:SG-1 has really
been going downhill since they dumped the
other-worlds , 'gotta fight the Goa'uld' stuff..
i mean one or 2 episodes of conspiracy stuff isn't bad
like the one where O'Neill gets the help
of Maybourne to save the General's job and gc isn't bad
and besides, if Stargate:SG-1 is tanking, wtf is LEFT?...
um.. Farscape (which i can't see here, crappy cable company
Lexx (can't stand it)
and Enterprise (eh.. SSDD)
gah.. i don't know about the rest of u, but personally, after hearing this news after the cancellation of Futurama (and probable cancellation of Family Guy)
god, i don't get it.. these fucking stations dump ferpectly good shows like ST:SG-1 , futuruma, and family guy, but KEEP that jon edwards pos, king of the hill (which isn't BAD, per se, but doesn't compare to Futuruma or Family Guy) , and downright lame shit like Grounded for Life or UnDeclared...
sigh.. why do i keep having a modicum of faith in the tastes of tv company executives?
/me never learns, sigh..
--vat
machinshin@onebox.com
...women have been abandoning the show in droves.
.!!!
But they've got Richard Dean Anderson
What would Patty and Selma say?
Farscape better than SG-1: Sometimes
Lexx Better than SG-1: Not in this lifetime
Lexx Better than watching paint dry: A Toss-up
Each stargate is seperated by many lightyears and hasn't been used in quite a while. Right?
Howcome 97% of every one on the other side is white and speaks american english?
What gives man? They don't even have accents and they have like american black people (european african mix) that have never existed en masse until the past few centuries.
Was there an episode that I missed that explained all of this?
It's what a televised version of that series would be like. It's absolutely BRILLIANT. The jokes are so offkey and and dug in, that you just explode with laughter .. Douglas Adams wasn't the only one who did great scifi comedy. Recent seasons have been a bit lacking however, but Season 2 is by far the best, IMO. Perhaps you're paying too much attention to Xev, instead of listening to the rest of the crew..
I think it's truly sad that so many women apparently watched Stargate simply because they were attracted to Daniel Jackson. It also makes me angry that these people are so petty that when their loverboy inconveniently disappears, they start raising hell and spoiling it for the rest of the SG-1 audience who are still enjoying the show and want it to continue in the progression its writers envisaged by moving into films after the end of the sixth season, despite the disappointment of losing the character of Daniel Jackson.
Please realise that I'm not saying that there aren't other problems. I don't know Shanks, and I don't know much about him, so he may well have had good reasons for leaving; reasons that I'd agree with. I haven't seen the most recent episodes so I can't be sure. But as a writer myself, I am very aware that sometimes compromises must be made if you have a long-term plan for your work. I have occasionally changed my writing to reflect an issue I felt was particularly important, and of course some people don't like that.
I am reasonably familiar with the SG-1 writers/creators (Brad Wright, Jon Glassner etc), and they are smart people. It is definitely a very big deal that Shanks has left, because as the Salon article mentions, the interaction of the four main characters was truly spectacular from a writing and acting standpoint. With Shanks gone it will never be as good again. Daniel Jackson was actually my favourite character too, because I could most identify with him (as a geek). However (and this is a very big "however"), what really pisses me off is that the Salon article indicates that huge numbers of people were interested in Daniel because he was "three-dimensional" (and I can accept that audiences can become attached (even obsessively) to a character for romantic reasons, however shallow I think that audience may be), and yet none of them are interested in the show. The show is 3D too! All the characters have a lot of depth. Daniel just appeals to more people.
The government conspiracy story thread has been slowly worked in from early on, as mentioned, and I can see a very obvious reason for that; if I were writing SG-1 I'd have done the same thing, both for the feature film (if they're going in the direction for the feature film that I think they are), and for the development of the SG-1 universe in general. It's hopeless to have a wonderful, diverse tapestry of alien cultures when the events on Earth itself are completely dead and flat. This show isn't just about exploring other planets. It's not Star Trek. It's about people too, and about how worthy goals can be threatened by those too selfish or petty to see them (unsurprisingly, this fact is obviously lost on the members of the audience too petty to see the long-term goals of Stargate). It's unfortunate that people seem to care so little for the long-term story arcs, and don't want to give Stargate a chance despite it proving many times that its writers know what they're doing when it comes to far-reaching developments in the SG-1 universe.
Without seeing the episodes myself, I can't really make any further comments, but I would like to mention that I have written things that, when I went back to them, bore a close and completely unintentional similarity to another piece of writing already published. Usually it's a thread of my novel, and it looks almost like plagiarism of an idea, but as long as I know I'm doing the right thing for my long-term plans, I don't worry too much. If people want to criticise things they really aren't qualified to criticise, they can do that while I get on with writing again. The Stargate writers have demonstrated that they know what they're doing for the last five years. Why do people have to shaft them so quickly for a thread they don't even know the outcome or purpose of? I have my doubts that its even inspired by the X-Files. I just hope my audience is a bit more trusting. All I can conclude from the Salon article is that the "core" audience they speak of was not actually very interested in Stargate at all, and were focusing on Daniel Jackson.
For those interested, get an idea of the atmosphere surrounding BabeMagnet Jackson on forums like Gaters.net or any one of a million Yahoo groups, where, as was mentioned in the Salon article, women cry foul if anything is said about Jackson that doesn't comply with their romantically-motivated ideas. Also check the SG-1 Archive where you could (last I checked) download up to season 5 of SG-1.
I don't care. I've still got my Dark Angel, baby!
For those of you who can read Portuguese (or its sibling language Spanish), a short overview of MGM's decadence by Ruy Castro.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
When is this show on anyway? I used to watch it every week, but I've reset my VCR 4 times based on the TV listings and it's never on when it's supposed to be.
This was only one of two shows that I ever watched regularly, but I didn't even know Shanks had left the cast - I think I got half of that episode on tape, but they must have screwed with the schedule then too because it got cut off just after the opening credits...
Anyway, the meandering point I was coming to is: for a show that is (was?) produced in Vancouver, it's impossible to find it here even if you're looking for it. I don't doubt that ratings have dropped with that sort of thing going on.
One more excellent show swirling in the bowl because somebody had to make changes for the sake of change, rather than to make things better... the need to "put one's mark" on something to justify their position/existence will be the end of us all.
sig fault
Right on! :)
Good Canadian entertainment at its finest. It's the only Canadian show I watch for more than a few minutes.
At least he was still very much alive at the end of the episode that aired here last sunday so
I'm not sure where salon.com are getting their info from but their source is a bit suspect.
I saw on a film news site (I forget which one) that season 2 DVDs will be coming out in the US around October, along with a new release of the movie.
--The Rizz
"Money is just something to make bookkeeping convenient." --H.L. Hunt
For us used to scandinavian alphabets the shows name is hilarious as STARGÅTE sounds something like a swedish version of StarGoth...
Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
Read the article a little more closely. Women find him emotionally and intellectually attractive, not just physically attractive.
He's not just good looking, he has personality traits that make him attractive, and last time I checked, looks != everything.
--Dan
Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, and then tell the audience that the guy is unpopular/sensitive/etc. When Michelle Pfeiffer plays dowdy characters, they stick glasses on her too, and the audience is supposed to believe that no one in the movie notices how beautiful she is.
It's true. For example, I wear glasses, but I'm really a hairy-bellied, testosterone-fuelled Neanderthal sadist.
Anyway, back on topic. I use to love SG1, but I knew it was all going downhill the moment they brought in the actor who plays Q to play some Pentagon conspirator. It was a real Fonz-jumping-the-shark moment. I just hope they don't go all Babylonn-5, spend half a series building up to a huge climax, then it's over in a single episode, the two major forces in the galaxy make up and go off together and Sheridan becomes President of the Universe. That would have been a natural close to the story, where do you go after that? But they had to keep milking the franchise. It's getting worse than Police Academy.
Welcome to Global incompetance.
Stargate plays, or played, on Global. I don't know if it still does because I've got fed up with this conspiracy crap mixed in with repeats, but it used to be on Monday at 8 or 9 PM on Global TV here in BC.
The problem that I've always had is that the shows are never in the right order. Picture this: Show A, with preview for Show B next week. Show B, with preview for C. E with preview for F. F with preview for G. C for D, D for E, G for H, and so on. My guess is, Global gets the unlabelled tapes in boxes of 6 at a time and doesn't have time to watch them first.
Oh well. I'll buy the DVD box-sets, and that'll be that. I've been watching since the second half of the first episode (I've never seen the first hour, but I've tuned in an hour late for it five times), and lately, it's just not worth the hassle. Either MGM is screwing up (well, they are for sure now), or Global is screwing up (which I can easily see happening), or everyone's screwing up and no one knows wtf is going on.
Either way, DVDs are nice. Mmm, director commentary.
--Dan
First of all, season 1 of SG-1 was a shaky start. Several of the episodes were, for lack of a better word, crap. I've been a fan of the show for years, but of the 22 episodes in season one, I'd only really consider 8 of them good, and most of those came at the very end of the season. The first few were OK, but the vast majority of the middle of the season was mediocre at best.
This reminds me much of Babylon 5, which many scifi fans consider the best scifi series ever. Season one of B5 is primarially composed of weak episodes with weak plotlines. Season one of B5 simply was never good enough to get me hooked until the few episodes at the very end - which is almost exactly what the first season of SG-1 is like.
If you want to give the series a fair chance, go buy/borrow/rent the DVDs/videos (or hit your favorite IRC #TV-seriez channel) and watch in the following order:
- Stargate: the movie (not as good as the series, but the series continues directly from the events of the movie)
- DVD Vol. 1 - episodes Children of the Gods and The Enemy Within (this sets up the main workings of the series and introduces most of the major characters)
- DVD Vol. 3 - episodes Torment of Tantalus and Bloodlines
- DVD Vol. 5 - episodes There But For the Grace of God, Politics, and Within The Serpent's Grasp (first 3 parts of a 4-parter; Politics is mostly a flashback episode and could be skipped)
These episodes are a good indication of the feel of the rest of the series. If you like it, you should go back and watch the rest of the episodes before continuing on with the series, as the events in most episodes of season one become very important in the later seasons (although you may want to skip Broca Divide, Brief Candle, Cold Lazarus, Fire and Water, and Cor-ai if you've got a low tolerance for cheezy episodes).--The Rizz
"Now, this all happened many years ago, yet I am certain that if they haven't since died, they are all still alive to this day." --Steven Brust
I have to agree. I prefer my science fiction to be portrayed as such - not masquarade as fact (War of the Worlds aside).
I suppose John Edwards is simply the latest testimate to mankinds desperation to believe in something (be it the desire to witness the supernatural, or the need to deal with grief). Its the same desire that blinds the masses to the constant abuse of organized religion (be it cults or more established faiths).
Of course - one might be able to argue that this same desire is the subject of the movie Trekkers.
"I his bow, and spun and wove, likes you." Vere de Vere out of my mould's mouth dragged me of the voluntary apes.
You might as well that stargate without a transvestite in the lead bad guy part isn't
stargate either. Whatever merits the character had in the film as fars as I'm concerned he was
really just making up the numbers in the series. After all , hes the only character where we know
very little about his personal life, he rarely does anything except get himself into trouble
he has to be rescued from because of his "scientific curiosity" and frankly his character so rarely shows any emotion beyond
the 1 dimensional curious-scientist-oblivious-to-danger that he could be quite easily played by
a plank of wood.
McGuiver is a poor substitute for Kurt Russel.
The movie was fun, but I think McGuiver should go back to his old show...
My brother just started as a shop foreman for this show, here in Vancouver, so I hope the show stays on. Coincidentally enough I went to see him at the shop earlier today... I probably shouldn't mention the new prop I saw them building, but it was cool. I haven't really seen a lot of the show, but it was interesting to see all the props. This was the shop, not the set. I saw a giant stack of spears in one corner. (Apparently there are a lot of spear scenes in the show.)
I also talked to the electrical engineer and the "systems technician" who build all the electronics for the show; they were both young guys. They had a pretty nice setup there. I saw a lot of LEDs, joysticks, and control panels with buttons and switches. Because I've done on similar things, I asked what they used when they needed to switch more powerful AC lights. The engineer told me they had tried using triacs, but they couldn't get them to work right, and just used relays (same experience as me!). He also told me they use DC, usually 12V, as much as possible.
Anyways, my brother and I agreed that it's really hard to find it on TV these days. He has all the episode tapes but I don't even know when (or if) it's on anymore.
yo
Someone commented that a good TV series always seems to go bad (what's the plural of series? I can't believe I was a a Lit major...). Well, those that don't start out bad.
Babylon 5 was a good example (for those who liked it) of why this is wrong - and shows that shows have cycles. It went from Okay, to Good, to Great, to Oh, Jeez That Sucked, to Okay again, to Good, and back to Great, and it ended on a relatively high note.
Most shows that 'go bad' get cancelled before they can cycle up again.
What I noticed about SG-1 is that it had good chemistry between the characters, which is also where B5 excelled, and its successor (Crusade) failed. Now one of the major players is gone, and that hurts the show. Fatally? We'll see.
I don't imagine the SG-1 fanbase and the B5 one cross over too much - "episode" lovers generally don't like "arc" shows, recurse. SG-1 did get repetetive (haven't had TV for a while).
Farscape started recently and I've watched the first few episodes, but so far it seems pretty cliched. Does it get better?
Ok, Here is a guide to all those producers who want a great Sci-Fi show:
1. When you come up with a good first series that everyone likes, don't EVER change it. I don't care if you want to explore some bull shit artsy scenario that you learned in art school DONT. Don't change locations, don't change situations and NEVER EVER in a million F*cking years change the characters or actors.
X-Files - Started great, then they suddenly took scully out with some stupid cancer government conspiracy. No-one watched it. They learnt their lesson and when back and did a great couple of series. Then mulder leaves. I didn't even bother watching that.
Red Dwarf - Excellent, and then what? the last series was utter crap. I had only just got used to the new directing and loss of rimmer in the previous series when they just screwed it all up.
Buffy - Started great, then they moved to college. And please understand this simple fact: Most people who watch Sci-Fi are male geeks. We do NOT like watching dumb footballer/jocks getting with hot girls. Lesbian is fine. Otherwise, keep the jocks in embarrassing situations to make us feel happy.
Half-Life - Who liked the Zen levels? Thought not.
All these sci-fi series have died because someone decided to change the formula. Now look at:
Friends (yes i know, not Sci-Fi) they have kept it the same throughout. They even live in the same place and its still great to watch.
2. Do not piss off the actors. The actors make the show. Cloning is not yet available to make new ones, so, if you piss them off you are dead. And don't try any "Oh no, bobs changed shape.. because...um he changes form every 2 years" it doesn't fool us (well maybe in Dr. Who). If the actor wants more money - give it to them. If they want some say in the plot - let them write it. We worship them, so don't piss them off.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Lex, farscape, SG1? Ha ha you are gay!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Seems a lame excuse to me. After all, the show never has exactly been shakespear so who cares
what changes in storyline it takes? More likely
he wanted a payrise, they refused and he left in
a petulant huff probably thinking (and rightly it seems) that the show wouldn't be the same without
him.
we were discussing the very book here a couple of weeks ago, pretty funny stuff -- if you're a LOTR fan.
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
Well I live in the UK and I saw an episode a week or two ago where daniel jackson died, but he did saves millions of lives in the process. it was all rather surreal. Shame, as he is the best character.
No! I didn't mean ugly ugly, I ment TV ugly.
- Simpsons
It is a shame that MGM tried to add elements from Star Trek or X files into Stargate. IMHO Stargate was / is better, the people seem real, the threading was getting better as well.
/.
If MGM have any sense then they might read this on
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Is it just me, or have there been no new episodes since the major marathon a couple of months ago on Showtime? I've got my TiVo set to record, but every time I get settled to watch a decent show, it's another re-run. I wouldn't mind it so much if it were an older re-run, but it seems to always be one of those ones from the marathon. If I see any part of that crappy "wormhole extreme" one more time, I'm going to get violent (just after I vomit.)
I have always maintained that the Sci-Fi channel is where great Sci-fi shows go to DIE...and I knew as soon as I heard about Stargate going there that its fate was sealed. They do have some good Original series on sci-fi, although even then they have staying power problems...however when a show makes the switch to sci-fi its all over....pity, I was actually looking forward to seeing the 6th season at the same time as everyone else, instead of a year behind like on fox...Now who knows...:
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
OTOH, a 40-year old woman might have a more realistic view than a teenager. So maybe, Stargate is (has been) simply a series for adults, and not for testosterone-damaged teens?
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
From: JMallozzi2002@yahoo.com (J_Mallozzi)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.stargate-sg1
Subject: Response
Date: 13 Feb 2002 22:32:24 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 80
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.69.92.80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1013668345 3256 127.0.0.1 (14 Feb 2002 06:32:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Feb 2002 06:32:25 GMT
Although I make it a point to avoid reading fan fiction, I decided to
make an exception for the recent Salon.com article, "Fan Rebellion
Threatens 'Stargate'". To my surprise, it proved to be an
occasionally amusing and overall very entertaining read, a true gem of
fantasy and wishful thinking. Given the fact that the "journalist"
who wrote the piece culled her facts from the handful of "negative
rant sites" that have popped up of late, I suppose it was too much to
expect at least the semblance of impartiality. In all fairness,
however, it is possible she did try to contact someone involved in the
production to offer a balanced view but was unable to get through (If
I recall correctly, we were on the phone between 11:30 and 11:35 last
Friday ordering lunch from the nearby Swiss Chalet). More a rambling
editorial than than anything else, it does neatly encapsulate many of
the half-truths and fabrications that have been making the rounds.
And so, using the Salon.com diatribe as my launch point, I'd like to
address some of these so-called "facts".
To begin with, ratings haven't plunged. If they had, we wouldn't be
around for a sixth season. In fact, last time I checked, our
syndication numbers had us finishing first three weeks running.
Secondly, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the show did not
suddenly abandon its tried and true formula in favor of conspiracy
storylines. The fact is, the NID have been part of this show since
first season. In season three, we had one episode (Shades of Grey)
dedicated to the so-called "NID conspiracy angle". In season four, we
had one episode (Chain Reaction) dedicated to the storyline. In
season five, the NID angle was a B plot in Fifth Man and a minor
development in Desperate Measures (the second to last scene) and 48
Hours (the goa'uld happened to be with the NID). Admittedly, we
aren't meeting as many new off-world civilizations as we did in the
first two seasons, but this is due to the evolution of the show's
ongoing story-arcs rather than any "creative re-tooling". Episodes
dedicated to revisiting old friends (the Asgard, the Tollan, the
Tok'ra, etc.) and storylines (the struggle for power amongst the
System Lords, the rise of Anubis, etc.) necessarily result in fewer
episodes focusing on off-world exploration. Nonetheless, we strive to
include a fair mix of off-world and Earth-based episodes in every
season.
Thirdly, season five did not "have more Earth-based stories". Season
five contained 9 Earth-based stories, the same number as seasons two
and four, and one more than season three. The fact that a number of
these episodes happened to fall together may have led many to
incorrectly assume a preponderance of these storylines.
Fourthly, contrary to the opinion of some, the character of Daniel
Jackson was very present in season five. He was spotlighted in such
episodes as Beast of Burden, Summit, Last Stand, and Menace, and was
an active and driving force in many others (Enemies, 48 Hours, Red
Sky, and The Tomb to name a few). True, I've only cited 8 episodes
out of the 20 episodes prior to his departure, but in all fairness the
team is made up of three other members.
Fifthly, while some lament the change in the Daniel Jackson character
over the course of the five seasons, his progression from the
animated, wide-eyed innocent of Torment of Tantalus to the cool,
willing assassin of Summit/Last Stand, the fact is that characters do
evolve over time. Given everything Daniel has gone through in his
five years with SG-1, it would be unrealistic for him to remain
unchanged. Michael Shanks himself pushed for this development as he
clearly saw the danger in keeping Daniel a static character.
Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.
As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
running. Hard!
Joseph Mallozzi
Family Guy, Futurama, and now this...
Some would say its time to stop watching TV, but not I. I'm in a "battered wife"-like relationship: "But <sob> but you should see it when its good to me <sob>"
"TV, friend, mother, secret lover" --Homer J. Simpson
Lexx is gutter trash. That tripe is some of the WORST sci-fi I've ever seen, shoulder-to-shoulder with Cleo 2525.
SG-1 sucks sucks sucks sucks SUCKS. I can't believe it's still on the air. The actors are bad, the plots are recycled/cheesy sounding, and overall it's just worn itself out.
The other characters are just their for him to play off of. His interchanges with Shanks where funny but they can just plug somebody else in.
I am confused by women liking him.
ANyway the core of the show is MacGyver with Guns as we call it around here. "Ya Think"
Believe it or not, lots of geeks are good-looking behind those glasses. Some are downright stunning. The difficulty is dragging them out of their cubes, networking closets, and underground lairs long enough to clean 'em up. It's not ugliness that makes us geeks; it's... well... being geeky that makes us geeks!
I'll let you all in on a little secret - the REAL reason Michael Shanks left was so he could spend more time spanking Lexa Doig!
:o)
:o)
(It's pretty well known that the shooting schedules for Stargate SG1 and Andromeda conflict on a regular basis.)
Of course, any (straight) guy here would be an idiot to fault him for this
I mean - if you had a choice between work and this, which would you choose?
I thought so
SG-1 is, generally, good because it presents a nice mix of some action along with some decent SF(once in a while.)
This is more than can be said of Lexx, which is, basically, the sitcom of SF. Early Lexx episodes were FAR better than the tripe of the last couple of years.
Farscape: well, it's different, but once again the earlier episodes were better than the more recent. The show seems to be in search of a raison d'etre any more.
In any event most shows seem to exhibit this phenomenon: they either have very good episode early on and then slowly decline until they are cancelled, or they have a continuous mixture of both good & bad episodes until the show implodes.
Personally, I would have taken the Invisible Man over either Lexx(in particular) or Farscape. The Invisible Man had a little more originality(not much) and variety(alot) to its humor, whereas Lexx continuously recycles the same tired old themes, allbeit with a more scantily clad chick.
Now that had the premise to be one of the coolest conspiracy theory shows of all time, but they cancel after like one season.
Are conspiracy plotlines akin to an elephant graveyard?
I understand the whole syndication stuff ... but please don't let the series NOT be put on DVDs ...
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
I thought the whole Stargate concept was a pretty good one. I've seen most of the series by now, and I've enjoyed all but a very few. I only rarely ever equated elements of the show with the X-Files, Star Trek, or anything else. I'm a pretty big sci-fi fan and it's something I'd probably notice if it weren't done with taste. Sometimes it's easy to over analyze a good thing, and only end up loosing sight of the original purpose. The show has a unique and enjoyable set of characters that have shown growth since the beginning. It's too bad that a basically good show falls apart when writers and producers try to manipulate ratings by stepping out of bounds from the comfortable equation that kept the loyal viewers coming back for more of the same.
It's not just women who find him attractive. :-) He puts off a very nice "I'm a geek, but I'll cuddle with you all night long" vibe (which I'm sure most of Slashdot doesn't need to know :-P). I'm mortified to hear that he's left the show (no Showtime, so I haven't been keeping up on SG-1), because he was my second favorite actor (after Amanda Tapping) and only by a slim margin.
I agree with his reason for leaving, tho -- weekly far-flung government conspiracies do NOT have a place in a show that's fundamentally about the joys (and terrors) of discovering the unknown.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
I'm all for a good government conspiracy in the show here and there or the occassional episode where the team doesn't travel through the Stargate, but I just saw an entire episode where Jack and Mayborne track down and harass a Senator who's in on the conspiracy. Where's the fun in that? It's boring.
return;
I just realized that the central premise of the show is that the travel to other planets is not achieved by large phallocentric rockets, but rather by the use of an aperture which when properly manipulated opens into a channel to the desired place. Very feminine imagery. Of course, when the guys figure out what it does, they freak out over it's power, hide it in a deep cave and mount a big iris over it to control access. Very Taliban imagery.
I guess this observation comes from watching Eve Ensler's V* Monologs on HBO last night.
What I was always disappointed with was that it was on showtime. Well, more accurately I was disappointed that I can't _afford_ showtime. Eventually I just settled for pirating the shows off the net. Really poor quality, and the studios don't get any money, but what choice do I have? Wait over a year for it to get to public TV and then have it stuck in a horrible time slot?
Argh, when will they realize that there are a LOT of people interested in on-demand video!
Travis
Help me out. I've been gone for a while. What happened to goatse.cx?
Lexx cancelled!
1. Main characters fart around for a while.
2. Main characters go to archaeological dig.
3. Bad Stuff Happens.
4. Goto 1
Saving the world armed only with duct tape and a Swiss Army knife. Definitely a hacker's show.
I just would have liked less of them.
The fact that shows would actually have a following simply because of the actor/actresses looks and other superficial appeal is sad. It is one thing to like a particular actor or actress because of acting talent and specific role ability. However, it is really pathetic how many people out there are more interested in either the looks of actors (or voice and other crap I guess) or even the special effects of the show. Like with video games, you can start out by wanting to tell a story and immerse others, then understand how voice, sound effects and art are supposed to AUGMENT the actual game. Or you can have someone who simply wants to make a piece of crap that looks and sounds pretty. On top of those you have the foolish fanboy morons that flock mindlessly to these games and films. Take your soma my sheepish friends, because it obviously is too much trouble to apply critical and independant thought (independant by the real definition, not by the 'non-conforming conformists' or other BS sheep following a different herd... but still herd... group)
I think you mean implausible, but that's beside the point. It's a sci-fi show, virtually all sci-fi shows have implausible plots and premises. That's the fiction part of science fiction. If you want a sci-fi show with a plausible premise, try Space Island One. Other than that, they're all implausible.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
it's because we're shadowing your connection and seeing what you're actually doing online. ;)
Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye need to know on Earth, besides TCP/IP.
Ever watch a cat mindlessly chase a laser beam?
:o)
No, I couldn't afford the patent fee
Personally I've had enough of collagen lip injected chickes on tv. I mean it's outta hand! One day they're just going to blow!
Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
That episode will be showing free to air in NZ in 3 weeks time.. are you really that far behind across the ditch ?
That depends on the paint....
Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.
I am into the copy and paste.
The DOC! no way, shes a babe, saw her in the Aus convention yum. bah.
Ayn Rand and the perversion of libertarianism
The political controversy of the late 19th century was: whether
socialists (all those who believed in the individual's right to
possess what he or she produced) should engage in the political
process, seize control of the state, and use the state apparatus
to achieve liberation; or, whether a worker's state was inher-
ently contradictory, counter revolutionary, and would only lead
to the creation of a new ruling class whose interests would still
clash with those of the ruled that the state should be abolished
allowing for no transitional stage of any kind during which power
may have the chance to reconsolidate itself.
The situation has recreated itself with amazing similarity
almost exactly a century later.
Non-libertarian parties the world over (those who see authori-
tarian centralization the bulwark of civilization) are bankrupt,
economically and intellectually. The only viable intellectual
current today falls under that ambiguous term~ `libertarian'.
Today there exist beneath this umbrella as many splinter groups
as there were a hundred years ago under the umbrella of social-
ism. Two distinct trends, a right and a left if you will, are
clearly discernible.
One group, clearly the largest with a hierarchical organization
modeled on the other political parties, believes, like most
Marxists, in constitutional parliamentary republican democracy.
They believe that the state is a necessary guarantor of indi-
vidual safety and the product of the individual's labor, and in
gradual progress toward a free society through participation in
the political process.
The other group, much smaller and far more splintered, reject
the state as necessarily a tool of class domination and exploita-
tion.
This group believes that what Bakunin said a hundred years ago
is as true today, ``If you took the most ardent revolutionary,
vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse
than the Czar himself.''
The first group is in all fairness a direct inheritor of the
ideals of the American Revolution. In modern times, however, it
has only two roots: (1) the Austrian school of economics repre-
sented by Ludwig Von Mises; (2) the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Von Mises never considered the libertarians. He answered the
Marxists and the Keynesians and defended laissez-faire capitalism
at a time when no one else would. His justification for capital-
ism was empirical~the greatest good for the greatest number.
Ayn Rand, however, attempted to offer a moral justification of
capitalism by substituting the word `capitalism' for the liber-
tarian meaning of the word `socialism'. She then attributed all
of the ills of capitalism to government interference with the
market and all of the world's wealth to the minds of the men whom
the world considered the robber barons.
The contrast between Ayn Rand's `Objectivism' and libertarian-
ism is deeper than mere substitution of terminology, however.
Several of her propositions or axioms place her clearly outside
of the libertarian tradition.
Her justification of the state is derived from a Hobbesian
state of nature theory:
``...a society without an organized government would be at the
mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipi-
tate it into chaos and gang warfare....'' [The Virtue of Selfish-
ness, 152; pb 112]
``If a society provided no organized protection against force,
it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home
into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door~or
to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other
gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the
degeneration of society into the chaos of gang rule, i.e., rule
by brute force, into perpetual warfare of prehistoric savages.''
[Ibid., 146; pb 108]
Ayn Rand's belief in the inherent depravity of human nature
which renders us forever incapable of living without rulers and
not descending to the level of `savages', clearly places her out-
side of the libertarian tradition which views human nature as es-
sentially good, capable of indefinite improvement through the
experience of freedom and the exercise of reason.
Her knowledge of anthropology is as embarrassing as her under-
standing of history. For example, in regards to her conception of
who are the savages, she describes America as, ``...a superlative
material achievement in the midst of an untouched wilderness,
against the resistance of savage tribes.'' [For The New Intellec-
tual, 58; pb 50]
To Rand, the essential characteristic of the state is that it
possesses a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. How does
she justify this monopoly or national sovereignty? She accepts it
as a given, something not requiring a justification, and demands
that an-archy, the negation of the proposition, justify itself.
Her concept of national sovereignty is then something tran-
scendental, existing separate and apart from individuals. and
beyond the right of the individual to accept or reject according
to his or her own reason.
These propositions clearly place Ayn Rand's philosophy closer
to Hobbes, Hegel, and Marx, than to libertarianism.
The state, according to Miss Rand, must hold a monopoly on the
enforcement of contracts and the settling of disputes between
individuals, at least whenever this arbitration is not accepted
by both sides voluntarily. She fails to consider that the en-
forcement of contracts by the state fundamentally alters the
nature of free agreements. Agreements are made on terms which
otherwise might not be, because they are justiciable.
The terms of ``free agreements'' under law are titled in favor
of lenders over debtors, landlords over tenants, employers over
employees, in a way which would not exist in a ``free market.''
This leveraging of power is not `objective' at all. Depending
purely on legal convention, creditors may have debtors impris-
oned, tenants may be evicted without notice and their effects
confiscated, one human being may own another or the land on which
another lives and works, all to varying degrees.
To understand Ayn Rand's psychology it is helpful to know her
background. She was born to a wealthy St. Petersburg family in
1905. The position of her family in Czarist society must have
been considerable. At a time when the lives of most Russians had
changed little since feudalism, her family was wealthy enough to
afford a French Governess and take regular vacations to the Cri-
mea.
It should be noted that wealth in Czarist society was almost
wholly a measure of one's favor with the government. There were
few if any Horatio Alger stories about individuals who lifted
themselves out of serfdom without the patronage of the Czar.
At the age of twelve, she must have been very upset when those
nasty workers took over her father's business. Her family fled
St. Petersburg for the Crimea and the protection of the White
Army.
This experience rendered her forever incapable of seeing land
reform or any struggle of oppressed and exploited people as
anything more than hatred for the good and lust for the unearned.
She shared with Marx the bourgeois ideology that only a few
people were capable of running things. The masses ought to be
happy to have a job working for bosses. Any suggestion that an
enterprise could be run by the employees without having someone
in charge was to her absurd.
She shared with Godwin and Kropotkin the belief that the indi-
vidual is born tabula rasa~a blank slate, and all human knowledge
is derived from sense experience. She then proceeded, however, to
completely dismiss environment and socialization as the determin-
ing factor in the development of character.
People were to her good or evil, brilliant or indolent, depend-
ing solely on their volition. People should be judged by their
actions with equal severity regardless of their condition. Though
she insisted that the United States was not and never had been a
completely free country, she granted no such thing as extenuating
circumstances when judging an individual and had no qualms up-
holding the power of the state to inflict capital punishment.
A far more sinister legacy of Ayn Rand to libertarianism is
that of a moralizing autocrat who gathered about her an inner
circle which she ironically called, ``The collective.''
Outwardly, this collective professed egoism and individuality.
They were to be the vanguard of an intellectual renaissance. The
price of admission to this group, however, was slavish conformity
of one's life and professed philosophy to Ayn Rand's whims and
eccentricities. For example, she did not like men who wore facial
hair or listened to Mozart, and if you didn't give them up you
were unfit for Rand's inner circle.
This is particularly sinister if one considers that Karl Marx,
believed by millions to be the very symbol of liberation, was
also an autocrat who, though professed to be the ultimate champi-
on of democracy, resorted to extraordinary means to maintain
control of the International Workingmen's Association. He even
moved its headquarters to New York to exclude the libertarian
influence.
Today Ayn Rand is gone, but like Marx a century ago, hers is
the primary influence on the largest libertarian organization
existing. Even the pledge which all Libertarian Party members
must sign is taken directly from her admonition, ``I hereby
certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of
force as a means of achieving political or social goals.''
In spite of their pledge to non-violence, many libertarians are
frustrated with election laws and media censorship. An argument
which circulates among libertarians of the right is that, if they
were more threatening, the government may take steps to accommo-
date them as it did the black civil rights movement.
Ayn Rand's writings are not entirely consistent on the point of
non-violence either. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark resorts to
the use of dynamite. In Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar Danneskjold
engages in piracy on the high seas and even shells a factory
which has been nationalized. In a clandestine rescue mission,
Dagny Taggart shoots a guard who stood in the way of her desired
end.
In the event of economic upheaval, ruined by unemployment and
inflation, tenants and home owners may refuse to make rent and
mortgage payments. The unemployed may seize vacant land and begin
to farm, and factory workers may realize they can run things
without stock holders.
It would not be at all surprising if there were to emerge
within the libertarian right, groups committed to direct action
and counter revolutionary violence, even a coup d'etat.
Imagine a charismatic and autocratic personality at the center
of such a group and you have the Objectivist Lenin.
Like the Marxists and right libertarians, Lenin and the Objec-
tivists are professed republican democrats. Lenin and the Bolshe-
viks promised that if given power, they would immediately convoke
a constituent assembly. When they realized, however, they would
not hold a majority in such an assembly they turned against the
idea of such an assembly.
Can anyone doubt that the cultist mentality which characterizes
most of Miss Rand's followers could lead to the creation of a
group of self appointed avengers of the capitalist class? That
they would suppress strikes, demonstrations, and factory take
overs? That they would not execute people for crimes against the
libertarian state?
Ayn Rand believed in a republican form of government with a
cleverly constructed constitution which would deny the majority
of the power to infringe on the rights of a minority as she
conceived them. If the majority supported a general strike
against rents and mortgages and supported the factory takeovers,
would not the clandestinely organized Objectivist libertarian
party be tempted to dispense with democracy in order to enforce
what they conceived of as the rights of the dispossessed bour-
geoisie?
In all fairness it must be admitted that Ayn Rand herself would
never sanction such actions, but the same argument is made
everyday by western Marxists that Marx would probably not have
sanctioned many of Lenin's actions and would certainly not take
credit for the Soviet Union.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks won power by promising, ``Land to the
peasants!'' ``Factories to the workers!'' When they took power,
however, they immediately set about liquidating the factory com-
mittees and nationalizing the land. They crushed work place
democracy by installing armed guards in the factories, and even
returned former owners to their positions as employees of the
worker's state.
Leon Trotsky stopped the practice of soldiers electing their
officers from their ranks and even restored former Czarist
officers to their ranks in the Red Army.
When the Russian Revolution began few people clearly understood
the gulf which separated the state socialists from the libertari-
ans. Many dedicated libertarians like Alexander Berkman, rallied
to the Bolshevik cause, willing to give them the benefit of the
doubt in hopes that seizing state power would only be a transi-
tional stage toward the development of the stateless/classless
society.
Many sincere lovers of liberty now flock to the standard of the
Libertarian Party, as they did the Bolsheviks, completely igno-
rant of the history of the last century. As Santayanna said:
``Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat
them.''
What should be done? It should be obvious that government
enforcement of private contracts is not libertarian any more than
is taking state power to set people free. Libertarianism is and
always will mean socialism~the self emancipation of working
people.
Libertarians must stop courting the Republican right and return
to their intellectual roots. By standing outside of the political
process we deny the state legitimacy, and like the state tortur-
ers in Atlas Shrugged, they will come and beg for libertarians to
take over.
Remembering the experience of the Spanish libertarians, and
heeding the advice of John Galt, libertarians must refuse state
power even when begged. The state can never be a tool of libera-
tion. Only its complete and utter collapse will allow for the
emergence of non-statist institutions, libertarian coops, com-
munes, and free markets, to flourish and displace the political
state once and for all.
I am into the copy and paste.
Stargate plays, or played, on Global. I don't know if it still does because I've got fed up with this conspiracy crap mixed in with repeats, but it used to be on Monday at 8 or 9 PM on Global TV here in BC.
I watched it there and then for over a year, then it disappeared... since then, the time has changed every week according to the listings, but has never been on when it was listed.
Don't know if they're trying to kill it or the listings are wrong. It sucks anyway.
sig fault
The only thing the movie/television shows have in common with it is the Gate itself, but it's a great read! Very hard to find, too...
fppppp
????? what huh
How come nobody has commented yet? This is my favourite show on tv right now...
Huh? Why are there no comments to this story?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
To be fair the last couple of episodes of S5 were excellent, leaving scope in future for the resurrection of Shanks (remember that ep where that Oma de Sala alien took human form for a few days?). They could still bring in Shanks a lot. It is also possible that their old writers had run out of ideas - these people have covered a lot of ground.
Can anyone here actually constructively think of new stories that they can use? Think about it - AN OPEN SOURCE SCI-FI series where good suggestions get modded up. I must admit I am all out of ideas, apart from a few ending episodes about the destruction of the replicators by a big ball of advanced metal going into a Sun/Asgaard armageddon/intervention of those giant aliens/evolution of the replicators into an advanced self-aware species (monolith type thing). Maybe SG-1 should get Michael J Straczynski and make it more like Babylon-5? It seems like a natural transition that once you have built up a fanbase you can concentrate on inter-episode storylines like B5 instead of one-epsiode wonders.