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
Executive producer Joseph Mallozzi has been on the SG-1 writing
staff since Season Four. Along with writing partner Paul Mullie, Joe has
written such fan favorite episodes as "Window of Opportunity," "Summit,"
and "Lockdown." Joe lives in Vancouver, British Columbia. 
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.
JM wrote:"Ripple Effect and The Ties That Bind tie for favorite. Ties was just a romp and fun to write."
Glad you enjoyed writing it; I didn't enjoy watching it. And no, I won't be watching it again.
"The Ties That Bind" make me ROTFLOL every time I watch it, and I saw it about 10 times now, one of my fav episodes, great job on this one, Joe :)
==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. ==
If anyone needs meds, it's you since it's obvious by your post that you have a hard time telling reality from fiction.
Jonas Quinn who is a character on SG-1 replaced Daniel Jackson who is a character on SG-1.
If Corin Nemec the actor had replaced Michael Shanks the actor, then Nemec would have had his name listed second in the credits right after Richard Dean Anderson. That didn't happen. Amanda Tapping rightfully moved up into the second billing status and replaced Shanks as 2nd lead of the series.
It's also obvious that you need meds because you use this as an opportunity to insult Amanda Tapping by calling her a hussy and to accuse Michael Shanks of plotting against her. That's really scary on your part and you definitely need some help.
You need a reality check in a big way if you can't keep what happens to the fictional characters on the show straight from what goes on with the actors in real life.
Corin Nemec replaced Michael Shanks. I bet that's news to Corin who didn't get the same kind of billing on the show or ranking in the credits as the actor he supposedly 'replaced'.
"If anyone needs meds, it's you since it's obvious by your post that you have a hard time telling reality from fiction.
Jonas Quinn who is a character on SG-1 replaced Daniel Jackson who is a character on SG-1.
If Corin Nemec the actor had replaced Michael Shanks the actor, then Nemec would have had his name listed second in the credits right after Richard Dean Anderson. That didn't happen. Amanda Tapping rightfully moved up into the second billing status and replaced Shanks as 2nd lead of the series.
It's also obvious that you need meds because you use this as an opportunity to insult Amanda Tapping by calling her a hussy and to accuse Michael Shanks of plotting against her. That's really scary on your part and you definitely need some help.
You need a reality check in a big way if you can't keep what happens to the fictional characters on the show straight from what goes on with the actors in real life.
Corin Nemec replaced Michael Shanks. I bet that's news to Corin who didn't get the same kind of billing on the show or ranking in the credits as the actor he supposedly 'replaced'."
Keep it up, this is great stuff. How does Michael Shanks feel about being second or third fiddle to the new guy with no purpose or arc?
f anyone needs meds, it's you since it's obvious by your post that you have a hard time telling reality from fiction.
Billing - schmilling. Most viewers don't know much about billing and don't care except for the very obsessed. For all intents and purposes, Corin Nemic was kicked off the show when Michael Shanks decided to come back (and his name shall never be uttered again, along with Jack's name I suspect) and yes, the Jonas character was a replacement for the Daniel type character. Spin it all you want, but that's how us crazy, billing challenged, uneducated fans see it.
I also enjoy these crazy, whacked out perspectives. You know, the ones where PTB, Sony, MGM and everyone else has been plotting against Michael Shanks the past few years to keep him "down" because....because....I never did read a sensible answer to that one.
Anyhow, thanks for the laughs.
Keester
"Heh. Does that mean you hated it so much you'll only watch it two more times in syndication?"
Wow, what a prick.
I'm late...everyone else gets their comments in much sooner than I do. I love reading these blogs. keep it up.
Wow, such hostilities.
The short sneak peaks you've let us know about season 10 sounds great.
Serentity was amazing, if you liked firefly, you should like this. Maybe your wife would like it too...
I don't get it. If you don't like Joe, why do you still read his blog/answers/whatever.
It makes no sense to me.
PG15
Keester said==I also enjoy these crazy, whacked out perspectives. You know, the ones where PTB, Sony, MGM and everyone else has been plotting against Michael Shanks the past few years to keep him "down" because....because....I never did read a sensible answer to that one.
Anyhow, thanks for the laughs.
Keester ===
You must really have a hate on for Michael Shanks and his fans that you can't even see that my posting weren't about any of the crap you just spewed forth.
I said Amanda Tapping was treated with respect. I said Amanda Tapping was rightfully given the place of second lead and better billing over some new actor coming onto the show.
At what point in my two posts that were supportive of Amanda Tapping did you think that crap you are spewing was justified? You are the one who needs help if you can't get over your own hatred for an actor long enough to see what's really being said. So you think it's 'a good laugh' for me to show support for Amanda Tapping and say that both she and Michael Shanks got treated with respect.
Explain how does that fit into the crap you are trying to say or your own spin on things?
It's factual information that Amanda Tapping was the one who replaced Michael Shanks as second lead when he chose to leave. When he came back he was given a credit that was respectful to the position he once held in the show. Nothing about that statement or those facts indicates any crap about Sony or MGM or TPTB 'keeping him down'or harming him in anyway.
And I can't believe the insults that some other person is spewing about 'casual viewers'. Saying they aren't smart enough to know what billing in the credits mean. That's just too arrogent and idiotic to even be believed that you would think that kinda crap.
==Keep it up, this is great stuff. How does Michael Shanks feel about being second or third fiddle to the new guy with no purpose or arc? ==
Ah you are just another idiot living in perpetual hate of Michael Shanks and are so deluded by that hate that you can't see reality or the show for what it is.
Why don't you ask Joe if Michael Shanks and his character are playing this second/third fiddle thing and I bet he would be surprised to hear you say that Daniel Jackson has no arc or purpose. I mean he and the rest of TPTB wrote the episodes for the opening episodes of season 9 that clearly show that purpose and that arc.
So tell me is living with such unmitigated hatred for a man who's done you no personal harm really so important to you.
I feel sorry for you if you can't move past that.
The anonymous posters here seriously need to GET A LIFE. Just because the show doesn't live up to their narrow expectations doesn't mean the vast majority of SG fans are unhappy.
There's a shitload of us here and there's obviously no way Joe can respond to everyone concisely. Humanly impossible, period.
One season of Mitchell and they're already on their high horse. Negativity never used to have a place at Gateworld and I'm disgusted by these people. No way are they true Stargate fans when they get defensive about 'their' characters. You're not speaking on behalf of everyone, so why don't you sulk somewhere private.
Sure, why don't we just write a series that pleases everyone. Like that's not a mission impossible. The minute people think they own the show is the minute fandom is doomed. What a joke.
I'm just glad Joe is thick-skinned and can see through these insults. Some of these fans are taking things WAAAYYYY too personally and it's a good laugh to see them so pissed off about Sam or Cam or whatever. Man, it's just a TV show, settle DOWN! :)
Sean
Australia
Thanks for the interesting spoilers Joe...keeping me interested til next year already. Can't wait for the rest of Season 9, loved the first half. =^)
Have a good Christmas!
Please watch Serenity. A terrific sci-fi adventure without all the pomp and weight of a Star Wars movie.
Joe - you have the patience of Job. Were you a high school teacher in your previous life? Just asking - you would be great handling obnoxious teenagers.
( Excuse me I am being a little bit nasty.My advanced age is showing)
Just want to say - thanks for Season 9 so far. I will watch any show that has Ben Browder and Claudia Black on it every week - so S10 looks rosy for me.
Have a great Christmas and all the best for the upcoming very busy 2006.
ellenrose.
Merry Christmas to you as well. Thank you for buying Serenity. It is an awesome movie and it deserves all the support it can muster.
By the way, I'm still enjoying SG-1 quite a lot so keep up the good work!
**And I can't believe the insults that some other person is spewing about 'casual viewers'. Saying they aren't smart enough to know what billing in the credits mean. That's just too arrogent and idiotic to even be believed that you would think that kinda crap.**
Actually what I said was that most people don't know the difference and DON'T CARE. I personally don't care if Michael Shanks is billed as "and" or if he is billed along with the others in alphabetical order. I'm sure the actors and their agents care -- I don't and I know plenty of people who don't give rat's patoot.
Someone says something less than glowing about MS and you perceive that as hatred for him and for his fans. Sheesh -- get a grip. Just because one is not completely enamored of the guy doesn't mean one hates him. Is that difficult for you to understand?
I think his more obsessed fans are pretty -- well -- obsessed and they provide me with some laughter at the silliness of it all. Hatred toward them and him? Toward an actor I don't even know and fans I don't know? Au contraire....I *like* ready the comments because I find them funny.
And none of what you posted negates what the original poster said and what many many fans "perceive". MS left of his own choosing, they brought in another actor to play a similar type character and when MS decided to come back, they booted the actor and the character out of the show and now it's as if Jonas was never there; he's a pariah. I think it was a good point, well made to counteract Joe's assertion/defense of Mitchell -- as in how things happen in real life.
Keester
**Sean from Australia wrote:
No way are they true Stargate fans when they get defensive about 'their' characters. You're not speaking on behalf of everyone, so why don't you sulk somewhere private.**
Yup, you gotta love it. I seem to have missplaced the manual that defines what a true Stargate fan is and how they should behave. And nowhere on this blog have I seen *anyone* say they are speaking for the entire viewing audience of Stargate SG-1. It's just all opinions. You have yours, Sean; I think everyone else to entitled to express theirs, no matter how different it is from yours.
Be honest. If all the opinions expressed were only those saying how wonderful the writing is, how wonderfully interesting and delightful the new characters are (Vala, Mitchell, Landry and let us not forget Dr. Lam) it would be pretty boring, wouldn't it? And Joe wouldn't be having the fun he's having now with his snarky replies.
Keester.
Thanks for the update. Counter Strike sounds awesome.
Serenity Rocks!!! I got it for Christmas. I knew what it was so I opened it early and watched it.
ADAM BALDWIN is amazing. I really hope you can get him back for SEASON TEN!!!! : )
Merry Christmas.
Look forward to reading more from you in the New Year.
rofl at Joe firing some back :D And it's funny how some people seem to find it ok to insult Joe and the other PTB, but when Joe gives some back they're all 'OMG HE R INSULTING ME. HE IS TEH WORSTEST PEOPLE IN TEH WORLD!!!!!!'
While I don't necessarily agree with Joe's reasoning, I did find the Heh. Does that mean you hated it so much you'll only watch it two more times in syndication? very amusing :D
This is so far down in the comments that I'm sure it won't be answered but what the hell, I'll give it a shot.
Joe, I know that you are entirely sick of questions regarding Sam and Jack, your last response in the Ask Joe thread about it made that pretty clear. I do realize that you've got more important and interesting things going on with the show (your words) but what I want to ask is why there can't be something that just says yes Sam and Jack are together or no they are not. Not an entire storyline devoted to it. Heck, not even an entire scene. Just a throwaway line even that says what's what as far as they're concerned. That's all most people want. A resolution. I apologize if these questions are getting old, it's just a storyline that some of us having been invested in for 8 seasons and would like to see a conlusion to, not an open-ended are they or aren't they scenario. Thanks. And Merry Christmas!
"Sheesh, you post here, post at GW, at Solutions; it's like a PR blitz to justify Mitchell (and Vala)."
Riiight. I post in three places: Joe's Blog. Ask Joe. And the Ask JM thread at Solutions. Coincidentally, and I don't want anyone to read too much into this, but sections specifically dedicated to my responses, opinions on things Stargate-related. If a topic comes up in any of these venues, then I consider them fair game for discussion. Those who would prefer not to hear my take should avoid posting their opinions on any of the three aforementioned sections. The net is a very big place. There are no doubt plenty of places to accomodate your opinions without fear of having them responded to or challenged in any way. If, on the other hand, you still insist on posting your comments where you know I'll come across them, then do expect some sort of response.
And to those wishing me merry christmas and happy holidays - all the best in 2006! Safe sledding and make sure your homemade eggnog is at least partially cooked.
Joe...
Thanks for the ice cream info! You'd have no reason to know this about me but ice cream's on my list of 3 that I get all gooey over...chocolate and gourmet coffee being the other two.
I have a few Aussie friends and they tell me that Tim Tam's is essentially Australia's secret weapon to drive the rest of the world crazy. And here I thought that was their Cherry Ripes (which I was able to get from a website selling Aussie candies).
And while I don't agree with all the typical yadda yadda about Mitchell and leadership...okay, that's being tame as I've called it a debacle...and I so far am highly disappointed with Mitchell and his seeming role as a plot device or fifth wheel depending on the circumstances, I do appreciate your coming online and sparring with us even if I don't agree with everything you say. Wait I said that already.
I am (im)patiently awaiting the airing of Ripple Effect for OH so many reasons as there's a certain character I've been missing sorely since late season 7 and would LOVE to see as often as possible.
Take care and have a blessed Christmas and safe and Happy New Year!
Mary Beth
Joer said: "Actually, I have answered, its just that you may not like what I had to say."
Joe- it is not simply about people not liking what you have to say it is about your statements lacking logic, merit, believability and credibility. With so many different ways to choose from to address the introduction of Mitchell, without taking the command away from Sam, especially knowing that Ms. Tapping and Sam, would be returning in the 6th episode, why an illogical, unbelievable move to put a combat PILOT, with experience leading fighter squadrons and with flight COMBAT experience, but who had NEVER EVEN SEEN a Stargate before, or an alien for that matter, in co-command of an elite group of 3 people who each have at least 8 years of experience in all things Stargate related, including Gate technology, Gate travel, off-world combat, knowledge of: aliens and how they operate, alien technology, alien languages, alien negotiation, alien friendships, and the list goes on and on.
Your defenses/excuses cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic, credibility, believability, and factual history of the show, even with what you have shown as Mitchell’s background. In actuality your background story hurts the credibility, believability and logic even more. He was assigned, and agreed, and wanted, and was very excited about, serving UNDER Carter’s command. He SAID he wanted to learn from the BEST and HE SAID the BEST is Sam, Daniel and Teal’c. He is not in that category. Okay peace time is a good time to have a newbie LEARN things Gate related (including what it actually loks like since he hd never seen it before), it made some sense that he could learn in peacetime, not much at stake then.
You all obviously knew Sam would return to the team because there WAS NO SG1 UNTIL SAM RETURNED. And why did she return, gee the bad guys were back and peacetime was over – but you know what let’s just leave the newbie, with no Gate, off-world or alien experience whatsoever in co-command of the 3 most experienced people we’ve got, (including someone who trained as 2IC of SG1 for 7 years and actually led SG1 for a year), all while the fate of the team, every time they go off-world; the fate of the SGC; the fate of earth and the fate of the universe, etc., etc., are hanging in the balance with such a new and very bad (words of TPTB) enemy fighting them now. You see how this defense, excuse, like all of the previous ones you have tried, lacks credibility, logic, merit and believability and why it falls completely and totally flat with fans?
There were dozens of ways of introducing a new character without taking this illogical, contrived and incredible route and without demoting Carter to co-command and at the same time explaining where Carter was for 5 eps. For a group of guys that constantly claims to have dozens and dozens of ideas and stories up your sleeves, this is by far one of the weakest, most contrived stories you have yet to come up with (and there have been some dooozies) as evidenced by the weak defenses and excuses all of which have been pretty much blown out of the water by logic and the history of the show. If this is the best you all could come up with for the intro of a new character and the explanation of where Sam was, well . . .
Justin P. Rogers
The problem for me is that I really wanted to see Sam lead SG-1 in season 9. I wanted to see it in season 8 when she was the leader, but we rarely got to see her in this position. Most of season 8 revolved around RDA's schedule rather than around off-world adventures.
So when season 9 came around I wanted to see Sam actually lead. I think there are alot of other fans who felt that way too. And Amanda Tapping herself mentioned in interviews that she wanted Sam to lead as well, and that she was looking forward to it.
So it's just painful to simply have her co-lead with Mitchell, the new guy, especially when it is unclear what co-leading even means (except they both give orders at times). And I like Mitchell--it has nothing to do with not accepting change or new characters. It has everything to do with really looking forward to seeing Sam get the chance to lead that she only so rarely did in season 8.
If the writers had wanted her to lead, they could have easily come up with a way for her to do so after AT returned to the show. Oh well.
Have a great holiday, Joe.
Chocdoc
Thanks Joe on your tidbits! I love your little teasers. :D
You and your family have a Merry Christmas and very happy New Year.
:D :D
Joe,
Your leadership explanations make perfect sense to me for how Mitchell got command. I'm just thrilled that Ben Browder is on the show and as long as he's there I'll be watching. I just hope to see more of him in the second half. I think a lot of fans' problems with him come from the fact that the charater wasn't really developed yet. He's still a blank slate and it doesn't fit for the new leader to have so little to do in the storylines. Hopefully this will be fixed from now on.
Merry Christmas!
Actually, things don't sound good for Mitchell's future in season 10. Oh well.
"Actually, things don't sound good for Mitchell's future in season 10. Oh well. "
Why do you say that?
someone said: Just want to say - thanks for Season 9 so far. I will watch any show that has Ben Browder and Claudia Black on it every week - so S10 looks rosy for me.//
bingo.
sally :)
Well, Joe, I don't think Amanda Tapping can make it any clearer to the writers that she's uncomfortable with the prospect of splitting time between SG-1 and Atlantis. So, I guess that puts her along with the rest of us against you five real decision makers for the shows. Tapping is right--Carter belongs on SG-1. Do everyone a favor and keep her there for all 20 episodes next season.
Honestly, this is the reason that you're taking so much flack from fans these days. Every new, better idea is so whacked out and crazy that it does nothing but inspire fear in everyone. This kind of crossover will only lead to bad things. Pull your heads out of your asses and get it together.
Christ, I can't ever remember one of the leads speaking about their character's future with so much trepidation. This is bad form, Joe. Bad.
Oh, that's terrific. You can't work out how to make Mitchell leader while Carter is around, you can't figure out a way to write Vala when Carter is around, so you planned to shove one of the original actors off to Atlantis. That's bullshit. The more the actors let out, the worst the situation seems to be up there in Vancouver. You know why people are complaining about the team? Because you guys are systematically ruining the team. None of your actors deserves to be in the position that you've placed Amanda Tapping. You people are without class or professionalism. That is an absolutely terrible way to treat anyone.
Rosa
Here's a suggestion to all the people angsting endlessly over the leadership issue: Stand up and flush.
You'll feel a lot better, and the smell will start to clear out, too.
"why an illogical, unbelievable move to put a combat PILOT (...) who had NEVER EVEN SEEN a Stargate before (...)in co-command of an elite group of 3 people who each have at least 8 years of experience..."
Ah, I see the problem. It actually stems from your getting it backwards.
1) Mitchell doesn't have the experience to lead an SG team.
- To begin with, Mitchell is a decorated pilot who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The fact is, we haven't explored the rest of his combat experience yet so to simply assume he doesn't have any because we haven't listed an inventory of his accomplishments is a bit presumptuous. What you're essentially arguing is that someone who doesn't have combat experience, can't be an effective military commander(???). For the record, is that what you're suggesting?
2) Or - Okay, Mitchell could assume command of some other SG team, but not the premiere, front-line SG team!
- Well, what makes SG-1 the premiere front-line team? Is it the "1" after the letters "SG" or is it the people who make up the team (ie. Daniel, Teal'c, Carter?)? Obviously, the latter. S, when Mitchell stepped in as the new team leader, it was just him. SG-1 was just a name. It said a lot of the team members that they chose to come back and work with him when he make the pitch.
"Well, Joe, I don't think Amanda Tapping can make it any clearer to the writers that she's uncomfortable with the prospect of splitting time between SG-1 and Atlantis. (...) Honestly, this is the reason that you're taking so much flack from fans these days."
Yes, the willingness of fans to blindly accept unsubstantiated rumors as fact is, without a doubt, the reason we're taking flack.
Again, Joe, you're reaching with plot contrivances. We're looking for logic, not writing that contridicts the established parameters of the show. Within the logic of SG-1, someone with Mitchell's lack of experience would never be given command of any SG team. Become a member, yes. But never be given command being so green.
PS
While I disagree with the manner in which the posters above displayed their disappointment over the Carter crossover situation, I do share the sentiment. Keep Carter on SG-1 full time. No splitting, no nothing. It's best for both shows and it's best for everyone involved.
"Oh, that's terrific. (...) so you planned to shove one of the original actors off to Atlantis."
Really? Is that the plan? Well, we'd better get writing then because it looks like we're way behind on all those Carter in Atlantis stories.
"...someone with Mitchell's lack of experience would never be given command of any SG team. Become a member, yes. But never be given command being so green."
So, again, correct me if I'm wrong but, for the record, you're saying that someone with no hands-on combat experience would never be an effective field commander?
And, as it applies to Stargate - no acting Colonel could ever assume command of an SG team unless he served under someone and gained the proper amount of off-world experience. Every Colonel who commands an SG team had to have, at one time, gathered off-world experience serving under someone else's command?
still haven't answered my question, joe, on why a newbie character (mitchell) is being treated better than a 9 year veteran (sam).
i don't think mitchell is a bad leader, i just don't understand why you *wrote* it that he took over command of the team to begin with. you *chose* to write the team disbanding. you *chose* to write sam coming back but not regaining her prior position. you *chose* to write sam being out as sg1's leader so that your new character would have that spot.
why?
sally :)
Joe Mallozzi wrote:
Yes, the willingness of fans to blindly accept unsubstantiated rumors as fact is, without a doubt, the reason we're taking flack.
See, the problem is that this is a pretty substantiated rumor. Amanda Tapping put it out there, as did Rachel Luttrell. Neither one of them seemed to be particularly enamored of the idea. And many folks, from the producers to the actors have been attempting to "tease" fans with the prospect of big crossovers, often. That's going to be enough to prod fans into voicing their approval or disapproval of any issue, let alone one that so completely affects one of the original three cast members.
"So, again, correct me if I'm wrong but, for the record, you're saying that someone with no hands-on combat experience would never be an effective field commander?
And, as it applies to Stargate - no acting Colonel could ever assume command of an SG team unless he served under someone and gained the proper amount of off-world experience. Every Colonel who commands an SG team had to have, at one time, gathered off-world experience serving under someone else's command? "
Yes, that's pretty much it. It's not to unreasonable to think that in order to lead an SG team, one would first have to serve on an SG team. I'm particularly having a hard time understanding any reason for feeling differently. As established, there have been hundreds of personnel who served at SGC. Why try and foist someone who has, apparently, never once seen a Stargate on us as the new leader of the three most accomplished heroes at the SGC?
"See, the problem is that this is a pretty substantiated rumor. Amanda Tapping put it out there, as did Rachel Luttrell. Neither one of them seemed to be particularly enamored of the idea. And many folks, from the producers to the actors have been attempting to "tease" fans with the prospect of big crossovers, often. That's going to be enough to prod fans into voicing their approval or disapproval of any issue, let alone one that so completely affects one of the original three cast members."
By all means, voice your approval or disapproval. That's what these forums are for. But don't start on that nervous breakdown without at least having a little more to go on.
"Yes, that's pretty much it. It's not to unreasonable to think that in order to lead an SG team, one would first have to serve on an SG team."
You actually believe that every SG team leader, at one time, served under someone else to gain the proper amount of off-world experience? If that's the case, you're mistaken.
"Why try and foist someone who has, apparently, never once seen a Stargate on us as the new leader of the three most accomplished heroes at the SGC?"
Again, you're arguing this backwards. At the time Mitchell became the leader of SG-1, SG-1 as we knew it didn't exist. He was not appointed to lead Teal'c, Daniel, or Carter for that matter. He was leading a team that he would put together.
Joe I think that a lot of people's misgivings in regards to the Mitchell/Carter leadership question is that a lot of people are wondering as to what Carter's role is going to be, especially with the addition of Vala. While many of us are not jumping to any conclusions the fact remains that people are wondering due to some of the rumors that are out there, unsubstantiated yes, but the fact that they're out there gives people cause to worry about the direction the character is taking. Perhaps you could set our minds at ease a bit and give us a bit of info on what kind of part Carter is going to play next season, i.e. will she still be a full-fledged member of SG-1? If you can that is.
Shipperahoy
"You actually believe that every SG team leader, at one time, served under someone else to gain the proper amount of off-world experience? If that's the case, you're mistaken."
No, I don't believe that. But, after say, roughly three or four years, it stands to reason that those most qualified to lead SG teams are those who have some offworld experience. So you're saying that it is sheer coincidence that Col. Pierce shows up as commander of the Alpha Site? The fact that he previously commanded an SG team had no bearing on the decision to give him command? Ferretti and Kawalsky both got command not because they had gate experience, but because there were no more highly decorated (read CMOH recipients) officers? And that whole training program we saw in Proving Ground, is that just for red shirts?
Joe Mallozzi said:
By all means, voice your approval or disapproval. That's what these forums are for. But don't start on that nervous breakdown without at least having a little more to go on.
Fine, give us a little more to go on. Will Carter be in all 20 of SG-1's episodes next season?
"So, again, correct me if I'm wrong but, for the record, you're saying that someone with no hands-on combat experience would never be an effective field commander?
And, as it applies to Stargate - no acting Colonel could ever assume command of an SG team unless he served under someone and gained the proper amount of off-world experience. Every Colonel who commands an SG team had to have, at one time, gathered off-world experience serving under someone else's command? "
Well if we wanna do this right, no colonel would ever command a combat unit like SG1, they're too far up the food chain. Regardless of that though, in the words of O'Neill from ep 803 about the Russian Colonel who's never seen the gate before:
O'NEILL: And exactly no years in offworld travel. I’m not gonna risk the lives of anyone under my command on a slick résumé.
That pretty much sums it up for me. And since you're actually listed as writer of the ep, you might want to explain the change of heart?
Again, you're arguing this backwards. At the time Mitchell became the leader of SG-1, SG-1 as we knew it didn't exist. He was not appointed to lead Teal'c, Daniel, or Carter for that matter. He was leading a team that he would put together.
Yes, yes, we get that this is the totally implausible scenario that you guys wrote. Our problem is that it is completely implausible. It's not about the story as written, it's about the decisions that you, the writers, made regarding the structure of the team. Or, as is infinitely more likely, it's about the desicions Scifi forced you to make regarding the structure of the team. It is entirely out of character for Carter, Teal'c, and Daniel to act so contritely regarding SG-1. Are we to believe that they are so beholden to Mitchell that they're willing to give up the lives they've made just for the opportunity to serve under him? Carter had command. She gave it up and left only to return and serve under a man who has 0% of the experience she does? Teal'c, torn between Earth and the free Jaffa nation, finally is swayed by Mitchell to return to SG-1 because? Daniel, giddy over finally getting to go to ATlantis is ok with giving it all up just to be working with Mitchell? Sorry, but that is not going to work for many fans.
And if it ever was going to work, didn't you guys, the writers, think that maybe some of those decisions should be shown and talked about on screen?
"roughly three or four years, it stands to reason that those most qualified to lead SG teams are those who have some offworld experience. So you're saying that it is sheer coincidence that Col. Pierce shows up as commander of the Alpha Site? The fact that he previously commanded an SG team had no bearing on the decision to give him command? Ferretti and Kawalsky both got command not because they had gate experience, but because there were no more highly decorated (read CMOH recipients) officers? And that whole training program we saw in Proving Ground, is that just for red shirts?"
The trainees in Proving Ground were cadets and a very long way from assuming command of an SG team. Coloen Pierece's experience was a major factor in his appointment as commander of the Alpha site, but, again, we're talking about assuming command of the at least two dozen SG teams. One can't assume that the only way to appoint a team leader is by promoting someone from within? I'm not saying it isn't done, but relying on only those with specific off-world experience is not a particularly effective means of putting together an off-world team.
"Fine, give us a little more to go on. Will Carter be in all 20 of SG-1's episodes next season?"
I can't say if any of the characters will be in all 20 episodes of SG-1 because we've only broken eight episodes. Of those we've broken, Carter will be in all eight.
From Amanda herself on Gateworlds main page: "That's really awesome and her character's amazing. I don't know how it will affect Carter. I hope that it doesn't have a negative effect on my character or I'm diminished in any way because of this. But I don't know. I honestly don't know what the writers have in store."
So if AT is worried then I would think it's okay for the fans to be worried too and actually ask the questions that have been asked, wouldn't you say so?
No, one can't assume that. But, regardless of rank, it is perfectly logical for one to assume that even a Colonel who will eventually lead an SG team will have to acquire some gate travel experience before leading a team of his own. And if that is what Mitchell was doing, learnging from Carter (another Lt. Colonel), then I don't think that anyone would have a problem with this. But that's not the way that you've explained the situation neither here on the internet, nor on screen. And the notion that someone who has never, ever seen a real stargate--that was once good enough to be used as a dig against Mckay in 48 Hours, but now it means nothing when it come to Cameron Mitchell? As the poster who referenced Lockdown argued, canon does not support your argument.
"Well if we wanna do this right, no colonel would ever command a combat unit like SG1, they're too far up the food chain."
Based on what? The fact that the team is called "SG-1"? The members that made up that team were gone. The SG-1 we knew didn't exist when Mitchell took over.
"Regardless of that though, in the words of O'Neill from ep 803 about the Russian Colonel who's never seen the gate before:
O'NEILL: And exactly no years in offworld travel. I’m not gonna risk the lives of anyone under my command on a slick résumé.
That pretty much sums it up for me. And since you're actually listed as writer of the ep, you might want to explain the change of heart?"
Don't confuse my opinion and the opinion of one of the characters I write for. I once wrote dialogue for Osiris in which she stated she wanted the rivers of Earth to run red with blood (or something to that effect) but I would hope the audience wouldn't assume it was me speaking through her. O'Neill was a character set in his ways, immovable when it came to breaking certain preconceived notions - and, in the case you cited, he was more reacting to the fact that he was getting someone forced down his throat than anything else. Of the two dozen + leaders now commanding teams, I guarantee you that at least half of them got their positions thanks to their "impressive resumes".
"So if AT is worried then I would think it's okay for the fans to be worried too and actually ask the questions that have been asked, wouldn't you say so?"
Again - sure, ask away. But I'd advise against name calling and insults because you could end up looking mighty silly.
"O'Neill was a character set in his ways, immovable when it came to breaking certain preconceived notions -...."
But not so immovable that in a mere 17 episodes he's able to dismiss those tightly held values and notions in order to service a contrived plot?
"Of the two dozen + leaders now commanding teams, I guarantee you that at least half of them got their positions thanks to their "impressive resumes".
No wonder it was SG-1 that always had to save the damn world. Too many people riding a paper trail to glory.
"But, regardless of rank, it is perfectly logical for one to assume that even a Colonel who will eventually lead an SG team will have to acquire some gate travel experience before leading a team of his own."
Ideally, yes. But that's just not feasible. The military would be sitting on their hands, anxiously waiting for prospective leaders to amass the proper amount of off-world experience before rushing them through a promotion and onto a command position.
"And the notion that someone who has never, ever seen a real stargate--that was once good enough to be used as a dig against Mckay in 48 Hours"
Completey different scenario. McKay presented himself as an expert on a subject that Carter rightly pointed out he had little hands on experience with. Mitchell isn't professing to be an expert. And neither are the many other team leaders who have plenty of combat experience, but not necessarily any off-world experience battling Jaffa and the like.
"But not so immovable that in a mere 17 episodes he's able to dismiss those tightly held values and notions in order to service a contrived plot?"
As I've already stated, in the case of Lockdown, O'Neill was reacting to a candidate that was being forced down his throat. In the case of Mitchell, he is backing a friend who he respects for the position.
"No wonder it was SG-1 that always had to save the damn world. Too many people riding a paper trail to glory."
I'm assuming you're not familiar with how things work in the military? Also, you're equating "resume" with desk job when, in fact, it could, and probably does, include combat experience.
Based on what? The fact that the team is called "SG-1"? The members that made up that team were gone. The SG-1 we knew didn't exist when Mitchell took over.
No, that's not what I meant. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I meant in the real military world someone with the rank of a Colonel wouldn't command a combat unit. I do know it's fiction and it's not really a point in the whole discussion.
Don't confuse my opinion and the opinion of one of the characters I write for.
O'Neill was a character set in his ways, immovable when it came to breaking certain preconceived notions
Okay then, but it was O'Neill who gave Mitchell the command, so maybe you want to explain O'Neill's change of heart? I'm sure he was grateful and all, but the character we've come to know, wouldn't risk the life of anyone on that slick resume of Mitchell. Regardless of other reasons O'Neill might have had to refuse the Russian Colonel.
Of the two dozen + leaders now commanding teams, I guarantee you that at least half of them got their positions thanks to their "impressive resumes".
And on what so you base that? Granted you write for the show, but as long as there has been no word on the actual show your word stands against mine. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you can come up with all sorts of ideas and of behind the scene going-ons but then so can I. Who's to say who's right?
"Ideally, yes. But that's just not feasible. The military would be sitting on their hands, anxiously waiting for prospective leaders to amass the proper amount of off-world experience before rushing them through a promotion and onto a command position."
There are hundreds of Colonels in the armed forces. I think we can find a couple dozen that would do.
"Completey different scenario. McKay presented himself as an expert on a subject that Carter rightly pointed out he had little hands on experience with. Mitchell isn't professing to be an expert. And neither are the many other team leaders who have plenty of combat experience, but not necessarily any off-world experience battling Jaffa and the like."
Yes, that's right. Mitchell isn't an expert. But at least it's not like he's leading experts either. Oh, wait! Carter, Teal'c, and Daniel are about as expert as you're going to find, aren't they? Say we disqualify Daniel and Teal'c for that pesky non-military thing. Have you guys completely rewritten Carter's character so that she has no interest in continuing to lead SG-1? Certainly Amanda Tapping wanted Carter to lead.
Joe, just jumping in the middle of this debate with a quick question. Will Richard Dean Anderson be appearing at all in season 10? The 200th episode, perhaps? Do the writers have any interest in having him appear?
Terrence
"I'm sure he was grateful and all, but the character we've come to know, wouldn't risk the life of anyone on that slick resume of Mitchell. Regardless of other reasons O'Neill might have had to refuse the Russian Colonel."
Again, as I mentioned above, O'Neill's reaction had more to do with his being forced to accept the Russian. Furthermore, saying O'Neill dismissed the Russian's "slick resume", so he should dismiss Mitchell's is a whopping generalization. The word "resume" was intended as a put-down, but is in fact a summary of the candidate's background and combat experience. If O'Neill was a supporter of Mitchell, then it stands to reason that the Russian's "resume" must have paled significantly in comparison to Mitchell's.
"as long as there has been no word on the actual show your word stands against mine."
Fair enough. It hasn't been stated in canon. But, seriously, given the number of teams out there, it stands to reason that at the very least, half of those team leaders couldn't have "worked their way up through the ranks".
Joe, thanks for coming on and talking to us. Please, can I request that you guys keep Carter on SG-1? Atlantis' characters already need so much development. There's no reason for us to think that a repeat of Grace Under Pressure isn't going to happen if Carter does get shipped over. Atlantis has a wonderful team. Please let them be a team.
"There are hundreds of Colonels in the armed forces. I think we can find a couple dozen that would do."
Right. Lieutenant Colonel Cameron Mitchell for one.
"Yes, that's right. Mitchell isn't an expert. But at least it's not like he's leading experts either. Oh, wait! Carter, Teal'c, and Daniel are about as expert as you're going to find, aren't they?"
Sigh. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before someone takes notice: When Mitchell was given command of SG-1, DAniel, Teal'c, and Carter were NOT on the team. They joined under him. He was not appointed over them.
"Joe, thanks for coming on and talking to us. Please, can I request that you guys keep Carter on SG-1? Atlantis' characters already need so much development."
Having an occasional SG-1 character cross over to the Atlantis galaxy is really no different than a guest star appearing on the show. In fact, it would actually afford our Atlantis cast the opportunity for more development.
"Joe, just jumping in the middle of this debate with a quick question. Will Richard Dean Anderson be appearing at all in season 10? The 200th episode, perhaps? Do the writers have any interest in having him appear?"
Of course we would have an interest in having JAck make an appearance. Its really a matter of finding the right story and convincing Rick to put in an appearance.
"If O'Neill was a supporter of Mitchell, then it stands to reason that the Russian's "resume" must have paled significantly in comparison to Mitchell's."
I believe the dialogue you wrote goes something like, "He is one of the most highly decorated officers in Russian military history" and "I have over three thousand flight hours on more than thirty-five types of aircraft and prototypes. In addition, I have been awarded the High Order of Russia, the Gold Star, the ...". All of that pales in comparison to the Mitch, huh? Joe, in all sincerity, do you know the term Mary Sue?
joe, if amanda tapping hadn't have been gone on maternity leave at the beginning of the season, would sam still be leading sg1 (soley)?
sally :)
"Sigh. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before someone takes notice: When Mitchell was given command of SG-1, DAniel, Teal'c, and Carter were NOT on the team. They joined under him. He was not appointed over them. "
Ok, they joined under him. Why? And why wasn't any reason or discussion shown on screen? Teal'c walked away from his people. Carter walked away from O'neill and Cassie. Daniel walked away from Atlantis. Why?
Were those patches just so damn sexy that they couldn't resist? I know, it's long, slender 1, isn't it?
Again, as I mentioned above, O'Neill's reaction had more to do with his being forced to accept the Russian. Furthermore, saying O'Neill dismissed the Russian's "slick resume", so he should dismiss Mitchell's is a whopping generalization. The word "resume" was intended as a put-down, but is in fact a summary of the candidate's background and combat experience. If O'Neill was a supporter of Mitchell, then it stands to reason that the Russian's "resume" must have paled significantly in comparison to Mitchell's.
So as far as that Russian Colonel's background goes:
CARTER: He is one of the most highly decorated officers in Russian military history, and he has over twenty years’ flight experience.
You're saying Mitchell happens to be a whole LOT better than that since it pales significantly? I'm not sure any Russian would be impressed with that implication.
And for the record yes I know you're saying O'Neill didn't want him on the team because he forced to do so, it's absolutely plausible and I don't argue that point and I can believe that this was one of the main reasons. I do argue though that SG1 is the lead SG team (and yes I do base that on the fact that it's number 1)and the O'Neill character we've come to know wouldn't put any life's in danger to do another guy a favour, even if that guy has saved his life.
Fair enough. It hasn't been stated in canon. But, seriously, given the number of teams out there, it stands to reason that at the very least, half of those team leaders couldn't have "worked their way up through the ranks".
Maybe... maybe not. It does stand to reason, I concede that.
Carter in all 20!
Carter in all 20!
Carter in all 20!
Wait, wait, wait. So Mitchell is the most decorated pilot the Russian military has ever seen? So that's how we won the cold war!
wow go Joe! hahaha
You said To begin with, Mitchell is a decorated pilot who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The fact is, we haven't explored the rest of his combat experience yet so to simply assume he doesn't have any because we haven't listed an inventory of his accomplishments is a bit presumptuous. What you're essentially arguing is that someone who doesn't have combat experience, can't be an effective military commander(???). For the record, is that what you're suggesting?
The problem I have with that, is that I don't believe a highly trained pilot would have or want any type of experience at leading ground units. Pilot training is long, expensive and the Air Force doesn't then go and risk all that money and time they've put into training that pilot by letting him go off and play commando. Mitchell is exactly that - A highly trained and competant pilot. He had to have been to get command of a squadron of highly classified space fighters ;).
But the thing is, you are implying that because he does such a good job at leading pilots and ordering planes around the sky that he has to be good at leading ground troops in infantry style situations. That's like saying 'Hey, lets take this CEO of a Very Succesful Company and put him in charge of SG-1 because he has good leadership and stuff'. And I accept that we havn't got Mitchell backstory yet, so we can't assume much about him, but I really can't suspend my disbelief enough to imagine that a pilot in command of a fighter squadron would be qualified enough to take command of a ground unit. So its not so much that Mitchell has had no Gate Experience - it's that he hasn't had much Ground Pounding Experience. O'Neill did - that's what made him so qualified to take command of the first mission to Abydos and to take command of SG1 in the pilot episode.
Anyway, that's just my view. And please, keep up the comments here, its very amusing to see people get 'Mallowned' :D Just as long as you don't do it to me :P
Please, Joe, keep Carter and all the other SG-1 cast members away from Atlantis. How about some Teyla/Weir episodes? We know nothing about how these two women feel about each other. Maybe Beckett or Ronan could appear in more than a couple scenes per episode. Or, best of all, you could just write team episodes, no guest characters at all. That would be sweet. But, please, keep the SG-1 characters apart from the Atlantis ones.
Ah Joe, it's been fun. I don't know if you're still online but I'm going to bed. I do not agree with most of your arguments but I do appreciate the fact that you take the time to answer some questions (even if you avoid some...)
Here's a thought...let Cam command SG-1 full time. Promote Sam and let her be the SGC de facto 2IC (as Jack was). But she's so important that she has to join SG-1 offworld...about 20 times a year?
Re-Horakhti
Hey Joe, what's with Amanda Tapping playing on the fan's good grace yet again with her latest Gateworld interview?
http://gateworld.net/news/2005/12/tappingisg-1iiswheremyhear.shtml
After the Gabit event and what Gateworld describe as a "debacle" (I assume they mean the over reaction that followed), you'd think Amanda would leave well enough alone. But here she is again (in the one place guaranteed to be seen by all her fans) inciting her all fans to run into battle for her yet again with statements like: "I'm glad Claudia's going to be back as a full-time cast member (but) I hope that it doesn't have a negative effect on my character or I'm diminished in any way because of this"; or "I feel very much that my place is on SG-1"; and "It's not like they're getting rid of me or pushing me over or anyone from Atlantis is being replaced at all"; and the never to be forgotten "Carter and her place on SG-1?' That's where my heart is. That's where my home is and that's where this character works (cue stirring national anthem/election music)".
Of course some people will now all rush to attack me and my post and say Amanda isn't trying to stir her fans up, and that I'm a Carter/Amanda basher and the like.
Truth is I don't mind the character and I don't know the actress at all, so I don't dislike her.
But I do object to being manipulated with emotional language such as "my heart"; "my home"; "pushed out"; "getting rid of me"; "negative effect"; and "diminished" all in the space of what must have been a 15 minute interview. After the Gabit event, this interview sounds exactly like that - a piece of emotional manipulation designed to get fans in a tizzy.
Of course, it is just as likely to back fire as the writers know what the actress is up to.
No doubt in a few days we will hear it is all a misunderstanding, and that the statements in the phone conversation have been taken out of context in the written interview.
Now where have I heard that one before?
Happy Holidays Joe and good health to you and your loved ones in 2006.
Suzy who is Sleepless In Syracuse (and frankly tired of being manipulated by holiday commercialism, emotional statements and the media beating things up).
Actually, about the interview from Amanda on Gateworld, I would just like to point out hat these are random comments that have been strung together. Sure they make a pretty picture, but what questions were asked to spark that response. Why would she bring up any of these issues independantly (which I don't believe she did)?
If it were a Q&A where we were getting both sides, sure make a fuss if it seems appropriate. But right now, I don't see what good a fuss would do, and why someone (or someones) feel an assination of Amanda Tapping's character is required.
If she an interview were to be posted and she were not to mention anything about Claudia, spliting time between shows etc - there would be a group of people who would see that as her 'covering up' and 'following the company line'. Tell me, what can she say that would make you happy? Is it even possible?
Merry Christmas Joe!
Wow...
I think we all need to relax here. I mean, I like to be as hostile as the next fangurl, but this is just crazy!
First of all, I have issues with comparing SG-1 to the other teams, solely because they've been pimped as THE team for nine years now. They're the elite team of highly trained professionals. They've saved the world on a regular basis (and have no problems with reminding people of that fact) and come in contact with things that other teams just don't see. They're the premiere team, and over eight years the three remaining original team members (Teal'c, Sam and Daniel) evolved into a group of individuals who weren't necessarily acting under normal military regulations. They were the only (canon) three-member team; they were the only (canon) team that had the unique combination of an Air Force officer, a civilian and an alien; and the list goes on and on.
That's why it seemed logical (based on the history of the show) for Jack to say what he did to that Russian Colonel last season, despite his obvious "issues" with Russian involvement. He made an excellent point.
What Jack said was canon: We're not gonna let someone with no gate experience lead SG-1.
Plain and simple.
Though the other SGC members are great, honorable and brave, the fact that the show is NAMED after this team kinda suggests that they're something special.
That said, Joe, I can't help but feel like the evidence you're providing in regards to Mitchell's qualifications and the SGC's state of mind is only privy to the crazies who dare to venture into this blog. If it's not expressed onscreen in some way, then it's very difficult to consider it canon. As we all can obviously agree, there are millions of people who will see this show and never, ever connect points A and B on their own without visiting the sites where you frequent.
And the thing is, until Cameron's "slick resume" is defined in relative detail within the confines of the show, we cannot assume that it's canon. We can hypothesize about Cameron's "true credentials" all we want, but we can't deny the fact that the opportunity to address those fantastic qualities was right there, and at some point amidst the Ori/Daniel/Vala, it was missed.
And that's a problem.
Again, we're not arguing the logic within the fictitious universe. We're arguing the real life logic that was applied to the logic of the fictitious universe. There's a different between fathoming the logistical possibilities on the show (i.e. just WHAT Cameron is capable of), and seeing them come to pass directly within the context of an episode (see: all things ship, including that of the leader persuasion).
The show could have taken any number of directions, but instead it seemed to take the path that (perhaps at the time) seemed the simplest.
-> Carter could have been somewhere - anywhere - but at Area 51. This decision for Carter is different from the decisions for Daniel and Teal'c for two reasons:
1.) Daniel really could've waited another few weeks and hopped on the next ride to Atlantis.
2.) Teal'c (as of TFH) is still deeply entrenched in the Jaffa Council issues.
But Sam... her movement was trickier, because it meant that she did give up command for a differnet position. Rather than giving her a plot device that simply involved her being away (perhaps on temporary assignment BY the military), you wrote her as leaving her job. As it is, Teal'c and Daniel were able to regain the same position on SG-1 that they had prior to S9, whereas Sam's place on SG-1 was (and still evidently is) in limbo.
--> Mitchell could've been the CO of SG-45, and it would've made more sense for him to take over SG-1. Yes, I'm sure there are members of SG teams who had never gone through proper off-world field training, but based on the CANON PROVISIONS of the show (not the creative hypotheses of writers/fans) prior to Season Nine, it was assumed that the leaders of SG teams had some kind of off-world experience or training. Petty, I know, but that's the game we're playing here.
--> If Cameron Mitchell absolutely HAD to be written as a newbie (perhaps to get that authentic NEW ENERGY effect), and if Sam absolutely HAD to be at Area 51, why wasn't he written as a Major? Why wasn't he written in a position where he could truly serve under the most experienced members of the SGC? It would've saved you guys the hassle of having to waffle with co-leadership, and it would've allowed Sam (the 2IC for 7 years; CO for 1) to come back and play ball.
These are decisions that could've been made that would have greatly changed the reception of Mitchell, co-leadership and Sam's involvement in seasons nine and ten.
And I don't think any of us should presume to know what's best for the series or anything, but if you're looking for people to give you honest feedback about the show, please understand that there are a lot of illogical holes in this development and a lot of logical reasons behind many fans' ire.
I'm sorry, but if we're arguing anything backwards here, it's because the facts - as they've been presented to us - are indeed very backwards.
One of my favourite essay's I have ever read is "Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes. Just to give a quick overview; Barthes presents an argue where by he suggests that when anybody reads (any text) the intent and 'meaning' that the author subscribed to the work actually dies.
When this meaning is re-written the idea is that 'we' the reader becomes the author by bringing our own experience, baggage, interpretation, knowledge etc. Is it possible for this the be wrong? Sure, if we believe that the authors intent is the sole meaning of a piece. But if we believe that art is open for interpretation we then we have to acknowledge that everyones opinion is viable - and that while someones logic appears incorrect to one, it actual makes sense to another.
Film and Television is another medium to be read, and thus our interpretations are paramount and just because we interpret something differently doesn't mean that it has to be answered too. Doesn't mean it is right or wrong either. It just is, because we have subscribed our logic and our experience to their piece, and that is not something any author can pre-empt and write for.
You know Joe there are so many things that I dislike about what you're planning for Atlantis (a mix of rumors that I am not taking as gospel-instead hoping they are wrong, and what you've been saying in this blog)--I won't even bother going into them but I do want to say that you've given a very reasonable answer to why Mitchell is leading SG1--actually numerous times now--and rather than giving yourself carpal tunnel by telling the people who just don't want to accept him as CO over and over again those reasons I think you should move on to some of the other questions ;)
Hmmm let's see...
In season three...actually no scratch that, how bout in the rest of season two--do we actually get to see more McKay & Sheppard scenes--of them working together in the SAME scene rather than Rodney off doing his thing alone (which shows just how different it is from SG1 since rarely did we see the less combat trained member of the team being allowed to wander off on their own without another member of the team with them) while John is off having sex with various alien women?
Will there be anymore fallout over Rodney blowing up 5/6ths of a solar system?
I'd just like to prepare myself for the possible horror--will you (and by you I mean the writers in general) be trying to push the John/Weir relationship? At first it seemed like you (and again a general you there) were trying to push the John/Teyla relationship but Ronon seems to have fixed that--not to mention the absolutely disturbing and creepy kiss in Conversion. So that leaves Weir...I would LOVE to see you for once not try and write romance between the leads, though I imagine that's probably asking too much, but should those of us who prefer the show to be GEN be prepared for a Shep/Weir relationship to rival the Jack/Carter fiasco?
If you do manage to entice Rick back to SG1 (which I would love to see since Jack is and always will be my favorite character) will we be forced to watch as his only reason to return is to move along the whole Carter's in love plot? That would be disappointing to say the least.
Will we be getting any back story on the Atlantis characters? Joe Flanigan had mentioned in his con appearances that Epiphany would shed some light on his character's backstory however we're never given anything in the episode. Was that cut from the episode or will that be in a later one?
And finally...you mentioned a "dinner date" debate between Cameron and Vala. Does this mean that you'll be doing what both actors have said in interviews they don't want to happen--writing in a relationship between Cameron and Vala and thereby writing the SG1 version of John/Aeryn??
"Susan here," she said, her shaky voice conveying the mighty trepidation she felt about poking her head out of her shell and into the middle of the sharkfestfrenzy...
Seriously, I have to wonder about all of the folks going on and on and on, about what the Air Force/Military would and/or would not do in any, or all, or even these situations-- how many of you actually have any military experience..? Or experience with the military..? Cuz there seems to be a whole lot of assumptioning going on here which, in my experience, seems to have little to do with actual "reality".
Oh, what's my experience, you ask..? Okay, maybe you didn't ask but I'm gonna pretend that you did becuz, otherwise, I'm just out here talking to myself and we all know how that looks in public... Both grandfathers served in WWII, one brother served six years in the Navy, four of which were spent in balmy seas off the coast of Viet Nam while that whole little "police-action" thing was going on. I, myself (as opposed to I, that other me-- people are always confusing us!), joined the Army at the tender age of 19 and, while it didn't work out, I did manage to graduate MP Basic Training before TPTB very wisely decided to "let me go". Not, however, before seducing my Drill Sgt-- the man to whom I am still married, 23 years later-- but that's another story entirely and a place you really don't want to go. My point, and despite all appearances to to contrary, I do have a point and that is that I was an Army MP wife for over 10 years and we had Army friends and Navy friends and Air Force friends and Marine friends and even a Coast Guard buddy or two...
So there... I mean, therefore, I speak from oodles of "experience" when I say that logic and sound reasoning doesn't always play a part in whom the military promotes and/or assigns to which position. If any of you seriously believe that the military wouldn't put an inexperienced or even ineffectual person into a position of great importance, ya got another belief coming, believe me!
That said-- and hang on there, Joe, before you whip out that wit and flay me cuz I'm actually on your side!-- That said, and with all the debate over what Jack would and/or wouldn't do, has anyone forgotten that Jack is the one who gave Mitchell the job..? Of course you haven't. That's what's the debate is about. And, yessss, it only happened that way because the writers wrote it that way but, by golly, every decision Jack ever made was because the writers wrote it that way (except for the one where he took the job with Homeworld Security so that he could remove himself from Sam's "immediate" chain of command-- and that's all that kept them apart all those years, ya know. I mean, you just can't go into combat/danger with the person who gave you warm fuzzies the night before and expect to have your mind fully on the task ahead. You could very well jepordize the mission if you're more concerned about protecting your fuzzies than blowing up the enemy's stronghold/mothership. And don't give me that crap about mature people being able to "maintain" an impartial working-relationship becuz, once you add fuzzies to the mix, everything changes!-- Of course, Carter did him one better and requested the transfer to R&D. To have extra time for Cassie, sure, but also to have those regular weekends off so that she and Jack could fly out to his cabin on the pond with no fish where he fishes so that the two of them could idyll there on the shore and have romantic dinners and exchange warm fuzzies... Nope, the writers didn't write it that way but that's obviously what happened. And yes, Daniel and Teal'c know all about it, and Cassie, of course, and a few other close friends. Just because they don't mention it doesn't mean it ain't true and besides, I can probably count on two hands, with a finger or two left over, the number of times in eight seasons that one team member asked another anything about his/her "personal" life so you can just stick that argument in your pipedream and sleep on it!). So if Jack gave Mitch the job, Jack must have his reasons, don't you think..? Even tho' the writers didn't lay 'em out for us one by one by one they must exist. Otherwise, Jack would have given the job to someone else and we wouldn't be having this conversation, now, would we?
And, by "we", I mean, of course, me, Susan from Colorado (actually, I'm from Virginia but I now live in Colorado), and the person and/or persons who have so courageously posted his/her/their complaints under the appellation, "anonymous"-- Really, who's it gonna tip off if you sign off as Fred or Ginger or Huckleberry Finn? Can't you at least give Joe a name to call you (not that I don't think he hasn't thought of dozens of names to call you. I know I sure did while reading through all this stuff)?-- Then we wouldn't have all this, "anonymous said this", "anonymous said that". We could have "Fred said this" or "Ginger said that". Why, I could even come back and say, "Hey Fred! You're freaking nuts, dude! Sheez, get a grip!"
Sigh... Er, where was I before that little tirade..? Oh yes, I was on the other little tirade about Jack actually knowing what the hell he was doing when he gave Mitch the job-- I call him Mitch. Is that okay..? "Mitchell", "Cameron", "Shaft", they don't really do it for me so I just think of him as Mitch-- And I personally think Mitch is doing a fine job and I don't think Carter is grinding her teeth because he's "in charge". Let's face it, how many times did ole Sammy gleefully rub her hands together and say, "Oooh! I can't wait till I get my own team?". Never! She competently and rightfully stepped up to the plate when asked but, regardless of whatever brilliant victory she achieved, you always knew she'd rather just be solving the scientific problem at hand and not also having to decide who lives or dies. At least, I always knew it. She's a geek, peeps! Yeah, she's also a kick-ass bitch who don't take no crap, but she's geek, first and foremost-- she joined the military and became a pilot so she could become an astronaut. And she wanted to be an astronaut, not because she really dug flying the space shuttle (tho' I'm sure that would have been a thrill in itself, especially for a bitch with a bike!), but because she wanted to go up there and do all the science stuff. You know, set up the experiments, take the little measurements and do all the things that... that... that geeks love to do! People like that don't want command, they want to do whatever it takes to make their commanders look good... In my opinion, of course. Not being a geek (I'm not even 'puter literate! I'm coming to you from msn-tv, formerly web-tv. I can't even post in the forum or ask Joe a question in the ask Joe a question forum, for pete's sake-- well, not for Pete's sake. I never really cared for him, ie, "Dammit! That should be Jack giving her warm fuzzies! Sob!"), so I probably can't even imagine what a geek truly wants. But I know in my heart that Sammy never really wanted a team of her own, else she would have stayed at the SGC and, when Daniel and Teal'c headed off to do their own thing, she would have picked her own darn team and would be out there leading that team today... Hey, if the anonymous one(s) out there can make up their own logic, so can I. And I can do it without resorting to name-calling, Fred... Ginger... Hey, I said I can. Didn't say I would...
And that brings me to my final point-- Oh, yeah, sure. I could go on all night ("In fact, I have gone on all night," she thought, catching a glimpse of the brightening pre-dawn sky through the tiny slits in the slats of the forest green mini-blinds which grace the dirty windows of her ain't-been-"mobile"-for-thirteen-years-plus home on the range-- well, the High Plains of Colorado, anyway! Close enough, eh?), but I've learned that it's polite to allow other folk to have the floor from time to time so I'm gonna make this final point and then step off the podium so as to allow other folk to have... the... floor... And, no, I ain't talkin' this way becuz I watched "Serenity" twice tonight! I believe I mentioned I'm from Virginia. What I neglected to mention is that I also spent a few years in both Alabama and Texas (army hubby, yeah I mentioned that, too), before settling in Colorado so I always talk this way... Now what wuz I sayin'..? Oh heck, if it was important, I wouldn't have forgotten it, eh? And no, they don't say "eh?" in Virginia! I picked that up from "Strange Brew" years ago and have been wearing it out ever since... I even wore it out to dinner once but that also falls into the "other story-don't go there" catagory so, never mind...
"En-y-way," she sing-songed, beginning her slow slink off the stage. "That's all I have to say." And off she went, sheepishly slipping her head back into her shell and wondering if she'd ever dare poke it out again cuz, after all, that mouth gets her into so much trouble...
the end, susan
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.
I`m just saying give it until the end of this season. As I said, there have only been 10 episodes, five of which were set up. I am also unsure about the current direction of the show but I`m willing to give it a chance.
The second half of the season sounds spiffing! :-)
We’ll have to agree to disagree with this major issue Joe. Yes I get how you wrote the mass exit of all the main characters so the new one could come in and recreate the new SG-1. It’s the way you wrote that doesn’t sit well with me a long time fan of the show. The number of years or records that can be beat doesn’t mean anything to me if the show doesn’t deliver the one service it is meant to and that is to entertain. You had a number of ways to explain Carter’s absences. You had a number of ways to explain Jack’s disappearance. You could have written Mitchell an infinite number of ways. To disband SG-1 for the sole purpose to have them rejoin under a green leader is the frustrating part for me. It’s the writing that has me wondering where my favorite show has gone. And to say that we should all love Mitchell for his shinny record is nice and a good try, but he still has to prove to me he deserves to be the leader. I haven’t seen it yet, and I’m not arguing until I’m blue in the face since this is only the 3rd time I have responded to your blog since you started. Yes 10 episodes and I’m still calling him green, because that’s what I see on the show. He lead pilots, not field troops. Maybe if the first 10 episodes had shown something more about his backstory, besides the crash. I could swallow this pill better
Yes Mitchell’s act was heroic, but so was Jack’s that day along with SG-1, Bra’tac, and all the other pilots. Carter, Daniel and Teal’c have been heroic on countless episodes before this one. One selfish act doesn’t measure up to Jack, Carter, Teal’c or Daniel’s countless selfish acts over the years. Yes I can believe he is a good pilot and one day with training under the best team he could lead SG-1. It’s the way you (the writers) choose to write and expect all of us to follow blindly. I argue because I want the great show that use to entertain me back again. I argue because I don’t want to lose my favorite show. I hate the way Jack, Carter, and Teal’c have been pushed aside for the new shinny characters. I realize that RDA left the show to be with his daughter which is commendable! I just think an explanation an acknowledgement as to his service for eight years is worth mentioning. A goodbye would have been nice Michael Shanks (rightfully so) was give a farewell salute and he came back a number of times the following season and came back to stay a year later. So why not a goodbye to Jack with the possibility of a few guest appearances?
Yes I know there is an on and off switch and I have used it several time in S9 and the way it sounds S10 will be even more cringe worthy. It saddens me that I lose a great show and I voice my opinions so that the writers will know that not everyone is buying what they are selling. There was an infinite number of ways to take SG-1 and the path the writers have chosen leaves me feeling frustrated and anything but entertained.
Ann
I think the writers were in a no-win situation. RDA's role was the leader of SG-1 until last season. And even then, he was still basically in charge, which is why we never saw Carter do as much leading as fans would like. It's because RDA was still around. Plus, RDA the actor was the lead of the show. THe lead = the leader in this case.
So when RDA leaves, there are two things missing: the lead actor and the leader because they are one in the same. The only way Ben or any other actor could've been brought on board to take RDA's place was as the new lead and also as the leader of the team. Could they have kept Carter on as leader and brought Mitchell in as a major? Sure, but that would've changed the whole dynamic of the show. And then who do you use for your science? Carter? The leader who's busy with administrative details and planning missions and doesn't have time anymore for her scientific research? No, you'd have to bring in someone else (say, Mitchell) as a scientists. See how complicated it's getting?
The simplest thing for TPTB to do is to go back to the formula that's worked for 8 years: a lead actor in the role of the leader of SG-1; Carter as scientist; Teal'c as the Jaffa warrior; and Daniel as the archaeologist.
How do you bring in someone new as this new lead? Well, he could be experienced like Jack but then he would be compared to Jack all the time and the writers would be accused of replacing Jack. SO they went the opposite way and brought in someone with air combat experience but not ground experience (we assume since we don't really know much about Mitchell's experience), someone who's a newby and would need to rely on the expertise of his team and not give as many orders as Jack used to do. THis way every member of the team gets to contribute and it recognizes their many years of experience.
Sure, there are many ways the writers could've written Mitchell, the relative newby, as getting command, but they chose to break up SG-1 and have Mitchell rebuild the team. Personally, I think it's a great choice. There are a lot of changes in Season 9, a lot of new cast members, AT was off for the first 5 episodes, and Season 8 ended with the major baddie not much of a threat any more. I think that by having Season 9 start from scratch with Mitchell building the team anew is a great way to deal with all of these issues.
Everyone is so caught up in one little tiny piece of the pie that they're not seeing the whole thing. Or they're so caught up in being mad about whatever slight they feel their character experienced that they're exagerating things way out of proportion.
RDA left. The show needed a new lead who has traditionally been the leader of SG-1. They hired Ben. (A brilliant choice, imo. Have any of you seen what he did on Farscape?!) And they made Mitchell completely different from Jack so there would be no accusations of imitating Jack. And they disbanded SG-1 so they could introduce all the new elements and characters fresh. I like the choices these writers made.
susan, that were bea-ut-tiful !
(even the 'Jack/Sam warm fuzzies' bit that made me guts feel like a python that's eaten too many guinea-pigs for supper)
:)
Joe,
I really enjoyed the Vala-Mitchell banter in the teaser for “The Powers That Be” and I’m looking forward to the "dinner date" debate in season 10.
If you celebrated Dong Zhi (Winter Solstice) last night, I hope you had lots of good food and a great time with your friends and family. Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
frellu2 - Vancouver, BC
But I do object to being manipulated with emotional language such as "my heart"; "my home"; "pushed out"; "getting rid of me"; "negative effect"; and "diminished" all in the space of what must have been a 15 minute interview. After the Gabit event, this interview sounds exactly like that - a piece of emotional manipulation designed to get fans in a tizzy.
Me, too. I think it's pathetic the way AT is trying to improve her position by public fear-mongering. She should have some dignity and fight her battles behind the scenes like a professional.
Then again, she's right to be worried. CB acts circles around AT, and Vala adds life to every scene while Carter sucks it right back out.
Still, she needs to leave us the hell out of it.
Poor Joe, everyone sure likes to bash on you. I took the first half of season 9 as a transition period with all the new characters, now they work for me and I'm happy with the show (even with Vala - *LOL*).
My only complaint lies with SGA, where Sheppard's "kirkin" with girls who look like they are still in high school is getting a bit tiresome. The guy is pushing 40, and his fans are having wee respect issues for a guy who can't seem to control his libido. Hopefully the writers can get back to scifi and adventure stories, and leave the make-out scenes for "The OC".
Thanks for stopping by and chatting with us. . .MERRY CHRISTMAS!
"So as far as that Russian Colonel's background goes:
CARTER: He is one of the most highly decorated officers in Russian military history, and he has over twenty years’ flight experience.
You're saying Mitchell happens to be a whole LOT better than that since it pales significantly?"
In O'Neill's opinion and, specifically, with regard to the stargare program, it does. There are plenty of other aspects (even intangibles) that would make someone better suited to a position than another, regardless of the seemign disparity in awards and/or impressive credentials
in one specific category.
Geez, Joe. First it's Michael Shanks telling fans that Bridge/Sony/Scifi doesn't think the actors are that valuable to the franchise. Now there's this whole Amanda Tapping debacle with you guys trying to push the original cast into the background. And, you have absolutely no words of encouragement for fans of Teal'c, fans of carter, or fans of Daniel. But, the minute there is a criticism of Mitchell or Vala, there you are, agruing till you're red in the face how great they and how idiotic we fans are for not seeing it. What happened to the "big family" aspect of the production that has long been touted? It sounds like you guys, the producers, have really been treating the actors like crap for the past year and a half. You know what would go along way right now? Some sort of good news. Something that isn't whacked out and something that doesn't reek of Scifi's manipulation.
Susan (not the wacky one above)
"In O'Neill's opinion and, specifically, with regard to the stargare program, it does. There are plenty of other aspects (even intangibles) that would make someone better suited to a position than another, regardless of the seemign disparity in awards and/or impressive credentials
in one specific category."
Well, I give you that. They must certainly be intangibles. Good argument with the made up stuff. It's the stuff about Mitchell that we can't ever really describe or see that makes him such a damn fine character, that makes him the most worthy officer to lead SG-1.
And last night you claimed that it was his credentials that got him the job. You know, his resume. So he's got the perfect resume and he's got these nebulous and so far unseen intangibles--I asked last night and I'll ask again, do you know what a Mary Sue character is?
Fred
Joe,
Please put AT in her place and ship her off the show. You fight for Ben and Claudia and realize how tired and useless the Carter character is. Don't let her get away with this whining and moaning...she signed on the dotted line, you own her now. Put her on Atlantis and out of our hair. Don't let us down Joe.
My Christmas wish in 3 words: Team, Team, Team.
jckfan55
Joe said:
Well, what makes SG-1 the premiere front-line team? Is it the "1" after the letters "SG" or is it the people who make up the team (ie. Daniel, Teal'c, Carter?)? Obviously, the latter. S, when Mitchell stepped in as the new team leader, it was just him. SG-1 was just a name. It said a lot of the team members that they chose to come back and work with him when he make the pitch.
Again, you're arguing this backwards. At the time Mitchell became the leader of SG-1, SG-1 as we knew it didn't exist. He was not appointed to lead Teal'c, Daniel, or Carter for that matter. He was leading a team that he would put together.
Joe,
I understand what you are trying to say here and I although I’m disappointed with the idea of Sam not leading SG-1, I can live with this fact. Sam, Daniel and Teal’c left SG-1 to pursue other interests. Daniel left to finally go to Atlantis. Teal’c left to help the Free Jaffa Nation and Sam left to be with Cassie and take over command of R&D at Area 51. I understand this and I understand why Mitchell is now leading SG-1. However, I do not understand why Sam chose to come back, nor was I given any explanation as to why she would come back. We simply saw Mitchell hand Sam a SG-1 patch and her accept it.
In the case of Teal’c, I saw enough with the Jaffa/Gerak storylines to come to the conclusion that Teal’c may have rejoined SG-1 simply because with Gerak having so much control over the Senate and so many loyal followers, his most effective means of continuing to help the Jaffa would be on SG-1 until he could sway more of his people to his side.
In Daniel’s case, I can believe that after Origin, Daniel may have decided to join SG-1 again because he felt partly responsible for the Ori knowing about Earth. It was due to his request that Landry allowed Vala to come to Earth in the first place and being used by her that eventually allowed the Ori to obtain information about Earth. So in part, I feel Daniel would have wanted to rejoin the team in order to right this wrong.
But in Sam’s case, there was never a real reason for her to return. Why would Sam just give up her new position at Area 51 to take on an old position as 2IC on SG-1? Why would Sam suddenly leave Cassie? It was stated by Landry in Avalon that Sam had just recently been transferred to Area 51 only two weeks previously. Can you explain how she managed to obtain a transfer so quickly if this was her own decision to return to the SGC? Sam is a Lt. Colonel in the USAF. She can’t just leave one job for another so easily. It makes no logical sense on Sam’s part to return to the SGC unless she was ordered to do so. So why wasn’t anything like this mentioned? In Beachhead, we saw the Landry/Jack conversation when Sam came back to help, but it was my understanding that this was to be a temporary assignment. Why weren’t we allowed to see a scene between Mitchell and Sam or Sam and Landry to explain this new change in her position? I think it would have helped to prevent the big controversy we have now about why Mitchell is in charge and Sam is his 2IC, or they are sharing the leadership roles? Was a scene like this ever written and perhaps edited out? Or will we ever see a scene like this that will explain the reasons why Sam really came back? Because I’m really finding it hard to believe she came back simply because Mitchell wanted to get the band back together.
Kat ( ForeverSG1)
Joe said:
Well, what makes SG-1 the premiere front-line team? Is it the "1" after the letters "SG" or is it the people who make up the team (ie. Daniel, Teal'c, Carter?)? Obviously, the latter. S, when Mitchell stepped in as the new team leader, it was just him. SG-1 was just a name. It said a lot of the team members that they chose to come back and work with him when he make the pitch.
Again, you're arguing this backwards. At the time Mitchell became the leader of SG-1, SG-1 as we knew it didn't exist. He was not appointed to lead Teal'c, Daniel, or Carter for that matter. He was leading a team that he would put together.
Joe,
I understand what you are trying to say here and I although I’m disappointed with the idea of Sam not leading SG-1, I can live with this fact. Sam, Daniel and Teal’c left SG-1 to pursue other interests. Daniel left to finally go to Atlantis. Teal’c left to help the Free Jaffa Nation and Sam left to be with Cassie and take over command of R&D at Area 51. I understand this and I understand why Mitchell is now leading SG-1. However, I do not understand why Sam chose to come back, nor was I given any explanation as to why she would come back. We simply saw Mitchell hand Sam a SG-1 patch and her accept it.
In the case of Teal’c, I saw enough with the Jaffa/Gerak storylines to come to the conclusion that Teal’c may have rejoined SG-1 simply because with Gerak having so much control over the Senate and so many loyal followers, his most effective means of continuing to help the Jaffa would be on SG-1 until he could sway more of his people to his side.
In Daniel’s case, I can believe that after Origin, Daniel may have decided to join SG-1 again because he felt partly responsible for the Ori knowing about Earth. It was due to his request that Landry allowed Vala to come to Earth in the first place and being used by her that eventually allowed the Ori to obtain information about Earth. So in part, I feel Daniel would have wanted to rejoin the team in order to right this wrong.
But in Sam’s case, there was never a real reason for her to return. Why would Sam just give up her new position at Area 51 to take on an old position as 2IC on SG-1? Why would Sam suddenly leave Cassie? It was stated by Landry in Avalon that Sam had just recently been transferred to Area 51 only two weeks previously. Can you explain how she managed to obtain a transfer so quickly if this was her own decision to return to the SGC? Sam is a Lt. Colonel in the USAF. She can’t just leave one job for another so easily. It makes no logical sense on Sam’s part to return to the SGC unless she was ordered to do so. So why wasn’t anything like this mentioned? In Beachhead, we saw the Landry/Jack conversation when Sam came back to help, but it was my understanding that this was to be a temporary assignment. Why weren’t we allowed to see a scene between Mitchell and Sam or Sam and Landry to explain this new change in her position? I think it would have helped to prevent the big controversy we have now about why Mitchell is in charge and Sam is his 2IC, or they are sharing the leadership roles? Was a scene like this ever written and perhaps edited out? Or will we ever see a scene like this that will explain the reasons why Sam really came back? Because I’m really finding it hard to believe she came back simply because Mitchell wanted to get the band back together.
Kat ( ForeverSG1)
Joe said:
"I can't say if any of the characters will be in all 20 episodes of SG-1 because we've only broken eight episodes. Of those we've broken, Carter will be in all eight."
Au contraire - elsewhere you have already confirmed that Vala will be in "all 20 episodes" and she will play a "major" role. Has that changed since you said it?
Alice
Here we go again yet another Amanda Tapping "feel sorry for me, poor meeeee, love meeee" cry for attention. Would someone please tell her it's gotten old and to try another act. Tell Botox Babe and her alter ego Silicon Sam to take a hike and put us out of our misery.
Jeff M
Joe, thanks for taking the time out of your day to put up with all of our questions and yelling and emotion. Everyone who posts, and many of us who don't care deeply about the show. The problem is we all want it to move in the way that we like. I know thats not possible. (This astounds me as by reading some of the posts here it seems like that fact is lost.. ANd yes I said some of the posts.. It gets really boring reading multiple or in the case of a few people spouting the same lines and ignoring everyone else..)
Now.. As for Mitchell.. He is exactly the leader I thought he would be. An experienced fighter pilot who was also the experienced commander of his F-301 squad. He has been put in a situation where he is both familiar and unfamiliar at the same time. Through him I see myself. He is as much a fan of Jack, Sam, Daniel, and Teal'c as I am. He seems star struck around them just like I would be. But he has shown he knows how to handle himself as a leader too. He was not unfamiliar with the gate in Avalon, just not as familiar as characters we have known.
AS for Vala, I love the over the top, but I too worry that it may get too much and become annoying in season 10 very quickly. But that may all change as none of us have seen the last two episodes of season 9. I bet her experiences during that time have toned her down a bit, since she no longer has to worry about just herself. (But then I could be totally off base here)
The Carter on Atlantis issue. I'd like to see more crossovers... Don't get me wrong I like having Standalone episodes, but I Like having characters I recognize from else where making appearances on my favorite shows.. ((Heck I would be tickled pink if just out of the blue a white star showed up out of nowhere and an interesting story combining the two universe together was woven, though I know that won't happen.))
Does Carter belong strickly on Atlantis? No. But if a story requires her there, or Telya on Earth etc..etc... I wouldn't mind it..
On to Ice cream.. I saw you put an ice cream recipe in the latest issue of the stargate magazine. Thanks. :) As for your latest creations.. I found a cookie around here that has an Egg Nogish filling in it and is quite good. I think it would make an excellent Ice cream with the cookie crumbles and a river of egg nog through it. I would be happy to send you a box in care of Bridge if you would like (If I can find them again) Also, I asked this on the ask you thread a few months ago but never got a responce, would you think about putting down your pen (after gate is over) and opening up your own ice cream shoppe? It would be a blast to try your creations.
Joe said:
"Ideally, yes. But that's just not feasible. The military would be sitting on their hands, anxiously waiting for prospective leaders to amass the proper amount of off-world experience before rushing them through a promotion and onto a command position."
Joe your defenses continue to fail based on logic and factual history. You had a perfectly qualified, more than qualified, SG leader in Sam Carter. One who HAD ACTUALLY LED SG1 and one you all knew would be returning to the team. Now, if there were no other exceptionally qualified SG personnel available your defense might hold a little water, as opposed to none, however you have one of the most experienced SG soldiers available to take the lead of SG1 especially after the peace ended and the fact that you knew she would be back, no problem making the story plausible by introducing Mitchell as a temporary leader or sticking with the original story that he would learn from the best UNDER Carter's leadership.
The question has been asked but not answered - why did you (the collective PTB) choose to write this story in such a way as to take command away from Carter (and you did because you knew she would be back so there were many, many different angles that could have been written to keep Carter in command of SG1 and not demote her character) and give it to someone who is far less experienced in SG matters, someone who never saw the Gate, someone who may (so we are told but we have just not seen it apparently) have combat and/or command experience (a very simple backstory event that could very well have been shown in the first few eps (or even SOMEWHERE in the first 10)?
Were TPTB so shortsighted in thinking that the fans would just accept anything you threw at us so you chose not to show anything even close to combat experience that would justify this guy as co-leader of these 3 exceptionally qualified people), instead we get fed some pap about the CMOH to show he is a hero and that's supposed to make him qualified? over Sam - who was available to the writers when they conceived this contrivance. Please Joe - have a little more respect for the intelligence of the fans that watch your show and who have helped keep it on the air for 9, now 10, years, all the while keeping you and your colleagues employed.
I would be willing to bet that we will see an extraordinary amount of backstory on Mitchell's combat experience, if not in the rest of S9 then in S10 - so you can transparently justify this ridiculous, illogical and incredibly contrived story you are trying to justify now without any back-up except the illogical, and somewhat desperate sounding, excuses you all have come up with to date. The newest being just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't there. That excuse is so tired - it clearly doesn't work in the case of what happened to Jack and the way TPTB said that his character would continue to play a role even though we would not see him, it doesn't work when you try to appease the Jonas Quinn fans by saying he's busy on his own planet, and you did try that once as an excuse as to why Jonas could not be brought back to the show.
If we do see a lot of pushing of Mitchell's backstory with incredible feats in comabt I for one will never again take TPTB at their word that they do not let the fans dictate how they write the show - you say this story was how it was concieved to introduce Mitchell, yet you chose to show absolutely no backstory on what you are saying now to justify his character. You all had your chance to write it that way, especially while Carter was gone, you didn't, and it blew up in your faces - BIG TIME - and now the rush is on to justify Mitchell because the fans are, in large numbers, (certainly not all) voicing their disbelief and incredulity about Mitchell and the ludicrous situation TPTB have created (just look at how much time you are spending defending this character and still many are not buying it. Desperation is often hard to hide once it is let out even a little).
Your continuous defense using illogical, factually incorrect, unbelievabele excuses continues to make things worse for the Mitchell situation - if you now show backstory on this guy and shove it down our throats things will just continue to look bad because it will be abundantly clear that you all are trying to justify the character after the fact. If this was your story from the beginning you all had your shot in the first 5 eps when Sam was not around (or at least somewhere in the first 10 eps) to make your case for Mitchell's command abilities and to justify why he should have co-command - you missed your shot - anything that you show now will be so transparent it will continue to show an extreme lack of credibility.
If, as you claim, this was the story you wanted to stick to from the beginning as to why Mitchell is capable of co-command then why did you choose not to back it up - do you really think the fans are that stupid that they will just believe and accept anything you all say regardless of how ridiculous, illogical, contrived it really is, especially based on the history of the show??
You all seem to be smart people, many of you have been with the show for years, DID YOU ALL SERIOUSLY THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY TO SPEND 10 EPISODES AND NOT SHOW ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO WHY MITCHELL HAS COMBAT EXPERIENCE THAT RISES TO THE LEVELTO OVERCOME HIS TOTAL LACK OF GATE EXPRIENCE, INCLUDING SEEING THE GATE, TRAVELING THROUGH THE GATE, DEALING WITH OFF-WORLD COMBAT SITUATIONS, DEALING WITH ALIENS, ETC., ETC., AND MAKE IT APPEAR ACCEPTABLE THAT HE CO-LEAD WITH SAM?
Justin
Re-Horakti said: "Here's a thought...let Cam command SG-1 full time. Promote Sam and let her be the SGC de facto 2IC (as Jack was). But she's so important that she has to join SG-1 offworld...about 20 times a year?
Re-Horakhti"
Great thought, I seond that.
Suzy said:
"Suzy who is Sleepless In Syracuse (and frankly tired of being manipulated by holiday commercialism, emotional statements and the media beating things up). "
Funny thing about opinions and perceptions - I see everything that Joe is trying to do with justification of Mitchel as manipulation.
Jean
Sure what Joe is doing is manipulative. The problem he's running into is that nothing is as despised as manipulation that fails and is seen for what it is.
Well, count me as someone else who does not want to see crossovers with Carter or really anyone next season. The one universal request from fans is that you guys write team episodes. And there won't be any team episodes if Carter is on Atlantis. Or Daniel is. Or any of the SG-1 team. Keep SG-1 intact. Is that so hard to do? Atlantis shouldn't need a visit from Carter or Daniel every few episodes just to keep it afloat. Sure, fine, having an Carter or Daniel on Atlantis COULD help develop the Atlantis characters, but given your track record, it won't. The Atlantis characters need to develop relationships with each other, not guest stars, and certainly not with long-standing characters that dwarf the younger, weaker show.
Janus99
Anonymous said:
"Please put AT in her place and ship her off the show. You fight for Ben and Claudia and realize how tired and useless the Carter character is. Don't let her get away with this whining and moaning...she signed on the dotted line, you own her now. Put her on Atlantis and out of our hair. Don't let us down Joe."
Two things - I find it incredibly funy how those that choose to attack the real person also choose to continuously hide behind the anonymous crap.
Anonymous said: "You fight for Ben and Claudia" and therein lies part of the problem with Joe these days. It seems there are no other members of the show that matter one whit except these two and that is very, very sad, especially since most of his time is spent trying to convince people to like and/or accept them. THAT to me signifies trouble in paradise - if they had any confidence in the characters why would they feel the continuous need to pimp and defend these two? Joe can say all he wants that he just comes on the blog and other sites he does to answer questios and since these are some of the questions - however, Joe has NO PROBLEM IGNORING many other questions about other characters and other topics all the while defending these two until the cows come home.
As someone above said: me think thou doth protest too much.
Jean
Or maybe the fans are just so biased and hate-filled that they won't see reason?
Justin, you said we all knew Sam would come back. Give me one reason why we would think that, and I'm talking about in-world reasons, not the fact that she's one of the show's stars.
Oops, forgot to sign the last one. It's PG15 again.
Joe, I'm afraid there's just going to be a certain percentage of fans who aren't going to buy your spin on the Mitchell leadership issue based on what we've seen so far no matter what you say (myself included). That's okay; I'm still watching, and I'm hoping for better in the future.
For me, I think the issue could have been avoided if you'd brought Mitchell in at a higher rank than Carter. Perhaps consideration was given to avoiding Carter having to say "yes, sir," and "no, sir" all the time with a goal of establishing a less formal atmosphere between the two characters. If so, I do actually appreciate that thought. I like their interaction as it has been written so far, and it's a different (and interesting) dynamic from the Sam/Jack interaction we saw in the past. Unfortunately, it just added to my personal disbelief that this man would be given command of SG-1 and that Carter, Teal'c, and Daniel would happily sign up to go along with it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right?
It could be, too, that I wouldn't have had any issues with Mitchell's leadership if I'd been given more of an explanation (any, actually) as to why Carter would willingly join his team as his subordinate. As a career woman, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around her decision as anything other than a deliberate move that was a step back (or, at the very least, a step sideways) on the career ladder for her. Why would she do it? It doesn't really make sense to me. Actually, I could buy wacky Susan's explanation of Carter not wanting to make the life and death decisions in order to focus on the science, but that sort of explanation hasn't come out of any scripts so far. (And, besides, if she really wanted to focus on the science, being head of R&D at area 51 seems like it would have been a good place to do it.)
When all is said and done, I don't care so much about Mitchell's qualifications (or lack thereof) to lead SG-1 except in how they might have persuaded Carter, Teal'c and Daniel to voluntarily accept him as their boss. (The CMH was an eye-rolling, "oh puuuulease!", way-over-the-top, distinctly unsubtle attempt to make me, as an audience member, respect Mitchell... which fell really flat on its face, incidentally...so I don't buy into a hero worship aspect on their parts, I'm afraid.) The mistakes he made in the first few episodes only reinforced my perspective that the whole situation wasn't very believable. That's really where it all fell apart for me. For all your efforts, you failed to convince me that Sam, Teal'c, and Daniel would willingly WANT to follow this man through the gate (the gate through which he'd never been before), and that they would happily accept him as their leader, commanding them in life or death situations (particularly Carter). But I give you points for trying. Clearly, you succeeded in convincing many who are perfectly happy with Mitchell's leadership, and that's good for the show.
Happy holidays to you and your family; I'm looking forward to the the new episodes starting in January.
Cheers,
Strix varia
One other thing Joe - in one of your earlier bolgs after posters had been bashing Ben Browder you were very quick to jump to his (the actors) defense.
I have seen some nasty, hateful personal attacks of Ms. Tapping here - where is the defense of the actress? It is in fact glaring how you jump to defend Ben Browder, his character Mitchell as well as Vala, however in all of the nasty, hate-filled rhetoric towards Ms. Tapping personally, and Carter, I have not seen anything in the way of defense from you that comes even close to the effort you put into defending Mr. Browder, Mitchell and Vala.
It is the lack of response to the personal attacks on Ms. Tapping that are particularly disturbing . . .
Jean
PG15 said:
"Justin, you said we all knew Sam would come back. Give me one reason why we would think that, and I'm talking about in-world reasons, not the fact that she's one of the show's stars."
Well, I'm not Justin, but I'll answer. I knew that Sam would come back the same way I knew that Teal'c and Daniel would. It's the same reason I know for a fact that Carter, Teal'c, Daniel, and yes, Mitchell, will all survive the heart-wrenching peril that Joe and the gang places them in at the end of this season. The fact is that this is a tv show where none of the regulars are ever in any real jeopardy. And the fact is that the basis for this tv show is Carter, Teal'c, Daniel, and now Mitchell working together. So, if for a second you believed that Carter would not come back to SGC, then you are the perfect television viewer. Any and all shows would count themselves lucky to have you watching and reviewing them.
WW09
I give you credit, Joe. This is one way to distract people from how God-awful The Tower was. There is not a single episode in Stargate history that is as poorly written or produced. Not one.
I haven't bought the Mitchell as leader line either, but I'm willing to give this co-lead thing a chance. I'm frustrated by it, but obviously Joe is not in a position to defend Carter in this case because Mitchell must be accepted in this new version.
More of a concern for me is that an actor of nine years on the show is worried about her role on SG-1 because of the new characters. I would think the producers would have talked with AT by now to let her know what is going on with her character. I appreciate AT's honesty. She doesn't really know what's going on and she is concerned for her character of NINE YEARS. Of course she would be concerned--she's worked on this show and cares about her character. She also said she trusts the writers---I hope she is right on that one.
Many fans just want some reassurance that Carter won't be sidelined by the two new characters who have just come onto the show. Can't anyone from TPTB at least say what is going on in regard to this issue? Fans keep asking about Carter's role, but are not getting a clear answer except that she is in the first eight episodes. okay, fine, but is her role diminished in the show, or does Carter have a major role like she has had for the first eight seasons?
Is this too difficult to answer?
Supernova
Well, obviously Sam and others were coming back. But Landry, or O'Neill, or Mitchell for that matter DIDN'T know that, so they gave Mitchell the command of a SG Team, never thinking that the rest of the team would be Sam, Daniel, and Teal'c.
Besides, didn't I say IN SHOW reasons?
PG15
Hey Joe,
Add me to the gang (that's right, we've broken into gangs now) that wants to see Amanda Tapping on SG-1 full time next year. I'm not a fan of crossovers in general, particularly this one. I really think SG-1 lost it's tone and that Stargatey quality in the episodes without Carter this year, and the prospect of it happening yet again certainly doesn't inspire jolly thoughts.
Speaking of jolly thoughts, I really came on here to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all that stuff. Much good fortune to you and yours in the new year.
golfbooy
joe many fans just want carter gone and after amandas latest whiny interview here on gateworld can you blame them?
supernaive
Merry Christmas to you, Joe, and while we're at it, Pippin New Year.
And to the person a couple posts above who said that major characters aren't killed off just because they're major characters...Well, I for one am glad that the Stargate PTB aren't quite as trigger-happy as other TV deities (i.e. Joss Whedon). I'm perfectly happy believing that they might kill off a major character at any moment, if only to dissuade them from doing so to prove they might.
People people please... you're arguing over characters on a TV show. The magic of television allows for things like explainations later on. An episode in season 10 could explain events taken place before season 1.
Give TPTB time to explain why Mitchell is a good choice for command of SG1, just because we've not seen these reasons, does not mean they do not exist. We just need to have faith that those reasons are there and are worthy of SG1. You'd think a bunch of Stargate fans would understand a concept like that.
Joe, I wish you good luck in writing seasons 10 and 3, and a happy merry Christmas (hey... what aboot a Christmasy themed episode? Does Santa visit other planets too?)
- Josh
Santa doesn't have to visit other planets, an episode with Christmas in the SGC base would be great. I'd love to know what Vala would give Daniel as a Christmas gift :)
Merry Christmas and feel free to pass along the greeting to the cast and rest of the crew.
PG15 said:
"Justin, you said we all knew Sam would come back. Give me one reason why we would think that, and I'm talking about in-world reasons, not the fact that she's one of the show's stars.
**********
Well, obviously Sam and others were coming back. But Landry, or O'Neill, or Mitchell for that matter DIDN'T know that, so they gave Mitchell the command of a SG Team, never thinking that the rest of the team would be Sam, Daniel, and Teal'c.
Besides, didn't I say IN SHOW reasons?"
PG15,
I find your question disturbing on OH so many levels because it appears as though you're having difficulty separating reality from a written fictional scenario.
You do understand that this a just a tv show, right? That there is no Stargate Command and no SG-1 team and no O'Neill, Carter, Teal'c, Daniel or Mitchell...right?
So it's not like there was a real SG-1 team that disbanded and the writers frantically had to come up with a plausible (or in this case implausible) scenario for them getting back together...right???
The question "Why is Mitchell in command" continues to be answered with "because SG-1 disbanded and there was no SG-1 and he reformed the team"...which in itself is a written fictional scenario. What we're looking for is the REAL world answer of why was it written this way to begin with?
And if they had to write it so SG-1 disbanded, why not have Mitchell come in as a Major charged to form a brand new team of kids to explore the universe now that the known dominant threats had been taken care of? And when the old team essentially reformed, why wasn't leadership returned to the one with the experienced military member (like Mitchell had expected from the start)?
And I'll agree with the dancer of spaz and ask as well...we can hear that he has a stellar record, but why haven't we been shown anything that would prove to us that Mitchell isn't a walking cliche..."the hero that wouldn't stay down" yadda yadda...during the first half of this season? Jack pointed another thing out to Vaselov, that EVERYONE wanted to be on SG-1...so why is Mitchell so valuable and necessary an element that not only should he BE on SG-1 but he also should in fact be leading it, even if nominally, over someone who served in that role?
And why would Carter, who is an ambitious officer, return to a position she had two years and two commands ago without even a conversation discussing this move? Is Cassie doing better now or is this just another thing we'll have to imagine is happening behind the scenes like ship or Jack being missed by the team?
Mary Beth
PG15 please see Marybeth's response directly above - she has said what I would have said only she has said it much more eloquently. There is nothing left for me to say in response to your question.
Justin
oh and to the poster who slams AT for her GW interview - she is no more manipulative than Micheal Shanks when he states at Cons that TPTB do not care about any of actors returning or not and when he puts out a statement that he "is a free agent" before he signed for S10. Now - let the blood-curdling screaming begin from the flock of 20-25 Daniel fanatics who take umbrage at any minor criticism of MS or Daniel Jackson but feel it is appropriate to continuously rant and rave using vile, mean-spirited, hatred towards AT and Carter. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Anonymous (oh wait I'm not that cowardly - Justin)
Marybeth asked: And why would Carter, who is an ambitious officer, return to a position she had two years and two commands ago without even a conversation discussing this move? Is Cassie doing better now or is this just another thing we'll have to imagine is happening behind the scenes like ship or Jack being missed by the team?
Have you forgotten she in military. As an officer in the military she can be reassigned at any moment without her permission. Her superior (Jack) did care about why she went to Area 51, but when it became apparent she was likely reassigned.
You keep on asking for logic and believability, and when it is there you ignore it.
As for everyone who is enjoying complaining about the voxpop of Amanda on the website. Breathe; please. You are acting all varieties of immature. To attack someone you do not know, (in some cases) have not met, and have absolutely no idea where her answers were coming from (as in what prompted them), is just disgracful. She has a right to answer ther questions as she sees fit; it do not see her in anyway as 'whinging' to get fan support - I see that she is addressing the issues as she sees them. If you can't see that, fine. But what does it say for your character when you have to pull someone down to make yourself feel better.
Amanda isn't the one with the problem here.
Correcting my oen mistake
"Her superior (Jack) did care about why she went to Area 51, but when it became apparent the threat the Ori really were she was likely reassigned.
Dee said...
Correcting my oen mistake
"Her superior (Jack) did care about why she went to Area 51, but when it became apparent the threat the Ori really were she was likely reassigned.
But see this is the point, Dee.
The implication was that SG-1 willingly disbanded and Sam willingly left the SGC so she could spend time with Cassie.
In Beachhead, Mitchell's trying to get her to consider coming back with "we sure could use you on the front line." That implies that she had a choice to make.
Next ep...she's back. Did she choose to return as was implied? Why? Is Cassie okay now? Add to these questions the other questions I've already asked before.
Mary Beth
I thought it was obvious on the show that Sam returned because of the huge problem of the Ori. Before, when she was at ARea 51, the universe was a much safer place. But in Beachead, she got to see closeup exactly how bad things were getting. Mitchell had already told her that he needed her at the end of Beachead, and then he told her to think about it. In the next ep, when she was still around, I just assumed that she'd decided she was better suited helping out at SG-1.
Personally, I think the Carter fans aren't going to accept any explanation unless it puts Carter in charge of SG-1 and places Mitchell under her. No matter what Joe says, it will never be enough of an explanation. No matter what Mitchell does or doesn't do on the show, no matter what Carter's attitude is abou the matter (and she sure doesn't seem to have a problem with it), the fans won't be happy unless Carter is the only leader. THat's just how I see this endless arguing even after numerous explanations have been presented.
Do you want Joe to come out and say that Ben Browder is the new lead and that they had to make him the leader becasue the lead actor on the show is always the leader and that they didn't want to give that job to Amanda? He'll never say that, but that's the meta reason why Mitchell is in charge. Because Ben is the new lead and the lead is always the leader, just like RDA was the leader.
They could've brought Mitchell in as a full colonel and then Carter would have even less power. Sure the leadership issue would've been more clear-cut, but I can't imagine the Carter fans would be happier with that.
she is no more manipulative than Micheal Shanks when he states at Cons that TPTB do not care about any of actors returning or not and when he puts out a statement that he "is a free agent" before he signed for S10.
Shanks was being honest about his position and why he hadn't yet signed a contract. This was in response to direct fan inquiries, to him and to his publicist. Sure, it was a negotiating tactic, and he admitted as much. He was not subtly rallying the troops and did not present the least hint of self pity or anything else that would cause his fans to go nuts. And, in fact, his fans did not react other than to say he should leave if he didn't get a good offer. So who are the fanatics?
--Michelle, who spoke to MS at the con in question
** Do you want Joe to come out and say that Ben Browder is the new lead and that they had to make him the leader becasue the lead actor on the show is always the leader and that they didn't want to give that job to Amanda? He'll never say that, but that's the meta reason why Mitchell is in charge. **
Excellent. Thanks for finally saying what JM will never be allowed to say.
"Michelle, who spoke to MS at the con in question"
Oh, how very important for you...I'll alert the galaxy. If you'd take the time to read what was written, the person never indicated that MS was out of line or did anything wrong. The point was that AT did nothing wrong either. It's apparent that all of the actors (save Ben apparently) are being treated pretty badly these days. Using this situation to shout loud and often that MS is better than AT is just the kind of behavior that gets you DannyRanters the reputation you've got.
For the record, I'm just as afraid of Daniel being shunted off to Atlantis as I am for Sam. It offers great development for that cast and absolutely none for the SG1 team. Atlantis should try creating its own juice, instead of leeching away SG1's wherever and whenever possible.
I think I am different from most people because I have never been a fan of everything being packaged with a nice little bow.
I personally don't like all questions to be answered instantaniously, and I like the idea that stuff happens between episodes an off screen. I just don't need to have everything addressed... That's the way I like it. I'm not asking you to like it that way; but I do see where you are coming from Mary Beth - and who knows we may get an answer to your question.
Oh, how very important for you...I'll alert the galaxy.
I wasn't meaning to sound self-important at all, but only to say that I saw his body language, etc, first hand. Sorry.
Perhaps it wasn't AT's intention, perhaps it's GW's editing, but the end result is AT's fans are in an uproar. MS was manipulating Sony, not the fans. That's the distinction I see.
Strix varia said
For me, I think the issue could have been avoided if you'd brought Mitchell in at a higher rank than Carter. Perhaps consideration was given to avoiding Carter having to say "yes, sir," and "no, sir" all the time with a goal of establishing a less formal atmosphere between the two characters. If so, I do actually appreciate that thought. I like their interaction as it has been written so far, and it's a different (and interesting) dynamic from the Sam/Jack interaction we saw in the past. Unfortunately, it just added to my personal disbelief that this man would be given command of SG-1 and that Carter, Teal'c, and Daniel would happily sign up to go along with it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right?.....
....That's really where it all fell apart for me. For all your efforts, you failed to convince me that Sam, Teal'c, and Daniel would willingly WANT to follow this man through the gate (the gate through which he'd never been before), and that they would happily accept him as their leader, commanding them in life or death situations (particularly Carter).
Now, I see it quite the opposite. I think the fack that he isn't in a higher position and isn't being all "commandery" is what makes it possible for them to accept him. They are all very much their own people. Daniel and Teal'c in particular followed Jack out of respect for who he was, as much as anything, not because of his rank and even then they did there own thing when they felt it was right. They know they're the premier team with the most experience, I don't think they'd take to someone comming in and trying to command them. They may accept Mitchell in a leadership position but all of them (including Sam, I suspect) would ignore his command if they felt it was the right thing to do.
Does this mean than Mitchell is a bad leader? some may say yes but I think it's more about a different way of having a team. I see him as basically there to cover for them so they can do their jobs and focus on their areas of expertize. Having some one of higher rank, ordering them about just would work IMO. They've got far to much experience and knowledge between them.
With Carter I suspect that she knows he'll let her get on with her job. She obviously trusts him to watch her/their back and having him in command frees her up to concentrate on the science and technology stuff without having to worry about all the command issues. It's not that she isn't capable of being in command (although I do have some issues with her) but wearing two hats could mean that maybe she falls down in one or both areas. If there's a science mission then that's where she leads but a general SG1 mission with Mitchell in charge allows her to concontrate on all her science-girl stuff.
yabyumpan
I don't know Michelle, I saw plenty of outrage and anger at OurStargate and the Sony BB following Shanks' talk. And it was justified outrage too. Just like the anger and outrage over AT's situation is justified. MS knows well how fast information from these conventions gets out. He knew that he wasn't just making a statement to an intimate group of his fans. MS is certainly intelligent enough to predict the consequences of his statement. Why ascribe malice to AT using the same means of disseminating info about the actors' marginalized situation?
I think they're both in the right on this one, both using whatever means they can to get their points across to TPTB.
"I wasn't meaning to sound self-important at all, but only to say that I saw his body language, etc, first hand."
Manipulation is manipulation no matter how you slice it and everyone is guilty of it. It should not, however, be used as an excuse to sling mud and vile hatred at anyone personally, especially people you don't know from Adam (not saying you did - just remarking on others here).
Justin
Actually on the issue of Sam and command (this is in no way saying I don't like the co-leadership or whatever it is - just a comment on whether or not Sam can command) I have been thinking. She is a great leader. Why? Because the job of a leader isn't to boss or push people around, it's the make sure every hand under the command is doing the job they are best suited to. It is deligation and it is motiviation. Sure, bossing around and ripping someone a new one is good motivation - but doing it because they want to and they trust the CO is another. And people do follow Sam.
She is leadership material as has been shown in the past and I believe we will see again.
Joe - in light of the present "discussion" I would like to ask a question:
You once sent me a private e-mail that said, and I quote, "Carter fans should not feel sleighted (sp) by the addition of a new character" and "all parties will be happy". I must say at the time I left my trust in you and the other PTB.
It seems now however, that Carter fans, along with the character (and maybe even the veteran actress of 9 years), have been slighted and have the right to feel that way with how things have been handled in S9. A man with zero Gate experience, etc., etc., (as stated well enough in many previous posts) and a woman with 8+ years experience in everything related to the Gate and the SGC - how did you think that Carter fans would NOT feel slighted and would not be upset with that (as well as other fans who just don't buy it either)? I really would like to get your insight on this and why you told me these things?
Clearly, not ALL parties are happy. Why did you tell me ALL parties would be happy - what is it that should be making the Carter fans happy right now? The fact that she has been demoted and you want us to believe she accepted it voluntarily? The fact that she no longer holds a position at the SGC equal in stature to that of sole leader of SG1? The fact that she reports, once again, to a man on SG1 after having had sole command of the elite team?
Did you and the other PTB think that taking sole command away from Carter, a position you all gave her after 7 years as 2IC, and made a big deal out of pre-S8 I might add, would be bought by a lot of fans as anything other than a demotion and a slight in favor of the new man?
I am well and truly baffled by what you said to me and why you said it and I am struggling to understand. What exactly is it Carter fans in particular should be happy with for this character in S9 and for S10 for that matter?
Thanks for your time.
Binkpmmc (Bink/Binky/Pinky to some)
anonymous said....
** Do you want Joe to come out and say that Ben Browder is the new lead and that they had to make him the leader becasue the lead actor on the show is always the leader and that they didn't want to give that job to Amanda? He'll never say that, but that's the meta reason why Mitchell is in charge. **
Thanks for a very astute observation. It's unfortunate that others don't share your sound logic.
Joe
How does the concept of the Ori making some kind of dimensional rift, to try and smite the non believers of the Ori sound, more specifically Earth, i think itd be a good few part episode, with SG1, mainly Carter working with the Asgard on some kind of method to close the rift, and maybe add some space battles between the big huge ori ships and the earth/free jaffa alialance, all fighting to save the milky way galaxy, i notice SG1 lacks a lot of pure space episodes, with focus on saving the universe.. maybe itd be a good episode in a few years time or something, like say the Ori focusing all their power to destroy the milky way galaxy via some kind of rift, because they"ve lost the priors and their worships.. maybe include an ancient or 2, and maybe Jack
just an idea i thought proberly sucks though
Joe,
Merry Christmas to you and your family. Please pass on our good wishes for the holidays to the writing and production team.
Hatusu
siI'm Do we know when this interview was actually done? I know it was just published, but when was Ms. Tapping interviewed?
This may be a tempest in a teapot because it's OLD news. Or maybe Ms. Tapping doesn't know that CARTER IS IN THE FIRST 8 EPISODES OF SG-1, and the only crossover so far is SGA people with Daniel.
People are focusing on her answer that AT doesn't know, and not focusing on other statements such as:
"“The writers are so incredible the way they do this tapestry that they're building that I'm sure they'll find a way to make it all work."
[snip]
"Yeah. It's not like they're getting rid of me or pushing me over or anyone from Atlantis is being replaced at all. It's my understanding I can just pop my head in now and then.”
Snips from the interview, which I encourage everyone to read for themselves. IN ITS ENTIRETY. I'm not fussing until I see what there is to fuss about. All this is is rumors and innuendo.
Merry Christmas Joe.
Do you want Joe to come out and say that Ben Browder is the new lead and that they had to make him the leader becasue the lead actor on the show is always the leader and that they didn't want to give that job to Amanda? He'll never say that, but that's the meta reason why Mitchell is in charge.
Read this again, everyone, because it is the absoute bottom line truth. RDA (the lead) left. They brought in Ben as the new lead. (Sorry, Daniel fans). Ben brings with him Farscape fans and compensates for any RDA fans who stopped watching the show. To repeat, lead actor will always be the leader of the group
Yes, they certainly could have written it differently (and much better); made Mitchell the leader of SG-2 or something and just moved him up and actually written Mitchell with all the experience required. End result would NOT have mattered: Mitchell (the lead actor) is the leader; Carter is not. It's business; that's just how it is.
Why did Joe tell you, Bink, that all fans would be happy with the situation? Well, why did he say that Jack's presence would still be strongly felt in the Stargate Universe even though RDA was no longer with the show? Joe (and others) will say whatever is expedient for them at the moment. I mean, he's not going to say, "Hey, we're going to feature Claudia a whole heck of a lot and kind of push AT to the back and we're going to forget Jack ever existed." They will DO that, but not say that. (Of course, we all know that just because Daniel, Teal'c and Carter don't speak of Jack, it doesn't mean they aren't thinking of and missing him.)
I think that when Joe (or any writers) engages in on-line dialog with fans, it creates a sense of familiarity -- as in since Joe is actually talking to me, anwering my question, he's being honest, cares about my feelings and concerns. It's an illusion, I think. What you (as a Sam fan) wants can be diametrically opposed to what a Daniel fan wants or a Vala fan, so I think he just says whatever gets him off the hook at the moment. My personal feeling is that it has been a huge mistake for Joe to come on-line and engage in conversations with fans; just a bad idea.
They (PTB) are going to do what they want because it's *their* business. And I think they pretty much know they can spew forth as much crap as they want, do whatever they want with the characters and *most* fans will still watch. We'll complain and critique and say the writing stinks or it's illogical and still watch the show -- PTB KNOW that. At some point some of us will just lose interest and stop watching; others will start. It seems that PTB of Stargate and company are concerned only with what they think will garner them the best ratings and in my opinion Stargate has become utter crap, but there is a place for crap in this world -- look how popular MacDonald's is.
But don't for a moment, take what they say (even in a private e-mail) as having any truth to it.) You can of course, but I wouldn't.
Jaydn
Michelle said:
Perhaps it wasn't AT's intention, perhaps it's GW's editing, but the end result is AT's fans are in an uproar
Hang on... Where is this supposed uproar? I havn't seen any. In fact, all I have seen is people whining over what she said - oh wait, that was going to happen no matter what she said. And is it ironic that people seem to ignore the fact that Micheal Shanks said something similiar at that con. Or the fact that he whinged (don't try to deny that, I've read that interview of his) and left the show for a year? Only to come back when his plans to take the acting world by storm didn't plan out?
He was not subtly rallying the troops and did not present the least hint of self pity or anything else that would cause his fans to go nuts. And, in fact, his fans did not react other than to say he should leave if he didn't get a good offer. So who are the fanatics?
Oh come on. Are you forgetting the outroar over in Danny Central (ie solutions) over that comment? Do you really think MS is that naive? Or perhaps it's his fans that are... But here's another load of hypocrisy - It's ok for MS and Daniel fans to scream bloody murder but as soon as they percieve another fanbase doing it, there's hell to pay. "How dare they argue for something that has nothing to do with 'The Wonder that is Daniel Jackson'?!" :rolleye:
No, Michelle - it's just another attempt by the 'Danny Ranters' to try and make an issue out of something where there is none. In this case by slandering one of the actresses. And I apologize to all the sane Daniel fans out there, but the extremists that plague that characters fandom have me wondering how on Earth so many people who were dropped on their heads at birth could come to like the same character???
Everything is so black and white to people isn't it? It's not. Understand this is a business as well as a show we love. First and foremost it *is* important that they keep the ratings up - not that most people watching makes a diference considering very few people have a Nelson's box or survey - otherwise they are all out of work.
Secondly, I don't think by introducing Ben it was to push anyone out of show - it was because the needed new blood, and offworld it does work better with 4. The archeologist/linguist, the leader, the pragmatist and the scientist. It's a formula that works - don't knock it. Of course they are still trying to work out all the kinks. Makes sense since SG-1 as of ep 10 have only been back together for 4 episodes - and not all of them they have been 'together'.
Thirdly, Joe tells us what he knows to be true *at that time*, things change, pre-production is very fluid and what they work on today may be ripped apart tomorrow. He gives us timely information, not something that will definativly happen.
Forth - I am sick and tired of hearing how bad the people are who are still enjoying the show, how unintelligent they are - blah, blah, blah... People like it, they don't need to veto their choices through anyone - if you don't like it fine, but there is no purpose to the insults.
Fifth; the actors have a right ot show their trepedation. Fan outcry makes little difference when a show is in production, so they are just answering questions. Deal with it.
Michelle said:
Perhaps it wasn't AT's intention, perhaps it's GW's editing, but the end result is AT's fans are in an uproar
Wait...I'm an AT fan. There's an uproar going on amongst us???
Dang. I'm not getting all my memos...
Wait...I'm an AT fan. There's an uproar going on amongst us???
I think calling JM a "prick" and making all sorts of accusations (treating the actors like crap, etc) here, where JM will read them, counts as a poor showing, if not an uproar.
I think calling JM a "prick" and making all sorts of accusations (treating the actors like crap, etc) here, where JM will read them, counts as a poor showing, if not an uproar.
Hmm, well considering how many people are doing that, looks like AT has more fans than some people would like to believe...
For crying out loud Joe, can't you lot gag that silly cow Tapping? I swear one more "poor widdle me, what will become of me?" outburst and I will hurl. Can't one of you tell her she's just making herself look pathetic?
Yes Amanda, Claudia is younger, thinner and more talented (and oooh look she just had a baby too). And yes Amanda, it does look like she's being given your job but here's an idea, you could do what Shanks did when you hogged all his screen time - leave. And let's just see how far the savesamcarter.com capaign gets you.
//.... And I apologize to all the sane Daniel fans out there, but the extremists that plague that characters fandom have me wondering how on Earth so many people who were dropped on their heads at birth could come to like the same character???//
*LIKE* the same character? That's putting it mildly. They love the character, are obsessed with the character, have threads on the forum such as "Yummy Things To Do With Daniel," "What Would Daniel Do?" My theory is that those fans were probably people in high school who felt they were very intelligent and harbor resentment because other people didn't respect their intelligence, didn't listen to them, made them feel like outcasts. Daniel Jackson 'r them; he's their revenge; it's Daniel's journey -i.e. - theirs...that's why they are do defensive.
I'm just saying....
There you go, Joe. There's a post that does nothing but bash AT. Let's see you go to bat for the woman you've worked with since your arrival at Stargate. Prove to all of us that you're not the All Mitchell All The Time Defender and stick up for someone besides Gentle Ben.
Anonymous said...
For crying out loud Joe, can't you lot gag that silly cow Tapping? I swear one more "poor widdle me, what will become of me?" outburst and I will hurl. Can't one of you tell her she's just making herself look pathetic?
Yes Amanda, Claudia is younger, thinner and more talented (and oooh look she just had a baby too). And yes Amanda, it does look like she's being given your job but here's an idea, you could do what Shanks did when you hogged all his screen time - leave. And let's just see how far the savesamcarter.com capaign gets you.
Yes, thats why Amanda happens to get in the top #20 hottest women in the world in the Femme Fatale magazine and appears on the cover... Tell me, where was Claudia Black in that?
CB and AT are both wonderful actresses and people. And for the Danny Ranters to take up an issue with AT over these comments just goes to show how full of crap they are. Someone suggested before to do away with Micheal Shanks - I heartily agree. Take his pathetic excuse for a civilian archeologist away from this show - and his annoying, little fans - and have SG1 in the form of Mitchell, Carter, Vala and Teal'c. It's a win for everyone (Danny Ranters dont count in the everyone, as they aren't deserving of the inclusion)
BTW, thanks for giving Teal'c a non Jaffa story. The last one that I remember was Avatar, and it was one of the best episodes of last season.
yabyumpan, in a long and very thought-provoking post said:
I think the fack that he isn't in a higher position and isn't being all "commandery" is what makes it possible for them to accept him.
I had never thought of it that way, but I can see your point.
They may accept Mitchell in a leadership position but all of them (including Sam, I suspect) would ignore his command if they felt it was the right thing to do.
But therein lies a problem. Daniel and Teal'c could probably get away with ignoring his command. Carter, however, could be court-marshalled for it. Does she really trust him that much? I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to be persuaded in the future, perhaps. With good writing.
Does this mean than Mitchell is a bad leader? some may say yes but I think it's more about a different way of having a team.
I don't think I've ever actually accused Mitchell of being a bad leader, but perhaps you weren't refering to me specifically. I would, however, like to see him being written as a more competent leader in the future (fewer rookie mistakes would go a long way towards establishing him as someone I could respect).
With Carter I suspect that she knows he'll let her get on with her job.
That's all fine and everything, but the man is still going to be writing her performance reports, and that just gives me the heebeegeebees. Sorry, I know too many career-minded women who wouldn't take that kind of a move voluntarily with a smile and a nod. (And so far, everything has indicated that she wasn't ordered to serve on SG-1, so I am assuming it is a voluntary career move). If she did it for the good of the Earth in the battle against the Ori, okay, maybe I could see Sam doing that because I do see her as being capable of altruism and self-sacrifice. But if that's how it's supposed to play, I hope people appreciate the sacrifice she has made... because a sacrifice it is. Voluntarily giving up a command (Head of R&D) to become a 2IC on a four-man team (over which one once had command) has to be a step back on a military career path.
As for the person who suggested that Carter fans would not have accepted Mitchell as Carter's leader even if he was of a clearly higher rank, I can only say with certainty that this is not true for me. I might have been disappointed that she didn't get command, but I wouldn't be arguing that it didn't make any sense. Carter going back to work for someone who was clearly her superior (at least in the military command structure) makes sense. (I would have expressed my disappointment in TPTB for feeling the need to have a leading man - something I did anyway - and then moved on.) The current arrangement... well, I have to use a lot of imagination. But thanks, yabyumpan, for at least giving me a plausible direction to go in that arena.
Cheers,
Strix varia
PS: And Merry Christmas
Oh come on. Are you forgetting the outroar over in Danny Central (ie solutions) over that comment?
There was no uproar at Solutions; there was no discussion at all. You're confusing it with somewhere else. In any case, there's nothing wrong with either side reacting however they like to what AT or MS say, in their forums; that's what fan forums are for.
The difference is, after GABIT, the AT fans used Joe's blog page to attack JM and TPTB in very rude, hysterical, posts; now they're doing it again in response to an interview that might be months old. I'm sure this is really making JM's Christmas. After MS' statements about his contract statement, his fans were not doing that, but only discussing things on their own forums.
And yes, I do recognize the irony of the current situation versus season 5/6, when the tables were turned. That doesn't make what's going on here right.
Michelle
Jaydn:
EXACTLY - without using the word I would ascribe to what Joe and TPTB do (hhmmm misstatement - no that's not the word I'm looking for). It is in fact what they do to garner whatever good will they think they can from the fans at any particular moment. Joe's coming here and costantly pimping and defending the 2 new characters that will be main to the story is seriously continuing to hurt his credibility.
When what they say all goes to hell in a hand basket they then back pedal and use contrived excuses to try and weasel their way out - damn - thought you could actually trust TPTB, Joe included, think again boys and girls. And Binkpmmc, sorry you had to find out the hard way.
Terry
The difference is, after GABIT, the AT fans used Joe's blog page to attack JM and TPTB in very rude, hysterical, posts; now they're doing it again in response to an interview that might be months old. I'm sure this is really making JM's Christmas. After MS' statements about his contract statement, his fans were not doing that, but only discussing things on their own forums.
Difference? All I see is MS fans (I'm assuming there, but I think its a safe bet) using Joe's blog page to attack AT and her fans in very rude, hysterical posts after that snippet from an interview was posted; and its been going on for months. The only difference is who the fans are dissing (the people who control the direction of the show as opposed to the actress herself)
Veronica
Memo To: The DannyRanters,
When will you realize that Michael Shanks is a terrible actor? Since you are all so close to him and apparently know him intimately will one of you please tell him to get a new facial expression, geez could he scrunch up his forehead anymore, every scene, every emotion is played that way; take an acting lesson for god's sake. Oh and tell him to stop talking so fast too, it is as if he has to get as much as possible in in 12 seconds. What is that? Is he afraid because he doesn't get all 42 minutes of the show he has to cram it all in at once? God please take a lesson, I will even pay for it.
Okay everyone get ready ..........
"Yes Amanda, Claudia is younger, thinner and more talented (and oooh look she just had a baby too). And yes Amanda, it does look like she's being given your job but here's an idea, you could do what Shanks did when you hogged all his screen time - leave. And let's just see how far the savesamcarter.com capaign gets you."
Aw, it looks like someone's been saving up several years worth of hate and vitrol towards a FAKE CHARACTER just so they could post their steaming pile of dung anonymously on a blog that AT will likely never read. Bravo!
Michelle,
You are overgeneralizing in regard to AT fans' response after GABIT. If you go back and read the posts, the majority of the posts were not rude or nasty. Many posters just asked for some answers to what was happening and wanted some explanations about Carter/AT's role for next year. this is also true in the threads on GW that addressed this issue. And many fans, including myself, are still waiting to hear what Carter/AT's role is for SG-1 in season 10.
Cathy
Hmm...well, I assumed that you were talking about how the characters would react and how the events will occur WITHIN the established framework that SG1 had disbanded after the Goa'uld and Replicator threats were neutralized. If that's not the case...then I can't really do anything to counter your points since your talking about changing the whole story around.
PG15
Anonymous said:
"The difference is, after GABIT, the AT fans used Joe's blog page to attack JM and TPTB in very rude, hysterical, posts; now they're doing it again in response to an interview that might be months old. I'm sure this is really making JM's Christmas."
I am sure Joe doesn't give a rats arse what anyone here has to say. I would be very surprised if this is upsetting him at all - if it was I am sure he would have already been on line here defending his colleague of many, many years (that would be AT) from very derogatory personal attaks in the same vigorous manner he defended his newest best friend, Ben Browder, a few blogs back. Seems the only thing that upsets Joe these days is anyone that disses Ben, CB, Mitchell or Vala - the rest of the actors and characters be damned.
Alice
Jaydn said,
"Read this again, everyone, because it is the absoute bottom line truth. RDA (the lead) left. They brought in Ben as the new lead. (Sorry, Daniel fans). Ben brings with him Farscape fans and compensates for any RDA fans who stopped watching the show. To repeat, lead actor will always be the leader of the group
Yes, they certainly could have written it differently (and much better); made Mitchell the leader of SG-2 or something and just moved him up and actually written Mitchell with all the experience required. End result would NOT have mattered: Mitchell (the lead actor) is the leader; Carter is not. It's business; that's just how it is.
Why did Joe tell you, Bink, that all fans would be happy with the situation? Well, why did he say that Jack's presence would still be strongly felt in the Stargate Universe even though RDA was no longer with the show? Joe (and others) will say whatever is expedient for them at the moment. I mean, he's not going to say, "Hey, we're going to feature Claudia a whole heck of a lot and kind of push AT to the back and we're going to forget Jack ever existed." They will DO that, but not say that. (Of course, we all know that just because Daniel, Teal'c and Carter don't speak of Jack, it doesn't mean they aren't thinking of and missing him.)
I think that when Joe (or any writers) engages in on-line dialog with fans, it creates a sense of familiarity -- as in since Joe is actually talking to me, anwering my question, he's being honest, cares about my feelings and concerns. It's an illusion, I think. What you (as a Sam fan) wants can be diametrically opposed to what a Daniel fan wants or a Vala fan, so I think he just says whatever gets him off the hook at the moment. My personal feeling is that it has been a huge mistake for Joe to come on-line and engage in conversations with fans; just a bad idea.
They (PTB) are going to do what they want because it's *their* business. And I think they pretty much know they can spew forth as much crap as they want, do whatever they want with the characters and *most* fans will still watch. We'll complain and critique and say the writing stinks or it's illogical and still watch the show -- PTB KNOW that. At some point some of us will just lose interest and stop watching; others will start. It seems that PTB of Stargate and company are concerned only with what they think will garner them the best ratings and in my opinion Stargate has become utter crap, but there is a place for crap in this world -- look how popular MacDonald's is.
But don't for a moment, take what they say (even in a private e-mail) as having any truth to it.) You can of course, but I wouldn't."
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! Great post Jay. Your comment should be made a sticky.
Umm people who expect Joe to jump on a defend AT right this instant - can I remind you that it is almost Christmas, he said he had family arriing on Friday, his life is not the blog and he is off celebrating.
And too be honest, there is no reason to defend AT towards those 'people' who want to try and pull her down. Why you ask? Simply because they are proving to everyone that they are bitter, spiteful, hateful people... You can never do anything to these people to change their minds - so often they are best ignored.
In other news - Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday's everyone.
kish said, "susan, that were bea-ut-tiful! (even the 'Jack/Sam warm fuzzies' bit that made me guts feel like a python that's eaten too many guinea-pigs for supper):)"... Why, thank ye kindly, Kish! And I'm so sorry I give you guinea-pig tummy-- it's happened to me a few times and I wouldn't wish it on anyone (not even Fred!). And to all of you (okay, all two of you), who called me wacky-- "wacky"? Well, I suppose it's as good a word as any, and a might bit more polite than many I've heard! And to all of you "anonymuses" (anonymusi?), who began signing a name to your posts, I thank you-- especially you, Fred! You made me smile... :) �And to everyone else, I thank you for not biting my head off! I just may come out and play with you guys again sometime (ooh, I know you're all looking forward to the day!).� that wacky old broad, susan
Just a reminder that Joe was quick to defend BB so this expectation of jumping to the defense of his actors, especially one he has worked with for so many years now, is expected simply because of his previous actions for the new guy(and if I recall correctly the worst we saw about Mr. Browder was that he was a hack; some of the comments flung at Ms. Tapping go well beyond that and a word from one of the so-called PTB may at least put SOME of the less fortunate in the rationale and manners dept., on notice). Not to mention the fact he has been quick to defend Mitchell and Vala at every single solitary turn. Good for the gander? Good for the Goose don't ya think?
Alice
All I see is MS fans (I'm assuming there, but I think its a safe bet) using Joe's blog page to attack AT and her fans in very rude, hysterical posts after that snippet from an interview was posted;
Unfortunately, that's not ALL I see, though I agree one particular post started the current firestorm. But I also see some AT fans making rude (to Joe and other commenters), hysterical posts and ultimatums worrying about Ms. Tapping's role in S10, and it's also been going on for months.
Yes the AT fans are peaches and cream. The MS fans are satan incarnate.
Or wait, is it the MS fans are peaches and cream and the AT fans are the hysterical shrews?
Since I'm both, I'm feeling somewhat schizophrenic.
My point is the line drawing in sand between these bizarre fandom factions of Sam fans and Daniel fans. Give me a break. Dragging stuff up from years ago that the people ACTUALLY INVOLVED WITH have obviously put behind them is counterproductive. As is arguing who is MORE manipuluative than whom now based on comments on interviews, publicist comments, and con reports. And getting upset about what some fans are saying on whatever board.
Are there rational concerns there about Carter's role in S10? Sure. Personally, I don't see why the show can't have two female leads and three males, and I'll wait until I see the product to decide if it'll be wonderful, terrible, or likely somewhere in between. Seems to me that's what Ms. Tapping is doing, waiting to see.
But rational voices are getting drowned out by posters on BOTH "SIDES", who are reduced to name calling of "Danny Ranters" and Samandans.
Actually, I take that back. It's NOT the fans of one character or the other. It seems to be this bizarre anti-fandom. You know who I mean:
The Anti-Carter fan who said:
For crying out loud Joe, can't you lot gag that silly cow Tapping? I swear one more "poor widdle me, what will become of me?" outburst and I will hurl. Can't one of you tell her she's just making herself look pathetic?
The Anti-Jackson fan who said:
When will you realize that Michael Shanks is a terrible actor?...please tell him to get a new facial expression, geez could he scrunch up his forehead anymore, every scene, every emotion is played that way; take an acting lesson for god's sake.
Unfortunately, neither of those are isolated examples. But NEITHER should be considered representative of all of fandom. As a "sane" Daniel fan, I still feel annoyed at the swipes at MS and "Danny ranters", despite the caveats. As a Sam fan, I'm equally annoyed at the whinging and assumptions made against her and that fandom.
Sigh, I unfortunately forgot to take Mr. Mallozzi's advice and skip the rude posts. Perhaps I'll take my own and skip this entire disgusting comment section of the blog.
Peace on earth good will towards men.
Yawn. Still at it everyone? Yes still at it. Ho-hum. Yawn.
"Me, too. I think it's pathetic the way AT is trying to improve her position by public fear-mongering. She should have some dignity and fight her battles behind the scenes like a professional."
Like Michael Shanks did, when he whined about Jack/Sam ship being a red herring? Like when he worked up his fans about not liking the way his character was treated? Like when he knew they were campaigning for him to return, but didn't try to stop them when they got so bad that they sent death threats to TPTB?
Yeah, Michael is a super role model for Amanda.
Oh just SHUT the F**K UP!!!
Back to my post about Joe's e-mail and a few posts referring to it - I did think it was very interesting at the time that he would make such a bold statement that "all parties would be happy" since it has always been TPTB modus operandi that you cannot make everyone happy. It was something that made me think that they had something pretty good in the works to actually make that statement in his reply to me. Well now I guess I should know better and grain of salt etc.
It is unfortunate, if he really meant what he said, since it is almost impossible for me to understand how he thought that the demotion of Carter and the handling of the charcater would make anyone happy never mind "all parties". In fact, with the current state of affairs, Carter fans are not happy and I have seen general fans, as well as self-professed Browder/Mitchell fans and even some not-so-fond-of-Sam fans (the rational ones that is) state their unhappiness as well.
Binkpmmc
I do understand what you're saying, Binkpmmc. I'm a Ben Browder fan from his Farscape days, and it really is great to see him on SG-1. I'm a fan of both shows. And I was thrilled to hear he'd be joining SG-1. But, as a SG-1 fan, I'm not really proud of what's had to happen in order to accomdate Ben's presence. Like it or not, Sam Carter and Amanda Tapping are being screwed over in order to fit Mitchell into the show. And for as much as I adore Ben, I find his performance so far to be severely lacking. Sure, it could get better, but he's always going to be a character that got what he has by screwing over another of my favorite characters/actresses. It's not necessarily what I had in mind when they said Ben would join the team, and I'm having a hard time thinking it's more than TPTB needing a man to be in charge.
As far as Joe and cocommand goes, sure, it could be the case. But I mostly think it's just Joe being very embarrassed about the whole situation. Nobody likes being called a sexist, but it's particularly biting when it's true. And that's what I think is happening here. The fact that Ben is now associated with such a blatant act of sexism is also a less than inspiring thought, too. Maybe he feels the same, and that is why Mitchell has been so lifeless and out of place so far.
Kara
Kara,
So TPTB were sexist when they hired RDA to be the leader of SG-1? What if they had hired another female to play Mitchell instead of Ben? What excuse would you have then for why Carter isn't the leader. The bottom line is that Carter is a supporting character and when the lead left they brought in another lead rather than promote her. Think back on other TV shows and how they handled replacing a character. Almost always they bring in someone new and don't promote an existing character.
Ben didn't do anything other than accept a job offer. You can't blame him for doing that. As far as his performance goes, I think a lot of people just can't accept change. THe rating prove that most of the viewers are still watching, and they wouldn't be watching if htey didn't liek what they were seeing.
Geez, you must be some "real" fan of Ben to accuse him of being associated with a blatant act of sexism. JM admitted he had no idea what Ben was told about who would lead the team; it wasn't Ben's decision, fcol!
Ben's whole performance has been about revering the other three characters, perhaps even to his character's detriment. It's hard to see how Mitchell could be more humble about his place on the team. What is Ben supposed to do, rewrite the scripts on set?
It's not sexism, it's show business. It's not about which character deserved to be lead but about which actor was more bankable. The studio and network made that decision, just like they did when they asked Shanks back and kicked Nemec out. It's so naive of fans to try to blame any of those decisions on the actors. Holy crap.
Here's what Amanda said in the latest TV Zone magazine about the command issue. It sounds like she doesn't believe in the co-command either!
"Conversely, there’s this brand new dynamic she’s dealing with when it comes to the Colonel Mitchell character and what he’s all about. At times, he’ll say something and Carter will think, ‘What?’ and then other times she’ll be like, ‘OK, I get it’. It’s interesting because he leads very differently than Jack did, and then, of course, there’s the question of why is Mitchell and not Sam in charge of SG-1. That’s something I hope the writers will explore further next season. After all, it could be an ensemble team where there is no patriarchal line of command, or maybe Mitchell and Carter could share the leadership responsibilities. However, because Sam is military and a good military girl, she will do exactly what she’s ordered to do. It wouldn’t be so bad though, to see her rebel every now and then against an order she truly does not agree with.”
Re the newest AT interview posted above - Boy oh Boy it does really and truly seem that TPTB are doing their best to screw some of the actors and their characters and then lie about it.
Joe, Joe, Joe: when will you and the other PTB realize that the fans are not stupid and not everyone sees through the same rose colored glasses you apparently do. Wake up Joe - if you are going to lie to the fans you might as well not say anything because it just looks bad when your statements are shown for what they really and truly are - crap spewed to pull the wool over the eyes of the poor unsuspecting fans who will believe anything you say.
Step up Joe and just tell everyone that Ben Browder was hired because he is a man and the man has to lead so therefore you screw over the female lead, and lead female character, after 8 years, all for the sake of having a MAN lead. Just say it for God's sake - stop making a fool out of yourself with all the other very bad excuses and contrivances and pure nonsense that you think up on the fly.
You know, after 8 years (the first 6 of which I did spend $ on the DVDs) now with all of this truly incredible BS that's it for me - I have decided it's time to walk away. Joe thanks for helping me make this decision - I really did once love this show, and believe it or not I once also believed you and trusted in TPTB to fix the show; you guys have ruined all of it, including the trust angle.
See ya. Good luck to ya though, seems you're gonna need it.
Wayne Mendole
Aw, it looks like someone's been saving up several years worth of hate and vitrol towards a FAKE CHARACTER just so they could post their steaming pile of dung anonymously on a blog that AT will likely never read. Bravo!
Not at all, sweetie. The character is just too lame (and badly acted) to give a damn about. Tapping on the other hand is a selfish, ego-centric, back stabbing drama queen who is truly worth genuine dislike. How stupid do you think she relies on her little shipper fans to be to actually believe the self serving garbage that comes out of her mouth? Especially now when she's stomping on their little Barbie doll dreams in her desperate attempts to disassociate her character from one who will never be seen again. Is it fun being played for fools?
Personally, I think that that is exactly the problem. I think that the TPTB honestly believed Ben Browder was somewhat "bankable". Wait, that's not necessarily true; I think that Scifi believes that Ben Browder is bankable. He's been their golden boy for a long time.
The problem that the show is having, and to deny it's having problems is denying reality, is that Ben Browder hasn't fit in that great. Both Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping both seem to be much more popular than Ben Browder. At least that's the case for Stargate fans. And those fans are tuning in to see them, not the new guy. All of the clamour has been about the original characters and Vala, not about Mitchell. The biggest thing that Mitchell has going for him is the command debate. If it wasn't for that, he wouldn't be talked about at all. I'm not a rabid fan of any character. But I still don't think Ben/Mitchell has brought anything to the show besides a character that needs to be serviced. And the writers aren't even doing a good job of that. I honestly believe that if the writers knew that Claudia Black would be around full time in season ten, then they would never have hired Ben Browder. He's just going to be more useless than ever next year.
"Geez, you must be some "real" fan of Ben to accuse him of being associated with a blatant act of sexism."
I don't appreciate your idiotic judgement that just because I think that Ben's current association with SG-1 is the result of sexism means that I'm not a fan of his previous work. You people need to get a grip on this "real" fan nonsense. Not everything that your favorite actors do is admirable. For me, this is one of those cases.
Ben Browder is intelligent enough to know exactly what kind of situation the writers were placing him in. He knew going in that taking command from Carter and giving it to Mitchell was done only because he's a man. Was it a sexist decision on the part of the producers? Sure. But like it or not, Ben is the beneficiary of blatant sexism. And in my book it's not just the size of the role actors get or how much or how often they're on tv. It also matters how they get the roles they do. Mitchell leads because Amanda Tapping is a woman. And that is nothing for Ben Browder to be proud of.
Kara
Joe, does Scifi consider Atlantis to be as valuable as SG-1 and Galactica?
Kara - I agree and it would really serve Joe and TPTB to just be honest about it and stop all the ridiculous excuses that are transparent and contrived. Admit it was the fact that they wanted a male lead so they basically demoted Carter and in the process have demoted, and treated very poorly, AT.
I have to say at this point the credibility and integrity - yes I said it - INTEGRITY - of TPTB and Joe have all suffered. (Binkpmmc I too am sorry that you had to learn the hard way that trust in TPTB is a mistake. These particular PTB remind me of politicians and many know what politicians do best.) If they had just been honest from the get go and not played the fans for fools they might not be in the midst of the debacle they are in and they might not be in the midst of a mud-slinging fest that they have helped to create.
The fact that so many comments are now turning personal, whether it be about BB, AT, MS, Joe or one of the other PTB just serves to show that Stargate has problems, has indeed lost some of its magic and some of its lustre. In all the years I have been on-line I have never seen such hatred, except of course for that small contingent of truly self-absorbed Danny Ranters who have no clue the detriment they bring to their apparently favorite character and actor by their behaviour and snotty, petty comments and anyone that steps up here and says, well if the Sam Carter fans didn't sling mud at DJ/MS then we wouldn't blah, blah, blah I think I'll scream. Look around I do not see any posts that personally attack MS the way several posts here on this blog personally attack AT (one post that says he's a bad actor and why that person thought so does not even begin to compare to what has been said about AT by the ugly side of MS/Danny fans).
I have also been unable to find, one (1) website dedicated to the hatred of Daniel/MS, calling for MS and his character to be off the show, while there are at least two (2) dedicated to the hatred of AT/Sam wherein the rhetoric defies logic, reality, reasonableness and rational thought (one of the most recent, and infamous, Danny Ranters has even been modded (twice) on one of the 2 offending sites so you KNOW her posts must be lolapalooozas). If there is a site dedicated to constantly throwing hateful, mean, vitriolic personal comments at MS and hate of all kinds at DJ, please point me too it.
I have also visited the Sam's a Great Character thread at GW and as far as I can tell, on a thread that is chock-full of Sam Fans, and over 20,000 posts, there are very, very few that talk badly about Daniel or MS and if there are any they do not even begin to approrach the nasty, snotty vitriol that the Danny Ranters spew.
And BTW, to those Danny Ranters, why DO you spend so much time discussing a character you claim to hate so much - seems you talk about AT/Sam more than you talk about your favorite character/actor - you guys are hypocrites of the worst kind (well along with TPTB).
Carole
Well, then by all your reckonings if BB left the show, then the ratings would go down. I say let him leave then, and see how big a star he realy is.
**Not at all, sweetie. The character is just too lame (and badly acted) to give a damn about. Tapping on the other hand is a selfish, ego-centric, back stabbing drama queen who is truly worth genuine dislike. How stupid do you think she relies on her little shipper fans to be to actually believe the self serving garbage that comes out of her mouth? Especially now when she's stomping on their little Barbie doll dreams in her desperate attempts to disassociate her character from one who will never be seen again. Is it fun being played for fools?**
Let me take a wild guess and say that you're probably a rabid Daniel fan, right? Do you actually believe Michael Shanks ego was NOT involved in his decision to leave Stargate for the one year? Or do you (like the other Shanks worshippers) believe the spin that he left because he wanted to protect the integrity of the character? What about all the self-serving stuff that comes out of MS mouth? I'm sure you believe it all, right?
IMO, 99% of *All* actors have big egos, are mostly self-serving in terms of their craft and want what is best for *them.* They act; we like their performances or not. As for what they are truly like at home and with their friends, none of us here knows. You're really showing your ignorance by assuming that you know anything at all about AT or MS or CJ personally. And it just sounds as if you might be a bit jealous IMO.
Mellow out, sweetie.
Mitchell leads because Amanda Tapping is a woman. And that is nothing for Ben Browder to be proud of.
My God, what utter bullshit. First, Ben was brought in to replace RDA, who was gone. Ben was glad to have a job and properly humbled by the prospect. Do you honestly think he knew that Carter was semi-partial-sometimes lead of SG-1 in S8? Was he supposed to be aware of the Samanda contingent before he signed on the dotted line? He didn't watch all those DVD's until he was already on board. He had no reason to know Carter would even be considered as lead of the show or SG-1. Fans are so freaking self-centered about this crap.
Second, Ben far better known in the US than Amanda Tapping is. He brought press interest and caché, which the show needed very much with RDA's departure. Tapping was never going to be named lead of the show even if Ben said no. They would have found another white male.
As for putting women first, his wife and kids are financially secure because he has a job and is willing to commute to Vancouver every week. What would you have called him if he'd said 'no' in some psychotic fit of women's lib? A piss poor husband and father, I'd bet.
With fans like you, Ben doesn't need enemies.
You're really showing your ignorance by assuming that you know anything at all about AT or MS or CJ personally.
Oh no, I can assure you my dislike of dear Mandy is entirely personal.;)
I don't think it is Ben's fault at all either, but I also don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Ben Browder is more popular in the US than Amanda Tapping. No one I know who doesn't watch scifi knows either of them. AT is just as well known as BB in the scifi world. And no offense, but I didn't see BB doing that much after Farscape got cancelled to make him known to a large audience. I do like him, just saying I don't think he is any more popular than AT or MS.
What you did say, though, is interesting. You yourself note that they felt they needed to get a white male as a lead. Why? Again, nothing against BB, but why when there are already two male leads on the show? And why not have AT lead the team? When it was publicized that AT/Sam would be the leader in season 8, that was easily accepted by fans. In fact, alot of fans were really looking forward to it!
Just in my opinion, the ratings would have been fine either way. The show has a strong following and the original three, AT, MS, and CJ could have easily pulled in the ratings without BB. Heck, much of season 7 and 8 had much less RDA in it. RDA knew that it would be fine without him.
Cathy
Agree with the one above. Ratings for stargate have always been the same regardless of whos' in the show. They went up when MS left, went up again when he came back, went up again at the end of last year, and have gone down a good bit this year but stayed close to the mark the show has always had. The ratigns for the show is set in stone. THere's just that many peeps who watch.
Why a white male lead? To replace RDA with minimal disruption to a working formula.
Ben Browder has had far more mainstream press coverage in the US than any of the SG actors except RDA. Farscape was a darling of newspaper reviewers and TV magazine shows; even CNN Headline news interviewed him when the save Farscape campaign was going on.
I think it's only in hindsight that we can say the ratings have been fine without RDA and therefore might have been fine without BB. I'm sure TPTB were not so confident and needed to hedge their bets, to protect a multi-million dollar investment in S9. They would have been fools to assume ahead of time that the ratings would not change without RDA.
"Not at all, sweetie. The character is just too lame (and badly acted) to give a damn about. Tapping on the other hand is a selfish, ego-centric, back stabbing drama queen who is truly worth genuine dislike. How stupid do you think she relies on her little shipper fans to be to actually believe the self serving garbage that comes out of her mouth? Especially now when she's stomping on their little Barbie doll dreams in her desperate attempts to disassociate her character from one who will never be seen again. Is it fun being played for fools?"
Oh good, so you don't hate a fake character, you hate an actual person who you've probably never met and certainly don't know, along with the fans who support her. Glad we cleared that up. Who's the fool now?
I've never seen so much vitrol hurled at a character on a TV show as the Dannyranters have hurled at Carter, Amanda, and her fans. How disgusting. This is how you choose to spend your free time? Seriously, maybe it's time to step away from the TV and computer before the docs come knocking at your door with a straightjacket.
It is nice to know that BB got the news coverage, but that does not mean that he is generally known. Ask the regular viewer in the US out there who does not watch scifi shows. I don't think most of them know BB at all. I've asked people and they have not heard of him. Just because you are in the news doesn't mean people remember you. They are more likely to remember you when you have been on a mainstream hit TV show.
Again, I like BB and I think he is a good actor, and he does have fans, but I don't think his audience is any bigger than AT or MS in general because he was in the newspaper more or loved by TV Guide. RDA is the only well-known actor, except for Beau Bridges. Bridges is also well known. (And Gossett Jr., but he is recurring).
I don't think they would have been fools at all. I think they could have had old characters play more integral roles and it would have worked. But, yes, we will never know.
But the point is BB is on the show and I do like him, but the character has not been written well thus far, IMO. I'm willing to give him a chance -- no problem. But I wish the leadership issue would be dealt with on the show. in a way that treats both AT and BB fairly. Man, I wish TPTB would have just brought BB in as a major--BB could have played that really well and it would make sense in regard to the other three characters.
Cathy
I too think that BB isn't that well known. Farscape just began airing here in syndication and my parents have both remarked that they'd never seen an actor do 2 shows at once. Hey, they're parents, what do you expect? Anyway, the first thing they saw BB in was SG-1 at the beginning of this year. And I know that one critic, Matt Roush, is the biggest fanboy Farscape has ever seen. Without him as a mouthpiece the show probably wouldn't have lasted the four years it got. And I don't see how your show getting canceled equates with being a bankable lead. As the person above said, I think he is very much loved at the Scifi channel, and that is why he was hired. But, as it's turned out, it seems that taking him on is an even greater risk than not hiring him would have been.
Sean Riley
Why isn't Sam leading SG1? It has nothing to do with maternity leave or hating women or the other rubbish you rave on about. The fact of the matter is that she does not have the presence and now Rick has left the show, there is nothing for Sam anymore. Any wonder Amanda is busy distancing herself from the Sam and Jack relationship, and talking up how much chemistry Sam has with MacKay? She needs something/someone else to hang her hat on because the character has never been strong enough to stand on it's own. Now Jack has gone, it is obvious that there is little about the character to interest many short of picking out wedding cakes and discussing dresses for their fantasy future wedding.
So instead of banging on and accusing TPTB of being women haters, why don't you look to your own desires for the character who for the past 4-5 years you've desperately wanted to marry Jack and for them to have babies. If anyone hates smart strong women, it is the rabble here who believe a woman is not fulfilled unless she has a man and a wedding, a designer house, 2.5 children and still looks like a model.
As for the rubbish about TPTB never being able to write two smart strong women together, that is rubbish. We've never done it because of one very good reason. Most of you won't be smart enough to figure it out, but it is contained in a recent interview by someone attached to the shows. Besides, any attempt to have another strong female character on the show has always been met with howls of protest from a certain group of fans, especially if that female got more screen time with Jack than Sam.
Get off your high horses and go back to your little threads and play with pictures of wedding cakes.
Feed up?
I have no idea what you're talking about. There are many fans who like Sam and wanted her to lead that are not Sam/Jack shippers. And there are number of Sam/Jack shippers who like Sam simply for who she is, regardless of Jack. And obviously as fans have mentioned they like the soldier/scientist side of Sam.
So go take your nasty remarks somewhere else.
Cathy
You're one of TPTB, eh? Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. You all seem to be a mean, spiteful lot these days.
To Sean Riley:
don't talk about something you have no bloody idea. You know NOTHING about reasons of Farscape's cancellation. So please, shut the f**k up.
I love all this Amanda bashing and further nonsense about her backpeddling away from ship. For the record, she's bounced back and forth on this issue for years but the one thing she's been consistent on was that she wouldn't want it to become the only thing that Sam was about. She recently suggested that maybe it'd be best for them to have a one night stand and "get it out of their system." Do I agree with that idea? Of course not. I know I and many others who have been following this arc for years would be deeply disappointed.
Was ship focused on too strongly last season? Possibly...but there was the Rick factor to consider, it being his official SG-1 swan song and all, as well as financial constraints.
So you deride and mock the shippers for wanting ship and then you say that Sam is nothing without ship, which is almost self fulfilling if that's all you personally choose to acknowledge about her and ignore everything else she does and is.
I hate to break it to you, but most shippers from what I've seen enjoy the other qualities that make Sam who she is...brilliant scientist/strong soldier etc. who want to see ship as just another part of her life...not an overwhelming story arc. Most shippers also want to see more of who Sam is, how she balances her life both personally and professionally...how she weighs the military side vs. the scientist in her.
It just so happens that they also would like to see little tastes here and there of this other aspect of her personna that was so heavily featured last year...again, not as a major story or plot point, but bits here and there that show that this part of her life is alive and well even though it's not on the front burner.
But apparently in some people's minds you can't be a brilliant officer, strong soldier and leader if you dare to have a fulfilled personal life too.
Thanks for the clarity, sport.
someone said: The bottom line is that Carter is a supporting character and when the lead left they brought in another lead rather than promote her. Think back on other TV shows and how they handled replacing a character. Almost always they bring in someone new and don't promote an existing character.//
i never saw sam being leader of sg1 as a promotion to amanda. sam was sg1's leader 'while' rda/jack was still on the show. i just never put together being leader of sg1 meaning being 'lead' of the show. i still don't.
this is how i see this situation. let's say they'd kept jack as sg1's leader in season 8, and then is season 9 they brought in mitchell to be the next leader. i'd be bummed that they didn't give it to sam because she'd been training for it for 8 years. but since they *did* give it to sam in season 8, i see/feel this as a demotion for both sam and amanda to have it taken away. the writers made sam sg1's leader. *they* (like with sam/jack ship) gave me the desire and interest for the storyline by presenting me with the package.
i've said this a million times. what i want more than anything from this situation (beyond just wanting sam to lead) is for the writers to respect the character(s). there's no reason (NO reason) why they couldn't have had mitchell just subbing for sam until she returned. they didn't have to write sam giving up her command; they could have just come up with something that she was away temporarily and mitchell stepped up to the plate when the ori were let loose. then sam *had* to return because of the huge threat and mitchell gave her her team back.
or.
keep it the way it was written, but when sam returned, mitchell offered sam command. and she turned it down. i could have handled that, even if i wanted sam to lead, because a, it would have shown mitchell deferring to the most experienced of the two, b, it would have shown the whys and wherefores of why sam didn't want it or couldn't take it, and c, the writers would have shown that they cared about this subject.
as a sam fan, i don't *have* to have sam lead. i just want the characters to behave in the way i thought they'd behave (from years of watching them). 9 years of knowing sam lead me to believe that she cared about her military career, so seeing her not give a rats behind about being second in command *again*...
just explain, with a scene(s). show respect to the characters. show respect to the fans. show respect to the subject.
sally :)
First of all, for 3 years, Farscape was Scifi Channel's #1 show. It's NUMBER 1 show! When Stargate came to the Scifi Channel, it fell to #2. Farscape was cancelled while it was the #2 show! How many other shows can you think of that were cancelled while they were #2 in the ratings on a particular network? I bet the answer is zero.
The reason Farscape was cancelled was due to a lot of things, and one of the main ones had to do with problems with both Henson and Scifi's parent companies. It was all financial.
As far as how successful it was, just go back and read writeups on the show both while it was on the air and when it was cancelled. The media loved Farscape. It was critically acclaimed almost universally. When critics rave about BSG now, they say it's the best show since Farscape.
As the lead of that show, Ben got a lot of attention from the media, and a lot of praise for bringing Crichton to life. And if you know anything about Farscape, you'll know that the show is about Crichton's journey.
So I have no idea how well Ben is known to the general viewing audience, but to fans of Scifi, he's pretty well known. Here's an example of the difference between Ben and Michael SHanks. When Ben did a guest spot on CSI Miami, TV Guide wrote an article about it. When Michael did his guest spot, TV Guide didn't even mention him in their summary of the ep. When Ben took the job on SG-1, the boards exploded last year. Exploded. Not just at Gateworld, but at sites all across the net that have nothing to do with SG.
Just because you didn't know who Ben was, or because your friends didn't, doesn't mean he's a complete unknown.
There's a big difference between being the lead of a successful, critically acclaimed show and being a secondary character on a show that while successful has never gotten much notice in the mainstream press.
Ben and Farscape got that attention, and he brought all of that to the show. Just look at how all the reviews and articles focused on Ben at the start of this season. This attention was good for the show. And I can't imagine either AT or MS getting that level of attention.
Look, this is business. And the bottom line is that Farscape's ratings were not high enough to justify its enormous budget. It would have been bad business for Scifi to keep producing the show.
And you're right that Scifi canceled Farscape after it dropped to #2. But at the same time it gave the green light for development of a Stargate spinoff.
And I hate to break it to you, but the articles would have focused on whoever the new character was. It wasn't because Ben was special. They focused on MS when he left, they focused on Corin Nemic when came on, and they'll focus on anything that they can write two pages about in the future. MS and AT have been getting "that kind" of publicity for years. I know this will be hard to grasp, but Stargate really is huge. It's been on for 10 years--more than double Farscape's run. The cast of SG-1 has gotten an enormous amount of press. Every single show gets a fair amount of good and bad press, and it is undeniable that Farscape got more than its fair share of bad reviews. Sorry, but your argument is slanted by your blind loyalty to a show that probably should have ended after season 2.
Joe,
There have been two questions regarding Lexa Doig in Season 10. One was posted at Solutions and the other here. Since both these questions have gone unanswered, I am under the impression that either she was not asked back or she was asked back, she declined.
Why am I under this impression? In one of your previous blogs, a comment was posted (I am only posting text):
"Joe, any truth to the rumor that Lexa Doig left the show because of Claudia Black's addtion? Word is that she felt underused and that you guys felt there wasn't enough room for three females on the show. Is this why Sam is being scuttled too?"
Since Michael Shanks did not say anything at the so often mentioned Convention about his wife's return to the show nor has anything has been posted at any website dedicated to her is there any truth to this?
I believe that the call to arms in Ben Browder's and Claudia Black's defence does have many fans worried and rightly so in light of this (if true).
And maybe it should worry and concern Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping, and Christopher Judge, if they have read this blog and comments.
Happy Holiday to all!
Wow...no one's said anything rude, obnoxious or demeaning about Amanda in like over an hour. What are the blog comments coming to???
:rolls eyes sharply:
Might be a good time to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas; and that includes the gracious, delightful, charming and über-talented Amanda Tapping, who I pray never reads the vicious and irresponsible crap written here by crass and disturb(ed/ing) Amanda bashers.
So Feliz Navidad y'all!!!
Mary Beth
Anonymous said:
" When Ben took the job on SG-1, the boards exploded last year. Exploded. Not just at Gateworld, but at sites all across the net that have nothing to do with SG."
Ah yes the boards may have exploded but whatever fans Farscape had it seems the majority have decided to stay clear of Stargate. Ratings - harummmph, not much to crow about there since they have pretty much stayed the same but for the slight differences the increased number of households that carry sci-fi make-up (Farscape had more than 200,000-250,000 viewers didn't it? However, the ratings for Stargate have gone up only by that much or a little more because of the household numbers increase). Where is the influx of fans supposedly brought in by Mr. and Ms.B? Please take your Farscape worship elsewhere - this is Stargate and it has done quite well in the ratings for ummmm 8 years (oooooh that would be exactly double the number of years FS was around)without the Farscape people or its fans (IIRC Stargate became #1 on Sci-Fi over Farscape at #2 sorry FS lovers).
In addition, who's to say how many of any new viewers tuned in for the OTHER BB and LG? I have to believe that TPTB, whoever they are, had to think that the addition of BB, CB, Beau Bridges, a well known main stream actor AND Lou Gossett, another well known main stream actor, would garner a lot more viewers than they seem to have gotten - please 200,000 - 250,000 viewers for a 2.0. After last seasons 2.4 start I really thought that Stargate's numbers would be huge with these so-called "names" being added - boy was I wrong and I wasn't even one of TPTB spending what likely amounts to very big dollars to hire these people and then pimping them unmercifully, especially Mr. and Ms. B. Talk about a disappointment in expectations with so many "big" names.
Jean
Dear Santa,
All I want for Christmas is Stargate SG-1 with all the characters I've grown to love front and center and for everybody who's a fan of the show to put aside their differences and be able to discuss the show, it's changes, TPTB, and the actors with respect and perhaps even a little dignity.
And if you manage to pull that one off there's also that world peace issue that you might want to take a look at. And possibly curing cancer.
Shipperahoy
To add to your Christmas wish, Shipperahoy, I would say for all fans to treat all other fans, new, old, of any actor, satisfied with the current season, or disatisfied, with respect.
Amen Dani.
Shipperahoy
hey Joe, you must be celebtrating Christmas Eve right now...
Just been on this thread on which we can ask you some questions and one particularly caught my attention
A fan was asking if there would be a story with TEYLA and WEIR " friendship" or if we would see at least A BIT of it... ( In season 3)
and you answered:
"No story that specifically centers on the relationship between these two. However, there are still plenty of stories to tell in season 3"
First, how smart is that! You just lost all the fans that were expecting it to happen... you could at least have told them that you didn't know, that would have given them HOPE! you know, just like you did with Sam and Jack???
Then, how can you know for sure that the subject won't be treated? Have you already written the 20 episodes?
How come you guys don't wanna write any stories " girls related", are you that bad? You definitly love Mckay and Sheppard, but what about the others? In NINE YEARS, sam had been a good scientist, a good soldier.... But on the human plan... you guys screwed up!
If you don't feel like writing for the women, well, hire some to do it... Have you read that 50% of the people watching sci fi were women? And they don't just watch to see Sheppard getting laid with " the babe of the week"
Hire some people capable of writing for women, or don't create any female characters, we're tired of seing them in the background.
( unfortunatly after 9 years of Stargate and from what we saw of Atlantis, we understood that there would be no continuity nor characters development... You guys just don't care... But there is something that wasn't here two years ago .. BATTLESTAR GALLACTICA ... these guys know how to deal with HUMAN BEINGS - because, yes, your characters are human beings - and they're gonna "FRACK YOU DOWN" )
Oh good, so you don't hate a fake character, you hate an actual person who you've probably never met and certainly don't know, along with the fans who support her. Glad we cleared that up. Who's the fool now?
I think that would be you little darlings swinging on dear old Mandy's string, myself. Her and her pitbull publicist. Why assume that people who don't like her don't know her, eh? (Hate is such a strong word for such a sterotypical little two bit actress.) Far as I can see it's the "fans" who don't know her who are the only ones who buy all that sweet as pie "we're all one big family" crap. Why do you think she has to have her own pet fanatics run a special convention all for her now? Grow some common sense and go back and re-read a few interviews carefully and you might pick up on who really likes who on that happy family set. I guarantee it would be an eye opener for all of you. ;)
Guess we'll have to hold off on that curing cancer thing.
I think that would be you little darlings swinging on dear old Mandy's string, myself. Her and her pitbull publicist. Why assume that people who don't like her don't know her, eh? (Hate is such a strong word for such a sterotypical little two bit actress.) Far as I can see it's the "fans" who don't know her who are the only ones who buy all that sweet as pie "we're all one big family" crap. Why do you think she has to have her own pet fanatics run a special convention all for her now? Grow some common sense and go back and re-read a few interviews carefully and you might pick up on who really likes who on that happy family set. I guarantee it would be an eye opener for all of you. ;)
Hey asshole - you're a f***wit. Do you seriously believe anyone will buy into your crap? Because if you do, you really need to go outside and get a fking clue. Because you are so far up yourself you dont know which way is down.
But hey, what should I expect? If this blog is anything to go by, this is expected of a Daniel/MS ranter. No wonder you guys have such a reputation as complete and utter wankers outside of the Stargate fandom.
And you want an eye opener? Here's one for you - YOU ARE A SCORN UPON SOCIETY. PISS OFF BACK TO WHATEVER HOLE YOU CAME FROM.
Yes, I know two wrongs don't make a right, but that tosser had it coming.
So...you know Amanda? I mean that's what you're alluding to in your ever so conveniently anonymous post. Whether you do or not (and I sincerely doubt this is the case), you clearly have a grievance with her. So why make broad stroke accusations against her on blog comments? Seems a bit, oh I don't know, petty and insipid, to make statements such as you have and then generously suggest that we get a clue.
Well, how 'bout you break it down for us sweetheart...you have our attention...seeing as you've continually posted anti-Amanda rhetoric on these blog comments, you can't help but have our attention. Please...feel free to shatter our pathetic allusions and do tell us of the "real" Amanda who done you so wrong.
Scratch that. How about writing an article and submitting it somewhere for publication...like on OS or Sony...they'd eat it up over there you know.
Bottom line, you my dear are what is commonly referred to in these here parts as a troll who apparently has nothing better to do on Christmas Eve then make nasty statements about someone I've been following for a long time and have a few friends who know her personally...btw, none of them back up your "evil Amanda" interpretation. Don't know about the publicist though so I can't comment there.
As for me, I'm here because I have a headache and can't sleep and thought I'd read maybe some nice Christmas wishes for Joe. Fat chance of that though, eh?
Merry Christmas, Joe...you're all right in my book.
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya...
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya...
hey mate, I'll happily join in that - as long as those arse wanks like that anonymous poster 4 posts up is far, far away from this fandom
by 4 i actually meant 5... sorry Dani347. think i've had a few to many chrissy beers :\
think i've had a few to many chrissy beers :\
either that or you can't count :P
As a matter of fact, I have noticed that MS and CJ almost never mention AT in their interviews or con appearances anymore, and even Teryl managed to avoid mentioning her in a con appearance. I've heard actors only get that mad about money, so perhaps something went on in contract negotiations a season or two ago. More fodder for that tell-all book that will never be written :)
Happy Holidays, all!
"I think that would be you little darlings swinging on dear old Mandy's string, myself. Her and her pitbull publicist. Why assume that people who don't like her don't know her, eh? (Hate is such a strong word for such a sterotypical little two bit actress.) Far as I can see it's the "fans" who don't know her who are the only ones who buy all that sweet as pie "we're all one big family" crap. Why do you think she has to have her own pet fanatics run a special convention all for her now? Grow some common sense and go back and re-read a few interviews carefully and you might pick up on who really likes who on that happy family set. I guarantee it would be an eye opener for all of you. ;)"
Whatever sweetie, you're obviously so biased against Amanda that you'll spin anything to make her look bad. Put up some real, verifiable facts or go back under your bridge.
Let's face it, you hate (and yes darling, hate is an appropriate word for you since you're spending all your time spewing your poison) a character, the actress, and her fans simply because she got in the way of your pwecious Danny. Got any time to spew at the writers as well? Because it's just as much their fault that they didn't know what to do with Daniel before MS left. Maybe it's time to place blame where blame is due rather than looking for a scapegoat. But that would be too difficult, wouldn't it?
**I think that would be you little darlings swinging on dear old Mandy's string, myself. Her and her pitbull publicist. Why assume that people who don't like her don't know her, eh? (Hate is such a strong word for such a sterotypical little two bit actress.) Far as I can see it's the "fans" who don't know her who are the only ones who buy all that sweet as pie "we're all one big family" crap. Why do you think she has to have her own pet fanatics run a special convention all for her now? Grow some common sense and go back and re-read a few interviews carefully and you might pick up on who really likes who on that happy family set. I guarantee it would be an eye opener for all of you. ;)**
Sci-Fi TV shows and their fans; sigh. Why is it that it's only Science Fiction show that have conventions where fans get to dress up and see the actors? Why don't all regular old TV shows have conventions (a West Wing Convention, A CSI convention, etc.?) Why is it just Sci-Fi? I really don't know.
At any rate, fans go to the cons, say a few words to their favorite actor, have a picture taken with them and feel as if they "know" the actor personally, become enamored of them, obsessed with them, etc. While I would dearly love to see RDA (at a convention,) I have to say I also like the way he doesn't get involved in that kind of stuff -- be it whether he just feels uncomfortable or whatever his reason. I like that he's a bit of a mystery.
To the point, shit brain, I (along with many many fans) don't care at all if AT is nice, if MS and CJ are best friends, who likes who on the set. This isn't a popularity contest. All I/we care about is the acting...that these people...these actors do their job well and provide us with entertainment. We may like their "style" or not, think they are very good looking, but most of us are not worshippers of the actors and don't give a damned about anything other than that they do their jobs well.
Really, you're the one who sounds like a pit bull. And like the other poster mentioned, I can't help by believe you are an obsessed Daniel fan. I don't believe you know AT at all and even if you did, and even if WHAT you said was true, I don't care. It's the acting, doofus.
"It's the acting, doofus."
Exactly, thank you for pointing out Mandy's weakness for me. Michael is truly unrecognized greatness, though that's all about to change now that he's got his SAG card. He belongs in the same league as Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman. Hell, he'd measure up to Olivier any day of the weak. I know who I'd rather see play Hamlet. When Stargate's just a memory Michael Shanks will be a household name, and you'll all realize the truth of my words.
"Whatever sweetie, you're obviously so biased against Amanda that you'll spin anything to make her look bad. Put up some real, verifiable facts or go back under your bridge.
Let's face it, you hate (and yes darling, hate is an appropriate word for you since you're spending all your time spewing your poison) a character, the actress, and her fans simply because she got in the way of your pwecious Danny. Got any time to spew at the writers as well? Because it's just as much their fault that they didn't know what to do with Daniel before MS left. Maybe it's time to place blame where blame is due rather than looking for a scapegoat. But that would be too difficult, wouldn't it?"
Oh yeah!?!?
Well, Daniel rulz!!!1!!!
Carter droolz!!!ONE!!!!
As a matter of fact, I have noticed that MS and CJ almost never mention AT in their interviews or con appearances anymore, and even Teryl managed to avoid mentioning her in a con appearance. I've heard actors only get that mad about money, so perhaps something went on in contract negotiations a season or two ago. More fodder for that tell-all book that will never be written :)
I suspect that's because MS and CJ are too involved with the more important issues such as throwing food at each other, telling farting and other bodily function jokes. So many things to do, so little time.
They don't often mention Rick either, and when they have, it's not especially in such glowing terms (especially Chris).
Many possibilities; perhaps both CJ and MS are jealous of AT; I suspect they are glad Rick is gone because they believe it will give them more airtime - airtime which they believe they rightfully deserve and always have. I wonder how often they will be singing the praises of Claudia Black next year when *she* starts taking away from their airtime.
One just never knows.....
Darol
**Exactly, thank you for pointing out Mandy's weakness for me. Michael is truly unrecognized greatness, though that's all about to change now that he's got his SAG card. He belongs in the same league as Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman. Hell, he'd measure up to Olivier any day of the weak. I know who I'd rather see play Hamlet. When Stargate's just a memory Michael Shanks will be a household name, and you'll all realize the truth of my words.**
I think MS is a decent actor, the best of all of them on Stargate. But I'd never put him in the great category. Interesting...I watched Miami CSI with 3 people who'd never seen MS before. I asked them what they thought. Their impression was that he was cute and OK, but nothing at all outstanding. This appearance is going to launch him into the rarefied atmosphere imhabited by the likes of Dustin Hoffman and Olivier? ??This is something...well, it could only come from a Danny Ranter. It's especially funny because I'd seen these exact same things said on OS --do you guys have a talking points manual?
I must ask if he's such a genuis and will become a household name, why you are so upset and clearly jealous of AT? If this enourmous greatness of talent is so clearly going to be recognized, how on earth could AT keep him down on the farm?
Stargate is a science fiction show on a cable channel. It's premise is to entertain. NONE of the actors, IMO, are great or anywhere near that. NONE of the writing (with a few exceptions) is anywhere near stellar. It's not meaning of life stuff, it's a cable TV show (and second rate IMO compared to Babylon 5). However, I enjoy it very much and I think all of the actors do a good job. Again, I don't care who is nice or naughty, who is popular or not. I'm only concerned with the acting and where you see greatness, I sometimes see a man who overacts, screws up his face for his "confused" look all too often, etc.
Bu carry on with the talking points....
//Oh yeah!?!?
Well, Daniel rulz!!!1!!!
Carter droolz!!!ONE!!!!//
OK...OK...with that bit of meaningful writing, you've convinced me. MS is the next Olivier; he will be recognized as the best actor that ever existed. All will worship him, OK? Now, be a good little person and go take your pills.
Chadra
"When Stargate's just a memory Michael Shanks will be a household name, and you'll all realize the truth of my words."
Uh huh. So why didn't Mr. Shanks make it big when he left Stargate the first time, or are you going to somehow try and blame Ms. Tapping for that as well? Next time try an argument with a little more logic.
Merry Christmas, Joe! I can only hope that Michael is much more of a pleasure to deal with than his delusional fanatics.
Wrapping her self in an American flag didn't help, selling her baby's exact birth time and date to MGM for a contest didn't help (did anyone ever see who won by the way?), now we have the pity card being played.
You know what is really funny? The only people here who are whining about Ben and Claudia and Farscape and carrying on about Farscape being cancelled are the Sam fans.
**You know what is really funny? The only people here who are whining about Ben and Claudia and Farscape and carrying on about Farscape being cancelled are the Sam fans.**
Well that's funny because I'm not a Sam fan at all and I'm silently "whining" about Ben and Claudia. I loved Farscape and was sorry to see it cancelled; however, I think Mitchell is a poorly written character and terribly boring. And while I think CB is a very fine actress, IMO, Vala just reduces the level of the show to embarrassment and clichés.
And, by the way, wrapping oneself in the American flag is neither her nor there for me.
Not a Sam fan
To all you sad people spouting such anger and hatred on this day, I wish you tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy...oh and...peace on Earth and goodwill to all men (and women). :o)
yabyumpan
This post has been removed by the author.
jeff said: Wrapping her self in an American flag didn't help, selling her baby's exact birth time and date to MGM for a contest didn't help (did anyone ever see who won by the way?), now we have the pity card being played.//
here's that open to interpretation thinger again.
i think amanda tapping is beautiful, and i'm a straight woman. so when amanda posed for those femme fatale photos, i thought she looked great. GREAT! there was nothing slutty or too revealing about them, which says a lot considering i didn't like any of the other photos in that mag. can you tell me what was wrong with those photos to you?
the exact birth time/date for that mgm contest? again, what was wrong with that?
the pity card? is she *asking* any of her fans to write in and/or defend her?
if any of this stuff would happen to get out of hand, i'm sure amanda would jump in (like she did already) and try to lighten the situation. (can that be said about the others?)
//You know what is really funny? The only people here who are whining about Ben and Claudia and Farscape and carrying on about Farscape being cancelled are the Sam fans.//
i can't speak for other sam/amanda fans, but you want to know why? because ben's and claudia's characters are literally replacing amanda's. sam had the sg1 leader role and mitchell has taken that. sam had the former host with abilities role and they've given that to vala. and the funny thing is, it didn't have to be written that way. so it's not (for me) complaining that ben and claudia are on this show, it's that mitchell and vala have taken some of sam's roles. and now the writers say that don't know what to do with sam...
i said this in a recent post on gateworld, but *everything* that i loved about this show has been taken away or screwed with this season. (i'm looking for the light at the end of the tunnel, but i can't even see the tunnel anymore)
sally :)
As a matter of fact, I have noticed that MS and CJ almost never mention AT in their interviews or con appearances anymore, and even Teryl managed to avoid mentioning her in a con appearance.
Interesting, I was at a convention about a month ago with eryl, and she had no problem in talking about Amanda both on stage and off... So, what type of question was asked that Teryl ignored? Or did she just get distracted (as I have seen happen many a time to many a actor)?
Why don't MS and CJ talk about Amanda all the time - maybe it could be the questions they are asked at the conventions? Not all questions are conducive to meantioning their co-stars at all points. Also they spend a good chunk of the time goofing off with each other - so...
As for Amanda 'selling' the date and time of her childs birth to MGM. Here's the thing, MGM had a contract with her, they can do whatever publicity stunt they like - with or without her permission - and as this didn't so much directly involve her, they probably just informed her of it.
I don't understand why so many hate this woman... It makes no sense, and it just makes those people sound very petty. All in all, she gets a long with people on set, it's a happy set (because why else would they be doing a 10th season, no body would subject themselves to a hateful or tense environment for that long, 'specially when the actors have obviously been getting other offers.
Sheesh, you don't like her character Sam, you don't like the way that she acts - fair enough. There is no need for a personal character assasination though. It's a shameful display of unprecidentated hatred. And geez, 'tis the holiday season - buck up and act like a decent human being. I personally can only hope that Amanda never reads this, because she is a great actress, and a few 'anonymous' opinions are not going to make me think otherwise. Actually the anonymous opinions make me question the characters of those people complaining.
Merry Christmas, Joe. Merry Christmas one and all. Here's hoping the new year is a prosperous one and that everyone gets what they deserve. ;)
Not A Sam Fan said:
"Well that's funny because I'm not a Sam fan at all and I'm silently "whining" about Ben and Claudia. I loved Farscape and was sorry to see it cancelled; however, I think Mitchell is a poorly written character and terribly boring. And while I think CB is a very fine actress, IMO, Vala just reduces the level of the show to embarrassment and clichés."
All of that goes for me too. I'd hate to think that just because I'm not on this blog or the forums letting my dissatisfaction be known 24 hours a day that people are convinced that I'm therefore happy. I'm not. I find Vala to be a cliche, but do think she could be a decent recurring character. She certainly has fit in better than Mitchell. I think Mitchell is the most poorly written and concieved character in SG-1's history. I have yet to see any real justification for his presence, and I have yet to see him bring anything to the show other than flat, poorly delivered one liners and a warm body. Every single one of the stories this season have been run through the characters of Daniel, Teal'c, and Carter, save Last Sam--I mean Babylon. Mitchell contributes nothing. I haven't been convinced by Joe Mallozzi's or anyone else's argument that Mitchell is the right man to be leading SG-1. The most laughable, to me, is the notion that Mitchell is "a manager", keeping the other three focused. Thanks, but I'm pretty sure none of those other three heroes need to be managed, let alone by someone with so little to bring to the table. I find the entire idea of Mitchell "leading" these three people such a stretch of reality that it literally drags down every scene he's in for me. No character on SG-1 has gotten this kind of free ride on the show, and certainly not from the writers.
Anyhoo, I just want to reiterate the fact that just because not everyone constantly complains mean that the silent are necessarily happy. Things couldn't get much worse or much more implausible than they are now.
Sunil
A First Time Poster
don't understand why so many hate this woman... It makes no sense, and it just makes those people sound very petty. ...
I think you really need to keep it in perspective. If you check out OS and the Sony Forums, you will find that it is probably about 30 people who post the same thing on both forums; they are the "regular posters" who keep saying the same thing repeatedly. Solutions has a bit of a crossover from OS and Sony in terms of those same people posting there. GateWorld, generally speaking, does have some crossover of posters from OS, but not that many.
Although we can post Anonymously here, many of the people who post here are the same as those who post on the online forums.
Of course there are those, like myself, who used to like Sam and don't like the character so much anymore due to the writing; which is completely the writers' fault/responsibility, not Amanda's. Others may just think the character is boring; always has been. However, GENERALLY speaking, 95% of those who HATE HATE the character, want her removed from the show, can't stand to watch her on the show and love to bash AT personally (while denying they are doing so) are huge Daniel fans, those Danny ranters who blame the character for taking Daniel's place with Jack, who blame the Sam/Jack 'ship' as it were, for Shanks' decision to leave the show. They hate the fact that Sam seems to get more attention than Daniel, that she was called the 'national treasure, etc.
These very vocal fans spend a great deal of time on the 'Net voicing their opinions. I would say there are probably no more than 25-30 of them, 50 tops, but they seem to have little else to do with their time but show their hatred for a fictional character and the actress who plays her.
So...anyway it's not really 'so many' that hate this woman, just mostly the obsessed Daniel/MS fans who post quite prolifically in any venue they can. And they also (generally speaking) love Vala because they think more Vala equals more Daniel. They also can be identified by the use of such phrases as "5/4 episode mini-series" and the "second original team".
Be aware of them and if you come across one of them while out walking one day, keep walking; DO NOT - I repeat - DO NOT engage them in conversation. They believe passionately (these obsessed Danny ranters) in their god and won't be swayed.
Riata
I get it:
"M.M."= Manager Mitchell
It's all so clear to me now. Daniel, Teal'c, and Carter didn't need a manager last year, and they certainly got along fine without Jack "managing" them. Isn't that just a euphemism for saying he's not necessary and just tagging along? Isn't repeatedly saying how Carter, Teal'c, and Daniel "know what their about" and "each lead when they need to" conceding that he's the victim of happy and fortunate circumstance? That he "snuck on" to the team while everyone was away and now they're all too kind to kick him to the curb? Leader...what a joke.
Okay... everyone take a deep breath...
It's a television show. A show that presumably everyone reading and posting on this blog enjoy. If you really hate the direction of the storylines or the acting by any of the actors, maybe you need to find a new show...
Please stop bashing the actors and Joe. It's one thing to criticize the nameless "Powers that Be" and completely different to make rude, nasty and even psychotic personal remarks about the actors or writers.
I love all the characters. I especially like Daniel Jackson-- I would love to see more Daniel-centric stories. I like Sam and Teal'c- I dislike ship in anyform and most of the recent Jaffa stories have kind of bored me. If I were a writer (PTB), I would try to do more team-centered fics. I would try give all of the actors, more opportunities to showcase their talents... However, I don't work for Bridge Studios, so my opinions don't affect the show. And I'm still watching and even reading this silly blog and all the comments...
To the incredibly nasty person who made the "Mandy" comments. Please refrain from making such attacks on any of the actors again. You make all the fans look like nuts. Honestly, I adore Daniel; I read and post at the largely Daniel-centric forums, but I've never encountered that level of nastiness towards any of the actors or characters.
Joe, if you waded through this mess, I hope you had a blessed Christmas and a wonderful time with your family. I look forward to the second 1/2 of Season 9 and all of Season 10.
Peace to All!
***To the incredibly nasty person who made the "Mandy" comments. Please refrain from making such attacks on any of the actors again. You make all the fans look like nuts. Honestly, I adore Daniel; I read and post at the largely Daniel-centric forums, but I've never encountered that level of nastiness towards any of the actors or characters.***
Now, ya see that's odd because I lurk at the Daniel-centric forums as well. And I've seen plenty of nastiness expressed towards Sam and AT -- more than plenty of nasty personal comments about AT's physical appearance, her personality -- nothing is sparred. The mods will only step in when it goes to the extreme. It's open season there on Sam AND AT -- fanatics are OK as long as they are YOUR fanatics right?
My suggestion is that you should ask the people at OS and Sony to refrain from making nasty comments about AT. Wouldn't matter, I guess, because when someone does have the audacity to say something, they are told by the mods that the MODS will do the moderating, not the posters and then do nothing.
Your sentiments are noble, but I think you should clean out your own playground before you attempt to tell others what to say.
Charlece
I've haven't bashed the producers of this show for the past eight years. And I don't think that the majority of posters here are "bashing". But, Joe Mallozzi's behavior and level of condescension as of late has been completely out of line. He knew damn well that there would be criticism of the Mitchell and Vala characters. He certainly knew it after the first few episodes of season nine. The fact that he has made a habit out of coming online just to rub it in people's faces how unhappy they are with the single-vision focus on Mitchell and Vala is childish and petulant. People voice valid concerns and responds with an attitude that comes off as opinions other than his are worthless. He purposefully has tried to make the critics of season nine feel marginalized and unwelcome. And for that he has lost any of the respect I once had for him.
Melissa Harper
Thank you Rita - now as to the nasty posters who are attacking AT personally - Kalliope I think it's time for you, and your band of merry men, to get professional help. (If I were Claudia Black, Michael Shanks or Ben Browder I would be seriously afraid of these people, and I would be embarrased by the behaviour of those OTT, petty, immature, insolent, brats (how old are you 12?). As it is they give Daniel/MS and Vala/CB fans a very bad name.)
Roberta
Oh I forgot - I agree with the poster that commented on Joe's incredibly bad attitude towards anyone that expresses dislike, or criticicm; criticism he cannot invalidate with his contrived excuses therefore he continues to delve deeper and deeper into the well reaaaaally reeeeeaching for excuses especially when it comes to Mitchell and Vala - it is perfectly clear that he is under some sort of order to defend these 2 characters at any cost, even his dignity.
Joe: You may think you sound cool, you may think you sound funny, you may think you are clever, you may think you can lead the fans around by their noses, you may think you sound unbiased, you may think you sound reasonable, you may think you sound logical or believable; look around you Joe - think again.
As Lt. Colonel Henry Blake once said to Major Frank Burns: "it's after 10 p.m. you can stop being snotty".
Roberta
"The fact that he has made a habit out of coming online just to rub it in people's faces how unhappy they are with the single-vision focus on Mitchell and Vala is childish and petulant."
My coming online to discuss the show is nothing new. I've been doing it for going on 6+ years now. I'm not sure what you mean by "rub it in people's faces" but I can only assume its your being unusually sensitive to my disagreeing with your take on the issue.
"Joe's incredibly bad attitude towards anyone that expresses dislike, or criticicm"
Feel free to direct me to examples of this. As I've already explained, I have no problem with people offering criticism. I'm simply stating a counterpoint to the critiques. This is my blog, after all, so chances are good that I wil read and respond. If, as a handful of you have demonstrated, you are too thin-skinned to both criticize AND accept criticism, then you may want to consider playing elsewhere.
Ooh can I play? :D
Joe...how did your Christmas go?
Mary Beth
"If, as a handful of you have demonstrated, you are too thin-skinned to both criticize AND accept criticism, then you may want to consider playing elsewhere."
You see, that's it. Fans are criticising the direction of the show, the new characters, the lack of team, etc. In short, they're criticising the work. You're critisizing the people.
This post has been removed by the author.
what would make me happy enough? if the writers had addressed the issues that they *had* been adressing for years. (the ones they made me interested in to begin with)
my issues are a, rda/jack, and his seemingly non-existence now. b, sam's demotion to second in command again. even if you accept the co-leaders thing, it's *still* less than what she had last season. and c, the YEARS s/j ship storyline that's been dropped.
so what would make me happy enough?
how hard is it to give the reason why jack quit the sgc and what he's *really* doing now?
how hard is it to let sam keep her command OR give the reasons why she either can't accept it or doesn't want it anymore?
how hard is it to continue the s/j ship with hints and admissions, even if you can't *show* it because jack isn't on the show anymore?
are these things *that* much of a problem to address? would they take up 'that' much time?
speaking only for myself, i would be a LOT happier of a fan, even if i wasn't that thrilled with the other *new* aspects of the show. my loyalty and interests lie with the old show, not the new one and its new characters. but make me happy and i'd follow this show into any new incarnation. seriously.
i guess what i like is not interesting or important to the show anymore.
sally :)
Handful? Sorry Joe - your handful is really a boatload - just because you don't want to see it or admit it. This year you got trouble with a capital T.
Justin
Since this is your blog I do hope you have seen the nasty, nasty comments made about Ms Tapping and here's hoping your defense of a long time colleague is as thoughtful and determined as the defense you put up for Mr. Browder in an earlier blog.
I think it's an issue of balance...being true to the continuity and themes of the series while introducing new characters, bad guys etc. that way new audiences are pulled in and old audiences still feel comfortable and recognize the show.
And this is JMHO, but I think that perhaps TOO much focus was given to the "brand new" SG-1 and not enough to the things that made up the "classic" SG-1.
Maybe next year...
MB
"Joe...how did your Christmas go?"
So far, so good. My in-laws and guest are play MJ in the next room, so I'm taking a break. How was yours?
"In short, they're criticising the work. You're critisizing the people."
No, I'm responding to the questions and concerns fans are expressing here. For instance, they'll present an argument for why Mitchell isn't worthy to lead SG-1 and I'll present a counter-argument.
"My suggestion is that you should ask the people at OS and Sony to refrain from making nasty comments about AT. Wouldn't matter, I guess, because when someone does have the audacity to say something, they are told by the mods that the MODS will do the moderating, not the posters and then do nothing."
There are moderators at the Sony forum? That's news to me. They don't seem to do much, if anything at all. As it stands, Sony forum is a pathetic excuse for an official Stargate forum. It should welcome all fans but instead it's just another clique website that panders to a select group of Dannyranters that have nowhere else to spew. Way to go, Sony. Who'd have thought that a company that puts out shoddy Stargate DVD box sets also puts out a shoddy Stargate forum?
"Handful? Sorry Joe - your handful is really a boatload - just because you don't want to see it or admit it. This year you got trouble with a capital T."
Fans have been offering criticism/praise for the show going back as far as I can remember. Changes will, of course, engender reaction, both positive and negative. A portion of the show's fans who maintain an internet presence are unhappy with the show's new direction. Last year, a portion of the show's fans who maintain an internet presence expressed a dissatisfaction with some of the more personal Carter storylines. Years ago, a portion of the show's fans who maintain an internet presence were quite vocal about the departure of Daniel Jackson and the introduction of Jonas Quinn. And yet here we are, heading into season 10. The show has had a great run. Frankly, twice as long as any of would have imagined back in season 4. Fans may not always agree with the decisions the writers make, but clearly enough fans have enjoyed those decisions.
"And this is JMHO, but I think that perhaps TOO much focus was given to the "brand new" SG-1 and not enough to the things that made up the "classic" SG-1."
A good point and, frankly, one well-taken. I've already stated that season 9 was like the beginning of a new show. As such, a significant amount of time was spent on establishing the new villains, new characters, and the new dynamic. Once the groundwork is set, we're able to move forward and hopefully tell the types of "classic" stories you enjoyed.
JMallozzi said...
So far, so good. My in-laws and guest are play MJ in the next room, so I'm taking a break. How was yours?
Pretty darn good actually. Finances are tight this year so the gift exchanges were sparce...but you know, that kind of is a good thing as it took the focus off of the gifts and brought it back to the true meaning of Christmas.
Plus, with less time spent on gifts, more time was spent on more important stuff like spending time with my folks (I'm at their house for the holidays) and enjoying a well-cooked meal my mother prepared (plus my mashed potatoes are to die for, if I do say so myself). :D
Dumb question...MJ...that's MahJong, right?
MB
"and enjoying a well-cooked meal my mother prepared (plus my mashed potatoes are to die for, if I do say so myself). :D"
Intriguiiiing. And what makes your mashed potatoes so special?
"Dumb question...MJ...that's MahJong, right?"
Not a dumb question at all. In fact, I wondered if anyone would know what I was referring to. MahJong it is.
Joe wrote:
....The show has had a great run. Frankly, twice as long as any of would have imagined back in season 4. Fans may not always agree with the decisions the writers make, but clearly enough fans have enjoyed those decisions.
Has had is the operative phrase. But that was before you decided to write the boring, inexperienced character of Mitchell as the leader of SG-1 and have Vala pop out a sproglet. My low pleasure threshhold only extends so far, as I suspect do others. And that's not a sentiment from just a portion of the fans who maintain an internet
Oh, and by the way, had RDA quit after Season 5, you know full well there would be no S10. Still boggles my mind that you guys would be so petty and insulting as to handle Jack's departure as you did. And that's not just a sentiment from a portion of the fans who maintain an internet presence. If my non-internet friends who are Stargate viewers ever got a hold of you, they'd give you a swift kick in your arse for that.
Anonymous Other Blogger
Joe Mallozzi said: "Feel free to direct me to examples of this."
Roberta says:
Mr. Mallozzi - you post at 3 venues, that I am aware of. Your blog now has dozens of actual entries by you and thousands of posts by yourself, and posters. Solutions now has hundreds of posts and Gateworld has over 3500 posts. I am not going to go back over each of these sites with a pick ax (at least not right now a few examples follow though).
I am sure that you know many of your actual BLOG entries here, your posts here, your posts at Solutions and at Gateworld are petty, sarcastic and condescending. The one thing that seems to be common is the fact that each and every time your posts take on one of these attitudes it is in response to posts or a poster that expresses criticism of S9 or the newest (beloved by TPTB) characters. It is also happening on Solutions where you are, of course, responding to fellow lovers of Mitchell and Vala and you take the opportunity there to make disrespectful, arrogant digs at those who criticize S9, or Mitchell or Vala, such as the last two sentences in your post at No. 251 at Solutions, or the dig at Solutions you made about those who express dislike of Vala having their logic clouded, or the dig here in one of your Blog posts wherein you made a remark about the poster watching it twice in syndication even though they express their dislike of it (petty and condescending) and lest we forget the "I thank Cardinal Vanderplaankt for coming by and offering me the theology lesson although I don't really know what he's referring to by "Joe's own personal internet conduct". I try to treat all fans in a respectful manner. Even the dolt who posted the aforementioned comment" comment, and there are others but those are the quick ones off the top of my head.
As I said I am not going to weed through thousands of posts on 3 different sites, at least not tonight. The examples I gave you should suffice for now as an indicator that you are not all peaches and cream yourself, sir.
We get that you have to pimp the new guys at any cost, (and the ever growing number of fans who are openly criticizing TPTB, Mitchell and the co-command situation inparticular, and the direction of the show, put pressure on PTB to make excuses), we get that the older characters and stories are no longer important to TPTB, we get that the show is desperate to succeed with this new style - you do not have to crush and alienate and disrespect so many of the old fans who have helped to keep this show on the air for 9, now 10, years.
A little honesty in the treatment of the beloved old characters, a little reassurance that the beloved, old characters, the ones so many of the fans STILL watch for, will not be flung to the side of the road in favor of the new male lead and hot babe is really all that many fans are asking for. Instead they get disrespectful sarcasm that borders on sounding petulant and the all Mitchell and Vala defense all of the time (where is that defense when all of the nasty Danny Ranters come out to play and rip Sam apart for the past 2 years? I have never once seen you take to the inet at any of the places you frequent for the past 6 years and put up a defense of any other character (in particular Carter because of the diatribes that certain, far-reaching Sam-haters spew out) of the kind you are making now for Mitchell, and to a lesser extent Vala. This season your entire focus of defense has been Mitchell and Vala in order to try and convince fans to like and accept them and it does appear to be a bias towards the new characters and actors, whether it is there or not. (As they say in the corporate ethics world, even the appearance of impropriety will get you in trouble). This appearance of bias is contributing to the problem.
If and when I have time I will gather more examples, the few given are off the top of my head.
Roberta
JMallozzi said...
Intriguiiiing. And what makes your mashed potatoes so special?
It's all in the TLC...taking great care in the texture and consistency of the potatoes while cooking them and then flavoring with the right seasonings so it melts in one's mouth.
I have two jobs for the Thanksgiving and Christmas meals...mashed potatoes and a broccoli and cheese casserole dish (broccoli and Velveeta cheese with a crumbled Ritz cracker [softened by butter] topping)...and I take pride in my cooking as I see it as another creative outlet.
Oh and just in case anyone would like the directions for that casserole, feel free to private message me...I love exchanging recipes and that one is an easy dish that disappears fast.
:D
Mary Beth
Joe - was Sam demoted? If your take is that she was not how does that jive with her having her command taken away from her (and from what I can see it was taken away, when it did not have to be, through decisions made by the PTB. I read your reasons above and sorry but I am not buying those). Is her position on SG1 as secure and significant as it was when she was it's only leader in S8? If so how - what exactly is her position now and how is it as important as being the only leader of SG1? Who does Sam report to?
Carole
"If and when I have time I will gather more examples, the few given are off the top of my head."
Interestingly, you fail to put the aforementioned responses in "context". Feel free to look up the posts I was responding to. Those fans who post in a respectful manner, regardless of what opinion they happen to express, will be responded to in a respectful manner. Those who choose to be insulting in their posts should should demonstrate a little more backbone.
As for my comments on the Solutions forum, they were sad statements of fact in direct reference to some of the arguments that have been put forth by criticism of Mitchell's leadership. There have been some good arguments made that I personally disagree with. There have also been some unintentionally hilarious arguments made: ie. Mitchell's loud talking was what alerted the Sodan to their presence in Babylon, therefore he shouldn't be leading SG-1. His loud talking alerted the Sodan? As I stated on the Solutions boards: Why not blame just blame his strong after-shave?
"It's all in the TLC...taking great care in the texture and consistency of the potatoes while cooking them and then flavoring with the right seasonings so it melts in one's mouth."
Feel free to post your recipes here. Believe me, they'll be more appreicated by most than some of the recent posts I've read.
Its funny, but the last time I made mashed potatoes, things ended disastrously - but provided fodder for a russet potatoe reference I wrote into Lockdown,
"Joe - was Sam demoted?"
Of course not. Sam, the character, chose to leave SG-1 so that she could spend more time with Cassie and concentrate on R&D.
"If your take is that she was not how does that jive with her having her command taken away from her (and from what I can see it was taken away, when it did not have to be, through decisions made by the PTB. I read your reasons above and sorry but I am not buying those)."
The character's command was not taken away from her. She gave it up to pursue other interests.
"Is her position on SG1 as secure and significant as it was when she was it's only leader in S8?"
Her position on SG-1 is as secure as its ever been. Did you feel her position on the team was less secure in the years leading up to season 8?
"If so how - what exactly is her position now and how is it as important as being the only leader of SG1? Who does Sam report to?"
Sam, like Mitchell, report to General Landry.
I'd like to add to the poster above:
How can we feel that Sam's not been demoted and that her position is safe with this talk of reducing the character to recurring status? Splitting Carter's time between the shows will marginalize her importance to the SG-1 team. At least further marginalize it. You've done a bang up job already on that front. Since you've told us that Vala will be in 20 episodes, can't you tell us that Carter will be?
I know, I know, Vala has no place on Atlantis. Let's face it, no one but McKay and man of mystery, Sheph0r do.
"How can we feel that Sam's not been demoted and that her position is safe with this talk of reducing the character to recurring status?"
Amanda has signed a 20 episode deal. That is full-time, not recurring.
"Splitting Carter's time between the shows will marginalize her importance to the SG-1 team. At least further marginalize it."
Carter will continue to maintain a strong presence on SG-1.
"Since you've told us that Vala will be in 20 episodes, can't you tell us that Carter will be?"
The truth is, any of the cast members could make an appearance or two on Atlantis and thereby be lighter in a corresponding episode or two of SG-1. At present, we don't even have a story in the works that would have Carter on Atlantis.
Joe said:
"...reference I wrote into Lockdown..."
Are you nuts? Referring to Lockdown? You're just asking to be spanked over the O'neill/Vaselov dialogue and how it applies to Mitchell.
"The truth is, any of the cast members could make an appearance or two on Atlantis and thereby be lighter in a corresponding episode or two of SG-1. At present, we don't even have a story in the works that would have Carter on Atlantis."
Well then, at present I remain cautiously optimistic. But I'll feel better when that number hits 20.
**Interestingly, you fail to put the aforementioned responses in "context". Feel free to look up the posts I was responding to. Those fans who post in a respectful manner, regardless of what opinion they happen to express, will be responded to in a respectful manner. Those who choose to be insulting in their posts should should demonstrate a little more backbone.**
Joe, I'm asking this in a very respectful manner so I am expecting to be answered in a respectful and giving manner..... Will you share with the people here WHY you chose to write Jack's departure as you did? Do you understand that many fans are upset because they believe a character who was so integral to the show for so many years deserved some kind of recognition when the character left? Giving Jack some kind of recognition from his fellow teammembers, telling us IN SHOW WHY he decided to leave and take a desk job (something he hated) , where he is exactly, would not close the door and preclude any future appearance by RDA in a episode. As many have said, this is something which could have been accomplished in a 1 minute scene (without RDA). I know many of us would be interested in hearing your thought processes behind this.
Respectfully yours,
A Jack fan
Ooh, hiya Joe. How was your Christmas?
I heard on one of the lists I'm a member of that when Daniel crosses over to Atlantis he defeats the Wraith and paves the way for a new villain. True?
Joe wrote:
Carter will continue to maintain a strong presence on SG-1.
See, Joe, here's the problem. You also wrote over a year ago that Jack's presence would continue to be felt strongly in the Stargate universe in S9 even though Rick was no longer there.
I ask -- is there anyone out there who strongly feels Jack's presence in S9?Has the writing made them feel his presence? Don't think so.
I realize that change is the only constant in life, but it's kind of difficult to accept what you say, Joe.
"Will you share with the people here WHY you chose to write Jack's departure as you did?"
To be honest, this was nothing something that was discussed at length in the room. It was decided that we would touch on the character as part of the opening three-parter, including references to his new position and an appearance by O'Neill. Between script and screen, the specific reference to his being appointed to head Homeworld Security was lost. The backstory had Jack accepting the position at HS in order to act as a facilitator for Stargate Command visavis the Pentagon and the IOA, something we had hoped to convey over the course of season 9 - obviously a little too subtly for many.
"I heard on one of the lists I'm a member of that when Daniel crosses over to Atlantis he defeats the Wraith and paves the way for a new villain. True?"
Untrue. Sorry.
"See, Joe, here's the problem. You also wrote over a year ago that Jack's presence would continue to be felt strongly in the Stargate universe in S9 even though Rick was no longer there. I realize that change is the only constant in life..."
The references (and Jack's appearance early in seasn 9) were intended to do just that - maintain his presence. Yet a little of that goes a long way and, after a prolonged physical absence, it grows increasingly difficult (not to mention suspiciously lame) to keep the character alive through one-sided telephone conversations and back-references.
Any character is game for crossover? How about Mitchell? He could ride his resume to Atlantis and take over for Shep after he dies from a new, alien STD. My money is on him picking it up from the Wraith queen he's bound to bag in Allies.
"Carter will continue to maintain a strong presence on SG-1. See, Joe, here's the problem..."
This is a problem of intepretation as well. I've become increasingly reticent to provide definite answers to certain questions because when I have done so in the past, I've been accused of misleading people. Will we ever see the Furlings? Its possible? Will Jacob return? Maybe. Will we get an all-singing, all-dancing episode where our main cast defeats a giant robot panda. Could be. In the past, I've responded to questions like "Will we see this character again?" I'll respond "no" and then, two years later, we may choose to revisit the character and every will scream blue murder because I clearly stated, two years ago, that we wouldn't be seeing this character again. Will Carter be in 20 episodes of SG-1? Its possible. Will she be in 19? Maybe. 18? Could be? 5-10 episodes of Atlantis? Its extremely unlikely.
Has there been any talk of having RDA back to clarify the ambiguity of the Jack situation? Or is he destined to exist in limbo for the rest of time?
::::.....The backstory had Jack accepting the position at HS in order to act as a facilitator for Stargate Command visavis the Pentagon and the IOA, something we had hoped to convey over the course of season 9 - obviously a little too subtly for many.::::
Joe, I'm a huge fan of subtleness, but your writing in this instance was downright cryptic. (Chanelling Jack there.) Well, it still eludes me as to why the writers WOULD NOT WANT to somehow pay tribute to a character who was so important in the Stargate universe, to the show itself. RDA/Jack WAS Stargate for a certain portion of fans. I understand the emphasis on the new characters - moving on, building up the new characters and forgetting the old, but I just think, respectfully, this was a huge mistake on your part. It bugs my friend so much that he refuses to watch the show any longer.
I just think it could have been handled better. I think that's what fans are talking about when they refer to showing a lack of sensitivity to the "old characters" and to fans of those characters.
"Has there been any talk of having RDA back to clarify the ambiguity of the Jack situation? Or is he destined to exist in limbo for the rest of time?"
There has been talk - but, at present, its just been that: talk.
joe mallozzi said: The references (and Jack's appearance early in seasn 9) were intended to do just that - maintain his presence. Yet a little of that goes a long way and, after a prolonged physical absence, it grows increasingly difficult (not to mention suspiciously lame) to keep the character alive through one-sided telephone conversations and back-references.//
hey, joe, with *that* in mind, you could have petted two cats with one hand and used the phone calls/back references as a way of a- keeping the s/j ship alive, AND, b- keeping jack alive in the stargate universe... wish 'that' would have happened... :(
sally :)
JMallozzi said...
Feel free to post your recipes here. Believe me, they'll be more appreicated by most than some of the recent posts I've read.
Alrighty then... :D
Mary Beth's Sure-to-Please Broccoli and Cheese Casserole
8-10 oz. Frozen broccoli, prepared according to directions (or use fresh equivalent)
8 oz. Velveeta cheese, sliced
1 pack Ritz crackers, crushed
1 stick butter
Melt butter in saucepan. Mix in crushed Ritz crackers. Place 1/2 of mixture in bottom of baking dish. Cover with 1/2 cheese slices. Place cooked broccoli on top. Top with remaining cheese and then with the rest of the Ritz cracker mixture. Bake at 350° for 30 minutes.
That's for a single batch...however I always fix a double batch because this goes really fast!!!
Let me know...anyone...if you try this dish out for yourselves and tell me if you enjoy it as much as, well, most people I know.
JMallozzi said...
Its funny, but the last time I made mashed potatoes, things ended disastrously - but provided fodder for a russet potatoe reference I wrote into Lockdown.
Ah...yes...the great Yukon Gold vs. Russett debate.
Although I've never tried making mashed potatoes with Yukon Gold, I had a similar disaster with small red potatoes a few years back. Let's not go there though...just still too traumatic an experience to discuss. *shudder*
I'll agree with Jack though as I use and have the best results with premium Russetts. Start by getting a large pot on the stove filled halfway with cold water with a dash of salt...it'll take a while to boil. Once peeled, rinse the potatoes with cold water and keep the bulk of them in the cold water to stave off any discoloring that might take place while cutting the rest of them into quarter to half sized chunks (depending on the size of the potato).
Be careful not to slosh hot water on your skin as you put the potato chunks in the water (been there, done that...not fun).
As it boils, you'll want to remove that bit of residue at the top of the water. Keep a lid on the pot and check regularly. What you're wanting is for the potatoes to be softened but not too softened as that too will affect the consistency. When you're satisfied that it's the right level of softeness, remove from heat and drain immediately.
Then it's time to mash...adding in milk and butter. There is no right amount here...it's just a "feel" kinda thing. You're best bet is to start slowly because you can always add more of either, but you can't take it out.
As for seasonings, I use a few different things, from regular pepper to a garlic pepper available here in Northeast Tennessee.
Continue to mash and taste...then add a little more butter. If you took your time and took care, the consistency should be right and the flavor should be melt in your mouth good.
Next week on "Cooking with Mary Beth," I'll share my spaghetti recipe.
:D
Mary Beth
**JMallozzi said...
"See, Joe, here's the problem. You also wrote over a year ago that Jack's presence would continue to be felt strongly in the Stargate universe in S9 even though Rick was no longer there. I realize that change is the only constant in life..."
The references (and Jack's appearance early in seasn 9) were intended to do just that - maintain his presence. Yet a little of that goes a long way and, after a prolonged physical absence, it grows increasingly difficult (not to mention suspiciously lame) to keep the character alive through one-sided telephone conversations and back-references.**
Just let me clarify and state this again, Joe. I don't think any of the people who've voiced their dissatisfaction with how Jack's exit was handled want him to be mentioned in every episode or in every other episode. Yes, after a prolonged physical absence, you tend NOT to mention people so much unless something reminds you of that person -- a song, or an incident, etc. If one did want to keep a character alive, though, there are ways other than one-sided phone conversations -- that is NOT the only way.
Very clearly, I think I speak for most fans who posted when I say all we/they wanted was some kind of explanation ONSCREEN for Jack's decision to leave SG-1, where he was, what his new job was. And to just hear ONE of his teammates say something like they missed Jack, things weren't the same without Jack around, etc. ONE mention of Jack by Daniel, Teal'c or Carter, just one time...that's it. As I wrote before, it boggles my mind that this wasn't done. Clearly you and those of us who wanted that "recognition" are on a different wavelength, it seems, it terms of of how we view Jack/RDA's importance to the show.
We just see things differently, I guess.
A saddened fan
okay, how 'bout this, joe?
is s/j dead in the water, or could it be revisted sometime in the future?
sally :)
"Mary Beth's Sure-to-Please Broccoli and Cheese Casserole..."
I may try it this week. Will report back on results.
Anonymous said...
Any character is game for crossover? How about Mitchell? He could ride his resume to Atlantis and take over for Shep after he dies from a new, alien STD. My money is on him picking it up from the Wraith queen he's bound to bag in Allies.
Well, that comment caused me to laugh out loud - very loudly. Thanks for the belly laugh. And it's so true, isn't it?
Still laughin'
" If one did want to keep a character alive, though, there are ways other than one-sided phone conversations -- that is NOT the only way."
True. But I guess it comes down to how many references we want to make to a character we may not see again (or any time soon).
"some kind of explanation ONSCREEN for Jack's decision to leave SG-1, where he was, what his new job was."
And I don't disagree that this could have been much clearer.
"is s/j dead in the water, or could it be revisted sometime in the future?"
Hey, anything's possible. Its just very unlikely for the time being.
To ÜberSG-1Fan
Nothing personal, but I wouldn't put Velveeta cheese in anything. I was forced to eat it as a kid (and I grew up in Wisconsin of all the cheesy places) and it will never touch my lips again. Can I substitute another kind of cheese?
Joe, can you assure us that the 'significant loss' coming up in S10 is not Jack? I know he's already 'gone', but he lives on in our hearts and I would hate to see something like that done for 'dramatic effect,' even if it would mean you'd finally be free of the ship questions :)
Loving S9 and looking forward to SG-1 evolving into a team of 5 in S10.
Joanne
"Joe, can you assure us that the 'significant loss' coming up in S10 is not Jack?"
This early, I can't assure anyone of anything with regard to who or what, exactly, is lost in Counter-Strike.
"Loving S9 and looking forward to SG-1 evolving into a team of 5 in S10."
Team of 5, huh? Interesting.
"True. But I guess it comes down to how many references we want to make to a character we may not see again (or any time soon)."
This sounds ominious, Joe. Would you catagorize the possiblity of a RDA guest spot as probable, unlikely in season 10, or never going to happen ever?
JMallozzi said...
" If one did want to keep a character alive, though, there are ways other than one-sided phone conversations -- that is NOT the only way."
True. But I guess it comes down to how many references we want to make to a character we may not see again (or any time soon).
ONE reference, Joe, one reference is what people have been saying. I was clear on that. An explanation for Jack's behavior/departure AND a reference once by Teal'c, Sam, or Daniel -- the name Jack coming out of one of their mouths -- a line written and actually spoken by one of them that indicates they miss him or are thinking of him.
This is where the frustration comes in. With all due respect, I know I've made myself clear, that you understand what I'm saying, and you continue to go back to the point of it being about "how many references would you want to make to a character we may not see again
(anytime soon). One reference, Joe, one recognition. OK...fine, I get that you don't want to answer the question.
This potato debate is so funny! I bought Yukon Golds this week to make mashed potatoes for our 20-person Christmas dinner, but then I remembered Jack's reference to them 'not making good mash' in "Lockdown" (RDA delivered that line in a very memorable way). I seriously considered going out to get different potatoes! My mom assured me that in fact the Golds are good mashed, I went ahead, and they actually came out the best I've ever made. The secret is not to overcook, and to use a hand mixer to get them smooth and fluffy (with lots of butter and milk, of course).
Joanne
"Would you catagorize the possiblity of a RDA guest spot as probable, unlikely in season 10, or never going to happen ever?"
Its entirely possible. Its just a matter of finding the right story for him.
"Loving S9 and looking forward to SG-1 evolving into a team of 5 in S10."
Team of 5, huh? Interesting.
Vala will be joining the team, won't she? Eventually?
Team of 5, huh? Interesting.
Ah -- Daniel, Teal'c, Mitchell, Vala and Carter. That's 5. Now, come on Joe. Do you think you are going to surprise us when Vala joins the team?
Duh
Will we get an all-singing, all-dancing episode where our main cast defeats a giant robot panda. Could be.
I dare you to.
"One reference, Joe, one recognition. OK...fine, I get that you don't want to answer the question."
But I did answer the question. There was a reference but, obviously, it wasn't as clear as many would have liked.
"Vala will be joining the team, won't she? Eventually?"
Of course its possible.
Anonymous said...
To ÜberSG-1Fan
Nothing personal, but I wouldn't put Velveeta cheese in anything. I was forced to eat it as a kid (and I grew up in Wisconsin of all the cheesy places) and it will never touch my lips again. Can I substitute another kind of cheese?
I don't see why not (and no offense taken). The consistency of Velveeta works best from my experience for this kind of dish but please feel free to make it your own! I think it's an issue of trial and error so try whatever cheese you prefer but best stick with a softer cheese...perhaps a Colby Jack or Cheddar or a blend thereof...and please let me know how it turns out as I'll be interested to learn how that kind of variation effects the outcome.
:D
Mary Beth
JMallozzi said...
"Would you catagorize the possiblity of a RDA guest spot as probable, unlikely in season 10, or never going to happen ever?"
Its entirely possible. Its just a matter of finding the right story for him.
It's entirely possible I may win the lottery this week, but certainly not very probable or likely. I wouldn't count on it at all - in fact, I'm not counting on it.
"It's entirely possible I may win the lottery this week, but certainly not very probable or likely. I wouldn't count on it at all - in fact, I'm not counting on it."
You can't win if you don't play!
JMallozzi said...
"One reference, Joe, one recognition. OK...fine, I get that you don't want to answer the question."
But I did answer the question. There was a reference but, obviously, it wasn't as clear as many would have liked.
Joe, you make it very difficult not to get snarky with you because of your avoidance of questions you don't want to answer. Reference, as in Daniel, Teal'c or Sam actually saying Jack's name and remarking that they missed him or that things weren't the same without him.
Oh, just a moment, just a moment, I believe it's coming to me. Actually, I think Daniel did say that he missed Jack, right, but none of us could understand it because of MS speed talking. Was it during that one scene where Daniel was doing the thing with the thing down in that room?
You know, you'd make a good press secretary for Bush.
Goodnight
This post has been removed by the author.
JMallozzi said...
"Mary Beth's Sure-to-Please Broccoli and Cheese Casserole..."
I may try it this week. Will report back on results.
Excellent. I'll look forward to reading your review.
;)
MB
Joe said:
""If so how - what exactly is her position now and how is it as important as being the only leader of SG1? Who does Sam report to?"
Sam, like Mitchell, report to General Landry."
Respectfully, you did not answer the meat of my question which was "what exactly is her position now and how is it as important as being the only leader of SG1?"
What position does Sam now hold to indicate she continues to hold the high level of respect and stature she earned over the course of 8 years to be named leader of SG1 - what is her position that equates with that position if she indeed was not demoted and her stature within the SGC not diminished by being made co-leader (which is also very, very tenuous with what has been written)?
Joe you must see that part of the problem is that you pick and choose - an answer to this question seems only fair with all of the many fans unhappy, disappointed, etc., with how TPTB have chosen to, in the eys of many, demote Sam. I know you said she was not demoted but that however is not how many see it based on the history of the show, and especially based on the history of the character and what was shown, created and made canon for 8 years.(Everything you allude to as reasons happened off-screen, conveniently, and was determined by TPTB.) Clearly a decsion was made by TPTB to remove Sam from command of SG1; that decision clearly did not have to be made.
This has been a core, integral,lead character for 8 years who was the leader of SG1, what is her role and how does it even come close to comparing to the role of sole leader of SG1?
What is her position in S10 (with almost half, if not more by now, of the stories "broken" (what does that mean) you must have a good idea of her position on SG1 and how she will integrate into the stories.
And to answer your question - no I did not ever feel Sam was diminished pre-season 8 - she and the show, were always written with the natural progression of her starting as 2IC, being a driven soldier, and an intelligent, fiercely loyal soldier who wanted to succeed and be the best she could be - I always saw her working towards command and that is exactly where it lead, as shown right straight through to her being made commander. It is the fact that TPTB, off-screen, decided to demote her (and yes I beleieve that is what happened because there is no other reasonable explaination based on what we have been shown for 8 years, sorry.) TPTB made a clear decision and the "it happened off-screen" is just a convenient way to not have to address it in a reasonable way so the fans would maybe buy it, at least more than many are buying it now.)
Thank you.
Carole
Hey Joe, thanks for taking the time out on Christmas to visit the blog :)
And why has this turned into a recipe swap fest Uber? :P
Dude. /stunned. It's amazing that the comments on your blog haven't found their way to fandom_wank.
Looking forward to the back half and Season 10. Keep up the good work.
Joe,
I just wanted you to be aware that there are a ton of Mitchell fans who started watching in S9 and who have been very disappointed in how his character has been portrayed so far. You may not hear from them because they don't come to GateWorld, but they're there. And we're all hoping that Mitchell will finally get some character development in the second half of S9. (And it boggles my mind whenever someone says there's been too much focus on Mitchell!)
Also, Joe, why aren't you worried that shared command won't weaken Mitchell? He was brought in as leader and that's all that's ever been stated on ths show, so if he's not shown as a leader, then he'll look weak. Aren't you concerned about that?
I only hope Ben-aholics won't start to complain when/if Claudia will have more interesting stories to tell in season 10 than Ben... Scapers divided into 2 opposite camps would be definitely too much.
Joe,
I am posting to try to give a different opinion regarding the Mitchell character than what seems to be what most people think. Having served in the USAF myself, I completely find his character believable.
On several occasions an officer was posted to a certian position, and I as the lower ranked individual immediatly felt it was the worst decision ever. And all the similar reasons abounded (he doenst have enough experience in THIS area, hes not the right personality, he doesnt fit in with those already working in this field); however over time I have learned through experience that this is not alwyas the case. 1) As much as it may not seem like it, generals usually have a good reason for what they are doing, and have a good idea WHY they are doing it even when it doesnt make sense to everyone else. 2)A person with different experiences will initially be a little unsteady in a new position but those different experiences will help a squadron or wing develop and bring new ideas into the mix and in most occasions bring about positive change over time. Sure its not overnight but everything takes time.
I think what I have appreciated most about the Mitchell character is how hes not perfect, and he in some ways he doesnt seem like the perfect fit. To me this gives a bit of realism and makes me more keen on watching his character unfold. I think to many people expect him to be another Oneill, and that is unfair to the character I feel. I look forward to see how you all develop him. Great work so far and dont worry about the ney-sayers.
**Joe you must see that part of the problem is that you pick and choose - an answer to this question seems only fair with all of the many fans unhappy, disappointed, etc., with how TPTB have chosen to, in the eys of many, demote Sam. I know you said she was not demoted but that however is not how many see it based on the history of the show, and especially based on the history of the character and what was shown, created and made canon for 8 years.(Everything you allude to as reasons happened off-screen, conveniently, and was determined by TPTB.) Clearly a decsion was made by TPTB to remove Sam from command of SG1; that decision clearly did not have to be made. **
Of course Mr Mallozzi picks and chooses. I've been following the exchange between him and Jack Fan. It was very clear to me what JF was saying and yet Mr. Mallozzi answered in circles. He doesn't want to give an honest answer because that answer is that No, they didn't feel that the character of Jack was important enough to give recognition to and they didn't want anyone to say they would miss him. They want to focus on Mitchell all the way.
As for Sam, you won't get an answer to your question because Joe would have to say something that would offend Sam fans. Truth is that Sam was not made the lead of SG-1 because a male star has to have it and YES...Sam's airtime next season will definitely be diminished because of Vala. Stands to reason. With the addition of a character on whom they want to focus, one of the existing teammembers airtime will diminish. And it's going to be Sam.
And utlimately Joe is right. They make all these changes and people keep watching. They can do whatever they want and most fans will keep watching. This one fan, though, won't be watching in January, not even out of curiosity.
srapennington said:
"I am posting to try to give a different opinion regarding the Mitchell character than what seems to be what most people think. Having served in the USAF myself, I completely find his character believable.
On several occasions an officer was posted to a certian position, and I as the lower ranked individual immediatly felt it was the worst decision ever. And all the similar reasons abounded (he doenst have enough experience in THIS area, hes not the right personality, he doesnt fit in with those already working in this field); however over time I have learned through experience that this is not alwyas the case. 1) As much as it may not seem like it, generals usually have a good reason for what they are doing, and have a good idea WHY they are doing it even when it doesnt make sense to everyone else. 2)A person with different experiences will initially be a little unsteady in a new position but those different experiences will help a squadron or wing develop and bring new ideas into the mix and in most occasions bring about positive change over time. Sure its not overnight but everything takes time.
I think what I have appreciated most about the Mitchell character is how hes not perfect, and he in some ways he doesnt seem like the perfect fit. To me this gives a bit of realism and makes me more keen on watching his character unfold. I think to many people expect him to be another Oneill, and that is unfair to the character I feel. I look forward to see how you all develop him. Great work so far and dont worry about the ney-sayers."
I just want to say that I've served in the armed services as well, specifically in the Army. And yes, the inexperienced, unqualified do sometimes get posted to positions they have no business being posted to. Usually it happens because of connections and rewarding friends. Yes, it's happened to me. It' happened to me in combat within the last four years. And the results haven't been good. But that is beside the point. I don't believe that Mitchell is intended to be an officer who got his position because of politics or favors. According to the writers, he's supposed to be there because he earned it. But I don't see how Mitchell is more deserving than the other numerous officers who have already proven themselves within the Stargate program on other SG teams.
My feelings on this matter have nothing to do with my wanting another Jack O'neill either. But I don't want to see the true heroes of Earth have to put up with this crap. Does it happen in real life? Yep, it does sometimes. But it sucks and is unfair then, and it sucks and is unfair now. And the fact that neither Teal'c or Daniel have a problem with it is just highly out of character for both of them. Even if Carter remained quiet about it because she's military, she'd still make her feelings known. It's just a crappy situation to put the characters and the show in. And it's one that I don't think they intended to create. They didn't want Mitchell to be out of place. They wanted him to be a perfect fit. And he's not.
JMallozzi said...
"Will you share with the people here WHY you chose to write Jack's departure as you did?"
To be honest, this was nothing something that was discussed at length in the room. It was decided that we would touch on the character as part of the opening three-parter, including references to his new position and an appearance by O'Neill. Between script and screen, the specific reference to his being appointed to head Homeworld Security was lost. The backstory had Jack accepting the position at HS in order to act as a facilitator for Stargate Command visavis the Pentagon and the IOA, something we had hoped to convey over the course of season 9 - obviously a little too subtly for many.
You got that right, Joe. Many of us did NOT want subtle; we wanted in your face. As in Jack, the leader of SG-1, one of the saviors of Earth, protector of his kids, the glue that held the entire team together is leaving the SG-1 and here is why and this is where he is going. And yes, we wanted someone, any one of his fellow SG-1 membes with whom he served for 8 years to react to it in SOME manner, on screen, that was visible and told us fans how much they thought of and would miss Jack. Big, loud and in your face, just like Jack. As so many others have said, it could have taken 1 or 2 minutes and then it would have been done with.
Sheesh, when Shanks left, he got a whole episode about it, RDA got less than a walnut. And, by the way, that final scene with RDA and Daniel? Did you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with a computer and let them go at it? My 3 year old could have written something better than that.
And what's with Mitchell? Can this guy BE any more boring? I was watching a Farscape episode on TV last night; Ben is capable of so much more, but he's got to have decent writing, ya know? You guys are really really disappointing. You actually get paid for this kind of crap?
Ramone Estveria
Actually, Browder's Chriction on Farscape never did it for me. I think the writing and situations the character was put in made the actor look better than he is. On Farscape Browder got to do crazy and out of control all of the time. He didn't have to nuance his performances at all because he was always playing the extremes, be it sad, angry, happy, or otherwise. The character was over the top all the time, alot like Vala is on SG-1. Those kinds of characters are easy to play. There is no subtlety involved--it's very much hamming it up all the time. I'm much more impressed with Chris Judge's stoic, nuanced portrayal of Teal'c or yes, Amanda Tapping's portrayal of Carter. They don't ever get to be over the top; they always have to be reserved and in control. Yet they are still able to inject real life into their characters. Browder hasn't been able to do that with Mitchell, barring scenes where he's channeling Jack O'niell.
Anonymous said...
Actually, Browder's Chriction on Farscape never did it for me. I think the writing and situations the character was put in made the actor look better than he is. On Farscape Browder got to do crazy and out of control all of the time. He didn't have to nuance his performances at all because he was always playing the extremes, be it sad, angry, happy, or otherwise. The character was over the top all the time, alot like Vala is on SG-1. Those kinds of characters are easy to play. There is no subtlety involved--it's very much hamming it up all the time. I'm much more impressed with Chris Judge's stoic, nuanced portrayal of Teal'c or yes, Amanda Tapping's portrayal of Carter. They don't ever get to be over the top; they always have to be reserved and in control. Yet they are still able to inject real life into their characters. Browder hasn't been able to do that with Mitchell, barring scenes where he's channeling Jack O'niell.
Excellent points and I do agree with you. I do remember seeing Ben in "Party of 5" and he didn't stand out that much for me; I wasn't impressed. I do think the writing of the character and the situations made Ben look good in Farscape; perhaps much better of an actor than he actually is. Very interesting.
This is on the point of Joe jumping in to defend AT the way he did jump in to defend BB a while back.
Joe does not have to defend AT because AT is a well-established actress who plays a lead, core, beloved character on Stargate. Joe knows this and he knows she has a very large fan base which still follows the show regardless of how crappy they treat the character or AT (we'll see how long that lasts if the writing on the wall is indeed true).
The folks who come here posting the insane crapola about AT are really revealed for what they are -a very small, and small-minded, group of truly disturbed individuals who cannot, and should not, be taken seriously, therefore Joe ignores their rhetoric, regardless how personal or degrading it gets, because AT and Sam Carter are strong enough to stand on their own.
Mr Browder, on the other hand, is not. He is not established as an actor to the fans of Stargate and he is not established as a core, lead, integral, or beloved character on the show. He is in fact very much on the outside as Mitchell right now and there is a large portion of the fandom, the sane, rational fandom with legitimate, logical and reasonable criticisms and reasons for disliking, or not buying, the character and TPTB cannot allow that to continue so, of course Mallozzi, the White Knight, must ride in on his trusty horse and defend BB and Mitchell's honor.
It really is kind of sad, ya know, that the new guy, who they are so desperate to make cliched excuses for, gets the defense that a long standing star of the show doesn't seem to deserve.
I agree with the poster a few posts up - think I'll be tuning out as well. I am one of those who was waiting for the show to improve so I kept watching and kept the numbers up (wonder how many who have been waiting patiently will now start to tune out since TPTB have shown no interest in fixing the show). These guys have shown they can ruin the show and not care and they have also proven they really have no class either.
Susan McKay
Joe said: "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 you are not simply responding to questions you are asked, if that was the case you would respond to ALL of the questions. You are choosing to respond to the Mitchell criticisms (even if they are not questions) and to the Vala criticisms.
If you were indeed responding to the questions asked, it would stand to reason that you would respond to a cross-section, including those that express an interest in knowing why TPTB chose to remove Sam from command (the "Carter chose to leave SG1" is obviously not working because it contradicts what the character is all about for 8 years, and that excuse does not work since Sam is a fictional character - TPTB made the decision to remove Sam as leader - why); or what is the plan to have Sam continue to play a "major" role in SG1 in S10 (the "Sam will be firmly rooted to SG1" does not work when Vala is said to be be playing "major" role in S10 and will appear in all 20 episodes while there seems to be controversy over how many episodes of SG1 Sam, an 9 year veteran and core character, will be in, while you were very quick to confirm Vala would be in all 20 - how will that impact Sam); or will Sam play less of a core, integral, lead character on SG1 in favor of the space-bimbo; or will Sam continue to play a lead, core, integral character in S10; or, based on what a poster above said: will Sam's airtime next season be diminished because of Vala. With the addition of a character on whom TPTB want to focus, one of the existing teammembers airtime will diminish, will it be Sam (and if so why - there are 3 males on this show - why should one of the strongest female leads, and role models, on TV today, be diminished in favor of the cliche (no disrespect intended)?
The fact that you choose to respond to 9 out of 10 questions/criticisms about Mitchell and Vala with defensive excuses while almost completely ignoring questions about other characters, in particular Sam because of the current controversy and because, at this time all signs seem to be pointing to Sam being the character that is diminished by the moves being made, except for the proverbial bone once in a while, helps to contriubute to the tense, and often nasty, atmosphere that lingers here, and has lingered here for months now.
Carole
Claudia and Amanda are going to work together for the bigger part of the next year. Think about it.
Anonymous said...
Claudia and Amanda are going to work together for the bigger part of the next year. Think about it.
I'm thinking, but nothing comes to mind. What's your point?
Claudia and Amanda are going to work together for the bigger part of the next year. Think about it.
I'm thinking, and I come up with the conclusion that I'm going to get see two kick arse, sexy and very funny women on my favourite tv show :) Amanda and Claudia for the win!
I'm thinking, and I come up with the conclusion that I'm going to get see two kick arse, sexy and very funny women on my favourite tv show :) Amanda and Claudia for the win!
Yeah, that's what I hoped for Atlantis too. Look how that turned out.
Yeah, that's what I hoped for Atlantis too. Look how that turned out.
huh, atlantis does have two kick arse ladies - Torri and Rachel... If you mean the characters, well thats a different story. Oi! Joe! Tell those peons over in the atlantis writing department to roll out some Teyla and Weir stories! Stat!
There are other people on Stargate Atlantis besides Rodney McKay and John Sheppard? Is this some sort of early April Fool's joke or something?
The women characters on Atlantis are still painfully one-dimensional. Teyla fights, Weir waits, and one or both of them will certainly hook up with Sheppard because he's so HAWT. All those women he loves and leaves all over the galaxy are proof of that.
lol, its funny because for all the hype about Trinity being a 'McKay episode', I found myself more interested in the Teyla and Ronan B story...
McKay is a cool character, Sheppard is a cool character - But so are Teyla and Weir. We've had enough episodes with the John and Rodney Hour in them, give us some episodes with the other characters for christs sake. I want Teyla stories. I want Weir stories. I don't want anymore Shep or McKay stories, because we've had some many of them already. Let them have the B plot to a Teyla and Weir story for a change
Hey, Joe. I just read the Amanda Tapping interview on Gateworld. I just figured I'd come on here and ask that maybe you could pick up the phone and call her? You know, sort of fill her in somewhat with regards to what has been decided about Carter. It's pretty pathetic that she's still being kept so completely in the dark. All of your actors deserve to be treated better than that.
PS
Ms. Tapping's concerns with Carter crossing over to Atlantis echo most fans'. Carter belongs on SG-1 full time.
This post has been removed by the author.
A post for all comment posters on Joe Mallozzi’s blog:
These comments about Jack O’Neill, Samantha Carter, and Mitchell remind me of the divisive comments for and against the Jack/Sam relationship in Season 4 and the introduction of Jonas and the loss of Daniel in Season 6. I have watched the show from the beginning and have seen it evolve through the years. As a result, I have enjoyed the show for different reasons throughout its run.
With this in mind, I wish that the people who are making these kinds of comments would take a step back and realize that these debates are not helpful. Instead of spending time in negative debate about the direction of a television show, we, as fans, should enjoy what we like about the shows we watch. I am not saying people should not give comments to the cast and crew voicing concerns about the show. The problem is when the voicing of concerns becomes personal and hurtful. All fans of a show should always remember that the cast and crew of these shows are doing the best they can to deliver the best story they can to the screen.
If you can only make negative comments about the show, it is time to seriously look at what you like and what you do not like about the show. If your dislikes of a show outweigh your likes of a show, then it you should stop watching the show. I, myself, have had to weigh what I liked and disliked about a show in the middle of their run. Sometimes I discovered that I was watching a show that I really did not like anymore.
It was tough for me to stop watching a show because I often had developed an attachment to the story and the characters; however, if I continued to watch these shows, it made me more frustrated and angry. This frustration and anger eventually bled into my personal life. Unfortunately, this happened with a few shows before I realized what was occurring. I hope that this does not happen to any of you out there.
I hope that you all enjoy the rest of your break and have a happy and enjoyable 2006.
Sincerely, Eric
Anonymous wrote:
I just want to say that I've served in the armed services as well, specifically in the Army. And yes, the inexperienced, unqualified do sometimes get posted to positions they have no business being posted to. Usually it happens because of connections and rewarding friends. Yes, it's happened to me. It' happened to me in combat within the last four years. And the results haven't been good. But that is beside the point. I don't believe that Mitchell is intended to be an officer who got his position because of politics or favors. According to the writers, he's supposed to be there because he earned it. But I don't see how Mitchell is more deserving than the other numerous officers who have already proven themselves within the Stargate program on other SG teams.
Not to jump into a branch vs branch debate, but one of my best friends a Ranger in the Army, and he and I have spoke at great lenght the difference between the two branches with respect to the SF's of each branch and how they work. Obviously they are different, but one thing that he has always stated is that he is completely amazed at the difference in officer/enlisted, officer/officer, and enlisted/enlisted relations in the Air Force as opposed to the Army. With the USAF being less than 1/10th the size of the army, getting along with your friends is a much more needed activity. My Cousin graduated from West Point in the Late 90s, and he would always state that he didnt really have to associate with enlisted personel that much, and thus never really got to know any of them. Since the USAF is such a smaller branch, while there is still infighting between people and clicks and such its definatly much less. Once you then divide that number even more with referance to SpecOps, the relation changes even more. With my job (AFSC 1T2X1), there was only around 300 of us total. Within all of the USAF there was less than 1000 SF people in the whole branch, and that includes Officer and Enlisted. Now I have no idea the numbers of SFs in the Army, but my point is obviously (and you probably agree), that the AF and the Army are completely different beasts. While the StarGate program unfortunatly doenst exist, it would for sure be classified under SpecOps, and thus would be a small community. And I know at least from the AF side, that community even when it didnt like someone worked together for the best. And when we did get those complete idiots, we made sure that they were gone within a month so no harm could be done. But like you siad, you dont get THOSE assignments by knowing someone, you have to prove yourself to get there. And i'm assuming that the writers are taking that mindset. I'm just hoping they give us more backstory into mitchell's character as the season unfolds. But in reality, no pilot no matter how good would ever be placed as Team Leader on a SF team, not matter how amazing he was as a pilot. Justin like how you wouldnt want the worlds best cardiac surgeon doing brain surgery on you.
But again Joe, you cant please everyone all the time, I just hope you give us some more info to shut up the people who are whining. :)
Joe was asked and answered:
"some kind of explanation ONSCREEN for Jack's decision to leave SG-1, where he was, what his new job was."
And I don't disagree that this could have been much clearer.
For what it's worth, I was recently on an extended vacation and while I was away I loaned my season 9 downloads to be passed around a number of people at work (who knows when season 9 will show in Australia?), all of them are what you would call ordinary viewers and as far as I am aware none of them are online, notin the fandom sense anyway.
When I came back I asked what they thought of the new feel and what they thought had become of Jack. Although no one managed to remember the title of Homeworld Security, every single one of them said that Jack had been promoted and was running things from Washington. Two picked up on the fact that Hammond must have retired because he was wearing civvies in Fourth Horseman, so they thought Jack must have taken his place. Nobody thought that it was odd that more time wasn't spent on Jack's departure because as one of them said, TV shows are just like that. They had all obviously got the idea that RDA had moved on, of course. So I think the fans are rather more concerned about what has become of Jack than most of the other people watching are.
Incidentally, they all loved the new epsiodes and are bugging me for more downloads!
But in reality, no pilot no matter how good would ever be placed as Team Leader on a SF team, not matter how amazing he was as a pilot. Justin like how you wouldnt want the worlds best cardiac surgeon doing brain surgery on you.
Ha! I like that analogy. I can just see Mitchell:
"Well, um, fighter jets have, um, guns, and we carry guns too, so, um, there you go. I can shoot guns....sort of. I mean I can shoot guns in a fighter jet pretty well. Ok, ok, maybe not "well"--I know I got shot down right away and all, but really, I'm qualified to lead. Honest.
Hmmm....hand me that scalpel.
Happy Holidays Mr. Mallozzi,
I have tried to read as much of the postings as I could and I enjoy the change in direction with the show. I like the philosophical undertones that have permeated the show. Such as our search as intelligent beings for Nirvana or enlightenment which is shown in the Ancients through Ascension and their search for the truth. I think that no matter how much you knowledge you gain there is always more to know. I hope that the philosophical underpinnings of these Ancients are alluded to as a reference to our development and arrogance as a species. I know that Stargate is not really the type of show to delve into those areas deeply, I just think it would be interesting to include where the story warrants it.
I like Lieutenant Colonel Cameron Mitchell and I think that people should not expect for all issues to be discussed on screen. That makes for bad television. I think that some of the best moments are those that focus on what is not said rather than what is said. It alludes to more than just being what is said but also to the tensions and issues between the characters and certain situations. It also allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions sometimes these are more clear and other times there is more room for interpretation but either way what is not said can be a more effective vehicle to create a real world to the viewer cause it shows that there is more than meets the eyes. To think that we need to have everything explained is curious because that is not how it works in life so why would we expect it to be that way at all times in television is being a little unrealistic. I can see that Mr. Mallozzi has a different view on the situations that the characters are involved in since he knows the rational for why they act certain ways and why situations are created and while it may be possible to allude to some of this on screen that is often difficult and may not translate well for television which will lead to scarifies being made due to the constraints of time and money that govern such a show.
To Mr. Mallozzi
I think that Stargate SG-1 is lots of fun and as entertainment that is the most important thing. Are there great episodes yes are there bad ones of course but the fact that you have created a show that has remained so popular since you began your role is an amazing feat.
I do have a question after watching other shows like LOST, 24,Alias, and Without a Trace have you ever considered using some of their techniques, storytelling ideas or approaches in Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis as ways to enhance the experience of a particular episode or story arc? I enjoyed an episode of Without a Trace at the end of November 2005 that was done from the point of view of the family instead of the FBI cause it allows the audience to understand both sides and can allow them to develop a more rounded view of both sides and help give a greater understanding of the other side in future episodes. Lost uses multiple layers and flashbacks to highlight characters and develop them and their stories and 24 creates a intense 24 hour roller coaster. I know you have done some of this in limited forms in the past but I guess I think it would be cool every once in awhile for us to see for an episode or two how SG-1 functions with the other units, when they don't have the information necessary to take the lead and how that other team functions as the primary focus and their interactions with SG-1. Well I say happy holidays to everyone and I hope they are all looking forward to the resumption of season 9 it should be interesting to say the least.
Anonymouys wrote:
For what it's worth, I was recently on an extended vacation and while I was away I loaned my season 9 downloads to be passed around a number of people at work (who knows when season 9 will show in Australia?), all of them are what you would call ordinary viewers and as far as I am aware none of them are online, notin the fandom sense anyway.
I did the exact same thing except I live in Minnesota. All the people got a vague idea of where Jack was, but they did not like the fact the writers did not make much more of Jack's departure, (and RDA's as well) since he had been on the show for 8 years and was a favorite of several of my colleagues. They felt cheated. I suspect for every viewer who felt as your colleagues did, there are those who feel differently. I personally think Jack's departure was handled very badlly.
Phyllis Johansen
God. Just read Tapping's interivew here on Gateworld's front page - can she BE any more pathetic?
I understand that people wanted to see more of Jack on screen beofrehis departure - but can I just point out there are very real issues of avaliablity and getting RDA to do it. Just like people wanting to see more of Jack (or on occasion) and SG-1... sure it's be great - but Joe is right they have to find the right story to take to RDA, and they have to hope that he can do it (whether he is willing and able)... There are practical concerns afoot. [this comment is strictly about seeing more Jack, not about whether his departure was handled well.)
As for AT's interview. I personally think it was done about a month ago - in that month they have done a lot of work on the show and it is likely they have has a chance to talk to her... Actually, the interview while it shows her to be concerned, also shows that she is willing to wait and see. She is not overly concerned, and she was just addressing issues as she sees fans needing. Seriously, for some people she can never say anything right. But here, she manages to say she is concerned and yet has faith in the writers...
Hmmm, intersting that.
Why is it so hard to some people to accept the simple fact, that RDA wanted to leave the show long time ago, his presence there during seasons 7 and 8 was more of a joke, I've never seen bigger clown than at the beginning of Prometheus Unbound episode. Jack is THE PAST, say goodbye to him and end this. Please.
God. Just read more Danny Ranters whinging about AT here on Joe's Blog - can they BE anymore pathetic?
I did the exact same thing except I live in Minnesota. All the people got a vague idea of where Jack was, but they did not like the fact the writers did not make much more of Jack's departure, (and RDA's as well) since he had been on the show for 8 years and was a favorite of several of my colleagues. They felt cheated. I suspect for every viewer who felt as your colleagues did, there are those who feel differently. I personally think Jack's departure was handled very badlly.
You're perfectly entitled to feel that way but my point was that the people I loaned the disks to enjoy the show but just don't care that much, which I think is pretty much the default of your average viewer. They don't feel cheated by a TV show, it's just an hour's entertainment and while it continues to entertain they will continue to watch. They liked Jack but he's gone, they're over it - it happens on lots of TV shows. Only a fan thinks that much about it.
God. Just read more ranting about Danny Ranters whinging about AT here on Joe's Blog - can they BE anymore pathetic?
You're perfectly entitled to feel that way but my point was that the people I loaned the disks to enjoy the show but just don't care that much, which I think is pretty much the default of your average viewer. They don't feel cheated by a TV show, it's just an hour's entertainment and while it continues to entertain they will continue to watch. They liked Jack but he's gone, they're over it - it happens on lots of TV shows. Only a fan thinks that much about it.
See, my point was that these people I loaned them to are NOT online fans; they are just the average viewer. My aunt is an average viewer, NOT a FAN, and she also doesn't like the way they handled Jack's exit. I think average viewers also have opinions and thoughts about the show; things they like and really don't like, except that their feelings are not important enough to them to make them come on-line and spend time expressing those feelings. Which is not to say they don't have them.
PJ
PJ said:
"See, my point was that these people I loaned them to are NOT online fans; they are just the average viewer."
No, PJ, your point was that you're right and everyone who is complaining and disappointed is wrong. If you're going to be patronizing and condescending, at least have the courage to say so without the false sense of decorum. The point of your post was to try and marginalize those unhappy with Jack's departure and, however remotely, change Joe's opinion to thinking that, "Oh, the regular, nonthinking dolts that watch must be happy with how Jack's departure was handled. They just want explosions and T&A. Well, we sure gave'em plenty of that!"
Pinball Wizard
Joe,
some people at GW are worried (or hope for it being her Achilles heel) about Vala's change after her time spent in the Ori galaxy. I found the opinion that if you (all writers) keep her the way she was introduced, ott and super sexed, she's nothing more than a cliche and even the most die hard Farscape/CB favored reviewers will not be able to ignore the silliness of the character. She will become a joke because she is such a cliche.
Yet many profess to adore this about her, the silliness, sexiness, OTT of her personality.
My question is what Vala we're going to see in season 10, how much you're going to tone down the character?
Personally I trust Claudia Black completely knowing how brilliant actress she is and I'm sure that "her" Vala in season 10 is going to be the most interesting of all characters. Of course, if "script elves" are going to do their job properly... ;)
Sorry, but the writers only see Vala as a blow up doll. So, think of all the uses there are for a blow up doll, then tell me if you still feel good about CB's future.
Anonymous said...
Sorry, but the writers only see Vala as a blow up doll. So, think of all the uses there are for a blow up doll, then tell me if you still feel good about CB's future.
I REALLY hope you're wrong...
Pinball Wizard said;
No, PJ, your point was that you're right and everyone who is complaining and disappointed is wrong. If you're going to be patronizing and condescending, at least have the courage to say so without the false sense of decorum. The point of your post was to try and marginalize those unhappy with Jack's departure and, however remotely, change Joe's opinion to thinking that, "Oh, the regular, nonthinking dolts that watch must be happy with how Jack's departure was handled. They just want explosions and T&A. Well, we sure gave'em plenty of that!"
Well, Pinball Wizard, I think you're a bit confused and addressed this to the wrong person because I specifically stated that I was unhappy with how they handled Jack's departure. And my answer was in reference to the poster who said only some on-line fans were unhappy; that probably the rest of the 'average' viewers were not because some of her friend who were average viewers didn't care about Jack's departure. I think very few people would say the writers handled Jack's departure very well online or offline.
PJ
Anoynmous wrote:
Personally I trust Claudia Black completely knowing how brilliant actress she is and I'm sure that "her" Vala in season 10 is going to be the most interesting of all characters. Of course, if "script elves" are going to do their job properly... ;)
What? Do you think if the writers write Vala a certain way, have her say certain things, that CB is going to say she doesn't agree and force them to write the character the way *SHE* wants it to be? Or do you think she will walk off the job because the character doesn't stand up to her vision of what it should be? The actors don't have full control you know.
As for trusting CB, well, she was the one who ad libbed the line "Let's Make Babies" and the writers left it in. Not something something I personally would called brilliant or at all funny. Others disagree, but that's my 2 cents.
Jackie
As for trusting CB, well, she was the one who ad libbed the line "Let's Make Babies" and the writers left it in. Not something something I personally would called brilliant or at all funny. Others disagree, but that's my 2 cents.
I think it was very funny :) But seriously, at the beginning of season 9 Claudia definitely didn't know that they are going to invite her to the regular cast. And there's a big difference between a guest character and a regular one in all 20 episodes, there MUST be changes, there MUST be much more serious approach and development of the character. Whether I trust TPTB with it? Not sure. Whether I trust Claudia with it? Completely.
"Well, Pinball Wizard, I think you're a bit confused and addressed this to the wrong person because I specifically stated that I was unhappy with how they handled Jack's departure. And my answer was in reference to the poster who said only some on-line fans were unhappy; that probably the rest of the 'average' viewers were not because some of her friend who were average viewers didn't care about Jack's departure. I think very few people would say the writers handled Jack's departure very well online or offline."
My apologies, then, PJ. My post was indeed misdirected. Too many anonymous posters unwilling to leave any trace of a signature attached to their opinions. The sentiment of my post still stands though, "anonymous".
Pinball Wizard
God, you know what's really pathetic? The fact that some people assume all those who are sick of Sam are Daniel fans.
As a Jack/RDA fan I find Carter f*cking annoying and pathetic. Even I fast forward through her stupid clingy act even if it means I have to miss Jack because Sam made Jack dull and flat.
Sam ruined Jack through association and if I ever have to sit through another stomach retching Sam making eyes at Jack scene again it will be far too soon.
Send Carter to Atlantis, no actually send her to ST:Enterprise.
Bring Jack back as a part time consultant working with Landry. Let Mitchell lead, Teal'c be a warrior, Daniel an explorer and Vala a electric addition to the team to have fun verbal contests with Jack.
JACK FAN WHO IS NOT A SAM FAN - AND PROUD OF IT.
Joe,
just one question: when exactly did Claudia find out that she's gonna be a regular cast member? During filming Crusade/Camelot or during filming the first 6 eps of season 9?
" God, you know what's really pathetic? The fact that some people assume all those who are sick of Sam are Daniel fans."
There's a difference between being sick of a character and using every opportunity to bash Carter, Ms. Tapping, and her fans. That's what distinguishes you from the Dannyranters that I've seen on this blog and on other forums. Their unrelenting and vocal behavior is why many fans assume that people who dislike Sam must be Daniel fans.
Love your blogs, Joe. Keep rockin'!
And hope you enjoyed Serenity. I purchased it on the release date, and have watched it many, many *winces* many many many times . . .
kamelion :)
Joe, sounds like you producers really treat the people who work for you well. Nice one. You're real classy.
Hey I'm a RDA fan and I think ATs behavior and carry on is the biggest load of elephant poop out.
When RDA was there she could get more screen time by carrying on about how they had so much 'chemistry' together and that was all we ever heard about. These days shes busy talking up the 'chemistry' with DH and downplaying the chemistry with RDA. The woman is selfobsessed and a one woman overselfpromotion mashine. In the latest interview with Gateworld shes so sickly sweet about the writers and producers it makes me want to hurl. But she also lays the blame clearly on the writers/producers feet for Sam not being the star character and not having any idea about what the character is doing next season. At the same time shes carrying on about how she hopes CBs character wont spell less time for Sam well what about Ben Bs character? His character is just as likely to take screen time and story lines from Sam. But BB isnt a female so hes no threat. Heaven forbid another female come in to challenge the 'action mom'.
AT had her chance to make something of her character but she chose to ride on RDAs coattails, now she is trying to do it with DH and leave RDA in her dust because hes no longer useful, and shes trying to undermine CB in the process. Tacky and talentless.
I agree with rdelciousa about getting rid of Sam and bringing Jack back. RDA has more appeal and class in his little finger than the overated primadona ever can have.
RDAs still the 1 for me
Joe, Joe, where are you - we are still waiting for you to jump to the defense of AT and Carter the way you feel compelled to for BB and CB and their characters. Come on Joe you must have more class than letting your vetern swing in the wind don'cha? No - guess not.
Ralph Garen
...Responding to "Joanne K"...
Funny, but I don't see where AT downplayed RDA at all.
Keeping things in perspective, she hasn't had any scenes with RDA in over a year. She said she had great chemistry with DH, but why is that a surprise? She just filmed with DH again and she's said before she enjoys the chemistry they have together. How is this dissing RDA? Because she didn't talk about him? I would have liked that too but she wasn't asked about Rick.
And how is she undermining CB again? She answered a question directly..."Claudia Black has been confirmed as a full-fledged cast member for Season Ten. How do you think this will affect Carter's presence, and what do you think Vala's contribution will be (besides the occasional snide comment) to make it perfectly logical for her to join SG-1?" and said she didn't know what effect if any it would have on Carter.
You also must have missed where she said, "I'm glad Claudia's going to be back as a full-time cast member. That's really awesome and her character's amazing."
So I'm not sure what interview you read but the one I read was with a gracious and delightful woman who calls it like she sees it and is a little uneasy about the future but also stated, "The writers are so incredible the way they do this tapestry that they're building that I'm sure they'll find a way to make it all work."
Mary Beth
hey, joanne k - putting 'RDA Fan' on the end doesnt disguise the fact that your a danny ranter. and its fans like you that show why its perfectly understandable for RDA to not want to bother with fan conventions and the like.
so please piss off - go masturbate over your shanksy pictures or jack/daniel mansex fic (well, more like jack/daniel acting like 16yo school girls fic) and leave us the hell alone.
I'm with the guy above, Joe. A little bit of support for AT would be welcomed.
Response to Joe from Roberta::
Joe said:
"Interestingly, you fail to put the aforementioned responses in "context". Feel free to look up the posts I was responding to. Those fans who post in a respectful manner, regardless of what opinion they happen to express, will be responded to in a respectful manner. Those who choose to be insulting in their posts should should demonstrate a little more backbone.
As for my comments on the Solutions forum, they were sad statements of fact in direct reference to some of the arguments that have been put forth by criticism of Mitchell's leadership. There have been some good arguments made that I personally disagree with. There have also been some unintentionally hilarious arguments made: ie. Mitchell's loud talking was what alerted the Sodan to their presence in Babylon, therefore he shouldn't be leading SG-1. His loud talking alerted the Sodan? As I stated on the Solutions boards: Why not blame just blame his strong after-shave?"
ROBERTA Says: Okay - I am running because I am off to Asia again and have to figure out what to do on the plane for that many hours (last month it was to watch all the rotten movies United showed) but had to get this down.
Joe - in relation to your response: the point you make regarding some of the “anonymous” and snotty posts you respond to is taken. However, I suggest that, just as you ignore many of the posts with legitimate criticisms and legitimate questions you ignore the disrespectful ones as well. Your responses to those bring you down to the same level as the posters you seem to hold in such contempt and it is not attractive and it does not play well for you (who is not anonymous).
Now about your responses on Solutions, a place I am sure you feel comfortable making statements such as the two that follow because you are surrounded by those that love Mitchell and Vala for OBVIOUS reasons. At Solutions 251, in relation to Mitchell you said: “The bottom line is: if people decide they don't like something, they'll create a point of argument even if one doesn't really exist.” I suggest your re-read this and 227. This quote from 251 came at the end of a response in which you challenged those that think Mitchell should not be leading, as well as those that may have made somewhat off-the-wall (in your opinion) statements about how Mitchell has been written and portrayed. People, sir, are entitled to form their own opinions, because you disagree does not mean their opinions are any more wrong, or right, than yours.
First of all your above response is again disrespectful by saying that your opinions of others opinions are “sad statements of fact”. Since when is opinion fact based, Mr.Mallozzi?
This blog post, as well as your response at Solutions 251, are insults and disrespectful to the large number of fans who dislike Mitchell or feel he is not leadership material based on how he has been written and portrayed and the type of experience he has (or doesn’t have) versus the type of experience (8+ years worth) the three people he is supposed to be leading have – it is illogical and many, many fans are not buying it, for many, many different reasons. Sorry if you disagree, that’s what we are here for, people disagree and people have differing OPINIONS. Just because you, or your friends, wrote it or directed it or produced it, does not mean everyone should therefore likewise love it or their opinions are worthless and have no place because their reasons for having an opinion that differs from yours don’t exist. That, Mr. Mallozzi, is YOUR OPIONION and one which I do not hold. You cannot get into the fans heads.
Please do not insult me, or the other many fans who dislike Mitchell, or who think he should not be leading SG1, by belittling their opinions as having no basis just because they DIFFER from yours. That is truly arrogant on your part. Most have legitimate, logical, well-founded reasons for their opinions. Reasons based on the factual history of the show that many have watched for 6, 7, 8 and 9 years now.
At Solutions 227 you said: “There are some people who don't like the character, so their dislike of the character will taint their logic in this respect. I know people don't like to hear it, but Teal'c was a former enemy and a murderer prior to joining SG-1. And look at how that worked out? I've read some of the arguments against Vala but I would point out that she did go a long way toward redeeming herself in Beachhead. And, I'm sorry, but anyone who argues that her "almost sacrifice" at episode's end was just another facet of her opportunism is reaaaaaally reeeeeaching in a big way.”
Again, this is an arrogant response to the many fans who dislike Vala for many and varied and legitimate reasons not the least of which is mine. (If I had time I would go into my opinions on using Teal'c as a comparison -talk about an angry Teal'c fan, one who thinks your comparison is an insult to Tela'c. Maybe when I get back I can address that one.) In MY OPINION Vala is a lying, thieving, cheap, sleazy, caricature. She is not funny; she is crass and above all her character is trite. To tell me my logic is tainted is beyond disrespectful, you don’t know me or how I think. It is an insult and blatantly dismisses as wrong anyone who disagrees with your opinion. In YOUR OPINON Vala is funny and whatever else you think she is, that is your taste, it is not mine. I think she does a disservice to Stargate and the show that had been able to stay above that kind of cheap, sleazy, stereotypical caricature for 8 years (well almost 8 if you count PU – great name BTW because the acronym is indeed perfect, IMO.)
In the future it would serve you well not to be quite so condescending, and disrespectful, to the many fans, many of whom are long-time, fans, who dare to have opinions that differ from yours. (Read your own blog entries Mr.Mallozzi, you do not always have positive things to say about some movies or some of the very shows you claim to have once liked. That is your opinion. I am sure the writers or producers of those movies/shows would beg to differ with you but I am not so sure they would stoop to the level of disrespect you show for many of the fans of Stargate by telling you that your opinions are worthless because your thinking is illogical or tainted or that your reasons for jumping off the proverbial bandwagon don’t exist.)
Good night, Mr. Mallozzi.
Roberta
Joe...
Changing the topic just a hair...what does Memento Mori mean? Most names so far we can attribute some basic theme but this one (for me at least) is a head scratcher...
MB
Memento Mori means "Remember the Dead" lots of interesting notions can come from that...
Why would Joe come out and defend AT? She's just said what a wonderful place Gateworld is and how it's the only place on line that she visits. No matter it's a site that defames and vilianises her fellow cast members, no matter the way the writers and producers arew regularly abused for not writing the true romance that the shippers want, why would she care? It's the one single site on the net where she is idolised to obession, where her followers worship their "queen". Just her kind of place - all about her. No wonder her acting doesn't improve, the swooning teeny boppers think her world class gurning equals real, adult emotion and tell her so repeatedly. How self obsessed can you get?
Joe,
I noticed at one of threads here at GW some opinions and suggestions that SciFi sort of wants to "re-create" Farscape and the network is kinda forcing you (all the writers) to pair Vala and Cam much more next season so there can be a feeling for some Scapers that they're watching John and Aeryn. Personally I don't believe this bullshit, 'cause it's total nonsense. Could you say whether it's true or not?
Dear Roberta, for someone on her way to Asia, you sure had plenty of time to spew before you left. Be careful over there; we wouldn't want you to catch Avian Flu and therefore deprive us of your rambling novels in future.
JM and the other writers simply disagree with your criticisms. Why is that so hard to believe? As RCC said, they're making the show they want to watch. Why should 15 GW fans think they can change that? Talk about fan hubris.
"Why would Joe come out and defend AT? She's just said what a wonderful place Gateworld is and how it's the only place on line that she visits. No matter it's a site that defames and vilianises her fellow cast members, no matter the way the writers and producers arew regularly abused for not writing the true romance that the shippers want, why would she care? It's the one single site on the net where she is idolised to obession, where her followers worship their "queen". Just her kind of place - all about her. No wonder her acting doesn't improve, the swooning teeny boppers think her world class gurning equals real, adult emotion and tell her so repeatedly. How self obsessed can you get?"
What? I'm not a Carter fan and I don't see any of this obsession on gateworld that you're talking about. I see Daniel fans, Jack fans, Carter fans, Teal'c fans, and Mitchell and Vala fans all managing to live together, something that the other major stargate sites haven't been able to manage.
Could you provide evidence that gateworld defames other characters, or is this just more of your spin? You guys sure do a lot of that.
Anonymous wrote:
What? I'm not a Carter fan and I don't see any of this obsession on gateworld that you're talking about. I see Daniel fans, Jack fans, Carter fans, Teal'c fans, and Mitchell and Vala fans all managing to live together, something that the other major stargate sites haven't been able to manage.
Could you provide evidence that gateworld defames other characters, or is this just more of your spin? You guys sure do a lot of that.
I totally agree. I've lurked at ALL the forums and this is the ONLY one that actually allows diversity of opinion and manages to encompass all fans viewpoints likes and dislikes.
Solutions and OS are very Daniel-centric; they aren't discussion forums IMO with a diversity of opinion. Rather they are both forums where fans of Daniel/MS gather to sing the praises of the character and the actor -- more like a fan club. An episode without Daniel isn't worth watching in many of their opinions.
The Sony Forum? Just the same people from OS over there saying the same stuff.
In the 3 years, that I've lurked here, I've never ever read one post where anyone is bashing Michael Shanks at all. The most that has been said is that they don't like his acting, but it's never approached the level of virtriolic nonsense of the jealous Sam bashers.
Those of you enjoying the diversity of opinions on GW now might not have been here before/during Season 6, when it was open season on Daniel, MS, and all fans of either. You should be grateful you weren't here to see it or have it aimed at you (I was not so lucky). Thank heavens most of those 'people' have left GW for whatever reason. But those who started OS did so because they were treated so rudely here, and they have long memories about it. I'm not defending OS, but only providing some context.
Anonymous said:
Those of you enjoying the diversity of opinions on GW now might not have been here before/during Season 6, when it was open season on Daniel, MS, and all fans of either. You should be grateful you weren't here to see it or have it aimed at you (I was not so lucky). Thank heavens most of those 'people' have left GW for whatever reason. But those who started OS did so because they were treated so rudely here, and they have long memories about it. I'm not defending OS, but only providing some context.
Starting your own forum where you can discuss your favorite character/actor without others basing you is fine if that's what you want to do. But IMO, OS has become what they sought to get away from. Bottom line is that Daniel is king there and if you don't tow the line, have the same opinions about him -- the Wonder that is Daniel -- you aren't allowed to post there. Liking Daniel, but thinking he makes mistakes like others and shows the same not so flattering qualities that the characters show -- is not allowed.
95% of the posters despise the character of Sam and spend much of their time saying negative things about the character AND Amanda.
Sorry, the entire idea of being jealous of a fictional character (and many Danny ranters are jealous of Carter because they perceive she took Jack away from Daniel and because they feel Carter gets more airtime than Daniel) to the extent that you spend so much time trashing her, is IMO, very pathetic.
There are threads on GW for people who abhor J/S ship, who think S9 is a great idea and for those who think S9 is a mistake. Nothing like that would ever happen on OS. I repeat, it's like a fan club for Michael Shanks and a snake pit for Amanda Tapping.
For those who think GW is so diverse in opinions: you should have tried to post a question in Joe's thread back in early season 9 which asked a Vala related question.
These posts were deleted by mods, the mods publicly told people to stop asking so many Vala questions (notice how they didn't do the same to the Sam or Sam/Jack questions), and when posters PM'd Darren to ask why pro Vala posts were deleted, Darren told them to stop being so over sensitive about mod action.
However no mod action was ever taken against those pro Sam posters who regularly posted long rambling or strident comments in the thread or who repeated the same question (with slightly different wording) over and over again.
Got to love a place which stacks the cards so Joe doesn't get the opinion a new character or a different team member may be popular.
Still think GW is unbiased these days? Then I've got a bridge in Arizona for sale you'll love.
Still think GW is unbiased these days? Then I've got a bridge in Arizona for sale you'll love.
Hey, nor forum is totally unbiased. But GW is no more biased than OS certainly. Here, at least there are such threads as the Anti-S/J thread, Anti-Vala thread, Pro-Vala thread, where people can actually post and say what they feel. Do you actually think the owner of OS would allow *anyone* to start an anti-Daniel thread? Heck, I've seen Sam fans post at that forum and they all get driven away.
Got to love a place which stacks the cards so Joe doesn't get the opinion a new character or a different team member may be popular.
Joe answers questions at Solutions -- another Daniel loving, Vala loving (because more Vala = more Daniel), Sam hating forum, so I'm sure he gets a variety of opinions, don't you think?
I'm sure neither "side" behaved admirable during the S6 situation. However, what's past is past. The Danny Ranters just don't seem to want to let go. I repeat...I've not seen (in the 3 years I've lurked here) any kind of Daniel bashing that even remotely can touch the level of Sam hatred and bashing. It's really sad.
(and many Danny ranters are jealous of Carter because they perceive she took Jack away from Daniel and because they feel Carter gets more airtime than Daniel)
Gosh, I was almost sympathizing with your view until you had to throw out this Samanda/shipper propaganda yet again. Unlike the shipper die-hards, the fans of the Jack and Daniel relationship (however they view it) have accepted that Jack is gone and that the friendship will live on only in fan fic.
For the DOZENS of times Joe's been asked on GW for yet MORE validation of Jack/Sam, I've not seen a single fan ask when we're going to see any reference to Daniel and Jack still being friends. I've not seen "Dannyranters" insisting that Daniel be put in charge of SG-1, when I'm sure some good arguments for that could be made.
Disliking how Sam has been written in recent years does not equal Danny ranting. It's 2 separate things, and I'd say the Samranters have been a lot more vocal lately than Daniel fans.
What people have said here about Mitchell comes across as bashing to people who like the character. I guess we all have our own truths and don't like to see them attacked.
**For the DOZENS of times Joe's been asked on GW for yet MORE validation of Jack/Sam, I've not seen a single fan ask when we're going to see any reference to Daniel and Jack still being friends. I've not seen "Dannyranters" insisting that Daniel be put in charge of SG-1, when I'm sure some good arguments for that could be made.**
Yes, disliking how Sam has been written over the past few years is one thing and I'm a member of that group. I don't like how she has been written, but that doesn't equate with repeating over and over again (at every opportunity) how much I hate the character, wish she was off the show, make nasty personal comments about AT, etc. One poster even suggested that AT should admit that she should not really be acting with MS because she wasn't good enough. Those are the Dannyranters; I'm sure you know them.
As for the Jack and Daniel friendship. Many of the Dannyranters left that one behind long ago when they perceived Jack wasn't nice to Danny anymore; when they felt he liked Carter better. Now they've moved on to Danny and Mitchell and want to see some "moments" between them -- Mitchell listens to Daniel (unlike Jack), so they like Mitchell. They like or dislike every character based on how that character treats Daniel.
You you may not be one; the Ranters live and are quite active.
Anoynmous wrote:
For the DOZENS of times Joe's been asked on GW for yet MORE validation of Jack/Sam, I've not seen a single fan ask when we're going to see any reference to Daniel and Jack still being friends. I've not seen "Dannyranters" insisting that Daniel be put in charge of SG-1, when I'm sure some good arguments for that could be made.
Daniel be put in charge of SG-1? A civilian consultant be put in charge of a military unit? I'd love to hear *those* arguments. Humor me please.
Jock Penman
someone anonymous said 8Starting your own forum where you can discuss your favorite character/actor without others basing you is fine if that's what you want to do. But IMO, OS has become what they sought to get away from. Bottom line is that Daniel is king there and if you don't tow the line, have the same opinions about him -- the Wonder that is Daniel -- you aren't allowed to post there. Liking Daniel, but thinking he makes mistakes like others and shows the same not so flattering qualities that the characters show -- is not allowed.8
I have news for you, if you think OS is about or for Daniel Jackson/Michael Shanks and his fans, you are sadly mistaken.
The OS forum is for one thing and one thing only, to boost the ego of its owner and few select people who blindly follow her. Many Daniel Jackson/Michael Shanks fans have been driven away from the forum by their hypocrisy and appalling behavior and treatment of other Daniel fans who don't agree with them or fall in line with them.
Here's the latest incident of hypocrisy in action. See them rant about how terrible it was for them to be sent to GW about feedback for the action figures
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/messages?msg=7401.53
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/messages?msg=7401.57
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/messages?msg=7401.58
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/messages?msg=7401.59
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/messages?msg=7401.60
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/messages?msg=7401.62
Then see them turn around and think it's perfectly acceptable for them to be asked by Creation to use OS for comments and feedback on a new Daniel tee-shirt design. They made sure a big news announcement was made about it everywhere.
That's the kind of hypocrisy many Daniel Jackson/Michael Shanks fans do not want to be associated with, not even hard core and so called dannyranters.
I feel bad for the rational fans who like Daniel, the fans who like both Daniel and Sam, and the fans who have a problem with the writing for Sam but can state their arguments in a calm, rational manner without spewing vitrol. The Dannyranters on this blog, OS, Solutions, and Sony have made all those fans look bad by association. Thank goodness they're not allowed to post that kind of crap on gateworld.
Daniel be put in charge of SG-1? A civilian consultant be put in charge of a military unit? I'd love to hear *those* arguments. Humor me please.
I think the idea was put out only for illustration, but since you're in the mood to laugh...
Daniel is likely a highly-ranked US government employee, I'd guess a GS-15. That has a rank equivalence of Colonel. I'm sure with his contacts and experience it would not be impossible for him to be commissioned as an Air Force Colonel if he wanted to be (and didn't mind the cut in pay). After all, bigger and stranger things have happened to him.
He's got more experience with the Stargate and gate travel than anyone except Jack. More than Jack, if you count his year on Abydos. He's an expert at first contact and diplomacy. He speaks 23+ languages. He's learned tactics and weapons from the best -- Jack and Teal'c, for nine years. He can hold his own in a battle, and has done so many times. He is the only one from Earth who has ever seen the Ori or talked to a Doci. He understands the Ancients and the power of the ascended first hand, and apparently retained much of that knowledge after his second 'de-ascension' in Threads. He's capable of leadership -- he led the people of Abydos, after all. He has given orders, and seemed to be running things in Prototype.
No, I don't believe Daniel would want command of SG-1, but I think he's every bit as qualified as Sam is, if we're going to get sticky about it.
As for the Jack and Daniel friendship. Many of the Dannyranters left that one behind long ago when they perceived Jack wasn't nice to Danny anymore
If that's true, why is there still so much Jack/Daniel fanfic being written? Dannyranters are still finding plenty of material to explore, even set in season 9, so it looks like J&D got around any little roadblocks (eg doe-eyed subordinates) and on with their romance.
If that's true, why is there still so much Jack/Daniel fanfic being written? Dannyranters are still finding plenty of material to explore, even set in season 9, so it looks like J&D got around any little roadblocks (eg doe-eyed subordinates) and on with their romance.
But that requires imagination and talent, the shipper just want someone else to do it for them.
Nah, they just want the chance to rub everyone elses noses in it because it pisses them off that there's still people out there (including AT apparently) who don't see it as the greatest love story since Romeo and Juliet. They need on screen validation so they're "right" and everyone else is wrong. Why else would they still be complaining when they were declaring that Threads "proved" that Sam and Jack were together?
it's like a fan club for Michael Shanks and a snake pit for Amanda Tapping.
And I can't think of anone more deserving of a snake pit. Gateworld and Tapping deserve each other.
Then see them turn around and think it's perfectly acceptable for them to be asked by Creation to use OS for comments and feedback on a new Daniel tee-shirt design. They made sure a big news announcement was made about it everywhere.
Why would Creation ask Gateworld about a Daniel t shirt? The anti-Daniel reputation here is well known in the merchandising industry. They want to know what appeals to their customers not to read 100 tirades by the the same three sock muppets abusing them for not bringing out a jackandspam t shirt first. I'm sure if they ever do, you'll be the first ones asked.
(Why would Creation ask Gateworld about a Daniel t shirt? The anti-Daniel reputation here is well known in the merchandising industry. They want to know what appeals to their customers)
Oh so when a merchandiser wants to put feedback requests on GW it's not right and the merchandiser should be using their own website to get an unbiased opinion or so says AncientGate on OS. Fans shouldn't have to go to a site they don't like to give feedback on somehing so says Chief Elf Wrangler.
But if someone wants feedback for a Daniel shirt they should have to go directly to OS because?
Isn't that a bit hypocritical for them to say fans should have an unbiased place to go to give feedback on an action figure, not be forced to go to GW and that DST is treating fans terribly for making them go to GW. But hurry, run to OS to give feedback on Creation's new Daniel tee-shirt design.
If you think that's acceptable and right, then it's people like you who give Daniel fans a bad name.
Ah, so Dannyranters are Jack/Daniel slashers? That explains their undying hatred toward Carter. Heaven forbid a woman get in the way of Jack and Daniel, who have never shown the slightest indication of being gay. I guess that's what requires so much imagination and talent, huh? Keep that love alive in fanfic though, because that's all slashers are going to get. The writers don't have the guts to write any kind of gay relationship into stargate.
Keep that love alive in fanfic though, because that's all slashers are going to get. The writers don't have the guts to write any kind of gay relationship into stargate.
And unlike shippers, who MUST have their favorite pairing confirmed in the show even if it ruins said show (X-files, anyone?), slashers are perfectly happy to bring a love to life and keep it alive in fanfic. They don't expect, demand, or insist they are owed anything more than friendship by the show.
BTW, it is possible to dislike Carter because one simply does not like the character, and not for any other reason. Hard as that is for Sam-ranters to accept.
Ah Joe, finally! Let me tell you it goes a very long way to actually get some answers to the whole O'Neill disappearance act. And I'm completely serious. It may not be what I want to hear, but it is very nice to get a few straight answers. I will never understand why it was decided, we need another 3 extra minutes of Vala instead of something definite to what Jack's up to, but it's good to know you haven't entirely forgotten the character. I suppose it was pretty clear RDA wouldn't show up anytime soon and I doubt we'll see him in s10, so I'd have prefered a clean break, finish his arc and make it a surprise when he does show up, but then I guess hindsight is 20/20.
Again though I do appreciate the answers you've given.
Keep that love alive in fanfic though, because that's all slashers are going to get. The writers don't have the guts to write any kind of gay relationship into stargate.
They don't need to write a "gay" relationship into Stargate, all they had to do was write (and act) two men who obviously love each other. Whether you choose to see that as platonic or otherwise is up to the viewer. As far as I can see it's far more than the shippers ever got because it never looked to me that Jack felt anything for Carter except dyspepsia.
the only gay I could see pop up in stargate is some "queer eye for the straight guy"-reject in one scene, for comic relief purpose only. And you would see him trying to hit on mckay or doctor beckett if it is on sga.
Joe,
After looking at an article in the latest TV Guide (the one with picture of one of BG's stars on the cover) dealing with relationship between two of the series stars starting with Gunsmoke's Matt and Kitty (starting when it was on radio) up through the X-Files, I think you, the other writers and TPTB are missing a BIG money making opportunity – The wedding of Sam and Jack.
Now wait before you hit the delete key.. hear (read) me out.
First.. you have to think more Hollywood on this..
Its a Big wedding...
Think of the Muldavian Wedding on Dynasty (without the massacre).
The show will be two hours long...
Sam and Jack have a real adult discussion about their relationship and decide to take the big step.
Guest actors from previous shows (even ones that have died in the series) can make a cameo appearance (think Dr Fraiser, Sam's father even Rodney all giving Sam advice or best wishes ala “Grace”).
Same for Jack (even his former wife could show up to wish him well).
Location location location...
The wedding takes place at the real Air Force Academy (You can do this.. quid pro quo for the guest shots in season seven). Sam and
Jack are married in their formal dress AF uniforms. At the end of the wedding Jack gives Sam his “Generals Stars” (More on why later .. hint.. Affinity).
Tie in's ...
Tickets ($) for real seats in the chapel for the “wedding” and for the big dinner afterward with the money going to Sam and Jack's favorite charity
Some tickets to viewers via a Sci-Fi website raffle
Spread in TV guide and other magazines, TV interviews, etc leading up to the wedding all focused on getting the viewer numbers way up there so you can charge more for the Ads that night
Pictures of the wedding signed by Sam and Jack (especially the “Kiss”) will be worth a fortune. If you doubt me, look how far over the internet the little one from “Point of View” has gone. Hasn't that one been raffled as well?
Special DVD of the wedding episode with wedding photos (which also contains a commented version by Jack and Sam of the full length “Threads” episode) would outsell the season nine DVD set by at least a factor of ten
Fan Reaction..
Shippers will have viewing parties with everyone saying “Isn't that great”. Non-shippers will have viewing parties saying “Isn't that awful ”. In any event, everyone will be watching and your numbers will be great
Resolution ..
Jack is retired.. never to be seen on SG1 again.
Sam is promoted and put in charge of “The New Trust” (same mission as the old but with a conscious) and goes out on missions on both SG1 and Atlantis (when artifacts are found)
So.. there you have it .. Happy viewers, bigger numbers, revenue opportunities and fun writing assignments.. What more could you ask for and all you have to do is marry off Sam and Jack.
Martin Lloyd
I also would have preferred the deleted scenes over some that were kept. Just for interest, I'd like to mentally add a scene. SG-1 is walking down the corridor. They are slightly startled to walk past a "tall" version of themselves. Walking on they look back at the tall ones, then turn a corner and almost walk into a "short" version of themselves. Just a fun image.