Stargate SG-1 Gets A Seventh Season 430
An anonymous reader writes "Farscape may or may not have been cancelled [does anyone know?], and Enterprise is so politically correct I can barely bring myself to watch it, but with MacGyver onboard, it looks like Stargate SG-1 will be back for a seventh season."
farscape still cancelled (Score:5, Interesting)
Question about SG TV series (Score:4, Interesting)
I have never watched this show but am curious how it compares to the Star Trek and Babylon 5 series in that does it have a story arc and continuity between each episode? I think the show started on the Showtime network, didn't it? How did it become syndicated?
Thanks.
Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Best of all, the show has a memory... every episode takes into account EVERYTHING that has happened in previous episodes, something that happens in real life but rarely happens on TV. Looks like the Enterprise people are starting to understand that... pity they haven't figured out how to write interesting stories, though.
I had my doubts about Michael Shanks leaving, but the show doesn't seem to have suffered. I'm very, very pleased that it's continuing... but I hope that the producers will have the good sense to pull the plug when they start to run out of steam.
Re:Help Save Firefly!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Movie? Spinoff? (Score:2, Interesting)
I really think loosing Shanks was a horrible blow to the show and the story, but you have to admit they have been doing well with the direction things are going.
I wonder though how well they can do a movie. Very very few TV->Movie moves have gone well if not simply OK, I would hate to see them fall into this pit. I'm starting to wonder if it's possible to do the TV->Movie transition.
As for the spinoff I don't think it will go anywhere. I watch SG-1 but I don't think I would watch it if not for the current cast. Guess I'll see...
SG-1 is quite good (Score:2, Interesting)
If you like Sci-Fi, check it out.
Re:grumble grumble grumble - shut up lucky bastard (Score:1, Interesting)
Enterprice politically correct? Give me a break... (Score:5, Interesting)
God, there's alot of things I've thought about Enterprise, but politically correct is not one of them. If you were talking about Voyager, I'd agree with you.
Enterprise is about 3 strong white men, one white women who's main purpose on the show is to look pretty.
There's are also two tertiary non-whites: An waify Asian communications officer who serves no useful purpose and a Black pilot. The alien doctor is the only character who has any originality whatsoever (but he's too goofy).
Sexual stereotypes abound. Strong white men: Weak-but-good-looking-women. These stereotypes have been used over and over in dozens of sci-fi shows and movies, are completely overused in the genre.
There are two common plots: Time travel, or T'pol being the object of (captain | the security officer | people from other ships) sexual fantasies. Give me a break...
It's like the stories were written by 15-year-old sex starved boys. There's really not much else to the show. It's getting boring, and I've stopped watching...
Maybe if you compare it to Buck Rogers it's politically correct, but what's your angle?
Re:Good writing, horrible setting (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, since every child knows that FTL drives don't look anything like that... oh, wait, we haven't invented them yet, have we? Unless you have a patent that you want to talk about?
Their life support dies when the engine is off. Yet they don't start floating around because of lack of artificial gravity?
Why are you expecting the gravity to fail? The layout of the ship makes it clear that they expect the artificial gravity and inertial compensation to be absolutely reliable... nothing is fastened down, items are left unsecured on flat surfaces, they even use a conventional stove and teapot. Perhaps the gravity doesn't require power; perhaps it's something analagous to a permanent magnet.
Enough with the technical nitpicks though.
Agreed. All I can say about your analysis of the characters and plot is that I disagree. You found the characters "Canterbury-Talesque" (that's a truly ugly neologism, by the way)? Well, of COURSE they're going to have neatly defined functions... they're a CREW, they were CHOSEN that way! Never mind their "mysterious" return... it's stated quite clearly that Zoe ordered them to return when she regained consciousness. If you're going to take potshots, at least pay attention to what you're shooting at.
It's unfortunate that you don't like the show. Change the channel, then, and allow those of us who do enjoy it to watch it.
Re:Fuck (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Enterprise: Americans Deserve All (Score:4, Interesting)
Just don't count the show out. The show uses philosophy by counter-example. Take it as such.
I applaud your attempt at defending Enterprise but I'm going to have to give the nod to Vegan Pagan. The show is borderline offensive because of the brashness of the Enterprise crew. We haven't seen an episode where the crew realizes they have definitely done something wrong. The closest we've gotten was the episode where the crew decides to withold the cure for a disease on another world. I'd be more inclined to agree with your point of view if we had an episode where the meddling of Enterprise clearly caused a serious problem. Off the top of my head I can think of a terrible missed opportunity: the episode where Enterprise exposes the Vulcan spy base to the Andorians. In later episodes, it is commented that that decision greatly increased tensions between the Vulcans and the Andorians, understandably. But the whole thing is played off (in fact I think T'Pol takes the Vulcan command to task on this) as it being the Vulcan's fault! The Enterprise crew feels fully justified in creating a volitle situation. It would have been nice to hear Archer weighing the issues and whether he did the right thing. Even better would be a concrete example of an unfortunate incident between the Vulcans and the Andorians that directly follows from Archer's decision.
I'm starting to ramble here and I'm not even sure I've made my point. What I'm trying to say is that if Enterprise is trying to make a show about how humans are learning from their first few mistakes in space, they aren't doing a very good job. We only see things from their perspective and it's always viewed in the light that Archer is doing the right thing.
GMD
Re:Good writing, horrible setting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a shame... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or refined, or mature, or analytica, expecting something of quality or even something which isn't just more shallow pseudo sci-fi-drama junk.
I could sit through show after show of Alfred Hitchcock Presents and Rod Serling's Twilight Zone, which are masterpieces compared to today's stuff, and most of those shows originally aired well before my time, I just catch them on cable and am completely fascinated with how well they told a story in 30 minutes (less commercial breaks) I've seem enough of today's "writing" to leave my TV off and go outside to play. It's going to be tough when I get my knee worked on and am stuck inside for a while. I guess there's always coding up those projects I've never had time to get around to. :-)
Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Enterprice politically correct? Give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh please. They're Astronauts. They're the pioneers space and picked from earths finest. Who'd you like them to send? Cletus the slack jawed yokel?
Besides, all characters have their flaws. The captain is too emotional and somewhat rash when it comes to diplomatic tasks. Tripp isn't the smartest guy on the ship when it comes to anything that isn't engineering, and the Ordonance officer is whining and fatalistic. T'pol is hardly a weak woman, and her flaw is that of arrogance and too much skeptisism, similar to most Vulcans.
Although the focus has been mostly on these four people, the others are hardly anonymous characters. They've both been the main characters of several episodes.
Re:Question about SG TV series (Score:2, Interesting)
am curious how it compares to the Star Trek and Babylon 5 series in that does it have a story arc and continuity between each episode?
Compared to B5, Stargate doesn't have as rich a story arc. It's not as grand either. For example, in B5 you have all the Mimbari religious beliefs which they take very seriously, and much later (I forget which season) you discover that the founder was actually a human, genetically changed by the Vorlons and sent back in time 1000 years using the Great Machine aboard the B4 station (which mysteriously disappeared years ago) to help the Mimbari fight the first Shadow war.
Although, for my tastes, some of the "big answers" in B5 were a bit of a letdown. Like, the Shadows and Vorlons, advanced races that are a million years old, one as evil as the other is wise, with undefeatable technology, turn out to be just two divorced parents arguing over how to raise the children and using the children as pawns in their little spat.
Still, the death of Sheridan, and the episodes set in the far future were brilliant ideas and touching.
So you won't see any of that richness or complexity in Stargate. In the latter it's just good guys and bad guys. The system lords are just dumb arrogant war-lords who ride around the universe in stupid looking ships which despite being full of amazing technology, let themselves be captured and killed by a couple of humans with C4.
But then Stargate doesn't forget that it's a TV show, and meant to be fun. You won't see the "meaningful" tone of B5 on this show, which after watching avery episode of B5, is something of a relief.
But Stargate does give some depth to the characters feelings for each other, and it's here that the continuity is mostly seen. They are a group who have a good heart and help each other out a lot. They also save Earth a lot... but that's just because it's sci-fi.
OTOH, B5's characters changed a lot, especially those that through all their Machiavellian manipulations ended up transcended Good and Evil, becoming Greatness.
The other thing about Stargate as compared to ST, is that there's no counsellor Troy, no Neelix. I'd rather have dinner with a carrion eater than be in the cafeteria with Neelix looming over my plate.
Re:Question about SG TV series (Score:5, Interesting)
The show has great continuity and the technology is almost completely internally consistent. By that I mean, if a given piece of technology worked one way in one episode, then that's how it works. Unlike Star Trek where the technology is a crutch for weak script writers. You know the way in Star Trek the transporters or sensors will simply stop working for an arbitrary reason to prod the plot along? Doesn't happen on Stargate at all, and without that crutch, the writers are forced to be much more creative.
Another example: Enterprise is set years before Kirk, so deflector shields haven't been invented yet. But the writers are too lazy to do away with the "shields are failing" plot device, so they simply substitute in the technobabble "hull polarization" and write exactly as before. Star Fleet doesn't exist yet, but Earth's single, primitive starship can interfere with established, advanced spacegoing races with impunity, just like Kirk or Picard... how? Umm, because that's the only plot they know how to write.
Another thing that annoyed me about Star Trek and Babylon 5 was their Earth-centricness, Earth being the capital planet of the Federation and humans being the "chosen race" in Babylon 5. In Stargate, humans are in a complex universe in which often they are only bit players in the ongoing feuds of the Goa'uld amongst themselves, the Asgard have problems of their own in their home galaxy and often cannot be bothered with Earth's problems, etc. All the other races have been getting on with their histories without Earth even being relevant for large periods of time (i.e. Earth was ignored by the Goa'uld since the Egyptian period). This ongoing activity by NPCs means that the storylines continue between episodes.
Finally, the characters on Stargate are more believable. They are fairly ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances, not like Star Trek (particularly TNG) in which each character is "special", the boy genius, the telepath, the noble warrior, etc. Star Trek characters in every series apart from the original are cliches.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a great scene in the first episode in which O'Neill isn't taking Carter seriously, and she gives him an earful about how wearing her genitals on the inside didn't stop her flying 100 hrs of combat missions in the Gulf War, and he replies that he has no problem with female Air Force officers, there problem is that she's a scientist too, and he doesn't trust scientists.
One of the great things about the show is that you can see over time how he comes to respect Carter and Jackson, even though Jackson isn't even Air Force, he's a civilian. That sort of character development is far beyond Star Trek's writers.
Re:Drop new age mysticism. (Score:2, Interesting)