25 Responses

  1. Craig MacD.
    Craig MacD.
    March 3, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

    I agree with pretty much everything said in this podcast about women in Stargate. Honestly, I think the only sci-fi shows that have handled female characters well are Farscape, Firefly, and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Female characters in Stargate really don’t get any “action hero” moments as the male characters, and when they do its almost laughable at the cliched way in which the situations are handled. Teyle being the best example of an underused female character. Weir I think had some good moments, but after the first season of Atlantis she lost a lot of her edge.

  2. Sylvia
    March 3, 2010 at 12:24 pm |

    Thanks so much for having the women on the Podcast, very enjoyable and I always love Tame on the show!
    I am nostalgic about Vala now, but at the time of the original airing I pretty much stopped watching the show because of the focus on her. Several years later, I can watch her without cringing. But I thought they just brought her in for the sex appeal to the fanboys.
    But I loved Claudia on Farscape so it wasn’t the actress.
    I always loved Sam because she showed us a very intelligent and capable woman and never thought she was a Mary Sue, she was a good person and I appreciated that.
    Janet Fraiser was terrific, competent, but not super-woman. She was probably my favorite female character on SG1.
    Although I like SGA more than SG1, I don’t think the women were as well-realized on SGA.
    When she was a regular on the show, I did not appreciate Weir, she wasn’t very consistant personality-wise and I did want to see more conflict between her and Shep.
    I thought they shoe-horned her into the script sometimes but couldn’t figure out what to do with her as a leader. But after she left and then came back for those few moments as replicator, I realized how much she had brought to the show. With her there, something that had been missing returned. Somehow just having her there made the mix of characters richer.
    Re Teyla, I agree they could have done so much more. I love Teyla as a character but she was so incredibly underutilized. My favorite parts of SGA are the Team aspects and I wanted to see more of her. I think the pregnancy derailed her character even further, although I did not want to see her go “darker” as was the plan prior to the pregnancy announcement.
    I think my favorite ladies on SGA were the secondary characters, Biro, Novak, Cadman, they had quirks and weren’t there as sex-objects.
    The less said about Keller the better, in my opinion she was just brought in because the producers had a crush on the actress and they wanted to attract the fanboys and Firefly fans with a sexy young blonde. The romance with McKay was so poorly done and alientated me from much of the last season’s shows. McKay was one of my favorite characters and I started to dislike him due to him lusting after this young girl. If they has kept her as a young intern assigned to Atlantis and in the background I would have liked her more. Her character was probably the weakest one in the two shows.
    SGU women: just awful, sexist portrayals of women, hopefully the women they have hired for the second season will rescue these poor gals.

  3. prion
    March 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

    The women in the Stargate universe are not written very well, period. Sam was probably the best, because at least – for the most part – she was not squeezed into a tight (midriff-baring, at times) outfit. I think I read somewhere that Amanda Tapping told the writers to write her as a man, and she’d take care of the rest. Sam was probably the only well-written woman on the series.

    There was a lot of potential with good actors wasted because the writers just did not know how to write women. Keller was probably the worst (no offense to the actress) because she was nearly a caricature – whining, trying to figure out who to date, etc. etc.). THe SGU females are, as someone pointed out, defined by the men they interacted with to create their identity. I’d rather see Chloe not mope around and actually go “What CAN I do to help in this intolerable situation??”

    If the writers want to emulate BSG with their darkness, etc., they should also watch how many of the women were written. Would help otu SGU a *lot*.

  4. Denise
    March 3, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

    I think a lot of the female characters are often no more than the sum of who they’re sleeping with.

    It’s like they get so caught up in ‘omg, we’re writing a GIRL!!!!!!!!!’ that they forget that she’s a person first.

    And they don’t write her as a person, they can’t seem to get past the cleavage to see the person that’s underneath.

    I can agree with sylvia that the secondary characters seem to fare better, and so do the secondary male characters. I personally think Lorne was the best example of an officer on the whole of SGA. And I think that’s because, when they write the secondary ones, they don’t get all focused on making them something or fitting them into a stereotype, they just write them as people that move the episode along.

    I did not like Vala on the show, not her personally, but what she was. She was so trivialized and marginalized as a person even as she was thrust into the limelight as much as possible.

    She was the ‘hot alien chick that had the hots for the favorite geek’, and was used for comedic relief more than anything else.

    It was sad to see all that potential wasted.

    I also agree with weir being ‘shoehorned’. There were episodes – namely the one underwater where they found the crashed ship, and why was weir there? she served no purpose, beyond her presence filling out the number of episode requirements in the actress’ contract.

    Weir was defined by allowing and permitting shep to run the city, teyla was defined by her caring for Shep, and later being a mother of the resident ‘super baby’, Vala was defined by her feelings for Daniel and being the ‘super baby mama’, Chloe is defined by her relationship with Scott, TJ is defined by her relationship with Young, Young’s wife is defined by her dual relationships, Wray is defined by her relationship with Sharon, Keller was defined by her relationship with Rodney….there’s a theme here.

    Early Sam and Janet were women in a man’s world, doing their job and rarely was their gender a plot point. (with exceptions of Hathor and Emancipation, both 1st season shows), but the same can’t be said of the others.

    You, generally speaking, can’t take any of the other leading ladies, swap their genders to be male, and have them – roughly – fit the same role in the show as males that they had as ladies.

    These guys can’t write REAL women to save their lives. It’s cliches and stereotypes and yes, quite often, sexist and with some very real examples of gender bias.

    I think, how they write women is why I’m not as big of a fan of SGA and SGU as i was of SG1. In SG1 there was someone to identify with, a female on the show that’s just doing her job. She’s not a sexpot, not a vamp, just a person.

    We didn’t have that on SGA and we don’t, thus far, have that on SGU, so I don’t have much interest in the shows.

  5. Sylvia
    March 3, 2010 at 2:30 pm |

    I think one of the best Teyla moments in SGA was when she kicked Michael off the ledge to his death. She took ownership of her destiny and made a decision to act. More moments like this would have made me a happier Teyla fan.

  6. Petra
    March 3, 2010 at 2:43 pm |

    Firstly, let me congratulate you on the subject of the podcast and on bringing women to talk about women.

    Having said this, I must say that I haven’t been so disappointed since the podcast about SG- season 10. I thought the whole point was to have 2 women with different views of the female characters; as it turned out Tame and Ms Robison agreed with each other almost all the time and it was David who did most disagreeing. In this light I can’t help but think the combo of him and one of the ladies would be more interesting.

    What’s more, for all the complaints about Stargate women being stereotypical, opinions presented by Ms Robison and Tame – with all due respect – were also incredibly stereotypical. At times I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Sam Carter is responsible for Janet’s death? Really? That’s the argument often repeated by Sam bashers and one that has no basis in the episode; additionally it was refuted by the writers themselves. I’m at a loss how it made it to the podcast. I also can’t agree with the claim that Sam was too perfect; she was no more perfect than the rest of the guys. She made mistakes just like they did. If that wasn’t the case, why would the fandom be so divided about her? You have small but vocal contingent of fans who claim that she’s a total failure and another small but vocal contingent of fans complaining about her being too perfect. I’m sad that there was nobody representing majority of the viewers who see Sam as just a normal woman – very smart, intelligent and having a cooler job than most, but still, normal. I think her character was very well balanced.

    Besides, how can I take seriously complaints that she’s too smart, too pretty etc. when the women making them have no problem with male characters being too smart and too pretty? It’s called “double standards”.

    Same with the claim that the guys weren’t getting emotional scenes. They had plenty of them. If Ms Robison thinks Sha’re doesn’t count, then how about Daniel’s reaction to Vala being burned alive? How about his suicidal attempt in The Light or ascension in Meridian? How about Teal’c grieving for his wife in Redemption or for Shau’noc in Crossroads? How about Jack’s upset over Sam’s missing in Grace, if you don’t want to count his grief over his son? The number of emotional scenes each character had in the first 8 years of the show was quite even.

    I also noticed that Tame and Ms Robison focused on Vala’s portrayal in season 8&9 and ignored her very poor use in season 10 (in the episodes not dealing with the Ori, such as Bounty).

    I agree that in the later seasons writing of the women on SG-1 got worse. I also agree with the part about SGA. As for SGU, I disagree that TJ “is hesitant”. She actually reminds me of Janet, she has the same spunk which enabled her to sedate Telford for example. I also disagree with the podcast’s guests’ perception of lesbian relationship on SGU. I think it was very tasteful and low-key.

    Hopefully, the next time you decide to invite guests, their opinions won’t be so similar and one-sided.

  7. Imitation Tofu
    Imitation Tofu
    March 3, 2010 at 2:57 pm |

    I think the women were written very well in battlestar galactica. They were strong and independent but not mary sues. I think the portrayal of women has gotten worse from sg-1 to atlantis to universe. The three most important characters are all men (rush,young,eli) and the women are written as afterthoughts. This needs to change.

  8. Denise
    March 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    I think it would help if they just wrote characters, and not fuss over the gender. Don’t focus on ‘i’m writing this young woman, how would she act???’

    Instead think ‘ok, there’s this 24 year old child of a us senator stuck on the ship, how would they act?’

    I think Janet, beyond Hathor, was the only female on the show that wasn’t defined by her gender. She was the doctor. And – again ignoring Hathor – was there any instance when Doctor Frasier couldn’t have been a male and still been the same basic character?

    I’m not saying they all need to be asexual. Far from it. but these show runners seem to have a very backwards, cliched and stereotypical view of what females are and how they act, and that’s how they write them.

    If any of these guys have daughters, i feel sorry for the stereotypes they’re perpetrating. Cause they’re ‘flavoring’ the world their kids will grow up in. and if you’re a girl, it’s not a good image they’re setting.

    We’re not seeing females as equal and contributing members of the team, we’re, all too often, seeing the guys, action heros and geeky side kicks, supported, cared for and loved by the women…who seem to be helpless without a male telling her what to do.

  9. katikatnik
    March 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

    I liked Weir and Teyla, but Keller was a blond love interest slash damsel in distress slash the resident whiner. In one episode she kicked some Wraith butt, in the next all she could do was stand around and whimper in fear – the inconsistencies were painfull to watch. Her favorite occupation – kidnapping victim! Give me Teyla and her stick-fighting any day.

  10. Mel
    March 3, 2010 at 6:06 pm |

    I have to agree with Petra. I was looking forward to this podcast, but this was very disappointing to me. When you said you were going to get two women with differing opinions on the female characters, I hoped you would actually have two women with differing opinions. I also hoped you would actually get a couple of women who actually relate more to the female characters than the male ones.

    Your commentators say that Sam was one dimensional because she was too perfect, but they think the male heroes are multi-dimensional when they were portrayed as being just as skilled and lacking in flaws as Sam. I read this recently on livejournal – “The feminine form of hero is heroine, not Mary Sue.” It would be refreshing if female characters like Sam were not held to a double standard for once. We give the male characters a pass b/c heroes are supposed to be good looking, brave, smart, and strong. When we see those very same qualities in a female character, we deride the character for being stereotypical and one-dimensional. Shepherd and Cam, although both very cute and charming, were portrayed with a lot less depth and realism than Carter, Weir, and Teyla ever were.

    They criticize Sam for being too strong, too smart, too confident, but then go on and criticize Keller for being too insecure and hesitant. What do they dislike about Teyla and Weir? That they let the guys get away with too much and seemed to be too submissive at times? And yet they love Vala and find absolutely nothing wrong with the character even though she was almost always portrayed as the stereotypical ditzy, flirty sex kitten who let men like Daniel walk all over her. She had many, many flaws but few really useful and redeeming qualities. And she is the best lead female portrayal of the franchise? What a sad state that women think that Vala makes a better role model than someone like Keller, Weir, Teyla, or Carter. Granted, Vala is fun and interesting. But she is more of a caricature than any other lead character in the franchise. McKay runs a close second.

    So in other words, if the character doesn’t have enough flaws then she is one-dimensional and if the character has lots of flaws she is just a bad character – but only if you personally don’t like her. If a character has lots of flaws and you like her and the actress who plays her, then she is one of the best characters of the franchise. I’m sorry, that makes no rational sense.

    What I find most odd and sad about fandom is that while so many male fans seem to embrace and celebrate strong female characters, so many female fans take pleasure in tearing them down – no matter how perfect or flawed they might be.

  11. Denise
    March 3, 2010 at 6:01 pm |

    I think, thus far, the comment i shook my head about the most was the gentleman that said (paraphrased) how much he liked vala because she was so flirty and would have sex with you as much as shoot you.

    I’m sorry, that attitude is one that’s used to ‘keep women in their place’. If a woman gets ahead, well she must have slept her way there. etc, etc.

    Then again, maybe that’s the demographic the writers are trying to appeal to, the ‘lowest common denominator’ of wish fulfillment and hopeful thinking?

    as to Sam never being called on her mistakes….when were the guys called on their mistakes? ALL of them were OTT in many ways. Jack’s tactical prowess, Teal’c’s strength and endurance, Daniel’s vast linguistics knowledge. THEY WERE ALL SUPERHUMAN.

    So was Han Solo and Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones and Frodo and Sam Ganges etc, etc, etc.

    It’s all part of the ‘hero’ personna.

    But, somehow, it’s okay when it’s a male that’s OTT, but the females get torn apart for it.

  12. ashizuri
    March 3, 2010 at 8:29 pm |

    “They criticize Sam for being too strong, too smart, too confident, but then go on and criticize Keller for being too insecure and hesitant. What do they dislike about Teyla and Weir? That they let the guys get away with too much and seemed to be too submissive at times? And yet they love Vala and find absolutely nothing wrong with the character even though she was almost always portrayed as the stereotypical ditzy, flirty sex kitten who let men like Daniel walk all over her. She had many, many flaws but few really useful and redeeming qualities. And she is the best lead female portrayal of the franchise? What a sad state that women think that Vala makes a better role model than someone like Keller, Weir, Teyla, or Carter. ”

    This. So much this. I can’t even wrap my head around the idea that the only realistically nuanced female character in the gate-verse is Vala.

    I just…I can’t…no. There are no words for how much I disagree with almost every word of this podcast.

  13. Hatusu
    March 3, 2010 at 9:12 pm |

    I wanted so badly to get in on this discussion, I was yelling at the podcast icon on my screen. I’m surprised how often I disagreed with Louisa and Tame.

    I agree that the way female characters talked or behaved was frequently a man’s stereotypical idea of a woman, and it could be grating. I don’t want to dump on the writers for the Carter character’s perfection. I believe Glassner and Wright were trying their best to write a character women could admire. I do want to say to Tame and Louisa, the idea of the Vala character being the most real is absurd. Vala’s character was the most stereotyped of all, “the whore with the heart of gold” and I truly hated the way the writers overused the character to the point of implausibility and to the detriment of the quality of the show. My gosh, they not only had to join the team, even though she was unreliable, they brought her to Washington hearings. I almost cried. I definitely ground my teeth.

    Please, please get me in on the SGU and sex women’s podcast.

  14. Hatusu
    March 3, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

    I apologize to the readers for that bad first post getting in. I couldn’t delete it.

  15. Hatusu
    March 3, 2010 at 9:36 pm |

    I don’t want to name names, but those of us who followed the SG-1 writers noticed the deterioration of the portrayal of women in SG-1 followed the change in writers. Early in the series, the writers – one frequent writer was a woman – wrote the episodes with the female characters acting as I would hope to act in tough situations, sensible and as a trained soldier and scientist, physician etc. Toward the end, the writers seemed to write the female characters to suit their personal fantasies.

  16. David Read
    March 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm |

    Guys, if you really objected to the conclusions made in this week’s show, I’m pleading with you to call in and voice your opinions for the listener mail at the end of the next podcast. Keep it polite and it will get played.

  17. Denise
    March 4, 2010 at 12:05 am |

    There are plenty of cases when the guys messed up. Daniel shooting a tank of goa’uld and alerting the whole planet to thier presence. Teal’c going jaffa revenge. Jack disobeying hammond. Daniel waking up the Ori. Shep disobeying Weir. Rodney blowing up a sun, etc, etc.

    and the boys rarely got called on their actions and even less often were held accountable.

    All these characters are over the top, tis the nature of the beast. however, take the relationships out of the men’s roles (ie do away with keller or ishta or drey’auc or sara or sarah or…the list goes on, and there’s still substance to the men.

    but take away the ‘girlfriend’ angle, and what does/did some of these ladies have left? Especially Vala and Keller. Take out vala’s fascination with Daniel, take out her being baby mama of the orici…and what does she have left? how often was being an ex-host and thief REALLY come into play?

    Take out the mckellera aspect, and what did keller have left? Other than the poor girl suffering from Cameron syndrome – ‘we want someone young but also someone experienced enough to be a leader, but remember, young, must be young’

    They’re trying to have their cake and eat it too and it didn’t work with Keller any more than it did with Cameron (from the, ‘i’ve never seen the gate before but by golly i’m the male lead so i must be in charge of the team’ angle)

    I did agreee, however, with the idea, these writers don’t even seem to try to write REAL, they are writing fantasy women. (look at sam and pete in chimera…he messes up a stakeout, he stormed out on her, he ran a background check that likely got her in trouble, at the least got him noticed, and does he get punished? nah, he gets brought into the inner circle while the ‘hot chick’ holds his hand instead of kicking his butt.

    These guys not only seem to write the fantasy female, but they also seem to interject themselves into the male characters.

  18. susee
    March 4, 2010 at 11:12 am |

    <> Odd about the Cameron aspect, as the actor was older than the rest of the lead characters. Oh well.

    Don’t worry David, I’ll call in. After I listen to the podcast (and take notes). I’ll listen with an open mind and not let what was said here influence my thoughts.

  19. dheaton
    March 4, 2010 at 12:56 pm |

    This was a really interesting podcast. I’d been disappointed in the past when David and Darren weren’t hard enough on the decline in quality during season 10, so I expected the discussion of women in Stargate would follow a similar trend.

    It was surprising to hear such a tough, mostly negative look from two Stargate fans. I might not agree with everything said, but I appreciate the more critical approach.

  20. Kelara
    March 5, 2010 at 7:40 am |

    For me, it is disappointing that women still seem to mostly identify themselves through their failures and so Vala(of all the females in all the SG series) get’s nominated the most “real” female character *because* she fails to reach the “Carter ideal”. It is *beyond* sad, that then this Vala even gets nominated as a role model. Give me two dimensional goody two shoes heroines (or heroes) any day -as role *models*- but please, not the space bimbo with mixed in comic relief traits.

    To quote Mel: ” If a character has lots of flaws and you like her and the actress who plays her, then she is one of the best characters of the franchise. I’m sorry, that makes no rational sense.”
    I’m with you, totally couldn’t follow the reasoning there either. After all, the same arguments could be applied to Keller (she has *lots* of flaws, but the actress playing her is supposedly a nice gal and she played a decent female character on another show…) only thing missing would be the “you like her”.
    “I think it would help if they just wrote characters, and not fuss over the gender. Don’t focus on ‘i’m writing this young woman, how would she act???’” (Denise)
    Well, that kind of approach might have worked in the buddy shows SG1 or SGA. Because gender is not necessarily an issue in friendships, if you don’t make it. But it will certainly not work for a space soap opera that makes its defining angle the interpersonal drama. After all, you have to keep track of what genders you put in beds, relationships and who gets pregnant accidentally ;o).
    It’s amazing anyways that TPTB on the SG franchise shows always shied away from romantic relationships (can someone name just one stable, healthy romantic relationship in all of SG1 or SGA?). Yet, they jump in with a “character driven drama” show focusing on something they are allegedly bad at doing. I understand about wanting to evolve, grow as artists but really, how about doing so in small increments? Or at least dipping in a toe *before* jumping and realizing the pool is empty?
    As for the women on SGU, there have been some interesting concepts that let (me, at least) down hard somewhere along the episodes so far.

    Wray: Could have been interesting to have her be the third part in a three way power struggle between Young, Rush and her. But no, we get the reluctant male leaders fistfighting over control (or alternately personal issues) while the woman who is stylized to be this rather conniving IOA representative turns around to:

    – almost beg to be let on the shuttle in the lottery preparation scene (I doubt she’s too dumb to see that her chances of returning to earth are not exactly getting a huge boost if she is stranded on a random planet without a stargate. So the “I want to get back to my lover so desperately” argument does not rationalize that reaction for me.)
    – almost cry in front of everyone when she is actually selected for the shuttle
    – patronizingly be told by the other IOA guy that “maybe it’s time to start her own camp” (little girly wouldn’t have thought of that herself by then, would she?)
    – almost groveling to Young after he had been rehabilitated in the murder investigation (Hello? She was doing her job and neither Rush nor Young are apologizing for anything they have done in the course of this episode. Yet, she is almost crushed by remorse? How does that work? Topped off by having TJ -of all people- patronizingly advise that Wray “can be in command a day longer”.)
    – have another breakdown in the wide open shower after Rushs “Icarus type planet” ruse
    (I just can’t see a woman with her background let herself break down in front of everyone else either so easily or so often. This character is ripped apart by all the almost crying and head patting. Mind, what I *can* buy is her breaking down in the arms of her lover. *Behind closed doors*, with someone that she has trusted deeply for over a decade, yes, but not with just everyone else.)

    Young’s wive: I may get shouted down for this, but hear me out ;o). I actually cheered for this character in her first two scenes. Right up until she lost her backbone, gave in to her unfaithful ex(?)husband’s completely rediculous demands and agreed to wait for him. Guys, I realize it might be a fantasy to have someone pining away for you devotedly. But this is really, really cringeworthy paperback romance novel stuff there.
    ‘Sure honey, you’ve slept with someone under your command during our marriage. You constantly choose your work over me (and deny it), so basically I already told you our relationship was over. Then you come back in someone elses body, telling me you are injured, in an all round live threatening situation and have no earthly clue when or even if you will ever come back. Sure, I will put my life on hold for you, howevery long it might take *swoons*. And give you some nookie, because that new body is … kind of hot.’
    Gritty? Realistic? Really??? The only way this is gritty is the way my brain leaks when trying to wrap itself around the situation… sorry to everyone involved :o/.

  21. Denise
    March 5, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

    Maybe some of what’s lacking is ‘realistic’ reactions. (bearing in mind that ‘realistic’ is a relative term).

    By this i mean…Pete should have been smacked upside the head or lectured for his stunt. Sam should have been ticked off at how he treated her, and she should have said do. Vala should have at least yelled back at Daniel when he lectured her in Unending. Cameron should have at least been uncomfortable at the command situation. Sam should have been annoyed. It was a huge elephant in the room that was never dealt with (beyond a ‘oh, no you stay in charge’ quip by sam in Ark of Truth)

    You wanna write people and relationships, then you gotta take the good with the bad. They have to get angry at each other, or annoyed or creeped out. They have to react to each other, instead of the deus ex machina of the week.

    And you have to stop cutting the ‘boring character moments’ to make room to squeeze in more ‘cool effects’. You want to make a character drama, the focus needs to be the characters, not the CGI.

    The men react poorly, but the ladies, well they always act like ladies…be they ladies of the front parlor or ladies of the evening ;).

    Women get grumpy too. They get tired, they get annoyed. They want to smart aleck off, or quip or head slap. They roll their eyes, they glare, they mutter under their breath.

    Wouldn’t you think that Wray, after them being stuck on that ship for a month or two now, is going to be saying to Young and Rush ‘let’s get a ruler out and settle this so you two can stop fighting because we’re tired of it’?

    I agree that her passivity doesn’t fit in with her rise in the IOA. The agency has always been portrayed as ‘kill or be killed’ from a political standpoint, and she wouldn’t be in the situation she’s in if she hadn’t learned to take care of herself.

    And i do agree, why the heck did they take on a relationship based show when, one thing i think a good chunk of the fandom can agree on is, they can’t write a good and realistic relationship to save their lives?

    it’s like me, whose Spanish is limited to taco, enchilada, burrito and margarita, signing up to work for telemundo. :) Wee bit of a handicap there.

    maybe these new writers will help. Not just with the ladies but with the show as a whole.

    Of course, unless the current writers agree to ‘lower themselves’ and actually listen to the new blood, nothing will be accomplished. The current writers need to at least have an open mind and maybe lose some of their present ‘we’re right and why can’t you see it’ attitude and listen.

    And maybe the SGU ladies can be ‘salvaged’ and can develop into something more than a cliche.

  22. Kelara
    March 6, 2010 at 7:23 am |

    Well, hope dies last ;o). And while I don’t think Chloe coming at Rush with her fists after her fathers death was particularly ladylike, I do think you are on to something with the “realistic reactions”. Because there seems to be a gender template for “a character breaks down” or “a character looses it”.
    If the character is male, he might: fistfight, shout someone down, threaten, tell someone off, ignore.
    If the character is female, she will most likely: cry (or almost cry, if you’re supposed to be a “strong” female; most likely in the shower), scream or have a male jump in before you can really react.
    At least that are reactions that come to mind when I think about the SGU characters reactions (displayed by more than one of them) when trying to show they “break” or “loose it”. If you’re female and Chloe, maybe whining (that’s what the “drunk in the car scene” is) or *trying* to physically assault someone could be added, but alas, that’s only one character ;o). Over all, it seems a bit limited for the women, doesn’t it? Am I missing something?

    To go off topic slightly: I suspect that the Rush/ Young altercation also has some relationship troubles at the bottom of it all. It’s pure speculation, I know, but the way Rush told Chloe he would make sure “every life sacrificed” on the stargate projects had meaning after looking at the wife(?)picture in his quarters made me think she might have been lost on a project too. Maybe under Youngs direct or indirect command. Because Rush was hostile towards Young from the start. So much so that he never even attempts to talk the leadership issue over in a civilized manner between the two alone. Of course, I might chase shadows and Young is just a crazed ascension seeker, we’ll see I guess.

  23. candylyn
    March 7, 2010 at 3:37 am |

    The character Janet Fraiser was one of few well written female character on the show; the original portrayal of Weir was good too. In fact Janet is one of the best females in all of sci-fi. While I picked up on “something” between her and Daniel their
    “something” wasn’t so obvious as to be annoying… unlike Sam and Vala.

    Vala was annoying. Whenever the character drew breath to speak I found myself flipping the channel until I thought she was finished. The whole Daniel/Vala thing was forced. Oh the actors worked it, they are that good, but the writing was just bad.

    In “Unending” the comments made about her were deadbang to me; then he jumped in the sack with her and turned off the last episode of my favorite show ever.

    I love Claudia Black but I Vala was way, way too much. I am not sure what her purpose was. If she was put there to keep the Jack/Daniel style banter alive, oh boy just no. She was like Jack on a sugar high combined with a brain whammy.

    As for Sam, she ended up becoming the “love interest” and little else after season 3. The leading male/female hook up has been done to death on TV and movies. Something original would have been, maybe Jack getting back with his wife!!!!

    When I realized the writers were ruining Daniel and Jack’s friendship to give Sam and Jack’s relationship more legs I was stunned and disappointed. My feelings about the Jack/Sam pairing were not born out of a desire to see Jack/Daniel ship in cannon, that’s what fan fiction is for, but to ruin the best friendship in sci-fi ever (aside from Kirk and Spock) so Jack can jump in bed with 2iC is sad, unimaginative and boring.

    It also made Sam look like a doe-eyed, school girl with daddy-issues born crush on her commanding officer. Like a woman in the military doesn’t have enough issues; the writers would actually start Sam on the road to having others in the service believe her fast track promotions from Captain to Colonel, most of which happened while she reported to Jack, were earned on her back instead of in the field. C’mon!!!

    For me Sam and Jack had no chemistry. Any scene where Jack was confronted with a “Sammy wubes you Jackyboy” moment RDA would play it off.

    It was so sad. Sam could have been excellent but she ended up a bad cliche.

  24. Hatusu
    March 8, 2010 at 9:03 pm |

    It’s strange watching a show with so many female characters and not identify with any of them. Heck, I didn’t even like most of them.

    I did see that one of the new SGU writers is a woman. It’s been a long time. Not to put too much pressure on her, but I have hopes that the characters and relationships will be more realistic.

  25. Petra
    March 8, 2010 at 9:18 pm |

    You don’t like most of them? Wow. Watching the series must indeed be weird for you.

    Fortunately I don’t have this problem. :) I don’t necesserily like how certain characters were written (Vala and her 4 personalities..) but I like almost all the ladies on SG-1 (minus Lam)and SGA (minus Keller) and I can identify with some of them.

    As for SGU, I’m very disappointed in Chloe and rather indifferent about Wray, but I really like TJ, Vanessa James and Lisa Park. Hopefully with the new writers onboard they won’t share the sad fate of SGA ladies.

Leave a Reply