As promised, I'm checking in now that I've completed my third script (and none too soon as Martin Gero had threatened to break my hands unless I stopped). I have three first drafts that I'm going to sit on for a couple of days, allow my mind to recharge, then finally re-read and polish. When we return to the office in January, I'll give Paul the option of doing a pass, or just putting out to the writing department and getting the notes on these versions. Looking over the three scripts, I think they're all a lot of fun and, as is often the case with Stargate, very different in terms of tone and focus.
Two of the things that stand out about Morpheus for me are: 1) the great Carter/Daniel sequence late in the episode and, 2) Teal'c getting the opportunity to step up in a non-Jaffa story. As I mentioned in a previous post (somewhere), this is the episode where we're faced with the prospect of Vala's continued involvement in the Stargate Program and must ask ourselves some hard questions. By "we", of course, I'm referring to the SGC. Surprisingly, I find the need to clarify this for certain fans who are mistakenly (?) offering another interpretation. Anyhow, this is the episode where those in charge of the SGC (and by that, I mean the fictitious characters of the SG-1 universe [and by universe, I don't mean universe in the literal sense but in the figurative sense of the Stargate world we've created {and by "world" I mean the various elements that make up the shows Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis; "we", in this case, referring to the writer-producers of the shows}]) weigh in on Vala's worth, character, and past actions. Who knows what the future holds?
As I was writing Counter-Strike, I realized that it was a surprisingly sober outing for one particular character and wondered whether it was a little too "down". I honestly can't see how it can't be given the circumstances. Still, we finally get to see the inside of an Ori ship and the story affords a bonding opportunity between two characters with a rocky past.
Finally, Memento Mori. I'm still smiling at the Vala-Mitchell scenes, anticipating the fan reaction to the "dinner date" debate, and am curious as to whether Ben know how to ride a motorcycle.
All the shows are on hiatus. Continuing Beck, South Park season 6, Homicide season 3. Heard good things about School of Rock from people at work so checked it out last night. Meh. I should've watched Serenity (which I picked up yesterday), but my wife made the call.
Well, looks like I'm off to get my haircut so I can look presentable for the in-laws on Friday. Happy Holidays, all the best for the coming New Year and, dare I say it, Merry Christmas to all.
Joe
Ooh sweet. First comment! Woooo...:D
Awww, man.
I wanted to green light the whining. :(
Joe, I rarely come online to read your blog, but after watching the first half of S9 and reading your blog for Dec.14 and your latest blog regarding the three episodes for S10. I can honestly say with deep sadness that SGC has lost its appeal for me. I never thought I would see the day where I turned off Stargate SG-1. I'm not entertained by the direction the new SG-1 is heading. I am a long time fan, having watched S1 through S8 (I know that may not matter). S9 brought about a lot of changes and surprises and more then their fair share of disappointments for me. Mitchell isn't believable as the leader, no matter who tells me he is. I just don’t see it. Yes he is a great pilot, but obviously not good with field teams yet. He has a lot of room for improvements. I would have loved to see him on the team, but not as the leader. It discredits the last 8 years of SGC. If he had joined the team in season two or three then yes his inexperience may have set better for me and your explanation would be more believable as to why he is leading. The Vala character, if toned down could be the comic relief, but the over the top persona and constant innuendos have put the entire team of SG-1 to the background while the show revolves around that one character. Well thanks for 8 years of fun and entertainment (meant in all sincerity). I rarely found a show that had action, adventure, time travel, great team dynamics, enough humor to keep things light, stories always in good taste, actually caring what happens to all four lead characters … I’m only sorry it had to end. In all honesty good luck with the rest of season 9 and 10.
Robbie
Is there by any chance, a bomb that needs defusing or hostages that need rescuing in Counter-Strike? ;P
"Mitchell isn't believable as the leader, no matter who tells me he is."
I think you're getting confused between someone presenting their argument for why he was chosen to lead SG-1 and someone "telling you" what you should believe. For instance, fans can argue the logic of Mitchell's taking command of SG-1 until they're blue in the face. They have every right to. But so far, I haven't seen anything that comes close to convincing me he shouldn't.
"Yes he is a great pilot, but obviously not good with field teams yet."
Obvious based on what?
Joe,
You have consistently stated that Sam and Mitchell are co-leaders of SG-1, and that the writers also perceive the leadership situation in this way. How will this co-leadership of SG-1 play out in season 10? Will it be obvious that they are co-leading?
Thanks for acknowledging that you understand why Carter (and also what I've seen team) fans are raising concerns about the leadership issue (on Solutions forum).
Chocdoc
Teal"c in a non Jaffa story? Excellent news, you the man!
Personally, what ild like to see sometime in the future, maybe in a few years time, is the SG1 team finding a power source that will enable them to connect to the Galaxy controlled by the Ori, itd be intresting to see what the show could produce in a way of the team trying to help the people who were fooled by the Priors power and made to worship the Ori, since ild guess in a few years time the SG1 team will have a portable weapon that will enable them to successfully engage a Prior and defeat without that big device thing as seen in the forth horsemen, so im guessing the Ori will obviously be defeated by convincing the people to rise up against them, and to not worship origin, that and to remove the Priors from the picture, will their ever be a large scale resistance group headed up by people who think the Ori arent gods, much in the way of the Jaffa Rebelleon.
Joe,
Thanks for your comments. I'm going to fall on the other side of the debate. I want to see Mitchell be the sole leader of SG-1. So far, on screen, he's the only one who's been called the leader, so let him lead! Carter is doing great being in charge of the science. That's her area of expertise. Let Mitchell have his own area. This whole co-leadership thing just weakens Mitchell, who, according to the show, is still the only leader. And it makes it confusing to viewers who don't come online and are probably wondering why Mitchell isn't a stronger leader.
can you answer *this* question, joe?
when sam came back 'permanently' to the sgc/sg1, why wasn't she given the team back that she had once lead? why give that privilege to a new-comer over a character that had been on the show for 9 years AND had experience in leading sg1/an sg team?
sally :)
"when sam came back 'permanently' to the sgc/sg1, why wasn't she given the team back that she had once lead? why give that privilege to a new-comer over a character that had been on the show for 9 years AND had experience in leading sg1/an sg team?"
Because Carter had chosen to leave and, in the interim, Mitchell was given command of the team. Its like working at a job for years, leaving, then deciding to come back. It would be presumptuous to assume that your boss would automatically kick your replacement to the curb to accomodate you.
Joe...I noticed you responded to something in your blog comments above so may I please take this opportunity to repeat a question from your "Ask Joe" thread...
Are there any new ice cream flavors for the holidays? Some special Christmas blend? You teased us last time with talk of some flavors but I see no mention this time...
Thank you!
Mary Beth
Majorsal
SG1 was disbanded as a unit at the end of season 8, they all went their seperate ways, Mitchell was the guy that helped SG1 in the battle with anubis on earth, and was deemed a hero in the eyes of many people, including Jack, he was told if he survived he would have his choice of jobs or something, he picked to be a part of SG1, obviously since SG1 was gone, he was the sole person in the team, and thus given the job as leader.. he obviously then convinced the disbanded team to reform again
that and i guess the show needed a replacement for Jack
by the way im just a poster on the forums, no one special
Joe,
Picking up on what you said earlier...I understand your "in story" reasons for Mitchell having command. They almost make sense. What I (and I think most others) want to know is why the writers chose to go this route. You didn't have to have Carter give up command of SG-1, but you did. And you didn't have to give command of the team to someone new, but you did. I'm not asking why Mitchell has command in the story, I'm asking why you chose to take command away from the Carter character in order to facilitate giving it to Mitchell. Clearly it was a decision made, to have Carter leave so that Mitchell could get command. So, why?
The other issue here is who is higher rank. Since they're the same rank, I believe whoever had that rank first technically outranks the other. If Mitchell was Lt.Cmdr. first, then she couldn't be his C.O. anyway. That hasn't been officially established yet, but his being the team leader sort of implies it.
Actually that's an interesting point Jeremy.
In Avalon 1, the flashbacks have him wearing a Lt. Colonel ensignia. We don't know how long he's been a Lt. Colonel as of the Antarctica fight, but since Sam's still a Major at that point and would be for at least several more weeks, we know for a fact he's been a Lt. Colonel longer than Sam.
However, when he showed up at the SGC, he clearly assumed he'd be serving under Carter.
As for why was it written this way...where Sam leaves the SGC and Mitchell outanks her (as in longer time in grade)? That's a great question for Joe and the other writers and I'd love to know this myself.
Mary Beth
Jeremy,
But remember that Mitchell expected Sam to lead when he came to the SGC to join SG-1. So if rank were an issue, then Mitchell would never had expected Sam to lead when he first arrived.
Chocdoc
The reason (I presume) the writers wrote Carter giving up command is because they wanted to show the characters moving-on after they had all but defeated the Goa'uld.
Teal'c went with the free Jaffa, Daniel was goingt o be going to Atlantis (so, can we ask the question of why he did this? Or de we accept it).
And Sam decided to go back into R&D and spend some time with Cassie. She decided to get out of the mountain and live a little. It actually plays in well with the ending of S8.
I find nothing wrong with this storyline as I think it makes perfect sense. The reason why they were all remaining had been dealt with - they wanted something for themselves. Nothing wrong with that.
joe mallozzi said: Because Carter had chosen to leave and, in the interim, Mitchell was given command of the team. Its like working at a job for years, leaving, then deciding to come back. It would be presumptuous to assume that your boss would automatically kick your replacement to the curb to accomodate you.//
okay, with that given, how about the idea of looking after your long-standing character over a newbie? it *is* a privilege to lead sg1 (which is the privilege you gave sam in season 8); so how come the newbie got better treatment than the 9 year character?
mitchell's got the leadership storyline.
daniel's got the ascension/ori storyline.
teal'c's got his continuing jaffa freedom storyline.
what's sam got? back to being second in command?
you guys took her two storylines away from her (leader of sg1 and s/j ship).
what's sam got now?
sally :)
majorsal - I don't believe the sam/jack ship storyline is a storyline. I think by identifying that as one of her major story arcs you are demoting her character to the female foil. I don't think that's fair.
And Sam is still science gal, and she does still have command. You see, you are not actually talking story lines here, you talking character points here. What the Character is and does is not what their story arc will end up being.
dee said: majorsal - I don't believe the sam/jack ship storyline is a storyline. I think by identifying that as one of her major story arcs you are demoting her character to the female foil. I don't think that's fair.//
demoting her character? she fell in love with a guy, how is that something bad for her character? it's not like she was doing some 90 year old guy or sleeping her way to the top. *to me*, it was a simple love story played (basically) in the backgroud of her character. extra emphasis the last two seasos because of her reevaluating her personal desires. how is that demoting?
//You see, you are not actually talking story lines here, you talking character points here. What the Character is and does is not what their story arc will end up being.//
what? :p
sally :)
Oh, God! Really, Joe, motorcycles? How much cliched crap can one writer consistently turn out. Right now I'm praying that either Rob or Brad picks up that first draft of yours and totally rewrites it. You know, so that it might turn out good.
Cripes, I'm having these awful flashbacks to Ties That Bind, or as I like to call it, "Worst Stargate Episode Ever".
Evan
if the Ori are represented by fire on the show, couldnt we just get a ton of water on the prometheus, and drop it onto the Ori, since water puts out fire :)
I see you've been making the rounds on the internet the past week or so, mostly to defend Mitchell. I just feel like someone needs to tell you, you're doing the character no good. You're arguments for Mitchell leading are based on the plot contrivances you writers created. And they do come across as contrivances.
People have asked why no one with experience was given command, and you have been unable to answer. You spout misdirections about a "new dynamic" and a "new era of gate travel", but still have yet to provide any logical reason as to why someone so fantastically unqualified and inexperienced would be given command of the front line team. Let's face it, you guys couldn't have made him any greener if you tried. It boggles the mind that the writers, collectively, honestly believed that the Mitchell character, as written, would be accpeted as leader of the three most experienced, heroic members of the SGC.
And the more often you come online to argue, the nastier your replies to fans who have a problem with this writing become, the worse things get for the character. More and more, the perception grows that the character needs the constant support of the writers outside of the stories. You shouldn't have to come online and try and convince fans to like a character. But you do, with an alarming frequency. I get that you're one of the guys that fought for bringing Browder aboard, and you're probably one of the guys who fought for Mitchell being graced with leadership. But every time you petulantly bicker with fans over the character's writing, every time you try and marginalize those contrary opinions by dismissing them as being founded on "tainted logic", you are actively weakening the character of Mitchell. No character on Stargate has ever needed or recieved this kind of constant lip service. That you apparently feel Mitchell does need it speaks to a lack of confidence in his future acceptance and incorporation into the stories. And none of it is good for Stargate.
"//You see, you are not actually talking story lines here, you talking character points here. What the Character is and does is not what their story arc will end up being.//
what? :p"
Majorsal, perhaps I worded it a little wrong. Okay, lets try this. Does your job create all the events in your life? Or do somethings happen that a completely independant of your job and your personality traits?
You see, you mentioned for the 4 major characters their talking points, their 'jobs' - but not what their character arcs are. Not what creates storylines.
That's all I was saying - obviously badly.
Also, I do see what you mean about Sam/Jack. But I think including that as a major story point for her is not fair, because that is not the only thing that creates her character :). But I do agree with you aswell (I am conflicted.)
Evan: Carter has a motorcycle. If that a cliche? It all depends on how it is used, what context - and whether or not Joe is actually yanking our chain.
Joe said:
"Because Carter had chosen to leave and, in the interim, Mitchell was given command of the team. Its like working at a job for years, leaving, then deciding to come back. It would be presumptuous to assume that your boss would automatically kick your replacement to the curb to accomodate you. "
Joe - you really, really don't get it do you?? The question simply stated is why did you ("in this case, referring to the writer-producers of the shows") choose to take command away from Carter and use ilogical, unbelievable plot contrivances to do so? That was not your only choice and as stated several times before, everyone knew Carter would be back in the 6th episode making no need to write her out as leader.
Your story and your logic, perhaps logic that is tainted by your desperation (and it does appear to be desperation especially when you try to muster a defense, perhaps the weakest yet, for Mitchell by comparing the situation with his lack of experience to the very beginning of the SGC program - HUH?) don't fly and the many on-line fans (and some off-line who I communicate with) who do not accept Mitchell as leader appear not to be buying what you are selling re: Mitchell. Oh and I know several people (including me)who left their positions but returned to that same exact position at a later time because they were the BEST and most experienced for the job, they were the ones that could give the best results because they had the experince and the knowledge and the expertise over the others. Your defense still does not work.
Please please tell me you get this - it isn't that hard to grasp.
and Martin Greene - wow - great post - Joe do you get it from Martin's post??
Jean
dee said: Majorsal, perhaps I worded it a little wrong. Okay, lets try this. Does your job create all the events in your life? Or do somethings happen that a completely independant of your job and your personality traits?
You see, you mentioned for the 4 major characters their talking points, their 'jobs' - but not what their character arcs are. Not what creates storylines.
That's all I was saying - obviously badly.//
i see what you're saying, dee, but what i was getting at is that the ptb are using these as their main storylines for each character (it seems). no, it's not their only storyline, but it's the main one the writers are using (and working other same-character storylines around it).
//Also, I do see what you mean about Sam/Jack. But I think including that as a major story point for her is not fair, because that is not the only thing that creates her character :). But I do agree with you aswell (I am conflicted.)//
oh, i definitely agree it's not her only story point. just like any persons' relationship isn't the end all/be all of their existance. i know amanda's married, and as much as i'm sure she adores her husband, it isn't the *sole* defining point of who she is and what her life is about.
her feelings for jack is but one aspect of her character. she's a scientist, a soldier, an officer, a sister, an aunt, a woman, a human, a pilot, a daughter, a...
sally :)
Regarding Mitchell -- I would have to agree that he isn't credible as a leader. I have given a lot of thought to it and I think I have figured out what is missing -- body language and speech patterns, as well as a "take command" attitude. Body language -- examples are when he is talking to Dr. Jackson -- he is deferential in a way a commander would not typically be to a non-military person. Jack was always like "Daniel you have lost your mind .. we are leaving now." Mitchell's character just doesn't command anything. I think what he is missing is an episode where his team takes advantage of him and his insecurities with the mission and he rails on them (maybe an episode with a slight "mutiny" theme). I am envisioning actions that won't break trust but reflect that the team tends to act like teenagers to a parent rather than rank system. Examples in a mutiny context: Team not at the gate room at the time prescribed by Mitchell, team not prepared for a particular mission as assigned. I could see a whole episode on what preparation actually would into preparing for a scheduled off-world mission. I would expect a team leader to decide what precautionary measures are appropriate and when to leave, when to return, etc. If you do an episode detailing those fine points and showing the other team members being lazy and, finally, Mitchell has enough and gates them somewhere with absolutely nothing and takes their DHD and lets them have it for not respecting his authority, that will probably improve his viewer respect. Mitchell needs to get a sterotypical military superiority complex or he needs to say (fine, just because you don't fear me because I am not a jerk, doesn't mean I have any less authority than any other colonel).
Vala -- she is amazing. I didn't think I would like her but she has replaced O'Neal as the quik-witted one. That personality is a necessary component of SG-1.
General - get rid of the government conspiracy stuff -- it is so boring to watch. I would love to see a story where they gate to a world of unascended ancients who are doing the same thing as the Pegasus galaxy -- trying to play with bugs like the Aretus to develop a way to ascend. I can see the title "Lessons from Our Fathers" or something like that. Sg-1 finds them and discovers that they were at that planet before the Wraith were discovered (a colony) and over the millions of years they have done some of the similar things that the Ancients in Pegasus did, unaware of the consequences (i.e. Wraith) and SG-1 tries to convince them that they can't keep doing these Ascension genetic hybird tests because it will most likely result in a deadly species for them as well.
Asgard -- I would love to see the team invited to the Asgard home world for a special celebration for their help with the Replicators. We keep seeing their ship -- but their homeworld would be pretty amazing. I am thinking something like the Star Wars Episode 4 ceremony at the end. World presidents of Earth are invited and they all attend.
I would love to see the Ori v. Wraith. I can see them eliminating the Wraith as a threat as a way to try to sway the allegiance of Earth. Maybe they could provide the Wraith with a plentiful, non-animal, and tastier food source. Have them call it a "good will gesture."
I do miss O'Neal and his abrasive attitude, though
..."and he takes their DHD"...
Right. Ha, ha. Very funny. And the next time Teal'c saw him he'd kill him.
You know, that IS a pretty good idea...
I loved the nested parenthetical phrases, Joe. Looks like software I have written :-)
As you can see, nothing you say is going to convince some fans about the whole Mitchell thing. Just be aware a lot of us are happy with Mitchell in charge and don't need convincing.
Enjoy your holiday (and by 'your' I mean you and your wife, not the SGC [which is fictitious as far as we know and therefore does not celebrate Christmas {which is of course only one of several holidays observed at this time of year; Happy Winter Solstice by the way}]).
Joe Mallozzi said:
"Because Carter had chosen to leave and, in the interim, Mitchell was given command of the team. Its like working at a job for years, leaving, then deciding to come back. It would be presumptuous to assume that your boss would automatically kick your replacement to the curb to accomodate you."
To apply a real life example Joe, how about this. An actor decides to leave a show, for reasons of his own choosing, and is replaced. Then he decides to come back, and his replacement is automatically kicked to the curb to accomodate him. The actor is Michael Shanks, and his replacement is Corin Nemec. Good thing you don't practice what you preach. Hypocrite.
majorsal - it's very interesting that we are talking in circles around each other, yet we totally agree :).
dee said: majorsal - it's very interesting that we are talking in circles around each other, yet we totally agree :).//
:p ;)
sally :)
Joe Mallozzi said:
"Because Carter had chosen to leave and, in the interim, Mitchell was given command of the team. Its like working at a job for years, leaving, then deciding to come back. It would be presumptuous to assume that your boss would automatically kick your replacement to the curb to accomodate you."
To apply a real life example Joe, how about this. An actor decides to leave a show, for reasons of his own choosing, and is replaced. Then he decides to come back, and his replacement is automatically kicked to the curb to accomodate him. The actor is Michael Shanks, and his replacement is Corin Nemec. Good thing you don't practice what you preach. Hypocrite.
LOL; great analogy. Joe, you just keep digging yourself in further; give it up. As a previous poster said, the more you try to justify and defend Mitchell, the more ridiculous you sound. Give it up.
Viewers like him, don't like him, or are completely neutral about him based on how the character is written/how Ben portrays him on the show. One would hope you would let your writing speak for itself instead of having to explain/defend it online.
Boo
Actually Joe, I believe James Tichenor did exactly the thing you're mocking--left Stargate, then came back to his same job. So, given the previous guy's post about Corin Nemec, maybe it's not all that unusual up there at Bridge?
Cool, you've discovered Homicide. I assume that's the police drama from the 90's, right? One of the best shows on tv. Pembleton was a great character.
This Carter/Daniel sequence you mentioned, what's the tone of it? Lighthearted, angsty, working to solve a problem, argumentative, etc, etc, etc?
"Clearly it was a decision made, to have Carter leave so that Mitchell could get command. So, why?"
We felt this dynamic provided us the best opportunity to a) explain why Carter isn't around for the show's first five episodes, b) introduced our new team member, and c) pick up certain loose ends that would need to be addressed after the fall of the goa'uld (ie. the free Jaffa, Daniel finally getting the opportunity to go to Atlantis).
"People have asked why no one with experience was given command, and you have been unable to answer."
Actually, I have answered, its just that you may not like what I had to say.
"You spout misdirections about a "new dynamic" and a "new era of gate travel", but still have yet to provide any logical reason as to why someone so fantastically unqualified and inexperienced would be given command of the front line team."
Fantastically unqualified and inexperienced? Was he working at Dairy Queen prior to being given the assignment? Did you watch any of the first episode? I'd suggest that instead of insisting you, as an audience member, be spoon-fed detailed explanations, you sit back and watch the narrative (or in this case, Mitchell's backstory) unfold.
"And the more often you come online to argue, the nastier your replies to fans who have a problem with this writing become, the worse things get for the character."
What you see as "arguing" is simply my response to some of the questions, concerns and, in your case, shrill exaggerations of the issue. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I disagree with you take. Please don't take it personally.
"You shouldn't have to come online and try and convince fans to like a character."
Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just laying out the facts. You stamp your feet and scream until your blue in the face, but it still won't change the facts.
Joe Mallozzi said:
"We felt this dynamic provided us the best opportunity to a) explain why Carter isn't around for the show's first five episodes, b) introduced our new team member, and c) pick up certain loose ends that would need to be addressed after the fall of the goa'uld (ie. the free Jaffa, Daniel finally getting the opportunity to go to Atlantis)."
This implies that your entire focus regarding this situation was about what was best for the new character, despite the problems it created for the older ones. On a similar note, Joe, you've mentioned that there was heated debate regarding the command issue in the writer's room. Which side were you on? Carter's or Mitchell's?
Joe, leave now and keep your dignity somewhat intact. Then again, how much can possibly remain after The Tower?
"Joe, leave now and keep your dignity somewhat intact. Then again, how much can possibly remain after The Tower?"
Heh. Does that mean you hated it so much you'll only watch it two more times in syndication?
"We felt this dynamic provided us the best opportunity to a) explain why Carter isn't around for the show's first five episodes, b) introduced our new team member, and c) pick up certain loose ends that would need to be addressed after the fall of the goa'uld (ie. the free Jaffa, Daniel finally getting the opportunity to go to Atlantis).
"This implies that your entire focus regarding this situation was about what was best for the new character, despite the problems it created for the older ones."
You pasted my previous response in which I clearly stated there were three major reasons why we went this way.
"Cool, you've discovered Homicide. I assume that's the police drama from the 90's, right? One of the best shows on tv. Pembleton was a great character."
Yup. Great series. And a terrific character.
"This Carter/Daniel sequence you mentioned, what's the tone of it? Lighthearted, angsty, working to solve a problem, argumentative, etc, etc, etc?"
I'd definitely file it under "angsty".
Joe Mallozzi wrote:
Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just laying out the facts. You stamp your feet and scream until your blue in the face, but it still won't change the facts.
It sure *seems* like you're trying to convice someone of something. *You* can post and post and post about Mitchell until your fingers get cramps from typing, but it's not going to change the opinions of all of those who think the character is poorly written, should NOT be in command, etc.
I don't mean to be rude, but I agree with the posters who've said you should just stop now and save your dignity. Sheesh, you post here, post at GW, at Solutions; it's like a PR blitz to justify Mitchell (and Vala). Maybe if you stopped spending so much time defending the characters and actually devoted more time to writing the characters in a believable manner, you wouldn't have to spend so much time defending them.
An old adage, but nonetheless true at times. Familiarity can breed contempt. Try being a bit more unreachable and apart from the masses -- it might do wonders for you.
Val Mitchell
"It sure *seems* like you're trying to convice someone of something. *You* can post and post and post about Mitchell until your fingers get cramps from typing, but it's not going to change the opinions of all of those who think the character is poorly written, should NOT be in command, etc."
I'm simply responding to the questions I'm asked. If there were more questions about the Furlings, I'm sure you'd accuse me of pushing a secret Furling agenda. Ultimately, however, it really doesn't make a difference what either of us say. All we can do is sit back now and wait and see how things will play themselves out in seasons 9 and 10.
Joe, since you're actually answering some questions, how about you give us a straight answer to O'Neill's whereabouts and why no one cared to explain?
I know he's gone and I can accept that, but please he's been the lead for 8 years is it really too much to ask to actually state in the show where he is and what he's doing?
All we know is that he sold his house, care and bike. And if you take a really close look you might figure out he's been promoted again, but there has been nothing to where he is or what he's doing and quite frankly that really annoys the heck out of me.
Joe, can I make a suggestion? Many people here don't appear to want your answer - they just want to stomp their feet and complain about the direction of the show. Yes, we both know it is their choice, but it is sad that they believe that their opinion of the show is somehow higher then someone elses. Our opinions are equal.
We are all fans here, and I am sorry to see so many fans being rude and condesending about the whole thing. I personally am looking forward to see what is happening next. And while I will in no way say you (meaning TPTB) have made 184 (aired episodes) that are quality in all ways. I will say that even the episodes I haven't enjoyed have also given me a giggle, and that's something some of the other shows I enjoy don't.
For those who don't like the direction the show is going, do any of you read? If so do you read any book series? Because my question is would you presume to dictate to an author where character and plot should develop too? My bet would be no. It's the same creative outlet here.
Sure question Joe. But - don't blame him if you don't like the answers. And don't blame him because he isn't writing just for you, and don't blame and ridicule the fans that still enjoy the show.
My one question for you Joe is when writing a script do the voices of each characters always come naturally? And do you always keep the actors in mind when writing? (it has nothing to do with the Sam, Mitchell or Vala debate I know - but I do write scripts and I would love to write for TV one day.. so curious.)
"My one question for you Joe is when writing a script do the voices of each characters always come naturally? And do you always keep the actors in mind when writing?"
Over time, the characters become easier to write. They're almost a second part of you. And to answer your second question - yes, we always do keep the actors in mind when writing for them. How would Michael deliver this line? Might Chris have a problem with this limerick? Etc.
I'd definitely file it under "angsty".
Pumps fist in the air and makes squealing noise that is sure to get me labeled a groupie (or something much more strongly expressed.)
Oh, and pleeeeease don't mention the Furlings, even as an example. Silly man. Don't you know that's the way danger lies?
Or maybe you can answer why you're avoiding answering any and all questions about RDA/Jack leaving?
Why can you go on and on and on about Mitchell, Vala, to ship or not to ship, etc, but not my question?
**Anonymous said...
Joe, since you're actually answering some questions, how about you give us a straight answer to O'Neill's whereabouts and why no one cared to explain?**
Joe DID answer that question already. I believe he said that he thought there was a straight answer given as to O'Neill's whereabouts.
So it leads me to believe that perhaps some things get cut in the editing process, never make it to the final cut and that Joe and company apparently don't watch the final shows as the viewing audience seems them which fully explains WHY he apparently has a different take on some issues than a portion of fandom does.
Maybe all those scenes that show WHY Mitchell was given command over Sam, why his qualifications/experience are better than hers, those scenes that convince us WHY he should be the leader just never made it to final cut and Joe doesn't know that. Same for the scene where it is formally explained that Mitchell and Carter are going to share command of SG-1.
FCOL, I don't even like Sam particularly, but this Mitchell confounds me and makes me crabby.
Motorcycle Mama
Off the Mitchell and Carter thing, I honest to goodness really want to know about the ice cream thing.
Really...not kidding here. Please? I'm begging ya. Special. Holiday. Ice creams.
MB
Actually he has answered the question about Jack leaving previously. He was promoted, which isn't something you need Joe to tell you. It's not something that you didn't know. Actually in Origin you see him in uniform, and you see 2 shiny Stars on his uniform. That is a dead give away.
He is now the head of Homeworld Security. Something which becomes very apparent (even if it isn't meantioned before) in Beach Head when Landry is on the Phone to Jack when Carter comes in. Why would Landry call Jack if he wasn't his boss. A little deductive reasoning is all that was required with this one.
Actually, I think if they focused on Jack too much in the earlier episodes it would have overshadowed what was already happening.
Joe Thanks for the answer. I kind of already knew that they way the actors could or would deliver the lines would affect; but having a writer here I couldn't help but ask :)
"Off the Mitchell and Carter thing, I honest to goodness really want to know about the ice cream thing.
Really...not kidding here. Please? I'm begging ya. Special. Holiday. Ice creams."
I'm thinking of experimenting with a couple of new flavors: Egg Nog, Tim Tam, and Raffaello (sic?).
Joe DID answer that question already. I believe he said that he thought there was a straight answer given as to O'Neill's whereabouts.
So it leads me to believe that perhaps some things get cut in the editing process, never make it to the final cut and that Joe and company apparently don't watch the final shows as the viewing audience seems them which fully explains WHY he apparently has a different take on some issues than a portion of fandom does.
Oh c'mon Joe is an exec producer, he approves the final edits, does producer cuts, etc, he knows exactly what was shown and what wasn't.
Joe,
Blog questions, eh? Of the three eps you've written for season 10, which is your favorite and why? Or least favorite?
Actually he has answered the question about Jack leaving previously. He was promoted, which isn't something you need Joe to tell you. It's not something that you didn't know. Actually in Origin you see him in uniform, and you see 2 shiny Stars on his uniform. That is a dead give away.
Go re read my question I didn't ask him if he was promoted or not. I asked why it wasn't stated on the show. And I only stated what is canon and what someone who doesn't spend half his/her life online knows.
I don't expect a big scene, RDA wouldn't even have to be there, just a little acknowledgement in a throw away line would go a long way.
He is now the head of Homeworld Security. Something which becomes very apparent (even if it isn't meantioned before) in Beach Head when Landry is on the Phone to Jack when Carter comes in. Why would Landry call Jack if he wasn't his boss. A little deductive reasoning is all that was required with this one.
How hard would it have been to insert one line, something along: 'how do you like your new job as head of homeworld security?' It would've made a lot of people happy and made things clear.
I'd love to see your deductive reasoning skills if you hadn't read it online. I doubt you'd made the same conclusion.
Joe keeps answering a million and one question about who's leading and about the ship, but there's hardly a word about Jack. Granted he's left the show, no point in crying over spilt milk, but he is avoiding the issue and it just doesn't sit right with me and one has to wonder why.
"Of the three eps you've written for season 10, which is your favorite and why? Or least favorite?"
Ripple Effect and The Ties That Bind tie for favorite. Ties was just a romp and fun to write. Ripple Effect afforded me the opportunity to touch on episodes past, present, and future (you'll know what I mean when you see the episode). Collateral Damage would also be in there but, in all fairness, although I pitched the original idea and wrote the outline, Paul wrote what turned out to be an awesome script for an incredible episode.
Least fave? Of the ones I wrote, I'd have to say maybe Ex Deus Machina, mainly because we really felt a production squeeze in that episode and it showed.
Cool, you answered. But I said season 10, not season 9. :) "Dinner debate"...care to elaborate?
Anonymous said...
Or maybe you can answer why you're avoiding answering any and all questions about RDA/Jack leaving?
Why can you go on and on and on about Mitchell, Vala, to ship or not to ship, etc, but not my question?
My 2 cents is that you will never get an honest answer from PTB regarding that. My sense is that they couldn't really answer why Jack left/what it is he is doing exactly because no one would believe that Jack would take a desk job -- wouldn't happen. So they just left it kind of nebulous because they couldn't think of anything good like having him go work with Thor or some such thing.
They don't want to have any team members mention Jack or say they miss him because they want people to focus on the NEW team, not remember the old. Even though I clearly remember Joe saying that Jack would have a strong presence in the Stargate universe even though he wasn't there physically, it won't happen.
This is the new team, new enemy, new direction, new actors, new characters; out with the old, in with the new. As Joe also said, just because none of the team members mention that they miss Jack, it doesn't mean that they don't miss him.
You gotta use your imagination alot -- just imagine that Daniel, Sam or Teal'c occasionally think of and miss Jack and imagine that Vala isn't really going to be a full time member of SG-1 chasing around after the baby sproglet and you'll be fine.
Lainie
LOL Lainie, that actually makes me feel better. :)
You know I wouldn't even want a constant reminder that he's gone. I actually quite enjoy the new season as something completely different, but I just can't get over the fact that we didn't get any closure whatsoever. Of course you'd want to push the new team and the new characters, but then why not make it a clean break so to speak. Say where he went, say good-bye and never mention it again and concentrate on all the new and improved things?
I do agree though, I think I can give up on ever getting an answer. Joe's online but he's not answering, short of knocking at the gate at Bridge I don't think I'll get a better chance.
someone said: How hard would it have been to insert one line, something along: 'how do you like your new job as head of homeworld security?' It would've made a lot of people happy and made things clear.
I'd love to see your deductive reasoning skills if you hadn't read it online. I doubt you'd made the same conclusion.
Joe keeps answering a million and one question about who's leading and about the ship, but there's hardly a word about Jack. Granted he's left the show, no point in crying over spilt milk, but he is avoiding the issue and it just doesn't sit right with me and one has to wonder why.//
i asked my brother (who's a stargate fan but isn't obsessive enough to play online) about what he thought happened to jack o'neill. he said he thought something big was going to be revealed about what jack was 'really' doing. he thought it was going to be something juicy and involve what's going on now... i didn't have the heart to tell him the truth.
i think this new show IS stargate: command. i was thinking this was still sg1, starring sam, daniel, and teal'c, with the new characters being *fit in* to the established show and cast. but i think it's stargate command, starring vala and mitchell, with sam, daniel, and teal'c being *fit in* to this new show's cast and storylines. or it just feels that way to me. whatever.
sally :\
Anonymous said:
Joe keeps answering a million and one question about who's leading and about the ship, but there's hardly a word about Jack. Granted he's left the show, no point in crying over spilt milk, but he is avoiding the issue and it just doesn't sit right with me and one has to wonder why.
Hey, it doesn't sit right with a whole heck of a lot of viewers and that includes several fans I know of personally who never ever come online. I would venture to say that very few fans (online or not) would say that they liked the way the writers handled Jack's exit.
Hey Joe, any chance Teal'c will show up bald for next season? His shiny head is sorely missed by all.
*..... Say where he went, say good-bye and never mention it again and concentrate on all the new and improved things?
I do agree though, I think I can give up on ever getting an answer. Joe's online but he's not answering, short of knocking at the gate at Bridge I don't think I'll get a better chance.**
I think they want to leave the door open in the event RDA would want to come back for one episode or the 200th or 220th or whatever, so they didn't want to shut the door completely and say a final goodbye.
I can see that, but I agree with the other poster. Jack taking a desk job in D.C? Sheet, he'd sooner move into a retirement home with Maybourne than be a desk jock in D.C with all the politics. There were so many more creative-in-character-ways they could have had Jack leave and still keep the door open for a possible return for one eppy.
Like you, I don't feel the need to have a constant reminder of Jack, (he's gone and there is a new team) but I would have liked one 30 second scene where ONE of his SG-1 teammates that he work with and protected for the last 8 years, mentions that they miss him, wonders how he's doing, or just mentions his name. Landry and joking with Jack on the phone didn't cut it for me.
But yeah, we didn't get it and never will.
Daragh
////Oh c'mon Joe is an exec producer, he approves the final edits, does producer cuts, etc, he knows exactly what was shown and what wasn't.///
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But I really think it isn't the case here. Yeah, I think I remember him saying that he/they rarely watch the final show as seen by the audience. Correct me if I wrong though, will you Joe?
And yes, he DID say either here or on another forum that he did think they answered the question about where O'Neill went. I'm thinking Joe doesn't know as much as we think he knows. That explains a great deal....
Dee wrote:
For those who don't like the direction the show is going, do any of you read? If so do you read any book series? Because my question is would you presume to dictate to an author where character and plot should develop too? My bet would be no. It's the same creative outlet here.
My bet would be yes...if the author of the series put himself/herself out there on the internet on forums and blogs interacting with the readers of the books, certainly some fans would presume to dictate to that author where character and plot should develop. This is the Internet -- home to anyone who wants to say anything in any manner at all, no matter how rude, obnoxious or outrageous. It's not a bunch of well-mannered people sitting around sipping tea and politely discoursing on the finer points of character development.
Anyone - from Joe to Steven Spielberg to J Whedon - is going to have people dictating to them IF they make themselves available for Q&A on the 'Net as often as Joe does.
Joe knows this very well; he courts this kind of behavior by putting himself out there. In fact, I'd say he enjoys reading some of the whacked out comments and verbally sparring with others.
Argentia
JM wrote:
I'm simply responding to the questions I'm asked. If there were more questions about the Furlings, I'm sure you'd accuse me of pushing a secret Furling agenda. Ultimately, however, it really doesn't make a difference what either of us say. All we can do is sit back now and wait and see how things will play themselves out in seasons 9 and 10.
Speaking only for myself...no Joe, you don't simply respond to the questions you are asked. You respond nicely to the ones to which you want to respond and for those questions which you don't care to respond, you ignore, or give a flippant or sarcastic answer (such as the many questions about O'Neill's departure).
I think the writing is lacking if people have to read your online comments to figure out what is going on in the show -- this co-command thing between Carter and Mitchell is pathetic and the only only only reason it is being done is because you don't want to alienate either the Carter fans or the Mitchell fans. You say the fans don't dictate how you will write, but clearly they do because you seem afraid to take a stand and make either Carter or Mitchell clearly the leader.
As for waiting for the rest of S9 or 10 to see how things play out...I'm not a Carter fan by any means, but 5 episodes of the Vala/Daniel hour, with Mitchell being a non-entity in the background, are almost enough for me. You don't have an infinite amount of time to prove that this new direction and these new characters are going to be the best ever and so very interesting. What I've seen so far is not enticing me to hold my breath waiting for more. And the thought of Vala's baby....aw, Joe.
Well shoot. This is silly. No amount of my opining is going to make a difference. I just can't watch this show anymore. I loved it for 6 years, stuck with it for S7 and 8 -- hoping. All things must end.
But yeah, me thinks you doth protest too much.
Joe,
I personally quite like Mitchell. He's more of a Captain Kirk than Jack, but he works quite well as a beginning commander. I agree that Vala is a little over the top, and though I think that's exactly the character's appeal, I'm not sure it's a good idea to bring her in with a permanent slot on SG-1. She works very well as the ambivalent an/protagonist depending on the show. I adore Claudia Black, but I'm a little worried you'll let the fun writing such a character overcome the need for motivations to be logical in terms of the story. When you "make up" a reason for her to stay, readers will notice. Just as they noticed Jack was being so funny all of his superiors should have court-martialed him, and how he came across as completely incompetent in the shows showing his becoming a General that were intended as funny.
While I would have liked to see Adam Baldwin or Brent Stait pick up their previous roles as Stargate Colonels and just get a lead spot on SG-1, I like how you're mostly trying to steer clear of outright replacing Jack (personality-wise). Please don't lose track of that. Stargate's unique quality is not that the CO's run off at their mouths, it's that nobody takes themselves seriously.
Okay, now on to the wish-list ;-) I'd love to see all those Earth-like peoples again. You know, Jonas' people, those from "Memento", those from "Cure", maybe others... Could be a nice way to provide some back-up against the Ori or the Wraith. Considering how insanely strong these enemies are, Earth needs allies this time. Otherwise it'll just be a re-enactment of what happened up to Anubis defeat, IMHO. And the Genii already explore the "evil humans" theme quite nicely.
Anyway, thanks for blogging, thanks for ten years of Stargate. But be careful there at the steering weel, we don't want such likeable characters to end in a crash ;-)
I like Mitchell in command it leaves lots of mini plots open like what would happen if Mitchell made a command decision which Carter disagreed with, who would Daniel and Teal’c’ follow? Who would be right?
I personally can’t see Sam leading SG-1 I don’t think she has it in her self to make the hard decisions day in day out, she is to much of a scientist at heart, and could Daniel and Teal’c follow her orders? Or would they? Could you see Sam standing up to Daniel the way Jack did? I think putting Mitchell in command was a good idea and allows the writers scope to play with the characters more and gives Sam the opportunity to do what she does best play with alien technology.
Hey, it's a good thing it was Amanda who went on maternity leave, not Carter, else the Air Force might be facing a lawsuit for giving someone else half her job while she was off ;)
(I speak in festive jest; I ain't that bothered by the co-command. It's gonna work.)
Martin Greene wrote "You shouldn't have to come online and try and convince fans to like a character."
At the risk of getting hackles up (girds loins) am I the only one getting a bit cheesed off by this attitude? I'm enjoying the discussions and like to read Mallozzi's reasoning behind writing decisions and background information etc., whether I agree with bits and pieces or not. There's a bit of cart-before-horse in the above statement. We've been asking specific questions first.
Merry Christmas Joe! I can hardly wait to see the rest of season 9 (especially the last two episodes :) ) and season 10 (Vala in all 20 episodes, HELL YEAH!!! :))))
I don't know about motorcycles, but Ben is really good with car races (NASCAR) - do you remember Farscape's season 3 episode "Infinite Possibilities pt. 2" and their ride across the sand dunes?
How hard would it have been to insert one line, something along: 'how do you like your new job as head of homeworld security?' It would've made a lot of people happy and made things clear.
Maybe he thought that people watching the show would have the intelligence to figure it out for themselves!
I don't like having to say things like that but it seems that everyone here is getting rather personal with their insults (see what you drove me too!).
Joe and all the writers, producers, etc have a vision for the show. A vision of what they want to happen, how they want it to run, what way they want it to go.
If you don't like this new direction then stop watching. There is no need for all this bitching!
Joe has done his best to answer everyone`s questions and all that happens is that he gets accused of 'defending' Mitchell and is challenged to justify every decision he makes.
I am perfectly happy to sit back and see what direction they are taking the show. I`m willing to give it a chance before I decide if I like that direction or not. I will not base my entire decision on 10 episodes, the first five of which were mainly set up for the Ori. So everyone slagging off Mitchell, the team dynamic, etc is basing their decision on FIVE episodes of established S9. That's hardly giving S9 a chance now is it?
If you have a problem with the new direction, that is fine. But there is no need to get personal and write off all the good work Joe and the others have done for the show over the last 9 years and to slag off their abilities.
So sit back, give S9 a chance, and give the writers a break!
Oh, and to add to my last post (which I`m sure I`ll get flamed for, but never mind), I always thought it was quite obvious that Mitchell was the main leader of SG-1 (as that is what he was brought in for in the first place!), obviously being ably advised by the more experienced Carter.
Hi Joe. Love your blogs, love your comments, love your attitude! I've watched SG-1 since "Children of the Gods" first aired on Showtime and I've loved every season of it, including what I've seen of this one. I cried when Daniel died/ascended but I ended up loving Jonas and not really missing Daniel too much-- in fact, I've missed Jonas far more, even tho' I like having Daniel back. Now that I'm thinking about it, I've missed Jonas more than I'm missing Jack right now and Jack was always my favorite! The only reason I'm not whining about Jonas not being brought back when Jack left is because you brought Browder back to my Friday nite Sci-Fi line-up and that's enough to garner my forgiveness for anything. Not that I think there's anything to forgive right now but, if you do actually screw it up somewhere, you may take comfort in the fact that I've already forgiven you... Or not! You may choose to take comfort somewhere else entirely... Anyway, you just drive on, buddy! Ya'll are all doin' a fine job and keeping me wonderfully entertained and, after all, that's really all that's important, isn't it... :)
susan
Anonymous said...
Oh, and to add to my last post (which I`m sure I`ll get flamed for, but never mind), I always thought it was quite obvious that Mitchell was the main leader of SG-1 (as that is what he was brought in for in the first place!), obviously being ably advised by the more experienced Carter.
Well, OK, yes that was the plan; Browder was brought to the show so his character of Mitchell could be new good-looking leader (since RDA left.)
Then MAKE him the leader, make him behave like a leader, make him experienced, not as some bumbling, hero-worshipping green officer who has never been through the Stargate. Take a stand. No point in explaining online that Mitchell and Sam will share command just because the writers are afraid one faction of fandom will be upset. Heck, Daniel fans have been upset for years because they feel he has been not given his rightful due of screentime and credit for all his good deads, but they're still watching. My major complaint is that Joe does seem to pay too much attention to what the online fans write/want; I don't see any vision at all.
Merry Christmas to you, too, Joe!
Wow, Joe. Just....Wow. You've really lost it here. I think a little distance might do you some good. Or perhaps it's time to move on from Stargate if you're going to take swings at your lowly "audience members".
And the posters above are right--the more often you come on and pimp Mitchell, the less inclined I am to see him in a favorable light. And you do pimp Mitchell an awful lot. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about the fact that fans of this show are fans of the 3 original characters, first and foremost. How on Earth did you reach the conclusion that we'd be ok with Carter, Daniel, and Teal'c being ignored and maligned by the writers? Did you really think that Mitchell, Vala, the Ori, etc., would really matter more to us than the 3 original characters? I know you don't think this is what you're doing, but it is. You've remarked recently that sometimes you don't get the audience's response immediately. This is one of those cases taken to an extreme. The disconnect between what fans want to see and what you're writing seems to be growing. That's a well-paved road to cancellation. And if you keep thinking that fans will watch crap "two more times in syndication", then you're sorely mistaken. You seem to have lost any respect for the fans you ever had, and you've certainly lost any sense of perspective. Take a break, reevaluate what you're doing, and give it another go. Or, if you're still this bitter, then walk away from it all. Please.
Anonymous wrote:
So sit back, give S9 a chance, and give the writers a break!
OK. OK. But will you let me know how much of a chance I have to give it? At what point will I be able to criticise the writing? Can I do it when Vala's baby is kidnapped? Please?
Be sure to let me know.
Thanks.
**Anonynous wrote:
How on Earth did you reach the conclusion that we'd be ok with Carter, Daniel, and Teal'c being ignored and maligned by the writers?**
Carter and Teal'c, yes. Daniel? Not so much -- ignored that is, maligned yes. I'm thinking we are going to see loads and loads of Daniel and Vala, which is what some people want, but I'm not one of them.
CB is a good actress and Vala is fun to write for, but her character fits into the Stargate universe about as well as Robin Williams as Mork would. Silly me. Vala doesn't have to fit into the Stargate universe; that universe as we've known it, will just be changed to accommodate Vala 'cause it's cool to write for her and dress her.
Mitchell? I can't remember which poster wrote it but I loved it: "I'd love to comment on Mitchell but everytime he comes on screen, I get a sudden case of narcolepsy."
I do agree though. Most of the time when Joe tries to "simply" respond to people's questions, he just puts his foot further into his mouth -- co-command, indeed.
Joe wrote about Memento Mori saying "I'm still smiling at the Vala-Mitchell scenes anticipating the fan reaction to the "dinner date" debate," Joe, Joe.
The Daniel fans ain't going to like that one. Vala and Mitchell scenes? How dare you? I'll be anticipating the fan reaction myself. Should be pretty good.
Rosa
Joe,
Thanks for the blog and the answers that some people don't like. The last time I checked you are getting paid to write/produce a science fiction show, that has a few ties to reality, in that the main characters are human(well most!) and that there is an actual USAF. Now a funny thing about the USAF and chain of command, etc... Don't they still have a representative that checks on the validity of, say, who can be in charge, etc. So, for all of the naysayers out there that feel that the ficticious show should reward a character with a command, just because they like that person, should really come back into the real world and take a look at your surroundings. Notice anything? Enough on that, plus if you dislike the show so much, why do you continue to watch it, and read into it so much? I personally love the Stargate universe, but I alos love my "real" life a whole lot more! If I didn't like something I would quit watching it and quit bitching about it. Okay, my ranting is over... You folks keep up the great work, and I look forward to the start of the second half of season 9 in January. God Bless and a Merry Christmas to you all!
... I always thought it was quite obvious that Mitchell was the main leader of SG-1 (as that is what he was brought in for in the first place!), obviously being ably advised by the more experienced Carter.
Hear, hear. Well said. There was never any mystery to me either.
Maybe he thought that people watching the show would have the intelligence to figure it out for themselves!
Ah speaking for intelligent audience you do remember why Sony/Scifi or whoever is calling the shots these days didn't want to rename the show? Yep because they thought the audience is too stupid to figure out it's the same show.
I'm convinced that the real PTB are saying exactly what is being talked about and what not. And I'm sure they figure if they don't mention Jack we'll all forget about him. Look at how all actors/producers are fielding questions, the same thing almost in the same words. And I'm not saying that is wrong btw, they want to promote it and that's what they're doing, but maybe it's just a tiny bit too much?
And just for the record, I don't want two hours or goodbye poor Jack, just a simple statement that would let everyone know where he is and what he's up to these days, as I said above RDA wouldn't even have to be present and I certainly don't want or need a reminder every episode. They can keep the door as open as they want with that and I still don't think it's too much to ask.
Someone said (quite inaccurately I might add)
To apply a real life example Joe, how about this. An actor decides to leave a show, for reasons of his own choosing, and is replaced. Then he decides to come back, and his replacement is automatically kicked to the curb to accomodate him. The actor is Michael Shanks, and his replacement is Corin Nemec. Good thing you don't practice what you preach. Hypocrite.
Let's get this straight shall we, Corin Nemic was not Michael Shanks replacement on the show as it relates to his job and position as an actor.
Amanda Tapping was his replacement. Michael Shanks, regardless of what place his character has a a fictious team, was in RL 2ND LEAD ACTOR of the show. That was his job and that was his title and place. When he left (of his own choice), Amanda Tapping was chosen as his replacement of 2ND LEAD ACTOR and took over his job and position.
When Michael Shanks came back, his replacement was not 'kicked to the curb'. Amanda Tapping retained her place as 2ND LEAD ACTOR of the show and Michael Shanks was given a special billing. Both Amanda Tapping and Michael Shanks were treated with respect by the Studio.
Corin Nemec's character was written out of the show and he was no longer needed as 4th PLACE Actor on the show.
Ok, I just sat here and read through all these comments, and I'm appalled that the nastiest, most viscious ones are from you, Joe. You're on this campaign to defend all of the decisions that have been made and instead of winning people over you're coming off as completely desperate. As someone above said, you're not helping anything by constantly pushing a character or an agenda. Stop treating fans as idiots just because they disagree with you personally. And even though you may feel like you're only responding to a few critics, you're condescending attitude is actually being felt by all fans, this one included.
"Let's get this straight shall we, Corin Nemic was not Michael Shanks replacement on the show as it relates to his job and position as an actor.
Amanda Tapping was his replacement. Michael Shanks, regardless of what place his character has a a fictious team, was in RL 2ND LEAD ACTOR of the show. That was his job and that was his title and place. When he left (of his own choice), Amanda Tapping was chosen as his replacement of 2ND LEAD ACTOR and took over his job and position.
When Michael Shanks came back, his replacement was not 'kicked to the curb'. Amanda Tapping retained her place as 2ND LEAD ACTOR of the show and Michael Shanks was given a special billing. Both Amanda Tapping and Michael Shanks were treated with respect by the Studio.
Corin Nemec's character was written out of the show and he was no longer needed as 4th PLACE Actor on the show."
I just wanted to say that this is beautiful. Priceless. This is the kind of stuff I come online for, this kind of crazy, whacked-out perspective. Whoo, yeah, Corin Nemic wasn't Shank's replacement. Ok. Sure. It's time for you to go back to the home now. Pretty soon it'll be time for dinner, then Michael Shanks himself will be stopping in for a chat. He wants to discuss how best to remove that hussy Amanda Tapping from his coveted 2nd lead position. Fist step in the plan? To put you back on your meds.
At what point will I be able to criticise the writing? Can I do it when Vala's baby is kidnapped? Please?
Naw, not even when Vala's babies are kidnapped. I'm betting on twins, personally. You know, the whole immaculately conceived single baby story has been done before, and the writers would never give us an unoriginal plotline...
Merry Christmas, Joe! For all the snarkiness, I do appreciate your willingness to brave the rips by keeping the blog.
Cheers,
Strix varia
falcos319 said: I personally can’t see Sam leading SG-1 I don’t think she has it in her self to make the hard decisions day in day out, she is to much of a scientist at heart, and could Daniel and Teal’c follow her orders? Or would they? Could you see Sam standing up to Daniel the way Jack did? I think putting Mitchell in command was a good idea and allows the writers scope to play with the characters more and gives Sam the opportunity to do what she does best play with alien technology.//
so just going from your description, it would be more *interesting* if sam were in command, seeing as it would be such an easy-going ride for mitchell?
kish said: (I speak in festive jest; I ain't that bothered by the co-command. It's gonna work.) //
i'm not minding the co-commanding thing either, if the writers didn't try to hide the fact like they were embarrassed to admit it. and i'm talking about actually *admitting it in an ep*. i can 'see' that they're both leading, so why not actually state it? more ambiguous writing? so what's to hide, if they're not bothered by the concept?
sally :)
no, it's to hide that either skiffy pushed them into giving BB command, or his own fragile ego demanded it. not being leader probably queered the whole deal as far as bringing in BB to play "the Mitch", so they caved to his demands. hey, it's what they do.